Then you haven't fought good enough players with those characters.
Why are you saying "you haven't fought good enough players with those characters"? I'm not an MK main.
Regardless, the point is that after extensive testing, for all of the characters, your assertion was found to be dead wrong.
Again, check the little icon, I can easily reference you to the Marth discussion where we confirmed that Marth is outranged by MK and just can't control him on the ground. Do you think you know more about Marth then Emblem Lord?
Snake was a long-going fallacy of the Smash community, but that was because MK players were jumping into the ****. MK outranges Snake, he's got better rushdown, can harass Snake's recovery, etc. I was one of the earlier players to notice this (credit to EL for pointing it out), and if you check my backlog you can see me explaining it in depth on several occasions.
The others are similar cases, you simply don't understand how high-leveled matches develop. You might want to just read the character boards for explanations as to why their characters do not do well against MK.
Except the Fox boards, their new match-up thread is... poor, very poor.
Saying no to falco just shows You make no sense. He has a free 0-50 % on every single MK life. Only 50 % left to go then he is in kill range.
Pretty much because we had the exact same discussion on the topic of Marth v. Falco.
Sure he can do a reasonable amount on grab, but against a properly spaced MK, grabs are unreasonably tough, you can't expect a grab every game, let alone at the beginning of each stock (see the earlier wario vs. MK tangent, and the Ganondorf board's Wario discussion for same issue). Falco's grab range just isn't enough.
Sure it keeps him out of a certain spacing with Falco, but that spacing ISN'T GOOD FOR MK ANYWAY. Falco needs closer spacing to function effectively in this match-up because MK outranges him considerably. Not to mention his melee game is considerably worse.
All Falco's got over MK is the lasers (which is useful, but like in the Marth match-up, MK is too fast for it to hold him back, and he covers too much space to make it limit his approaches to anything disadvantageous) and the Shine (which is very punishable).
Sure, he's got the chaingrab and the range, but MK outclasses him by a great enough margin that it's just not enough.
Give me proof, something the community has done that demonstrates they'll just abandon a character because he's banned. I know this is difficult due to never having had one banned before, but I'd say the Item Standard Play thing is close -- even with the majority of tournaments having items banned, people took the time and effort to work through items and see what were fair. And the banned items can be re-evaluated as the situation changes. This shouldn't be happening if you're correct about banned aspects of the game never, ever being re-inspected. All you're doing without some evidence is stating your opinion that nobody will seriously play MK again if he's banned.
Items standard play is not at the highest levels of play. Sure they might eventually attract high-leveled players, but any results it has will not hold for the top levels of play.
Same for a banned character. This just reinforces my point. You'll have low-leveled players exploring this type of thing whereas the high-leveled players will merely ignor it.
I have the following facts:
People don't want Meta Knight banned.
People want to be allowed to main Meta Knight in a tournament.
If Meta Knight is banned, people will want him unbanned.
Taken all together, these indicate to me that people will test against him still. Even if they won't do it for checking up on him, it's likely that some will because he's going to provide them a hard matchup and that can be good practice. And once a TO decides maybe people have learned enough, there will likely be random tournies that had him banned allowing him in again for a while until they can see if they're right or not. It's started going that way for banning, what evidence do you have beyond your opinion that it won't go the other way for unbanning as well?
*sigh*
The issue has nothing to do with existence... it has to do with VOLUME AND QUALITY OF PLAYERS INVOLVED. This was my issue from the very beginning.
Neither of which will apply once MK is banned. Do you seriously think M2K will be playing MK seriously if he's banned?
I prefer people with good arguments.
Probably from the truth. Sonic players live a fantasized existence.
Stop overgeneralizing. Scrub Sonic players do not accept he's a poor character. Most know and deal with his issues.
is it really THAT hard to unban him?
Yes, because as I pointed, figuring out when he's balanced and finding things that make him balanced are just about impossible.
I think a lot of people actually take issue with putting Garchomp in Uber in the first place. Taking a debatable ban by a notoriously draconian community as an example won't really prove the point against more libertarian elements of our community.
I would also like to point out that Garchomp isn't totally banned. He's just limited to a certain metagame enviroment. He sees play in ubers.
so that means lrn2read before calling things stupid. and...
