The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)

[Natch]

Even if Akuma was allowed in ST, Sagat and Ryu would still be viable. Yet we have no arguments here.

Hey DRaGZ, see my post above your's. I explain why MK just needs to make characters more unviable than they currently are for that to be a valid point, instead of a moot one.

 

[rehab]

If they don't become truly viable, what's the point? "Now I can use my favorite character as a one-in-a-billion, which was a previously one-in-none, counterpick! A markable improvement for sure!"

There are lots of individual characters in this game that make many characters unviable. I know you acknowledged this, but you don't seem to place as much importance on it as I think you should. Is it really that much better if the competitive scene is dominated hard by Snake and Dedede, who destroy close to everybody combined, instead of MK? Is one best, though beatable character that much worse than two or three?

Edit:

Even if Akuma was allowed in ST, Sagat and Ryu would still be viable. Yet we have no arguments here.

This is the only time I have heard somebody suggest that air fireball and like twice average strength + combos in that game didn't 90:10 or 100:0 absolutely everybody.

 

[Natch]

If they don't become truly viable, what's the point? "Now I can use my favorite character as a one-in-a-billion, which was a previously one-in-none, counterpick! A markable improvement for sure!"

There are lots of individual characters in this game that make many characters unviable. I know you acknowledged this, but you don't seem to place as much importance on it as I think you should. Is it really that much better if the competitive scene is dominated hard by Snake and Dedede, who destroy close to everybody combined, instead of MK? Is one best, though beatable character that much worse than two or three?

Edit:
This is the only time I have heard somebody suggest that air fireball and like twice average strength + combos in that game didn't 90:10 or 100:0 absolutely everybody.

The point is that removing MK makes them more viable. Period. As well, the counterpick is hardly one in a billion. Guess how often you could CP with your favorite Low/Mid tier character? As often as you see the top tier character in question. Which is pretty freakin' often.

 

[brinboy789]

If they don't become truly viable, what's the point? "Now I can use my favorite character as a one-in-a-billion, which was a previously one-in-none, counterpick! A markable improvement for sure!"

There are lots of individual characters in this game that make many characters unviable. I know you acknowledged this, but you don't seem to place as much importance on it as I think you should. Is it really that much better if the competitive scene is dominated hard by Snake and Dedede, who destroy close to everybody combined, instead of MK? Is one best, though beatable character that much worse than two or three?

Edit:
This is the only time I have heard somebody suggest that air fireball and like twice average strength + combos in that game didn't 90:10 or 100:0 absolutely everybody.

agreed. if one char was banned, it doesnt matter. the char still isnt viable. besides, msot of MK's **** matchups are bottom/low/mid tier. chars that we would never usually see in tourney play. and if he was banned, no one would be stupid enough to actually change to a "lower" character that was made "more" usable by banning MK, but still unviable because more chars. **** him. no matter what, 90% of tourneys is top tier and 9% is high. around that. nothings ever gonna change that

 

[Natch]

Hey, look. A post by brinboy I cannot see because he is still on my ignore list.

 

[Zankoku]

msot of MK's **** matchups are bottom/low/mid tier. chars that we would never usually see in tourney play.

lolz

Yes, mid tiers are rare occurences that should never happen in tournament play. That's why they're "mid" tier.

 

[brinboy789]

Hey, look. A post by brinboy I cannot see because he is still on my ignore list.

boohoo you broke my heart

lolz

Yes, mid tiers are rare occurences that should never happen in tournament play. That's why they're "mid" tier.

theyre not "usually" in tourney play.

 

[Zankoku]

Right. Meaning, of course, we can actually divide the cast into even fewer tiers.

TOP TIER
Wins tournaments

HIGH TIER
Gets top eight in tournaments

EVERYONE ELSE
Doesn't usually appear in tournament play

rofl

 

[rehab]

The point is that removing MK makes them more viable. Period. As well, the counterpick is hardly one in a billion. Guess how often you could CP with your favorite Low/Mid tier character? As often as you see the top tier character in question. Which is pretty freakin' often.

We'd be taking away a viable character so a couple of characters in who cares tier may see the light of day in tournament as one or two counterpicks. I can only say that sounds unnecessary.

lol, should have quoted.

 

[brinboy789]

Right. Meaning, of course, we can actually divide the cast into even fewer tiers.

TOP TIER
Wins tournaments

HIGH TIER
Gets top eight in tournaments

EVERYONE ELSE
Doesn't usually appear in tournament play

rofl

well, lets compare the tourney appearance of shiek to MK. *dies*

seriously, that wasnt even the point of my post, just let it go k?

 

[Naucitos]

Natch, MK doesen't make anyone unviable, if you want to base your point off of making characters unplayable, then i think D3 would be the poster child for this argument. there are at least 7 characters that D3 completely dominates, according to me checking their board just now. That means that if your opponent is using d3, and its your chance to counterpick, as lots of people are saying is important now, there are 7 characters that you can't pick.

As opposed to MK, who only truly damages ike and wolf, from what i've seen?
G&W is also comparable to D3, if i remember correctly

Your argument about items being banned is also BS, as the reasons items were banned was not because it made the game less fun, items are usually considered to be more fun. The reason they were banned is because they are uncontrollable, and there are often times when an unlucky spawn can literally kill you through no fault of your own, it isn't even solely about breaking the risk/reward scale.
The main reason items were banned in 64/melee was because any items being on resulted in containers being on, which exploded and could be triggered accidentally, the ban continued onto brawl through precedent, but if you've noticed there has been talk of items being allowed again, as well as people delving into which would be fair for competitive play
MK does nothing comparable to a bomb spawning inside of DK's up b, and items being banned is not a sensible paralel.

"Point is, Akuma, the one character any decent fighting game player can agree on as a character that should be banned, is actually still used in tournaments in Japan and don't ever get far."

It is pretty much accepted that if a good player decides to use akuma, he will destroy the competition, the main thing keeping anyone from doing so is the fact that tournaments are less for money and more for respect and fun. The soft ban is allowable there, since there is nothing to lose, and winning with akuma won't gain you respect either.
This also isn't comparable to MK, because the tournament scene is much different over here.

 

[XienZo]

I think what MK COULD POTENTIALLY do is make characters obsolete, not unviable. For example, if you main, Lucas, and get owned by Marth, you could now second DDD to go even with Marth. But why do that when MK is there? There's no need for me to second a non-MK character, because he's the ultimate counterpicker!

HOWEVER, ^THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. DDD still has advantages over MK. Lets say DK usage was rising recently. I could use MK to CP or DDD to CP. They both have a advantage on DK right, so might as well pick MK. HOWEVER, that is the wrong mentality. MK has about 60:40 on DK, while DDD has like 75:15 on DK(numbers not neccesarily accurate). That means DDD will pick up 15% more wins than MK, and it would be the equivalent of choosing a 55:45 over a 40:60, 15% more wins, potentially enough to justify harder use and less characters CPed. People are just content that if their match-up is over 50%, but in reality, a character A with a 100:0 against Character C and 40:60 against Character D would win more matches than Character B with 75:25 on C and 60:40 on D, despite how Character B has more "good" matchups.

 

[Natch]

Natch, MK doesen't make anyone unviable, if you want to base your point off of making characters unplayable, then i think D3 would be the poster child for this argument. there are at least 7 characters that D3 completely dominates, according to me checking their board just now. That means that if your opponent is using d3, and its your chance to counterpick, as lots of people are saying is important now, there are 7 characters that you can't pick.

As opposed to MK, who only truly damages ike and wolf, from what i've seen?
G&W is also comparable to D3, if i remember correctly

Your argument about items being banned is also BS, as the reasons items were banned was not because it made the game less fun, items are usually considered to be more fun. The reason they were banned is because they are uncontrollable, and there are often times when an unlucky spawn can literally kill you through no fault of your own, it isn't even solely about breaking the risk/reward scale.
The main reason items were banned in 64/melee was because any items being on resulted in containers being on, which exploded and could be triggered accidentally, the ban continued onto brawl through precedent, but if you've noticed there has been talk of items being allowed again, as well as people delving into which would be fair for competitive play
MK does nothing comparable to a bomb spawning inside of DK's up b, and items being banned is not a sensible paralel.

"Point is, Akuma, the one character any decent fighting game player can agree on as a character that should be banned, is actually still used in tournaments in Japan and don't ever get far."

It is pretty much accepted that if a good player decides to use akuma, he will destroy the competition, the main thing keeping anyone from doing so is the fact that tournaments are less for money and more for respect and fun. The soft ban is allowable there, since there is nothing to lose, and winning with akuma won't gain you respect either.
This also isn't comparable to MK, because the tournament scene is much different over here.

HOLY ****ING ****BALLS.

I never said MK doesn't make anyone completly unviable. I said MK makes characters more unviable than they already are.

Also, the items argument was not mine, though if I may comment: If items make the game more fun, then tell me; is it "fun" when a bom-omb spawns in the wrong place at the wrong time and costs you the game? Not much fun.

And still, the fact remains that we BANNED something far less game-breaking than MK. Can't argue that.

 

[Kookie]

DRaGZ is like, my new best friend now.

 

[Naucitos]

"is it "fun" when a bom-omb spawns in the wrong place at the wrong time and costs you the game? Not much fun."

Thats the exact point i said, and pretty much proves that items are infinitely more game breaking than MK unless set up correctly.

Also, my first comment might have been directed at the wrong person, but the rest wasn't directed at you, sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[rehab]

I never said MK doesn't make anyone completly unviable. I said MK makes characters more unviable than they already are.

Then what is the point of banning him. At the least "viability" shouldn't be brought up as an argument in this way.

Also, the items argument was not mine, though if I may comment: If items make the game more fun, then tell me; is it "fun" when a bom-omb spawns in the wrong place at the wrong time and costs you the game? Not much fun.

It's not competitive. It is totally fun however. This obviously isn't subjective. Totally empirical evidence right here. Totally.

And still, the fact remains that we BANNED something far less game-breaking than MK. Can't argue that.

Is this hyperbole? People say this a lot in the same fashion and get taken seriously or something, so I get the impression this is not attempted hyperbole.

A character having an advantage over your character and beating your character at least in part due to having an advantage over you is not broken competitively. Attempting to recover and a bomb capsule spawning out of nowhere and punishing you for doing nothing even conceivably wrong, regardless or your or the other guy's skill or character, is obviously broken. There shouldn't be any kind of serious comparison to that going on here.

 

[Kookie]

"is it "fun" when a bom-omb spawns in the wrong place at the wrong time and costs you the game? Not much fun."

Thats the exact point i said, and pretty much proves that items are infinitely more game breaking than MK unless set up correctly.

Also, my first comment might have been directed at the wrong person, but the rest wasn't directed at you, sorry for the misunderstanding

You can turn the bombs off specifically, not just all the items, if you didn't know that.

 

[DRaGZ]

This is the only time I have heard somebody suggest that air fireball and like twice average strength + combos in that game didn't 90:10 or 100:0 absolutely everybody.

You forgot to mention the best escape option in the game as well as the best super in the game.

Yet, Sagat and Ryu would technically still be able to take Akuma down with a predictable consistency (i.e. I'm going to say 30% of the time) at high levels of play while having large advantages over the rest of the cast.

 

[rehab]

You can turn the bombs off specifically, not just all the items, if you didn't know that.

Not quite. In his earlier post he noted that if you turn any items on, you also turn containers on. No way of avoiding that. There's always the chance that a bomb container will appear out of nowhere and punish you for nothing with any items on.

Yet, Sagat and Ryu would technically still be able to take Akuma down with a predictable consistency (i.e. I'm going to say 30% of the time) at high levels of play while having large advantages over the rest of the cast.

Alright. I can't say I know enough about that game to get into a deep discussion about it like that, so I'll assume you're pretty much right.

Do you think MK is the same? I don't.

 

[Tommy_G]

If you're basing this off of counter picks, then you're doing it wrong. When you lose the first match, they pick their character first, then you pick. For any character, I can tell you a worse or evenly bad match up for them other than MK. Every character has a harder match up against some other character than MK, except for Marth. Marth still has Snake and DDD to worry about.

 

[DRaGZ]

"is it "fun" when a bom-omb spawns in the wrong place at the wrong time and costs you the game? Not much fun."

Thats the exact point i said, and pretty much proves that items are infinitely more game breaking than MK unless set up correctly.

Also, my first comment might have been directed at the wrong person, but the rest wasn't directed at you, sorry for the misunderstanding

They are not infinitely more gamebreaking.

A character that can beat the entire roster and has very few weaknesses skews the entire game towards him.

Items randomly keep the best player from winning every once in a while.

One affects the way we must play in a non-fun way.

The other affects the outcome of how we play in a non-fun way.

They both affect things in a non-fun way.

One of these things has already been banned, i.e. has set a precedent for such a ban based on such "non-funness". My question is, what exactly is invalidating the other from a similar ban?

 

[Naucitos]

You can turn the bombs off specifically, not just all the items, if you didn't know that.

I already brought that up, twice i believe, what i said was that in MELEE, if you turned on any items, containers turned on. I also said that in BRAWL, the old ban was carried over by default, even though items are now LESS broken, and people are trying to figure out of there is any way for the new item scheme to be fit into competitive play.

Edit: Dragz, as i've already said, items were not banned because they aren't fun, they are banned because they were absurdly broken. I'm somewhat dissapointed that you don't seem to understand this.

In a competitive game, under competitive rules, there is no just cause for anything to be banned because its 'not fun' unless it is also gamebreaking (See also: Pound stalling under a stage in melee, items.)

 

[DRaGZ]

If you're basing this off of counter picks, then you're doing it wrong. When you lose the first match, they pick their character first, then you pick. For any character, I can tell you a worst match up for them than MK. Every character has a harder match up against some character than MK, except for Marth. Marth still has Snake and DDD to worry about.

This is absolutely not true. MK is Ganondorf's worst match-up. MK is R.O.B.'s worst match-up. I have already disproved you right there. Plus, this line of reasoning doesn't add to anything. You're just assuming we have a high standard for banning something when the entire community has proven to itself in the past that its standards were much lower.

 

[Kookie]

Not quite. In his earlier post he noted that if you turn any items on, you also turn containers on. No way of avoiding that. There's always the chance that a bomb container will appear out of nowhere and punish you for nothing with any items on.

Oh, right. My bad.

 

[Praxis]

"is it "fun" when a bom-omb spawns in the wrong place at the wrong time and costs you the game? Not much fun."

Thats the exact point i said, and pretty much proves that items are infinitely more game breaking than MK unless set up correctly.

Also, my first comment might have been directed at the wrong person, but the rest wasn't directed at you, sorry for the misunderstanding

So we'll use the Evo argument- then ban bob-ombs.

How is the food gamebreaking? Or even the beamsword gamebreaking (Peach can pull it, it's not actually that great LOL)?

 

[rehab]

Did ROB recently discover how not to get destroyed by GW?

 

[Natch]

Then what is the point of banning him. At the least "viability" shouldn't be brought up as an argument in this way.


It's not competitive. It is totally fun however. This obviously isn't subjective. Totally empirical evidence right here. Totally.


Is this hyperbole? People say this a lot in the same fashion and get taken seriously or something, so I get the impression this is not attempted hyperbole.

A character having an advantage over your character and beating your character at least in part due to having an advantage over you is not broken competitively. Attempting to recover and a bomb capsule spawning out of nowhere and punishing you for doing nothing even conceivably wrong, regardless or your or the other guy's skill or character, is obviously broken. There shouldn't be any kind of serious comparison to that going on here.

So you agree with me when I say that MK only has to make characters more unviable than they already are. You didn't refute that.

Also, the fact remains. We've banned items, we've banned stages. We've banned things before that are less trivial than MK.

In fact, why exactly DOES MK have no disadvantaged matchups? How exactly can a character be designed so that no single character out of 38 others has the upper hand?


1. He has "no" weaknesses.
Before you harp on me for this, MK has no de facto weaknesses against the majority of the cast. As an example, a character could be made that dies in one hit, but has an instant kill move that is garunteed to hit. Sure, he dies in one hit, but that doesn't matter because he'll kill you first. His weakness does not exist, for all intents and purposes.

MK is like this, though to a lesser extent. The characters that can put up a fight are the ones who can exploit his weaknesses consistantly and effectively.


2. He has an answer to everything.
MK has too many options that are all above average. Whatever you do, he has an answer to it. The characters that do well against him are those that have better answers. But even that isn't enough. You need have to a fair amount of "better answers," or the right combination. The last option is to flatout have a strategy that can and will work against anyone, assuming the opponent makes a mistake. Take Diddy, for example. If you make a mistake, he will get you with a bannana, which usually leads to a free hit. Everyone has to deal with this. If you manage to beat Diddy, you still didn't beat his bannanas. You can never truly beat the bannanas, just the Diddy who uses them. This is called a brick wall.



This is why MK has 60:40's across the board, and the reason why previously questionable/bad matchups are now shifting. Snake, GaW, and Falco are examples. Once they found a tactic that worked, the matchup changed.

In reality, MK does not have matchups in the traditional sense. If you go neutral with MK, that is not the same as going neutral with, say, ROB. The only reason MK's lose are because they didn't know the matchups or weren't as skilled. There are few exceptions to this, and the fact that there are exceptios is one of the reason MK is not banned quite yet.

MK's matchups "behave" differently at different ratios. For the following, I'll be explaining how this works. It's sort of complicated, so I'll try to explain. Let's use the first one listed-"70:30/65:35 or worse" as an example.

70:30 designates a definate point where the situation applies. Any matchup MK has that is 70:30 behaves this way, garunteed. The slash after that denotes that the following ratio-65:35 in this case-is a ratio where this situation SOMETIMES applies, but not always. That's because 70:30's could be argued at 65:35, and 65:35 can argued at 60:40. The matchup ratios don't say what side of the ratio it's leaning towards. Ratios will overlap, but the bottom line for them to overlap is that whatever the situation is, that situation MUST happen at the first ratio listed, and might/sometimes/rarely happens at the later ratios.

70:30/65:35 and below: This matchup is an advantage in the traditional sense. The character in question is beaten by MK's moves and abilities alone. There may be some moves that do beat out some of MK's moves, but MK can just choose not to use these moves as much-or even at all. This character is low on the tier list. This is how it works, period. Every character on the low tier has this matchup. A sizeable amount in mid tier-at least 1/3-have this matchup as well.

65:35/60:40: This matchup is starting to become an advantage in a not-so traditional sense. The character in question is beaten by some of MK's moves and abilities, but actually has moves that outright beat enough of MK's options to the point where he HAS to deal with them. Falco's laser is an example. MK must deal with this. He can't fight this head on. He has no reflector or projectile magnet. However, once he's in close, the laser can no longer be used effectively. It now becomes a non-issue. MK has gotten past that brick wall.

60:40/55:45: This matchup is now becoming a bit screwy. Both characters have a sufficient number of brick walls that they actual fighting takes place. MK can't just brick wall you to death without being met by another equally tough brick wall.

50:50/55:45/60:40: [I reversed this for a reason. That's because the following is garunteed to happen once you reach 50:50, and may happen at the other ratios.] This is as good as it gets. This is where characters like Diddy and Snake start coming out. This list is so small that I'm just going to talk about those two. Diddy has an unstoppable brick wall. The bannanas. By his moves alone, Diddy is okay. Not good, not bad. Just okay. Once you add in the bannannas, it all goes to hell. Suddenly, his entire game focuses on a brick wall that can never be broken down. In fact, his brick wall is the only reason he can compete against MK and against other characters in general. Not only does he have an ever present brickwall, it also doubles as a trap. Leave a bannana somewhere, and suddenly you have prevented an opponent from going there directly. If there is a bannana behind you, your opponent is unable to roll behind you without slipping. He must jump over you or charge you head on. But it's hard for him to charge head on-you've got a bannana ready to throw at him. This is why Diddy has a chance against EVERYONE, assuming that he can use his bannanas.

Snake is a bit different. Snakes not only has explosives that work as both brick walls AND traps, he has moves that actually beat out MK moves. Ftilt and Utilt are prime examples. MK's have indeed figured out they need to space, but the combonation of brick walls, traps, and higher priority attacks means Snake can actually do something against MK, and against all characters, really. Ever fought a very camp Snake? You'll probably get a similar feeling when fighting Diddy or MK.



That's why MK is "broken." He is not broken in the traditional sense, but broken in the sense that he is one giant brick wall. To do well, Diddy and Snake need sufficient room on the stage. MK does not need any sort of set up to brick wall you. Whenever MK does a move, it's a brick wall. When you fight a brick wall, you are not actually fighting the character. You are fighting the player using the brick wall. Brick walls mean that any weaknesses the character has do not matter, as you are not fighting the character. Once a brick wall is broken down-if possible-or gotten around, you can start actually fighting the character. The problem with MK is that you're hardly ever fighting MK. You're fighting his brick walls.

In order to even stand a chance against MK, you either need a brick wall that the PLAYER cannot find a way around, or you have to continiously jump through a series of hoops. Shield the Tornado. Spotdodge the Down Smash. Avoid the Shuttle Loop. Stay away from the Dtilt. Airdodge through his Dair.

The list goes on and on.

The massive list of 60:40 matchups are because there are enough pros who can jump through these hoops on instinct, and the players who don't use MK have enough skill compared to those that do that it's possible for them to win. All the character has to have are good brick walls, and moves that actually outprioritize those that MK has. Those in large part these are in the same, as the majority of brick walls are projectiles.

This problem further stems from MK's wacky priority. Correct me if I'm wrong, but MK's sword will never actually clank. While this means he doesn't beat out projectiles, this means that MK's sword is like a permanant, mobile projectile. Super high priority means that MK is only limited by his mobility. And on the ground, in the air, and off stage, MK has no problems getting around.

Think about it. If MK never clanks, it means that going even in terms of priority means he wins every time. You have to throw your move out first-which would be a mistake on the part of the player, not MK-or have some sort of uber priority-think Ike's Fair-to beat him out. Otherwise, every move MK uses becomes something you HAVE to avoid.




GENERAL NOTE: Exceptions are not the norm. If I left something out:

- Such as the fact that you can go in the air against Diddy, it still wouldn't change the fact that you can't truly beat the bannanas. If the nanners disapeared, you still didn't beat them. You waited them out. If you took control of the nanners, you still didn't beat them. You just controlled them.
-Every low tier does bad against MK, of course we know Yoshi does well. But the fact that the MAJORITY of the low tier does badly is still sufficient enough to prove the statement that characters in low tiers do bad against MK.

And etc. My statements may be worded to be absolute, but saying every single exception that exists will make the post far too clunky and hard to read. So I'm just leaving a footnote to deal with that. The above 2 are just examples to show that I do, in fact, know that I made statements with exceptions.

Now, I say once again. We've banned things far less game-breaking than MK before.

 

[Zankoku]

well, lets compare the tourney appearance of shiek to MK. *dies*

seriously, that wasnt even the point of my post, just let it go k?

Well, let's compare the tourney appearance of the top tier Meta Knight (158) to the high tier Mr. Game & Watch (52) *dies*

seriously, I'll let it go as soon as you stop posting like a moron.

 

[DRaGZ]

Did ROB recently discover how not to get destroyed by GW?

R.O.B. has options against Game and Watch. Game and Watch travels slowly, so if R.O.B. camps well, he can lay keep-away. Game and Watch isn't the best character off-stage, so R.O.B. can do nasty things to him from there. Many of Game and Watch's attacks have exploitable holes where R.O.B. can attack because cooldown times occur at a spacing that is ideal for R.O.B.

Game and Watch still wrecks R.O.B., but he does not outclass or negate R.O.B. in every area R.O.B. prides himself in like Meta Knight does.

EDIT: I figured I might go into detail.

R.O.B.'s game consists of five different primary strategies.

1. Projectile camping - Meta Knight is way too fast, way too small, and he can get in close enough to keep R.O.B. in a crap zone forever. At best, R.O.B. can poke, fire a projectile, and then run.

2. Ledgecamping - MK d-airs. R.O.B. is a goner.

3. Ground-based poking - R.O.B.'s d-smash does nothing against MK because MK can just hold A or SH aerial it to avoid the situation altogether. F-tilt is his best option, but it's too slow to stop MK consistently.

4. Aerially - MK ***** R.O.B. in the air. His aerials are just so much better it hurts. R.O.B. can hit every once in a while with f-air and the occasional lucky n-air, but the start-up time on most of his attacks make it very unlikely MK will get hit.

5. Off-stage - MK and R.O.B. travel at about the same speed depending on what they are doing. If MK is recovering, R.O.B. can do nothing because MK can gimp him at any point during his own recovery. If R.O.B. is recovering, he must either recover very low, risking a d-air stage spike, or very high, risking running out gas, getting Shuttle Looped, attacked as he tries to touch the stage for more gas.

All in all, it's a very desperate situation. You don't feel this kind of locked-in feeling vs. Game and Watch. Not at all.

 

[rehab]

So you agree with me when I say that MK only has to make characters more unviable than they already are. You didn't refute that.

I. Disagree. lol

If something is close to completely unviable when he is around, and when he is gone it is marginally less unviable but realistically (I mean like being for real here, not just really situational counterpick style, which could still feasibly happen with him around en-ee-way) is still not even close to viable, what is the point of banning him, by this argument's standard?

 

[Tommy_G]

This is absolutely not true. MK is Ganondorf's worst match-up. MK is R.O.B.'s worst match-up. I have already disproved you right there. Plus, this line of reasoning doesn't add to anything. You're just assuming we have a high standard for banning something when the entire community has proven to itself in the past that its standards were much lower.

I'm saying you should not want MK banned if you're complaining about his ability to counter-pick. R.O.B. has a slightly better matchup against GaW by 5%, so I must have missed one. It's still a 65-35. Ganondorf has a much harder time against Falco. 1 grab=death. I saw a Ganondorf lose to a ZSS because the ZSS Charge B spammed and Ganon could do nothing to get around it.

 

[Naucitos]

This is absolutely not true. MK is Ganondorf's worst match-up. MK is R.O.B.'s worst match-up. I have already disproved you right there. Plus, this line of reasoning doesn't add to anything. You're just assuming we have a high standard for banning something when the entire community has proven to itself in the past that its standards were much lower.

I'm actually fairly sure yoshi or falco is ganons worst, not least of all on account of killing from a grab anywhere on most neutral stages past 40, and GW is robs worst, from what i've heard, although i to honestly don't see where that argument was going

So we'll use the Evo argument- then ban bob-ombs.

How is the food gamebreaking? Or even the beamsword gamebreaking (Peach can pull it, it's not actually that great LOL)?

Read what was said, i said MULTIPLE TIMES that they are less broken in this, and only certain items deserve to be banned

So you agree with me when I say that MK only has to make characters more unviable than they already are. You didn't refute that.

Also, the fact remains. We've banned items, we've banned stages. We've banned things before that are less trivial than MK.

Now, I say once again. We've banned things far less game-breaking than MK before.

I still don't see how on earth you can say 'an item or stage killing you of its own volition, with no bearing on the skill or character of either player' is less game breaking than 'a character having a slight advantage against other characters'

 

[rehab]

Wait, do we actually care who Ganondorf's worst match is?

 

[Zankoku]

Ganondorf's worst match is anyone with decent reflexes who knows how to use spotdodge.

Let's talk about a character that actually matters plz.

 

[Naucitos]

If so i don't see why, but i'm beginning to see why this is such a problem issue, since debating anything on these boards is actually QUITE frustrating, since most of the people that post read maybe one sentence of a post and then make completely unrelated points

 

[DRaGZ]

I'm actually fairly sure yoshi or falco is ganons worst, not least of all on account of killing from a grab anywhere on most neutral stages past 40, and GW is robs worst, from what i've heard, although i to honestly don't see where that argument was going




Read what was said, i said MULTIPLE TIMES that they are less broken in this, and only certain items deserve to be banned


I still don't see how on earth you can say 'an item or stage killing you of its own volition, with no bearing on the skill or character of either player' is less game breaking than 'a character having a slight advantage against other characters'

You're assuming items broke the game. They didn't. The best players still generally won with items. It was just a matter of either dealing with the randomness, which they technically could have, or not dealing with it. They chose not to. It's the same thing in Brawl. There was the whole items standard JK was working on and now All-Brawl. We could choose to adopt them, to put up with the randomness, but we chose not to.

We're getting a similar situation here with Meta Knight. The best players still win. It's just that Meta Knight forces himself to become the focus of the game, skewing the entire metagame in a negative, non-progressive way. We can technically choose to deal with it or we can choose not to. We're at a very similar crossroads here, only that we've got precedent (actually, two precedents if you really want to count Brawl separately) to help us decide.

EDIT: Game and Watch is decidedly not R.O.B.'s worst opponent. The R.O.B. boards kept up TOURNAMENT FREAKIN' RECORDS on what characters R.O.B. kept losing to tournament in. It was a lot of MKs, some Game and Watches, and then random characters.

 

[Naucitos]

No, its not a similar situation at ALL.
In one situation, the items randomly gave players large leads for no reason, with no risk or even input from the benefitting player.
Are you honestly telling me that that isn't broken?

 

[HeroMystic]

As opposed to MK, who only truly damages ike and wolf, from what i've seen?

Actually, Ike stands a decent chance against MK.

*wonders why you guys are talking about items*

 

[DRaGZ]

No, its not a similar situation at ALL.
In one situation, the items randomly gave players large leads for no reason, with no risk or even input from the benefitting player.
Are you honestly telling me that that isn't broken?

You're acting as though everyone was playing Super Sudden Death and Bob-Ombs dropped left and right.

There's a reason the Melee community debated about items for years. It was because it was arguable that it was not gamebreaking, and that since it was part of the game that it should be kept.

If you want a more current record on how this is going, check out how All-Brawl is doing and how AZ reported on it, where he felt he won most of the games he should have.

EDIT: Here, I did the legwork for you:

http://allisbrawl.com/news/newspost.aspx?id=183

 

[rehab]

Does the best character not usually tend to be the focus of fighting game communities when (s)he's in the spotlight?

And items are not that similar to MK. When you look at a fight with MK you can explain at what points you made a mistake and got punished or died. With bomb capsule fights, all you can say is "Oh look at this part at 1:46, this is where the game decided to **** me"