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

[Shady Penguin]

well, do you ever see a lot of olimars in tournies? yoshis? ICs? Diddy may be the only semi-popular character out of the ones i mentioned. and if any of them counters MK reliably, then MK's popularity will drop due to that most ppl will pick one of them as a second, and eventually, slowly, character variety will increase, though MKs and his counters will still be kinda promient.

@shady
well, heres one reason: it would be unfair to the MK players to endure a temporary ban when there are reason not to.

What reason not to? That somehow new discoveries will end up making MK less dominant even though they could very well even make him more dominant (He's very fast, small, and immune to most CGs.)? Anti-Meta strategies are probably about as developed and researched as Meta strategies (Pretty much look at any character board).

Here's a counter point now. If MK really is causing a problem (which most smashers seem to think) and we just wait for the unlikely to happen, we'd be letting everyone besides MK players endure the pains of MK when they have no good reason to. OS's doctor comparison was a pretty good way to say this.

 

[Harbinger631]

Overswarm also doesn't play Brawl. He just goes to MWC events... the last one was in september. I still won doubles and got 9th in singles, losing only to two matchups I am unfamiliar with. Chew on that.

You go to compete and don't care at the same time...isn't that counter-productive to winning? Why even play if you don't care? Why debate about something crucial like this if you don't even play the game?

 

[DerpDaBerp]

"We're not saying we do not want a ban, ever. We're saying that according to the evidence currently available to us, it is our opinion that it is not sufficient to ban Meta Knight. "

yes, and in the meantime, i think even pro-ban supporters should be trying new things to counter MK instead of just complaining, as my post above stated.

@ pieman because they are still part of the community! you cant just go screw MK users theyre a minority!

Seeing as how he ISN'T banned yet and how we still have to deal with him, we are in fact, forced to try all we can to contest him. Otherwise we'd become part of the group that's giving Brawl up, which is exactly what I fear will grow.

 

[XienZo]

But what makes people think we remove things to maximize Competition? Because, really, in the most extreme of extremes, if we really wanted to maximize Competition, we'd ban everyone but one single character. Because then all that would matter would be individual skill. That's the pinnacle of Competition.

And why don't we do that? Whats so bad about having only one character? Is it the lack of people who wouldn't play anymore? Is it the fact that you can't counterpick using one character? There is some factor that makes having only 1 character bad, and there's a way to deal with it while still increasing competitiveness

Well, whatever it is, as more characters are banned, the worse it makes the metagame. On the other hand, competitive-ness also increases as characters are banned. However, the second one increases with diminishing returns, as in a MK-less metagame is more different from a MK one than a Lucario and below metagame from a Below Lucario only metagame.

This means that there is a number of characters banned where the total of the two is optimized, and to maximize the total factors(competitiveness and whatever makes having only 1 character bad), we would have to ban that many characters. Therefore, we can't toss the idea of banning characters, or even going to the slippery slope, without analyzing what makes the slippery slope so bad, as there is likely an optimal solution that requires banning a specific amount of characters.


TL;DR Statistics indicate that the condition of the metagame as a function of characters banned is a negative parabola, and there is an optimal solution. Lets not be lazy and stick with only the endpoints.

 

[Overswarm]

You go to compete and don't care at the same time...isn't that counter-productive to winning? Why even play if you don't care? Why debate about something crucial like this if you don't even play the game?

I would have quit the moment I realized what Metaknight was, but I was in the middle of the midwest circuit (MWC). I share doubles points with my teammate, Joshu, and we have gotten 1rst every time because we're super awesome. If I stopped playing, he would lose all his points and not get awesome money.

I enjoy the thought of playing Brawl yet having multiple characters.. but have no reason to do so with MK in the mix. So, I don't play anyone but MK. I don't enjoy playing MK, so I don't play. I don't have to to do well; all the games I lost with MK were very close and with matchups I am unfamiliar with. Had a few things gone differently, I could have easily been top 3... but I don't need the money and don't enjoy MK, so I don't practice.

I debate about this because I enjoy Brawl without MK and want it to grow. I've been a big part of the smash community, having a big part in the Melee and Brawl ruleset and things like the weekly character discussions... I'd like to stay a part of that, but am unable to do so with MK being a part of the game.

 

[XxBlackxX]

What reason not to? That somehow new discoveries will end up making MK less dominant even though they could very well even make him more dominant (He's very fast, small, and immune to most CGs.)? Anti-Meta strategies are probably about as developed and researched as Meta strategies (Pretty much look at any character board).

Here's a counter point now. If MK really is causing a problem (which most smashers seem to think) and we just wait for the unlikely to happen, we'd be letting everyone besides MK players endure the pains of MK when they have no good reason to. OS's doctor comparison was a pretty good way to say this.

read my other post. A MAJORITY, even a clear majoity, which isnt what we have, cant just get what they want unless there is a good reason, and right now, your reasons are not good enough. also, how do know "the unlikely" wont happen if you arent trying yourself?

 

[Yuna]

What reason not to? That somehow new discoveries will end up making MK less dominant even though they could very well even make him more dominant (He's very fast, small, and immune to most CGs.)? Anti-Meta strategies are probably about as developed and researched as Meta strategies (Pretty much look at any character board).

Here's a counter point now. If MK really is causing a problem (which most smashers seem to think) and we just wait for the unlikely to happen, we'd be letting everyone besides MK players endure the pains of MK when they have no good reason to. OS's doctor comparison was a pretty good way to say this.

Then explain the fact that Meta Knight isn't taking top placings at all tournaments with competent Meta Knights? Evidently, there are ways of combating and even beating him. HOBO11 was an extreme (with Azen not really qualifying as Meta Knight as he played 6 or so characters and played Meta Knight sparingly).

There are very few tournaments whose results look like HOBO11s. The rest have a few Metas in the Top 8. Some have none, some have other characters winning and/or take Top 3. Obviously, Meta Knight isn't some kind of unbeatable juggernaut or even that hard to beat.

People just dislike facing him and the fact that there are so many MK players out there.

I'm pretty sure if a relatively unpopular character was shown to counter MK well, MK players wouldn't decrease in #'s. Not to mention that if a singular character was shown to have a reliable anti-MK strategy, MK mainers would simply take the time to counter them. A vicious and unnecessary circle.

And again, MK mainers = minority. Besides, they know perfectly well that they're causing all this trouble and playing with him none the less. Why value them so much?

That's BS. If there's a working strategy, then it's a working strategy. If it's later proven to not really be effective, then it wasn't effective to begin with, we just didn't know enough about it yet.

If an effective anti-MK strat that MK can't magically nullify is found, then it will have been found. There is no possible way to conclusively say "There will be such a strat" or "No such strat will be found" (or your version "Such a strat will be found, but there'll be a way around it").

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Nothing of this refutes what I said. Nothing of this pertains to what I said.

I was arguing against a certain argument. I proved how ludicrous this argument was by providing examples. You're trying to prove that my examples are bad for the metagame when it doesn't refute my point.

I'm not saying doing what I suggested is good. I said that if we really wanted to do what da K.I.D. seems to think we do when writing rulesets, then we'd ban quite many characters. Yes, with more characters gone, a lot of people would enjoy the game less. But, on the other hand, it would make the game much more Competitive.

Argue against my refutation of "The ruleset is written/We ban things to make the game as good as it can be/as Competitive as possible" or any variations of the phrase. That is my argument. Do not try to argue anything else, I am not making any argument (at the moment) besides this one.

I did not make an anti-ban argument. I made an argument that was a reply to the argument above, that is all.

 

[Harbinger631]

I would have quit the moment I realized what Metaknight was, but I was in the middle of the midwest circuit (MWC). I share doubles points with my teammate, Joshu, and we have gotten 1rst every time because we're super awesome. If I stopped playing, he would lose all his points and not get awesome money.

I enjoy the thought of playing Brawl yet having multiple characters.. but have no reason to do so with MK in the mix. So, I don't play anyone but MK. I don't enjoy playing MK, so I don't play. I don't have to to do well; all the games I lost with MK were very close and with matchups I am unfamiliar with. Had a few things gone differently, I could have easily been top 3... but I don't need the money and don't enjoy MK, so I don't practice.

I debate about this because I enjoy Brawl without MK and want it to grow. I've been a big part of the smash community, having a big part in the Melee and Brawl ruleset and things like the weekly character discussions... I'd like to stay a part of that, but am unable to do so with MK being a part of the game.

Ok. You have sooo much more tournament experience than I do (jealous), but after watching videos of Anther work around MK, I started thinking that there would be ways around the character for other members of the cast as well, you just had to be good enough.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

read my other post. A MAJORITY, even a clear majoity, which isnt what we have, cant just get what they want unless there is a good reason, and right now, your reasons are not good enough. also, how do know "the unlikely" wont happen if you arent trying yourself?

Who are you to determine the quality of our reasons? I personally think ours are better than yours, or else I wouldn't continue arguing would I?

And stop assuming pro-ban people aren't trying to find solutions. We don't argue for the sake of arguing, we argue to show we HAVE tried and have concluded MK isn't worth dealing with. BAM

 

[XienZo]

Nothing of this refutes what I said. Nothing of this pertains to what I said.

I was arguing against a certain argument. I proved how ludicrous this argument was by providing examples. You're trying to prove that my examples are bad for the metagame when it doesn't refute my point.

I'm not saying doing what I suggested is good. I said that if we really wanted to do what da K.I.D. seems to think we do when writing rulesets, then we'd ban quite many characters. Yes, with more characters gone, a lot of people would enjoy the game less. But, on the other hand, it would make the game much more Competitive.

It was more of a comment than a refute...

I was thinking that what I said might have been what he was thinking, but he just didn't go into it in detail. If he labled what I called "competitiveness+whatever makes 1 char bad" "competitiveness", then he would be saying the same thing I did.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Who are you to determine the quality of our reasons? I personally think ours are better than yours, or else I wouldn't continue arguing would I?

And stop assuming pro-ban people aren't trying to find solutions. We don't argue for the sake of arguing, we argue to show we HAVE tried and have concluded MK isn't worth dealing with. BAM

so? and i personally think im right.... where does that leave us? right where we started. personal opinions are what this is based upon. saying i think im right does NOTHING to support your opinions.
ok, so you have tried. continue trying. i know i am. my current "project", if you will, is trying to master the ICs. i know for a fact they could potentially be a counter for MK if mastered. and im not saying i, or any of us, will find a new strat, but at the moment we still do not know enough to ban MK. as i said before, in a few months ill support a temporary ban if no solutions are found.

 

[Shady Penguin]

For those who responded to me: all I'm asking for is a temporary ban that will solve the problem one way or another. A full ban just may be too hasty, but where's the harm in a temporary ban?

Even if the anti-ban ends up winning and Meta ends up being temporarily removed just to come back, MK mainers will benefit. If the anti-ban wins, they get to keep MK and will probably receive more respect and less complaints. It's a win-lose or a lose-win instead of a lose-lose.

You could just view this a win-win seeing how people will know the truth and these debates will be over. Smashboards as a whole will probably see a generous boost in productivity if so much attention wasn't given to this MK mess.

 

[Overswarm]

Ok. You have sooo much more tournament experience than I do (jealous), but after watching videos of Anther work around MK, I started thinking that there would be ways around the character for other members of the cast as well, you just had to be good enough.

Just go to tournaments for a while, once you "click" you know it. Then you are good.

As for Anther "getting around" MK, just ask yourself it that was the MK messing up or Anther forcing the MK to have something bad happen to him based off of a single opportunity.

 

[XxBlackxX]

For those who responded to me: all I'm asking for is a temporary ban that will solve the problem one way or another. A full ban just may be too hasty, but where's the harm in a temporary ban?

Even the MK mainers will benefit from this in the end. If anti-ban wins, they get to keep MK and will probably receive more respect and less complaints. It's a win-lose or a lose-win instead of a lose-lose.

You could just view this a win-win seeing how people will know the truth and these debates will be over. Smashboards as whole will probably see a generous boost in productivity if so much attention wasn't given to this MK mess.

it could help or it wont help. depends on what youre trying to prove with the temporary ban.

 

[Yuna]

It was more of a comment than a refute...

I was thinking that what I said might have been what he was thinking, but he just didn't go into it in detail. If he labled what I called "competitiveness+whatever makes 1 char bad" "competitiveness", then he would be saying the same thing I did.

He (and Nana) specifically used the extreme "as X as possible". Now, I am not arguing that we do not write the rules to ensure Competition or ensure that the rules are Competitively viable.

What I'm saying is that anyone who says that the rules are written to make the Competitive scene "as X as possible" is wrong. That is, the very extreme, the "as possible"-part. Many people seem to think this, they are all wrong.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

so? and i personally think im right.... where does that leave us? right where we started. personal opinions are what this is based upon. saying i think im right does NOTHING to support your opinions.
ok, so you have tried. continue trying. i know i am. my current "project", if you will, is trying to master the ICs. i know for a fact they could potentially be a counter for MK if mastered. and im not saying i, or any of us, will find a new strat, but at the moment we still do not know enough to ban MK. as i said before, in a few months ill support a temporary ban if no solutions are found.

*sigh*, you're misinterpreting my comment. That was just to get you off your high horse, not to justify my opinion. the very purpose of a debate is to convert someone's opinion to one's own. Don't get offended or anything, I actually think our arguing is very constructive.

Which Meta Knight are you talking about? You seem to think we don't know enough about these characters. After almost a year, can't we trust ourselves to have been able to find a solution if there had ever been one? And if you still contest, my concern is still time. The penalty of waiting too long to decide is as I said before, the deterioration of the smash Brawl community.

 

[Yuna]

Temp ban stuff.

The problem with a temporary ban is: Ummm... how exactly would we prove that Meta Knight doesn't need to be banned once he's banned? If he's not there, he cannot defend himself. Anti-Meta strats won't get to influence the tournament placings.

The only way for Meta to get unbanned would be if one is of the "Meta Knight is over-centralizing the metagame on himself"-school of banners and we find, after a 6 or so period of time, that with Meta Knight gone, the scene is equally as over-centralized, just over another character. But then again, many of "those" people would just vote to ban that other character.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

The problem with a temporary ban is: Ummm... how exactly would we prove that Meta Knight doesn't need to be banned once he's banned? If he's not there, he cannot defend himself. Anti-Meta strats won't get to influence the tournament placings.

The only way for Meta to get unbanned would be if one is of the "Meta Knight is over-centralizing the metagame on himself"-school of banners and we find, after a 6 or so period of time, that with Meta Knight gone, the scene is equally as over-centralized, just over another character. But then again, many of "those" people would just vote to ban that other character.

A temp ban isn't meant for MK to defend his legitimacy, but to just see if things go smoother if he's not there, which is quite possible.

And the effect wouldn't keep travelling down the tier list. Snake for instance is certainly a great character, but not like MK because the rest of the cast has a much better chance against him that they do against MK. He's an outlier, not simply a really good character

 

[XxBlackxX]

*sigh*, you're misinterpreting my comment. That was just to get you off your high horse, not to justify my opinion. the very purpose of a debate is to convert someone's opinion to our own. Don't get offended or anything, I actually think our arguing is very constructive.

Which Meta Knight are you talking about? You seem to think we don't know enough about these characters. After almost a year, can't we trust ourselves to have been able to find a solution if there had ever been one? And if you still contest, my concern is still time. The penalty of waiting to long to decide is as I said before, the deterioration of the smash Brawl community.

yes, i totally agree with the debating part, however, my answer to the 2nd part is yes. i believe we still need time to explore more options. i can understand why you see it the other way, at first, me and some people i know thought about quiting brawl and we complained about how MK is so broken it makes this game horrible. but after thinking about it, i decided to keep trying. ive said this and i will say it again for you pro-ban-ers. if no resolution is found, a ban probably will happen.

 

[XienZo]

A temp ban isn't meant for MK to defend his legitimacy, but to just see if things go smoother if he's not there, which is quite possible

I see, so instead of just theorizing if it would improve, we could actually see if it would improve?

Of course, we'd need to dedicate at least 2-3 months, preferably 6, to it, so I'm wondering if thats a good usage of our time.

 

[XxBlackxX]

A temp ban isn't meant for MK to defend his legitimacy, but to just see if things go smoother if he's not there, which is quite possible

and how would you define "smoother" exactly? the thing with temp bans is that unless you specify what you gain from it, it wont really get anything out of it.

 

[XienZo]

and how would you define "smoother" exactly? the thing with temp bans is that unless you specify what you gain from it, it wont really get anything out of it.

Just see if its worth it or not. Plain and simple. No more need to theorycraft what would happen.

 

[Harbinger631]

Just go to tournaments for a while, once you "click" you know it. Then you are good.

As for Anther "getting around" MK, just ask yourself it that was the MK messing up or Anther forcing the MK to have something bad happen to him based off of a single opportunity.

I play in Louisville whenever I'm home and may make it up to Cincinnati this Christmas break. At my college one hour west of KC no one is good at smash, I ran a double elim tournament and didn't lose. I really want to find someone close by who's better than me so I won't get destroyed if I go to Cinci.

Isn't messing up and capitalizing on a single opportunity one and the same? Pretty much every attack in Brawl is avoidable if you anticipate it with Brawl's airdodge system and no hit stun, so every hit you land has to come from a mistake of your opponent. I think Anther beats MK because he's so good on capitalizing on every single mistake.

In the end, Lucario, Pikachu, Diddy, DK, Snake, and maybe more have advantages fighting MK, just like MK has certain advantages fighting them. From my amazing experience of just watching youtube videos (my hardest tourney match was my Pika vs Jiano's Snake) it seems to me that the better player wins, not the player who uses MK, even though he may be one and the same. The better player winning is the heart of competition, so why change anything? A ban at this point appears lazy.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Just see if its worth it or not. Plain and simple. No more need to theorycraft what would happen.

But isn't that what ya'll are doing? Theorycrafting?

Smooth Criminal

 

[Brother J]

How about getting the tournament organizers to choose whether or not to allow Metaknight and having the MK and Non-MK results/rankings recorded separately for awhile. We could see if the scene would improve and have up to date info for both a MK allowed and No-MK metagame. Seems like it would work better than a temp-ban.

I'm sure it's been brought up before though.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Just see if its worth it or not. Plain and simple. No more need to theorycraft what would happen.

seems kinda unfair to MK players. i think, if he is deserving of a ban (and we are sure of it) THEN we temp ban him to test out how things go...we might not have to ever unban him if it works out. right now seems kinda too early though.

 

[XienZo]

But isn't that what ya'll are doing? Theorycrafting?

Smooth Criminal

If we actually did a temp ban, we would SEE what happens, instead of theorycrafting what happens.

Then we compare the two so we know EXACTLY what the pros are to banning him.

seems kinda unfair to MK players. i think, if he is deserving of a ban (and we are sure of it) THEN we temp ban him to test out how things go...we might not have to ever unban him if it works out. right now seems kinda too early though.

If we do a temp ban just to "test the waters", we would have no right whatsoever to extend the ban beyond its original length. And luckily, we're not corrupt or anything.



Yet.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

yes, i totally agree with the debating part, however, my answer to the 2nd part is yes. i believe we still need time to explore more options. i can understand why you see it the other way, at first, me and some people i know thought about quiting brawl and we complained about how MK is so broken it makes this game horrible. but after thinking about it, i decided to keep trying. ive said this and i will say it again for you pro-ban-ers. if no resolution is found, a ban probably will happen.

Agreed. I'm worried more people won't dedicate more of their time to a solution and just give it up.

@XienZo. If a MK ban is tested, at that point the only time concern is the next Smash coming out. That doesn't seem like a big deal at all. Spend 6 months to possibly improve the experience of a game we may be playing for years now? Seems worth it to try

 

[Shady Penguin]

The problem with a temporary ban is: Ummm... how exactly would we prove that Meta Knight doesn't need to be banned once he's banned? If he's not there, he cannot defend himself. Anti-Meta strats won't get to influence the tournament placings.

The only way for Meta to get unbanned would be if one is of the "Meta Knight is over-centralizing the metagame on himself"-school of banners and we find, after a 6 or so period of time, that with Meta Knight gone, the scene is equally as over-centralized, just over another character. But then again, many of "those" people would just vote to ban that other character.

We won't know for sure if Brawl will end up over-centralized again unless we try. Once again, I'm not suggesting a straight ban.

Anti-MK strategies are all the rage now, yet I don't see any clear indication of a resonable chance that MK will take some important hits to his metagame anytime soon. MK could just get better for all we know. His traits are generally desirable ones when it comes to new discoveries.

If that's no good, we could try that system where there are specialized "No-Meta tournies" while other tournies still use the MK.

 

[XxBlackxX]

If we do a temp ban just to "test the waters", we would have no right whatsoever to extend the ban beyond its original length. And luckily, we're not corrupt or anything.



Yet.

actually i meant AFTER we decided he was FOR SURE worthy of a ban. so maybe my chose of words shouldnt have been temp ban, its just that we ban him, but could bring him back if we feel that we need to.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

Lets ban him, then at that point we decide if we eventually want to let him back instead of predicting the results of either. Although certainly if things are indeed smoother, that consideration won't cross out minds.

 

[XienZo]

Agreed. I'm worried more people won't dedicate more of their time to a solution and just give it up.

@XienZo. If a MK ban is tested, at that point the only time concern is the next Smash coming out. That doesn't seem like a big deal at all. Spend 6 months to possibly improve the experience of a game we may be playing for years now? Seems worth it to try

Theoritically, that 6 months, if focused on anti-MK strategies, could balance the situation more than if we banned him and another character was found to have been overcentralizing.

Its a slight possibliity, but we still shouldn't dismiss it.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Theoritically, that 6 months, if focused on anti-MK strategies, could balance the situation more than if we banned him and another character was found to have been overcentralizing.

Its a slight possibliity, but we still shouldn't dismiss it.

yes exactly my point. it IS still too early imo, and we have still alot to test out/practice. @shady, when i said discoveries, i meant Anti-MK strats. how can a anti-MK strat benefit MK? lol

anways...i gotta go now x]

 

[BanjoKazooiePro]

The concept of banning and unbanning just sounds ridiculous to me. I know it can happen, but can we as players really be that unclear about this? We've been playing this game for a long time now and I think that there is a solution, but to ban then unban MK seems like a pathetic idea. That would just show how unclear we are about the future of this character and the game possibly. It's ban or no ban, there's no in between unless you work extremely hard for it and make very clear points.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

Theoritically, that 6 months, if focused on anti-MK strategies, could balance the situation more than if we banned him and another character was found to have been overcentralizing.

Its a slight possibliity, but we still shouldn't dismiss it.

We're capable of experimenting anti-MK strategies with him still here. Him being banned couldn't make that easier for us. I don't think that after he's banned (or even inteded as temp ban) we should concern ourselves with him at all. We should ban him and be done with him. That may seem a little extreme, but hey, it's not like he couldn't still be used in friendlies

 

[DerpDaBerp]

The concept of banning and unbanning just sounds ridiculous to me. I know it can happen, but can we as players really be that unclear about this? We've been playing this game for a long time now and I think that there is a solution, but to ban then unban MK seems like a pathetic idea. That would just show how unclear we are about the future of this character and the game possibly. It's ban or no ban, there's no in between unless you work extremely hard for it and make very clear points.

True. I believe we know very well the status of MK enough to not confuse ourselves with theories that may not work, but it's our optimism in those theories we present that compell us to present them in the first place so...

A clearer conclusion should indeed be found but that's not going to make either side agree on aything more decisive any faster.

 

[Yuna]

A temp ban isn't meant for MK to defend his legitimacy, but to just see if things go smoother if he's not there, which is quite possible.

And the effect wouldn't keep travelling down the tier list. Snake for instance is certainly a great character, but not like MK because the rest of the cast has a much better chance against him that they do against MK. He's an outlier, not simply a really good character

I'm sorry, I suggested that a temp ban was for defending MK's legitimacy when?

I said that with a temp ban in place, how would MK possibly prove his legitimacy? He's already been banned. How does he prove he doesn't need to be banned? Thus, the argument that "A temp ban is only temporary, we can always unban him later" fails unless the temp ban has a time limit on it or we arbitrarily just go "Oh, let's bring MK back" later.

We won't know for sure if Brawl will end up over-centralized again unless we try. Once again, I'm not suggesting a straight ban.

The main part of my argument was that unless the ban is based solely on over-centralization, we cannot bring him back later after a temp ban lest we arbitrarily decide to. Thus, "It's just temporary" fails as an argument.

Anti-MK strategies are all the rage now, yet I don't see any clear indication of a resonable chance that MK will take some important hits to his metagame anytime soon. MK could just get better for all we know. His traits are generally desirable ones when it comes to new discoveries.

Did not refute or elaborate on anything I said. I never said they weren't all the rage. I said that the argument that there will always be a way for MK to work around new anti-MK strats was flawed.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

....So yeah, anyway, lets ban him

 

[Shady Penguin]

I'm not quite reading you on the first statement. If we banned him on the basis that he has no bad-match-ups (which does over-centralize) and is too good by our standards, are you saying that means we could bring him back or not?

If MK does get banned, I'm pretty sure those would be the reasons why (or they're at least the reasons I want him gone).

As for the second point, I never totally ruled out the possibility of MK's metagame being hurt. There could very well be a new discovery that really takes it to him, but the chances seem slim and he could just get better.