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

[Koga]

^^Hylian probably doesn't know that Sonic has only two moves that can break through tornado, both of which are hard to time and hard to space.

Puffball did well most likely because Hylian doesn't know the Sonic matchup that well. He was messing up his spacing al lot which is a clear indicator that he's just not used to Sonic's speed.

That doesn't mean that MK is suddenly not Sonic's worst matchup.

everything in this post proves why MK shouldn't be banned. if playing a character perfectly makes it ban worthy than every character is ban worthy.

no one should ever be arguing that we should make it easier to ban characters, banning anything is a big issue and shouldn't be taken lightly

 

[Metro Knight]

Why yes, the current tier list.

lol.

lol

Yeah, Link is 38th because of the terrible MK match up.

 

[Dark Sonic]

everything in this post proves why MK shouldn't be banned. if playing a character perfectly makes it ban worthy than every character is ban worthy

If you suck at playing Akuma then he doesn't seem ban worthy does he? I mean, scrubs in Japan lose with Akuma all the time.

When deciding whether a character is ban worthy or not, shouldn't it be assumed that it's at the highest level of play? You know, where everyone actually knows the matchups, but MK has the advantage in all of them anyway?

 

[Koga]

If you suck at playing Akuma then he doesn't seem ban worthy does he? I mean, scrubs in Japan lose with Akuma all the time.

When deciding whether a character is ban worthy or not, shouldn't it be assumed that it's at the highest level of play? You know, where everyone actually knows the matchups, but MK has the advantage in all of them anyway?

highest level of play =/= perfectly.

you're just making excuses now, a scrub who knows akuma's trick can beat high level players alot more than if he didn't know it, but a good player loosing with MK because he made some mistakes is not the same thing.

just because a character is by far the best and has no bad matchups or stages is not ban worthy at all.

also, someone playing oh, lucario perfectly would probably make him look ban worthy too, but since we all can't achieve that, we'd just say "well he's a good player" but since you can do fairly well with MK without that level of play, as well as do great with a high level of play, suddenly its like "BAN BAN BAN OMG BAN" thats ridiculous

 

[Ace55]

I've been hanging out on Smogon (competitive Pokemon) lately and I'm gonna make a comparison, all be it a tough one.

The OU list for Pokemon is about 50 pokemon, and Brawl has what, 39 characters? Then you also have the uber tier. Garchomp was recently moved from OU to uber. The reason wasn't that it's undefeatable, just overpowered and therefore overcentralizing the metagame. You had to be thouroughly prepared for him to win, or use him yourself.

The same thing could be said about MK in Brawl. He isn't undefeatable by any stretch of the imagination but he does overcentralize the game. Playing with only MK weak characters in tourney is (almost) suicide. You need a 'counter' (in MK case, a decent matchup) to stand up to him, or fight a terrible uphill battle.

Pokemon is a completely different game, but it does have a smart and experienced community. I thought I'd make the comparison.

*the final straw I believe for Garchomp was that his ability increases his evasion in a sandstorm, but I couldn't really link that to MK*

 

[PK-ow!]

highest level of play =/= perfectly.

[...]

just because a character is by far the best and has no bad matchups or stages is not ban worthy at all.

True.

also, someone playing oh, lucario perfectly would probably make him look ban worthy too, but since we all can't achieve that, we'd just say "well he's a good player" but since you can do fairly well with MK without that level of play, as well as do great with a high level of play, suddenly its like "BAN BAN BAN OMG BAN" thats ridiculous

Umm. . . no it's not. That's what banworthiness is, just in a matter of degree. If MK was really easy to whip people with, and fricking ownage at high level, then if these were in a severe enough degree, they would imply the conditions of "no reasonable chance," "creates upsets unless diversity is extinguished," "makes the entire meta game about himself / 'bans' every other character from decent tourneys," etc. etc. which make the character broken and bannable.

 

[Tenki]

^^Hylian probably doesn't know that Sonic has only two moves that can break through tornado, both of which are hard to time and hard to space.

Puffball did well most likely because Hylian doesn't know the Sonic matchup that well. He was messing up his spacing al lot which is a clear indicator that he's just not used to Sonic's speed.

That doesn't mean that MK is suddenly not Sonic's worst matchup.

When that was first brought up in the Sonic boards, Hylain (lol4namesearchers) came in to say that it was his first time using MK at a tourney or something, and that he wasn't doing so well that time.

Also, MK's tornado isn't difficult to escape/avoid/beat on levels not named Battlefield.

 

[Master Knight DH]

My 2 cents about B-banning:

B-banning doesn't make a character terrible. I self-impose a B-ban on my Pit usage because his arrows are unbelievably abusive. Pit isn't that bad off; he already has 4 jumps and gliding, so his Up B is unnecessary half the time, because the opponent already is likely to need to launch him hard enough that he'll hit the boundaries before he can try to recover. Side B can be annoying, but it's mostly with the arrows that it's a real pain. The only thing Pit is missing is the reflecting from Down B. Even then, it's not like you can't dodge projectiles.

Of course, if B-banning is a necessity, it shows there's a problem with the character and doesn't fix the issue. >_>

Anyway, I've posted an idea before that could have been in Brawl and toned down Meta Knight considerably, and balanced other characters a bit as well. Here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5287994#post5287994

The basic ideas is that a character would get exhausted by attacking too much, and would have trouble attacking further with enough power behind their attacks to generate as much priority for a while. The cap and individual limits would be to ensure that characters like Meta Knight would lose priority sooner and can lose a higher percentage of priority. Yeah, percentage, to further punish spammy Meta Knights and prevent low priority characters from being hit hard. Attack overuse would also be punished further: an attack would have its PD rate increased based on how many times it's already in the queue.

Most importantly, it would be set up so that only certain characters, spam-happy players, move abusers, or simply dragged-out fight participants would notice the mere existence of priority decay.

So you might be asking: what does this have to do with Meta Knight? Well, we know that Meta Knight has low weight and high fall speed, a combination that would no doubt make Meta Knight's priority so extreme: if he has it, well, we have what we do right now; but if it isn't, it's not too much of a bother to KO him by nailing him with a clean hit. However, what if we make sure he can have a priority edge at the start, so that he can't be harassed then, but then he can easily lose it if he's abusive, leaving him open to harassment if the opponent survives the onslaught? That would be appropriate for a sword user of Meta Knight's character. (And yes, that blasted Mach Tornado would cause Meta Knight's priority decay to rack up fast.)

 

[cutter]

My 2 cents about B-banning:

B-banning doesn't make a character terrible. I self-impose a B-ban on my Pit usage because his arrows are unbelievably abusive.

I stopped reading right there.

Also, B-banning is NOT going to happen. There is no "middle ground" in banning MK. Either he gets banned completely or he doesn't get banned.

 

[Ace55]

If we banned Pitt's B moves he would be low tier in no time.

B-banning Olimar would be hilarious.

 

[Koga]

True.



Umm. . . no it's not. That's what banworthiness is, just in a matter of degree. If MK was really easy to whip people with, and fricking ownage at high level, then if these were in a severe enough degree, they would imply the conditions of "no reasonable chance," "creates upsets unless diversity is extinguished," "makes the entire meta game about himself / 'bans' every other character from decent tourneys," etc. etc. which make the character broken and bannable.

I fundamentally dissagree. alot of games have only one truly playable character/team/whatever your game is; but other still have a chance and do fairly well.

Reasonable chance is subjective, but even if all characters had "no reasonable chance" against a character, that isn't ban worth at any point in a games progression other than the end, where we have fully explored everything about the game and know there's nothing else.

we won't be at that point for a long time, so banning MK now is a monumental risk, we don't know what will be discoverd in the future, and we can't risk something changing the game in the future because we cant beat meta knight now.

 

[Praxis]

h
just because a character is by far the best and has no bad matchups or stages is not ban worthy at all.

Why is this? If the character has no bad matchups or stages, wouldn't that inherently mean you are disadvantaging yourself by picking anyone else, no matter what?

Picking the second best character (assuming that's still Snake) means you are disadvantaged if you're going up against a Wario, DDD, or Donkey Kong and not at an advantage if you're going against a number of neutral matchups he has.

Picking Metaknight means you ALWAYS have the advantage, unless you're going against another Metaknight.

It eliminates the need for a secondary, eliminates the need for anyone to play anyone else except for A) fun or B) stubbornness, and if we go by the US "play to win" mentality, you would technically be a scrub for picking any character other than Metaknight because you are deliberately hurting your chances to win.

So, even if he's not so completely broken as to be an auto win, by the play to win mentality, he overpowers the metagame, and there's no reason to learn another character. Snake mains need to learn a secondary to deal with DDD/Wario/Donkey Kong, or G&W mains need a secondary to deal with Toon Link/Marth. Metaknight breaks this system, and means you will NEVER lose to someone of equal skill level unless they're also playing Metaknight, because you always have an advantage.

 

[Ace55]

we won't be at that point for a long time, so banning MK now is a monumental risk, we don't know what will be discoverd in the future, and we can't risk something changing the game in the future because we cant beat meta knight now.

You're probably right but it's going to be a long painfull MK filled road.

 

[Master Knight DH]

I stopped reading right there.

You mean because I'm talking about Pit's arrows? Wow. I suppose next you're going to claim Grit in the Advance Wars series isn't even resembling broken either.

Also, B-banning is NOT going to happen. There is no "middle ground" in banning MK. Either he gets banned completely or he doesn't get banned.

I say there is middle ground, and B-banning is at the very least part of it. It's not even impossible to set up a control scheme where B moves can be unusable altogether. If Meta Knight needs to be BANNED ALTOGETHER, then he is even more broken as opposed to what B-banning would say. Though I wouldn't doubt if he needs to be banned altogether with what he has. But you get the point.

Ugh. Thanks for ignoring the priority decay idea. Great, another comment about B-banning:

If we banned Pitt's B moves he would be low tier in no time.

Why's that? He may be annoying with arrows, but they can't kill, they just rack up damage and cause the flinching they shouldn't. I can't see him falling far over B-ban, his A moves are definitely workable.

B-banning Olimar would be hilarious.

Olimar is too reliant on A moves and grabs to warrant a B-ban.

 

[Praxis]

Also, MK's tornado isn't difficult to escape/avoid/beat on levels not named Battlefield.

I would like to point out that this is very character specific. Peach, for example, has no issues with the tornado. Fsmash, ftilt, and utilt all easily knock MK out of it (fsmash sometimes causing kills), and if you're precise, Dair and turnips right in the middle on the top can beat it too. All Peach has to do is roll back, charge fsmash, and let the tornado come.

Meanwhile, there are other characters with whom it is incredibly difficult to knock MK out of tornado, and some for which it is almost downright impossible so you can just tornado all day long.

Sonic has a nightmare of a time, and Pit can barely do anything.

 

[Praxis]

You mean because I'm talking about Pit's arrows? Wow. I suppose next you're going to claim Grit in the Advance Wars series isn't even resembling broken either.

Pit's arrows barely make him the bottom of high tier. They're not that broken- the problem with Pit is that he's got terrible approaches but an excellent defensive game. The arrows make up for that. I still have no problem with Pit regardless.

 

[darkNES386]

@darkSonic: The fact remains that picking MK does not equal instant win even against a character like Sonic. So the "easy to play/learn" argument shouldn't be used by anyone.

Why is this? If the character has no bad matchups or stages, wouldn't that inherently mean you are disadvantaging yourself by picking anyone else, no matter what?

Picking the second best character (assuming that's still Snake) means you are disadvantaged if you're going up against a Wario, DDD, or Donkey Kong and not at an advantage if you're going against a number of neutral matchups he has.

Picking Metaknight means you ALWAYS have the advantage, unless you're going against another Metaknight.

It eliminates the need for a secondary, eliminates the need for anyone to play anyone else except for A) fun or B) stubbornness, and if we go by the US "play to win" mentality, you would technically be a scrub for picking any character other than Metaknight because you are deliberately hurting your chances to win.

So, even if he's not so completely broken as to be an auto win, by the play to win mentality, he overpowers the metagame, and there's no reason to learn another character. Snake mains need to learn a secondary to deal with DDD/Wario/Donkey Kong, or G&W mains need a secondary to deal with Toon Link/Marth. Metaknight breaks this system, and means you will NEVER lose to someone of equal skill level unless they're also playing Metaknight, because you always have an advantage.

You make a good point, but always having the advantage alone does not equal ban. As it has been stated before, MK should have massive advantages over everyone before a ban is put in place.

 

[infomon]

Reasonable chance is subjective, but even if all characters had "no reasonable chance" against a character, that isn't ban worth at any point in a games progression other than the end, where we have fully explored everything about the game and know there's nothing else.

we won't be at that point for a long time, so banning MK now is a monumental risk, we don't know what will be discoverd in the future, and we can't risk something changing the game in the future because we cant beat meta knight now.

We'll never know if we've discovered everything. We've reached the time where we've probably discovered everything game-changing about Brawl; new discoveries will be minor tweaks to characters, strategies of play, etc. There's very little hope for some "OMG new AT" like wavedashing that would actually stir up the game enough to bring down MK's dominance; Brawl's just not complex enough for that.

And I agree it's too early for a ban. But we might not be far off.

Ugh. Thanks for ignoring the priority decay idea.

Sorry dewd, but that makes no sense. It's not like we have the Brawl source code and can go ahead and make arbitrary patches... ?? That's Nintendo's job (and they won't). The Homebrew hack stuff can edit the game, but that will never be a part of tournament play, and your proposed patch doesn't exist. Or did I misunderstand something??

Besides, this is Super Smash Bros., not Pokémon

 

[hotgarbage]

You mean because I'm talking about Pit's arrows? Wow. I suppose next you're going to claim Grit in the Advance Wars series isn't even resembling broken either.

That's a pretty bad analogy, considering that pit's arrows aren't even remotely close to being broken.

Ugh. Thanks for ignoring the priority decay idea.

It's clear you don't know anything about priority, and anyways "how brawl could have been better balanced" really has nothing to do with this topic.


EDIT: beaten

 

[Espy Rose]

When that was first brought up in the Sonic boards, Hylain (lol4namesearchers) came in to say that it was his first time using MK at a tourney or something, and that he wasn't doing so well that time.

Also, MK's tornado isn't difficult to escape/avoid/beat on levels not named Battlefield.

He actually stated that that was his second tournament with MK, and that in that Rainbow Cruise match was one of (if not) the first times he used his GaW all day.

The fact that it was only his SECOND time in tournament with MK, and that he wasn't familiar with the matchup, yet still got THIRD PLACE, kinda shows how well MK does a person...

I don't think he'd have gotten AS far with someone like...Link...or Falco.

 

[Julz]

Olimar is too reliant on A moves and grabs to warrant a B-ban.

I herd his A moves don't work when the pikmin die.

 

[Tenki]

You mean because I'm talking about Pit's arrows? Wow. I suppose next you're going to claim Grit in the Advance Wars series isn't even resembling broken either.



I say there is middle ground, and B-banning is at the very least part of it. It's not even impossible to set up a control scheme where B moves can be unusable altogether. If Meta Knight needs to be BANNED ALTOGETHER, then he is even more broken as opposed to what B-banning would say. Though I wouldn't doubt if he needs to be banned altogether with what he has. But you get the point.

I think it was because it implies that you're a scrub who doesn't play to win, let alone play competitively, and that your opinion shouldn't really matter in this debate over a competitive banning of Metaknight. Not that I necessarily hold that opinion of you. But we're talking about competitive play, where people doing everything possible (and allowed) to win is fair game.

Completely banning Metaknight's B-moves hurts his recovery ALOT.
Ban what, shuttle loop and tornado?

Tornado has its vulnerabilities from above, and slightly, after it's blocked.
Shuttle loop's glide attack is vulnerable against a few characters' moves.


also

So you might be asking: what does this have to do with Meta Knight? Well, we know that Meta Knight has low weight and high fall speed,

...no, not really.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

We'll never know if we've discovered everything. We've reached the time where we've probably discovered everything game-changing about Brawl; new discoveries will be minor tweaks to characters, strategies of play, etc. There's very little hope for some "OMG new AT" like wavedashing that would actually stir up the game enough to bring down MK's dominance; Brawl's just not complex enough for that.

And I agree it's too early for a ban. But we might not be far off.



Sorry dewd, but that makes no sense. It's not like we have the Brawl source code and can go ahead and make arbitrary patches... ?? That's Nintendo's job (and they won't). The Homebrew hack stuff can edit the game, but that will never be a part of tournament play, and your proposed patch doesn't exist. Or did I misunderstand something??

Besides, this is Super Smash Bros., not Pokémon

How DO we ban in Super Smash Bros.? It's not like Pokemon where you can ban whenever a bunch of little kids with personality quirks complain in unison, but it's also not a traditional fighter where every stage is completely flat, knockback and hitstun never change, and you can only ban someone if the character 100-0's 90% of the cast (I KNOW that is an exageration, do not nit-pick an exageration).

 

[choknater]

Praxis your avatar is cute.

 

[infomon]

How DO we ban in Super Smash Bros.? It's not like Pokemon where you can ban whenever a bunch of little kids with personality quirks complain in unison, but it's also not a traditional fighter where every stage is completely flat, knockback and hitstun never change, and you can only ban someone if the character 100-0's 90% of the cast (I KNOW that is an exageration, do not nit-pick an exageration).

That's the money-question! Your post is bang-on IMO.

Praxis your avatar is cute.

LOL agreed, hadn't noticed that

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

How DO we ban in Super Smash Bros.? It's not like Pokemon where you can ban whenever a bunch of little kids with personality quirks complain in unison, but it's also not a traditional fighter where every stage is completely flat, knockback and hitstun never change, and you can only ban someone if the character 100-0's 90% of the cast (I KNOW that is an exageration, do not nit-pick an exageration).

it is an exagerration, but the point is valid: SSB is a unique game... it can't survive on the same exact requirements for a ban that other games have.

 

[salaboB]

@darkSonic: The fact remains that picking MK does not equal instant win even against a character like Sonic. So the "easy to play/learn" argument shouldn't be used by anyone.

You say this as if it's true for a top level MK that knows the matchup, I hope you have proof of it beyond a match by a relatively new MK player (Who still won).

In any case, ease of use != ban worthy, but it contributes to the rest of the community picking up MK, swamping the competitive scene with him, and if it continues killing the competitive scene with him. It's just another facet to his overall dominance and you can't simply discard it.

 

[Ace55]

Besides, this is Super Smash Bros., not Pokémon

Mutiple titles- check

strong competitive scene- check

casual audience - check

experience tuning the game for competitive play - check

experience banning characters that Nintendo doesn't see as broken - only Pokemon

They have some similarities despite beeing vastly different games. Only pokemon has experience dealing with and banning broken stuff Nintendo allowed.


Edit: Hylian now mains MK? Ok that does it now I'm a 100% behind banning him. And it will happen if the trend of everyone switching to him continues.

 

[Zankoku]

I figure a proper banning criteria would be:

If it gets to the point that there's no reason to not exclusively play Meta Knight.

 

[CR4SH]

There's currently no good reason to not exclusively play metaknight.

 

[Justblaze647]

I figure a proper banning criteria would be:

If it gets to the point that there's no reason to not exclusively play Meta Knight.

Seconded...

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

4thd


honestly there IS no good reason not to play exclusively MK... use simple logic here: you are playing to win, MK can never be in a disadvantaged position.... if you play MK your oponent will be forced to play the same charcter at you, or put himself at a disadvantage... real fair <_<

 

[Zankoku]

There's currently no good reason to not exclusively play metaknight.

If that were true already then Meta Knight would not just be a dominating force, he would be the only force, with the exception of maybe a few diehard fans of some other character.

 

[Fatmanonice]

B-banning? Pit and Olimar are broken? Good God... what happened to this topic... Seriously, I feel like drinking rubbing alcohol after reading some of the stuff posted on the last couple of pages.

Also, Master Knight DH, Olimar can only use his smash attacks, aerials, and grabs if he has Pikmin which can only be "created" by using the B button. Also, expecting the three Pikmin that are with Olimar at the beginning of the match to live the entire match is beyond ******** especially when his Pikmin automatically die when he loses a stock and they aren't that hard to kill especially if you're playing as someone like Snake or Donkey Kong.

 

[ZHMT]

Garchomp was recently banned from the OU Metagame in Pokemon, because he OVERCENTRALIZED it and he had NO COUNTERS. Its just better for the metagame. I see no difference with MK in brawl. There was no risk in using him and had no downfall.

 

[CR4SH]

I really think there needs to be more emphasis on the difference between "metaknight is never at a disadvantage" and "metaknight always has the advantage". Because, as it stands right now, if you aren't metaknight, the playing field is uneven. He goes into every match with an advantage, unless its metaknight, which IMO doesn't count.

If you could pick a character that did as well against meta as meta does against them, that would be different in my eyes. But as it stands, if one person is meta, and the other isn't, it's never a fair fight. Isn't that the antithesis of competitive?

If that were true already then Meta Knight would not just be a dominating force, he would be the only force, with the exception of maybe a few diehard fans of some other character.

Name one?

 

[Master Knight DH]

Sorry dewd, but that makes no sense. It's not like we have the Brawl source code and can go ahead and make arbitrary patches... ?? That's Nintendo's job (and they won't).

Understandable.

The Homebrew hack stuff can edit the game, but that will never be a part of tournament play, and your proposed patch doesn't exist. Or did I misunderstand something??

You have any better ideas?

Besides, this is Super Smash Bros., not Pokémon

Pokemon? Wha?

That's a pretty bad analogy, considering that pit's arrows aren't even remotely close to being broken.

They are so broken. Just like Grit, who--big surprise--camps like crazy. And you can't say they aren't, if you try dodging, you're just delaying the inevitable just like with the snipers in a certain game reviewed recently by the Angry Nintendo Nerd, he's gonna shoot you unless you put yourself into a prime position to get rammed by a Side B.

It's clear you don't know anything about priority, and anyways "how brawl could have been better balanced" really has nothing to do with this topic.

1) The priority physics are a mess. How does Falcon Kick get nullified by a move that is nullified by Raptor Boost? That makes no sense.
2) Let me guess: you missed the part where this has to do with Meta Knight?

I herd his A moves don't work when the pikmin die.

His Up B and Side B need Pikmin to work as attacks. Your point? Oh, that's right. You don't have one, because all of Olimar's natural attacks are A moves.

I think it was because it implies that you're a scrub who doesn't play to win, let alone play competitively,

You wonder why trolls are all like "no this, no that, Fox only, Final Destination." And no, I don't like the trolls in question either.

and that your opinion shouldn't really matter in this debate over a competitive banning of Metaknight.

So you're saying Meta Knight's priority is somehow not important when you've been saying it a million times? That makes no sense.

Not that I necessarily hold that opinion of you. But we're talking about competitive play, where people doing everything possible (and allowed) to win is fair game.

And here we have a topic debating whether or not Meta Knight should be banned. A little late for that.

Completely banning Metaknight's B-moves hurts his recovery ALOT.
Ban what, shuttle loop and tornado?

Meta Knight already has 6 jumps and gliding. His recovery is never going to be gimped.

Tornado has its vulnerabilities from above, and slightly, after it's blocked.

Tornado will be used from beneath or right in your face. You can't even block it, I have tried.

Shuttle loop's glide attack is vulnerable against a few characters' moves.

Shuttle Loop isn't that much of a problem on its own. Meta Knight's not losing that much there.

also...no, not really.

Says who? Not the Smash Wiki, that's for sure.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Also, Master Knight DH, Olimar can only use his smash attacks, aerials, and grabs if he has Pikmin which can only be "created" by using the B button. Also, expecting the three Pikmin that are with Olimar at the beginning of the match to live the entire match is beyond ******** especially when his Pikmin automatically die when he loses a stock and they aren't that hard to kill especially if you're playing as someone like Snake or Donkey Kong.

exactly why he was saying it would be so funny.... not that it should happen. he never said olimar was broken... just that it'd be funny to b-ban him.


And, ankoku... MK is getting there... look at his tourny victories. If you have enough of an advantage over your oponents, you don't NEED to pick MK to win... and a lot of people don't like playing as him because they feel so cheap. if it weren't for low profile tournies, MK WOULD hold all the recent wins

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Garchomp was recently banned from the OU Metagame in Pokemon, because he OVERCENTRALIZED it and he had NO COUNTERS. Its just better for the metagame. I see no difference with MK in brawl. There was no risk in using him and had no downfall.

except that MK is 10x worse for the metagame than garchomp. at least garchomp has counters and gets ***** by resistant ice-beam weilders


SORRY DOUBLE POST!!!!!

honestly the thread never moves slow enough for me to doubl post

*grumbles*

 

[Ulevo]

except that MK is 10x worse for the metagame than garchomp. at least garchomp has counters and gets ***** by resistant ice-beam weilders


SORRY DOUBLE POST!!!!!

honestly the thread never moves slow enough for me to doubl post

*grumbles*

At least Garchomp has counters?

See, topics like this go to crap because people go around posting comments related to assumptions.