I'm gonna be quite pessimistic here for a second (but I do acknowledge what you explained above):
1. What if he never gets to that "point" to reach? How good can he possibly get without hitting "Too Good"?
He can be as good as we allow him to be.
IThink of it as trying to go down the entire list of Pi. He's just going to constantly get better and better, but at such slow increments that he never really gets to the "Too Good", but he'll always be "Good Enough" to overcentralize everything.
What makes you think he's the only one who's going to become better? As he learns to battle all other characters, all other characters will learn to battle him. If a way to battle him exists, it will be found. Why will Meta be the only one to improve?
IMeta Knight = 3.14
Too Good = 3.15
What if he never reaches that point, but continues to inch closer and closer?
We won't ban him 'til he reaches that point. We cannot ban him on
speculation.
I 2. What if he becomes so popular, that everyone (completely unlikely, but so long as we're using IF...) switches over. I mean, EVERYONE. The other 30-something characters' meta-games become frozen in place, and all that's left is MK. However, he still isn't "Too Good", he's only overcentralizing the game.
Then we can't ban him just because he's over-centralizing the game. Those people will probably flock to the next best thing once he's banned, anyway.
IDoes he deserve the ban at that point or not? He's not "Too Good", but he's simply "Good Enough" to have the best chances at winning any tournament with. So why bother with any other character if my best chance is with MK?
Will we ban anyone who becomes too popular no matter if they're "too good" or even close to it?
IOverall, this entire situation is just lame. I hate how good Meta Knight is (notice I didn't say too good)...
I don't even play Meta Knight. I play him, like, once every 2 months. I don't even like him.
I'll do that when you can find me a word that's like "almost" or "most" that doesn't confuse you.
How about spelling it out with more than one word? It's not me you're confusing, it's
anyone who knows English. If you don't want people "misinterpreting" your words, stop using the
wrong one.
Everyone who plays Brawl has had a first-hand experience with it so I don't see how you can't see how Brawl is much slower and Brawl is extremely low-tech (of which I mention in my post). Because it's slower and much less technical the characters themselves weigh more when factoring who wins in matchups. Every other fighting game has had some way, shape or form of base technical skill needed to pull off moves or ways to increase movement while Brawl has little to none. There may be some things in Brawl that may need a swift motion whenever you're trying to do a specific tech but, for the most part there's pretty much no tech skill involved. No cancels, no ways to increase movement or speed-- elements of a fighting game that would make it deep and competitive and more reliant on the player than the character.
Mind games? Mix ups? Human error? Not being predictable (again, mind games)? Player styles? It's like you think all Metas play the exact same way, all Snakes play the exact same way and they always, always leave the same openings and make the same mistakes.
I called it BS because I missed my own post.
Yet you told me to re-read it. When someone says you said something you don't think you said and it's within easy reach, you should recheck yourself instead of attacking them. It saves you from a lot of humiliation.
But I was wrong because I forgot I said "smashes" when I did and I admitted I was wrong. So, your post then isn't BS, obviously, I just made a mistake.
I believe this is the first time time you actually admit that I did no wrong and came even close to apologizing.
There's nothing else I can do. You're just being butthurt because I called it BS even though we both know it isn't.
I'm still not seeing a direct apology.
I apologize when I make a mistake and then attack my opponents despite being wrong.
Do I need to spell it out for you like a baby to make you feel "all better"
And instead of taking the high road and just apologizing, you instead have the
nerve to be condescending when
you were the one who did wrong.
The reason I was pointing out that I was comparing to 2D fighters was in response to my own words about ring-out 'gimps' in 3D fighters, not to anything you said. Don't worry about it. Oh, and I said myself that I was using hyperbole. I'm sure Meta could 10% gimp a Marth using the lip of FD, though. That's what makes Smash so different from other 2D fighters: many things are simply situational.
Then we're back to 3D fighters. Smash is a 2D-3D hybrid. It looks mostly 2D but plays mostly like a 3D fighter (yes it does).
MK gimping Marth on FD's lip is tantamount to Ivy ringouting people from halfway across the stage in Soul Calibur III. But nothing in that shows how Smash is so different that a 60-40 in Brawl is so much different froma 60-40 in, say, SCIII.
When we write our match-ups, we analyze them down to the smallest matter. We then gauge the speculated win ratio in the match-up. We do this from as objectively and analytic a stadpoint as possible. Thus, in a perfect world, a 60-40 in SCIII would be the same as a 60-40 in Brawl.
No, it's not a strawman. Again, you misunderstood. The SBR would have the foresight not to invoke #2 unless it was absolutely necessary.
Why even bring it up as an argument if it's so invalid it should only be used when it's "absolutely necessary". And I personally disagree on it. Banning someone for mere popularity is bad and is a bad precedence.
They would also, as an insightful governmental body, refrain from using #2 again in the future unless it was again necessary.
Everyone flocking to someone else and that someone dominating the results? I could see it happening.
We think this because the SBR has a good track record about judgement. If we, as a community, felt otherwise, we wouldn't listen to them. So, the difference in you and I is in how dangerous the precident would be. I think that in the right hands (the SBR), it wouldn't be dangerous at all because it would be handled properly and with care.
The SBR doing it for the wrongs reasons is still the wrong reasons. Argue it as if you're defending the SBR's decision to ban MK with criteria 2, then.
What makes criteria 2 so viable a criteria and not total hogwash?
Give a magnum to a trained expert and professional, and I guarantee you that in his hands it's only dangerous when he wants it to be; otherwise, it's as harmless as a small rock.
This has nothing to do with this situation and is a strawman and you
know it.
It's more like:
Give the power to jail people at will to a group of trained lawmen and you will have justice system. Give it to the ignorant masses and you might get chaos.
You still have to argue the validity of criteria 2.
