The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Zankoku]

Modern is explicitly "only cards that were originally printed in the modern card border". Meta Knight is not an old character that's being banned because characters were too overpowered back then.

 

[ElDominio]

So me, a random new player to the scene googles "smash forum"
I see this thread and decide to view it
I then see how they are talking about a card game which I have absolutley no clue about
I then decide i'd rather keep playing it with my own group of friends

Now the community has lost another possibly great player

 

[popsofctown]

Modern is explicitly "only cards that were originally printed in the modern card border". Meta Knight is not an old character that's being banned because characters were too overpowered back then.

I give up.

 

[Strong Badam]

That's the spirit!

 

[Deleted member]

I give up.

This is what happens when you try to cross-compare bans in other games.

 

[popsofctown]

This is what happens when you try to cross-compare bans in other games.

I should know better by now.

 

[Cassio]

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=124825

If people still play, and they still want it to happen, then it's not too late.

I think he meant in regards to the rift it will cause.

My hope assuming MK isnt outright not banned is that theres some way for MK and MK banned tournaments to be run concurrently, because the alternative are competiting MK banned and not banned tournaments.

 

[popsofctown]

I think he meant in regards to the rift it will cause.

My hope assuming MK isnt outright not banned is that theres some way for MK and MK banned tournaments to be run concurrently, because the alternative are competiting MK banned and not banned tournaments.

you mean, more competing tournaments than we have at the moment.

 

[Spelt]

People are going to hold mk allowed tournaments after he's banned no matter what anyway.


>this post is implying he will actually be banned

>what a joke

 

[John12346]

Maybe immediately, but, assuming MK gets banned, it's very likely that MK-banned tournies will actually become the status quo, based on two facts.

Firstly, we have to consider the results of BOTH the AiB and SWF polls; both of which are cruised by entirely different userbases, yet both received ~75% in favor of a ban. Given this, it's extremely likely that many, MANY players will accept the change with open arms, and will be more inclined to attend MK-banned tournies only.

It's also very likely that TOs will ban MK if Unity were to ban it, even if the TOs in question don't exactly follow the Unity Ruleset, because they want to maintain the quo set by the ruleset. I know of at least 3 important TOs(off the top of my head) who don't follow Unity, but will ban MK if the ruleset were to do the same.

Secondly, considering TOs of quite different regions and regional tournaments are going to be running the Unity Ruleset(AKA the members of the BBRRC, and subsequently any TOs who voted pro-ban on the poll; remember, 75%), the scene will become more centric on a MK-free focused metagame, and suddenly, hosting MK legal tournies will become extremely inefficient to anyone looking to keep up with the metagame/status quo.

...imo. This is all subjective, mind you.

 

[popsofctown]

sufficiently encapsulated regions can still go against the grain though. That's why he's banned in my region even though Meta Knight is currently legal.

 

[Cassio]

People still citing 75%...

Anyways, I think people are ignoring the elephant in the room. Which is lowered attendance and a significant portion of people simply quitting if people are boycotting one tournament ruleset over the other. Inevitable.

MK has sort of been a scapegoat for brawls low attendance, but theres really no proof. Nor is there evidence that few people will leave while others wll magically come back. People are just hoping this is the case. So then, assuming MK is banned and 1/3rd of the community simply disappears and doesnt come back what then? Unlike before we'll know exactly why they left.

hosting MK legal tournies will become extremely inefficient to anyone looking to keep up with the metagame/status quo.

Unlikely. Leaving MK legel isnt the same as banning him. Unless youre an MK main...in which case they probably wouldnt be inclined to go to an MK banned tournament in the first place if there was an alternative.

 

[Ripple]

everyone already knows of at least 1 player who has quit and won't be playing until MK is banned unless there is already a MK banned tournament.

Me

 

[John12346]

I'd like to see this magical evidence that we're going to see a mass exodus of players in the face of a MK ban, because from my perspective, you have absolutely NO proof showing such a thing. My 75% thing might not be completely accurate, but it's at least showing an obvious trend of results(both polls have ended with ~75%). I have a *decent* indicator of how things are probably going to go in the face of a MK ban, and what do you have...?

You want some real data then? Alright, how about this?
- Only about 15% of the Brawl community actually uses MK(verified by Rajam's list).
- Not all MK users have voted anti-ban.
- Not all MK users use MK ALONE, meaning that most anti-ban MK users have a fallback character to use rather than quitting the game.
- Not all MK users who satisfy the above criteria are ultimately going to end up quitting the game.

So... we face a small fraction of a mere 15% of the community quitting the game. Are you going to tell me there's something wrong with that?

 

[popsofctown]

If only 15% of the community uses him, how is he such a massive overcentralization problem that he needs to be banned?

 

[DeLux]

I was about to ask that lol

 

[John12346]

Likely because out of a game of 37 characters, 15% usage is really high.

However, if you're going to try to throw overcentralization out the window, then we must question why MK rakes in the big bucks in comparison to other characters. It's either overcentralization, dominance, BOTH, or some other cause. If overcentralization doesn't turn out to be part of the reason, then we are left with dominance with our only available answer, unless another reason can be put forth...

 

[Steam]

If only 15% of the community uses him, how is he such a massive overcentralization problem that he needs to be banned?

because the other 85% pocket him.

/not serious post

but really there are a lot of people who aren't "MK users" that use him when needed.

even then i think when you start having to discuss manipulating the ruleset to nerf a character and such changes see great support (and some actually happen) that shows that the game overcentralized around that character.

and keep in mind MK is still as dominant as he is with all these nerfs in place like the LGL and the neutral stage list.

 

[Cassio]

lol, citing the poll more often doesnt make it more accurate, nor does it make it a trend.

And I never claimed that I had proof for an exodus of players. In fact I never even claimed there would be an exodus, I presented you with a scenario thats just as likely as the one you hope for. I find it to be a silly risk.

Unless youre referring to the split I said would be inevitable. I didnt emphasize it but I did qualify that with an if each side decides to boycott the other. Personally I see nothing wrong with holding both types of events as is happening at the moment. But I guess people want one way over the other to be 'official', which on is the best way to cause aformentioned divide.

Edit: At what point do you define it as "over"centralization. As was mentioned awhile back its not unknown for popular fighting games to have a character consistently taking many of the top spots even beyond what we see in brawl.

 

[Metakill]

1.- the overcentralization = MK mainers are the best players (?)
2.- 15% use MK but only Ally, ANTi and Mew2King make money at pro level.
3.- MK is dominant = (same as 1st one)
4.- The ruleset try to nerf MK, and it works, but the ruleset can't nerf Ally, ANTi and Mew2King.
5.- I expect -> "gtfo you main MK" so.... bye (:

 

[popsofctown]

Likely because out of a game of 37 characters, 15% usage is really high.

However, if you're going to try to throw overcentralization out the window, then we must question why MK rakes in the big bucks in comparison to other characters. It's either overcentralization, dominance, BOTH, or some other cause. If overcentralization doesn't turn out to be part of the reason, then we are left with dominance with our only available answer, unless another reason can be put forth...

Sure. 15% usage is a great high score. It's not so overcentralized as to make things boring though. .15 squared gives a 2.25% chance of having to ditto. As another character there's a 15% chance your opponent plays MK, which is a pittance, the low tier characters you included in your generous count of 37 characters are causing more centralization by sucking (collectively, yes) than MK is. If you consider only high tier up, which you should, because as I said earlier only Peach and Toon Link have a matchup spread that becomes justifiable with MK gone, MK should be played 7% of the time but is instead played 15% of the time. That's not a phenomenon, it's just a popular fellow. You could even argue he gets all of that 8% just by being fun to play.


He wins all the tournament money, but he's doing it in an environment where there's more than enough character diversity for people to be having fun. Referring to the tournament money statistic leads back to what pro-ban is all about: playing the same way they have, and winning more.

 

[John12346]

lol, citing the poll more often doesnt make it more accurate, nor does it make it a trend.

Yeah, and saying it's not correct over and over again doesn't mean it isn't, either. If we have two polls with SIMILAR results, what does that tell you...?

And I showed this list on the previous page that shows more information indicating that there won't be a massive drop in players, but maybe you didn't see it...?
- Only about 15% of the Brawl community actually uses MK(verified by Rajam's list).
- Not all MK users are anti-ban, but rather, pro-ban.
- Not all MK users use MK ALONE, meaning that most anti-ban MK users have a fallback character to use as an alternative to quitting the game.
- Not all MK users who satisfy the above criteria are ultimately going to end up quitting the game.

We have two polls (with response bias) showing a pattern of ~3/4 of the community in favor of the ban, as well as more information showing that we only stand to lose a small fraction of 15% of the community.

This alone is plenty of data to consider that there won't be a mass drop in players in the face of a MK ban.

2.- 15% use MK but only Ally, ANTi and Mew2King make money at pro level.

About this, that's not correct, I showed a chart a while back that showed how many different MK users have won money from tournaments with at least 45 entrants, AKA regionals and nationals, AKA high level play. There were a grand total of 30 DIFFERENT MONEY WINNING MK USERS out of a total of 28 tournaments.

I don't remember the exact number of different money winning users for the other characters, but I recall Snake being in the low 10s, and no one else breaking double digits.

He wins all the tournament money, but he's doing it in an environment where there's more than enough character diversity for people to be having fun.

Alright, then if overcentralization is not the reason for the enormous sums of money that MK has won from tournament, then... we can come to the conclusion that it is character dominance that allows MK to win the amount of money that he's been winning.

I still don't think that's exactly correct, though, I still feel it's somewhat a bit of both overcentralization and dominance.

 

[B.A.M.]

ey yo Ripple cant wait to get back into the scene so he can play more D3s. Good for him.

 

[Cassio]

Yeah, and saying it's not correct over and over again doesn't mean it isn't, either. If we have two polls with SIMILAR results, what does that even tell you...?

Having two polls with similar results doesnt tell me anything unless theyre done correctly. You simply want them to mean something, so you gave it significance yourself. But youre correct, my saying the poll is inaccurate does nothing to make it less accurate. Its unreliable by its own merits (or lack thereof). Repeat after me, voluntary polls are baaaaaaad, lol.

And I showed this list on the previous page that shows more information indicating that there won't be a massive drop in players, but maybe you didn't see it...?
- Only about 15% of the Brawl community actually uses MK(verified by Rajam's list).
- Not all MK users are anti-ban, but rather, pro-ban.
- Not all MK users use MK ALONE, meaning that most anti-ban MK users have a fallback character to use as an alternative to quitting the game.
- Not all MK users who satisfy the above criteria are ultimately going to end up quitting the game.

We have two polls (with response bias) showing a pattern of ~3/4 of the community in favor of the ban, as well as more information showing that we only stand to lose a small fraction of 15% of the community.

This alone is plenty of data to consider that there won't be a mass drop in players in the face of a MK ban.

Thats a rosy pair of glasses you got . But seriously, have you taken into account the people who will quit because their friends quit? What about attendance drops from a domino affect when big names like m2k and anti no longer are attending? What about non-mk mains who'd prefer to attend mk legal events should the groups conflict with each other? You honestly think 15% takes everything into account? Are you going to add random percents to try and account for this? And you really feel 15% as a minimum is insignificant? Suit yourself, just be aware that a pink elephant doesnt go away just because you put on the rose tinted glasses.

 

[popsofctown]

he's dominant. why should he be banned just because he's dominant? someone has to win, someone has to lose. From a utilitarian perspective, moving the wins around doesn't make the community as a whole happier. From a perspective of "let's not make any one minority be particularly unhappy", banning MK definitely loses out when all the MKs lose their main.

 

[Ghostbone]

Sure. 15% usage is a great high score. It's not so overcentralized as to make things boring though. .15 squared gives a 2.25% chance of having to ditto. As another character there's a 15% chance your opponent plays MK, which is a pittance, the low tier characters you included in your generous count of 37 characters are causing more centralization by sucking (collectively, yes) than MK is. If you consider only high tier up, which you should, because as I said earlier only Peach and Toon Link have a matchup spread that becomes justifiable with MK gone, MK should be played 7% of the time but is instead played 15% of the time. That's not a phenomenon, it's just a popular fellow. You could even argue he gets all of that 8% just by being fun to play.


He wins all the tournament money, but he's doing it in an environment where there's more than enough character diversity for people to be having fun. Referring to the tournament money statistic leads back to what pro-ban is all about: playing the same way they have, and winning more.

Sure in the first couple of rounds of a tournament, you might only expect to play MK 15% of the time, but as the tournament progresses, that number gets quite a lot higher.

People are having fun (if they aren't they shouldn't be at the tournament) but you have to consider if they'd have more fun without MK, and thus be more willing to go to more tournaments, and whether other players would be more willing to go.

People are tired of finals being MK ditto after MK ditto.

 

[popsofctown]

Sure in the first couple of rounds of a tournament, you might only expect to play MK 15% of the time, but as the tournament progresses, that number gets quite a lot higher.

People are having fun (if they aren't they shouldn't be at the tournament) but you have to consider if they'd have more fun without MK, and thus be more willing to go to more tournaments, and whether other players would be more willing to go.

People are tired of finals being MK ditto after MK ditto.

Finals is one set out of 31 sets that will be played in a 32 man tournament. (I can't do the maths for double elim, but you get the point.) If you want to spectate non-dittos, there will be plenty of matches for that.

If your claim is even valid. I don't think MK ditto finals are really that common. I just went through the first 5 tournament results threads with character listings and couldn't find any MK ditto finals (an MK makes first and second).

 

[-Ran]

Let's pretend that we're at a national with pools. The characters that make it out of pools are the ones that make 2% of the money or better. This means that the likelihood of fighting a Meta Knight has jumped to 34.7%. If we then decide that at quarter finals that the characters are the ones that have won 4% or more money, this pushes Meta Knight's usage to 46.3%.

[Data: Ripple's character usage. John's winning chart, full split.]

 

[John12346]

Having two polls with similar results doesnt tell me anything unless theyre done correctly. You simply want them to mean something, so you gave it significance yourself. But youre correct, my saying the poll is inaccurate does nothing to make it less accurate. Its unreliable by its own merits (or lack thereof). Repeat after me, voluntary polls are baaaaaaad, lol.

Feh, I could just as easily say that you DON'T want these polls to mean anything, same logic, and it honestly means nothing. You don't have anything that says the contrary to the idea that there IS a trend in the data, showing that, at the very least, an enormous portion of the community does not want MK legal anymore.

But seriously, have you taken into account the people who will quit because their friends quit? What about attendance drops from a domino affect when big names like m2k and anti no longer are attending? What about non-mk mains who'd prefer to attend mk legal events should the groups conflict with each other? You honestly think 15% takes everything into account? Are you going to add random percents to try and account for this? And you really feel 15% as a minimum is insignificant?

Protip: I said that 15% is the MAXIMUM amount of people we will lose, and considering that not all MK users are even anti-ban, and even more MK users have fallback secondaries, it's blatantly obvious that percentage is going to severely drop to some seriously low percentages, like 2 or 3%, tbqh...

To try and topple this kind of information with the notion that people will quit just because top players and friends are going to quit... you're really grasping here... Here's a newsflash, Anti already DID quit Brawl, and OMG, people are still attending tournaments!

Anyway, that aside, when we combine the fact that a huge amount of players want MK banned (75% with an uncertainty range of 10% in EITHER direction), as well as the fact that we stand to lose an extremely small percentage of a mere 15% of the community, how the heck can you possibly claim this insane drop in players in the face of a MK ban?

he's dominant. why should he be banned just because he's dominant? someone has to win, someone has to lose. From a utilitarian perspective, moving the wins around doesn't make the community as a whole happier. From a perspective of "let's not make any one minority be particularly unhappy", banning MK definitely loses out when all the MKs lose their main.

Dominant to the point where he's winning 3 to 5 times the amount of money Snake is winning from tourney? That's defo. a problem.

 

[popsofctown]

Let's pretend that we're at a national with pools. The characters that make it out of pools are the ones that make 2% of the money or better. This means that the likelihood of fighting a Meta Knight has jumped to 34.7%. If we then decide that at quarter finals that the characters are the ones that have won 4% or more money, this pushes Meta Knight's usage to 46.3%.

[Data: Ripple's character usage. John's winning chart, full split.]

The money isn't evenly distributed across the players. The Meta Knight players are more likely to win. A small number of MKs can get out of pools and still win 50% of the money. It's not a safe assumption to say folks who got out of pools make 2% of the money.

By the time you get to quarter finals and semi finals, then yes you're approximating his usage pretty well with that money-popularity relationship. But that's just a fraction of the games that will be played in the tournament. And you still have a 3/4 chance of getting to watch at least one non-MK character.

If you view Brawl as a spectator sport, then yeah, MK being dominant matters a lot and it's definitely an issue, quarterfinals and up get a disproportionate amount of spectatorship because they have more hype. I think people enjoy playing it more, though, and I don't think spectating is a sufficiently important component that 15% of players have to stop playing their character so that 25% of quarter final spectators can be assured they won't have to watch an MK ditto.

Dominant to the point where he's winning 3 to 5 times the amount of money Snake is winning from tourney? That's defo. a problem.

You're just explaining that the degree of dominance is severe. I'm asking you why dominance itself is bad.

 

[Cassio]

Feh, I could just as easily say that you DON'T want these polls to mean anything, same logic, and it honestly means nothing. You don't have anything that says the contrary to the idea that there IS a trend in the data, showing that, at the very least, an enormous portion of the community does not want MK legal anymore.

Umm, you serious here? Like dozens of people including myself have said multiple times, there is no statistical significance in a voluntary poll. You learn that on like, the first or second day of any stats course. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I hate repeating this point over and over. It doesnt matter what I want them to mean because its just a matter of fact that they hold little to no statistical significance.

Protip: I said that 15% is the MAXIMUM amount of people we will lose, and considering that not all MK users are even anti-ban, and even more MK users have fallback secondaries, it's blatantly obvious that percentage is going to severely drop to some seriously low percentages, like 2 or 3%, tbqh...

To try and topple this kind of information with the notion that people will quit just because top players and friends are going to quit... you're really grasping here... Here's a newsflash, Anti already DID quit Brawl, and OMG, people are still attending tournaments!

Even after I said youd add random percents to account for random factors...you still did it anyways . My point wasnt to give exact percent to how many people would leave the community. My point is you have no way to account for everything and you cant just toss random percents at them. This is a gamble, pure and simple. The idea that you're even trying to come up with a specific percent only further proves the delusion.

Anyway, that aside, when we combine the fact that a huge amount of players want MK banned (75% with an uncertainty range of 10% in EITHER direction), as well as the fact that we stand to lose an extremely small percentage of a mere 15% of the community, how the heck can you possibly claim this insane drop in players in the face of a MK ban?

MOE only works for real polls. lmao at that random 10% range 'either way' though.

 

[DMG]

Who gives a ****?

You can't reasonably predict how many people would quit Brawl if MK were gone, how many people would come back, how many people would quit cause the game would still be dying, how many people would quit because their best MU is against MK and now they can't deal with other stuff, how many people would still play Brawl but would switch to a more dominating character with MK gone, etc.

You don't know. I don't know. God and jesus almighty don't know. Give it a rest EVERYONE!

Just focus on whetehr banning him is the right choice. Not thjis

 

[-Ran]

Polls by nature are generally voluntary. Are you discrediting polls in general? If so, why?

 

[John12346]

Umm, you serious here? Like dozens of people including myself have said multiple times, there is no statistical significance in a voluntary poll. You learn that on like, the first or second day of any stats course. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I hate repeating this point over and over. It doesnt matter what I want them to mean because its just a matter of fact that they hold little to no statistical significance.

If you're going to try that, then you're going to have to explain to me how exactly this voluntary bias could've affected the end result, because as far as I see it, any standard deviation caused by the effects of voluntary bias would ALWAYS cause the results to stay within a massive supermajority of pro-ban sentiment.

And even worse, you have no way of showing that this standard deviation would cause the percentages to decrease as far as you would like them to. For all we know, the percentages could stay the same or even possibly RISE with more voters, unless you have some idea that says otherwise...

Even after I said youd add random percents to account for random factors...you still did it anyways . My point wasnt to give exact percent to how many people would leave the community. My point is you have no way to account for everything and you cant just toss random percents at them. This is a gamble, pure and simple. The idea that you're even trying to come up with a specific percent only further proves the delusion.

Okay, fine, if you really want to play it that way...

We have 15% of the Smash community using MK in some way, shape, or form. This is fact.
We also know that quite a few MK users are, infact, pro-ban, as stated by quite a few MK users in Metagame and Ruleset, as well as the MK boards. This is fact.
We also know that a large amount of MK users use characters aside from MK, as denoted by Rajam's national power rankings list. This is also fact.

I'm not giving an exact number, because that's impossible, but given this, it's pretty obvious that an extremely low amount of MK users are actually going to quit the game. An extremely low amount of 15% of the community, mind you.

 

[popsofctown]

If you're going to try that, then you're going to have to explain to me how exactly this voluntary bias could've affected the end result, because as far as I see it, any standard deviation caused by the effects of voluntary bias would ALWAYS cause the results to stay within a massive supermajority of pro-ban sentiment.

*twitch*

We have 15% of the Smash community using MK in some way, shape, or form. This is fact.
We also know that quite a few MK users are, infact, pro-ban, as stated by quite a few MK users in Metagame and Ruleset, as well as the MK boards. This is fact.
We also know that a large amount of MK users use characters aside from MK, as denoted by Rajam's national power rankings list. This is also fact.

I'm not giving an exact number, because that's impossible, but given this, it's pretty obvious that an extremely low amount of MK users are actually going to quit the game. An extremely low amount of 15% of the community, mind you.

I do play ball for both teams.

I have to say this is pretty true. My state lost one player in the ban. It didn't snowball. I'd expect other places to still have a pretty large fraction of MKs stick around.

 

[Ghostbone]

So ummm

What do people think of, having two stage bans which reset each game, no DSR, with an updated rule saying you can't CP the same stage twice. (excluding gentleman's clause).

 

[Supreme Dirt]

I know that my region's top player, TO Joe, is quitting if MK is banned.

And... that's basically it.

If MK isn't banned, I know I am quitting after Apex, my region's best only Peach is quitting, and I'm sure there's a number of others.

 

[Omni]

[Data: Ripple's character usage. John's winning chart, full split.]

The fact that you're using John's "winning chart" in the RC scares me.

 

[Orion*]

You really are an idiot. Majority of these ppl haven't taken a legit statistics course in their life ( talking about the community) so they don't even read john numbers data right. Yes skill matters; the more skill you have in a game the more you understand the game.

+everything else

We are on the same page
<3u

complete adaptability to the point of face rolling

The pick metaknight -> Do significantly better train has been LONGGGG played out. The amount it actually effects placings is extremely negligible, and we there's data that shows that, Not a hunch, and Not a list of numbers.

Shoutouts to PS's pocket MK that he's had forever losing to peach btw. LMAO
High level player can't pick up a faceroller? Don't get me wrong, MK isn't that hard to play. But you don't see people just randomly picking him up and winning.

PLENTY of high level players, and respected players voted.

How do you know?

- Not all MK users have voted anti-ban.

Votes are supposed to be anonymous

lmao

It increases game depth, in theory. In practice I'm not sure it actually does, though.

In practice as far as Japan and EU goes it shows that they both have a healthier metagame AND both communities as far as videos/streams go are more "hype" (/opinion of some).

Oh, okay. Let's only do brackets without pools and stop having entry fees for our tournaments, then. Clearly they know what's up.

I've definitely seen Japanese tournaments with pool results.
The money is just a cultural thing and shouldn't even be talked about like it's some ruleset.

I try to run pools at all of my events regardless of how many people attend, it's great for people trying to get better. Only time I won't is when there's a lack of setups or time restraints

This

I'll keep you all from talking in circles: We've done more work than just a simple poll. Just because you've only seen one aspect of what we've used to gain more knowledge on the subject, doesn't mean you have the full story. There will be disclosure of the information when we reach the point of our decision being made/released.

In other words, nobody has significant input to the small amount of active posters in the BBRC. Don't get me wrong I appreciate you putting in the work, but it's still ridiculous on 2 points.

1. This Community *****es abouut EVERYTHING way to much.
2. What's being discussed isn't open

If it makes you feel better, both Lucas and Ness can be hindered by the tilting of Lylat Cruise.

So is MK

Majority of stage depth in this game comes from when to camp or what place you can use a ridiculously strong brainless tactic.

InB4 BPC tells you RC is a good stage

The 2012 was referring to if we're even going to be alive LOL. I was joking about waiting.

LMAO
******

yo i love winning on turn 0 with Flash Hulk

XDDDD

 

[R e d X]

So ummm

What do people think of, having two stage bans which reset each game, no DSR, with an updated rule saying you can't CP the same stage twice. (excluding gentleman's clause).

I think something like this is the right idea. I think a compromise between the anti and pro-ban sides need to be made. Something that nerfs MK to less than he is now but still keeps him usable. That way both sides kind of win. Whether it be something like only letting people use him one game in a set or tweaking the stage system. I know these ideas are vague and kinda dumb, so don;t quote me on them, but I'm just trying to get across the idea that I think banning him is a bit much but that simply leaving him as is is also not such a good idea. I think a compromise would work.