Ghostbone, c'mon, MK is (most likely) overcentralizing and too good, but don't use the data that doesn't even have a month's worth of tournaments in it yet... wait until at least the end of February before you start throwing it around, k?
Just out of curiosity, how many nationals/major regionals have there been since APEX and the last two MLGs? We're talking about a major tournament where there were as many MKs as
Sonics in top-8, and the top MK-slayer of the world wasn't even present! Granted, neither was M2K, but that's hardly enough to discredit the tournament.
MK is good, we've gotten that far. But even if he has no bad or even matchups,
he's still clearly not broken. Not only are there people choosing other characters (and I mean, a
lot), there are people
winning with other characters. Who knows, maybe he
does have a bad matchup. Maybe fox beats him on more than just FD. Maybe Sonic-MK isn't as clear-cut as we thought. Maybe diddy kong just needs to step his game up. Even if that's not the case, the metagame is vibrant and alive. Hell, just look at europe! Germany has more Sheiks in the PR than MKs! France and Denmark are run by marths (granted, denmark has a few top MKs, but the only truly notable one is an import from NJ). If there's any noteworthy MK at all, it's usually that one guy at the top of the PR (Orion, Staco). And even then, you still have upsets, like Ravenlord placing 5th at a major national going
lucas only (the only time he picked another character, he lost). You see DKs, Olimars, Sheiks, Peaches, Links, TLs... The metagame is vibrant to excess. To even
imagine that banning metaknight would be an improvement is ridiculous. Granted, we don't have as many randoms to john about it, so...
No they don't, you asked me to demonstrate a situation where a game was better off being less deep, but what makes a game better is subjective hence it is not possible. I could perhaps if I tried hard, demonstrate an instance or two in which you would actually consider a game being better of for competition after being simplified but that would require me using your values in order for you to accept it which would be pointless and counterproductive. I'm trying to get you off your high horses because they are crippling you intellectually.
"My values"? Pointing to direct causation is not something only I do... Go ahead, try hard. Give me
one example. That's all it'd take to prove me wrong, really.
The issue is, there isn't one. There is a direct link between "Effective Depth" and "Competitiveness of the game". Granted, not 100% perfect (as things such as randomness can come into play), but given a sufficiently non-random environment (almost all video games) and given a sufficiently even starting playing field (again, almost all video games-I can't think of a counter-example)
Furthermore it should be obvious that I never intended to advocate direct democracy but rather a kind Parliamentary system which brings BBR to mind.
K, how you gonna figure that out? Let people vote for others, I imagine? Again, what if they vote for some idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about? It's not only very possible, it's extremely
likely when top players such as ADHD, M2K, and Ally are so incredibly clueless as to what competitive actually means (hint: it's not "banning every stage you don't like"), and such an incredibly large number of people don't understand the differences in the skills required between making a ruleset and winning a game of brawl.
Beyond that? There aren't that many people who are qualified for the job, and 99% of them are either randoms (Raziek, me, ghostbone, etc.) or not well known outside of their branch (AA, Thinkaman). And if they aren't chosen democratically, people are going to follow the exact same pattern we've seen with the BBR rulesets: ***** and moan incessantly about it, then ignore it completely.
But even then, let's imagine that they
do get elected, or, more realistically, that the people choose other people who are actually qualified to decide what the correct ruleset is (and boy, let me tell you, THAT is a stretch). Why would
anyone from the opposition listen? They're going to take their toys and go home! If a mass of the midwest and southern players vote in liberals, Atlantic North is going to take its toys and go home! Same with the opposite. Granted, this is present everywhere, but it's especially going to be an issue in any democratic method.
And again sorry if I come off as very arrogant : / Usually no one replies to me when I try and post seriously so I'm probably not the best at formulating myself.
Nah, you're fine. It's nice to have to argue with someone who's on a similar level to me for once. You're one of the first people to actually challenge me.
Well, we all know this thread is about MK, directly or indirectly. Personally, I think a character should be banned when there is no justifiable reason to use any character but them. In other words, characters with no disadvantageous matchups. MK fits this perfectly, and a lot of people say his ONLY even matchups are on FD, which can be banned in a tournament setting.
Personal preference, personal knowledge, counterpicking a character with a different character who's even better (If your opponent is going Fox, would you rather be MK, or ZSS?)... Either way, those first two are enough to allow for a massive variety of characters used at all levels.
It can be argued Brawl is centralized on MK, but even I don't think it is. HOWEVER, banning shouldn't be based on the over-centralization of a character. Many people deliberately refrain from using certain characters as a form of protest BECAUSE the character is broken. This prevents the game from being centralized around the character, thus this prevents the character from being banned. In other words, These attempts to ban the character prevent the character from being banned.
...So... what's the problem? If the metagame, even at the
highest possible level, hasn't centralized around MK... I mean, it's one thing to be a scrub and say, "Nah, I'm not gonna go with the broken character". But to do that when there are thousands of dollars on the line? That's somehow just a little ridiculous to assume.
Characters should be banned depending on whether the game has the POTENTIAL to centralize around that character. At this point in the game, a large amount of people purposely refrain from using MK. If these players STOPPED protesting MK, and decided to use him, would he be banned because of this centralization? That system is entirely flawed.
"Potential"? Wut? Potential is
meaningless. Even if it were meaningful, "Let's cross that bridge when we get there" is by far the better way to deal with the issue. But potential... What potential? What's potentially possible?
I'd suggest a simple vote. Look at how many people use the character in question, then make a vote regarding the character's ban. If more than half want him banned, BAN THE CHARACTER. If less than half want him banned, examine how many of the voters probably used the character. If it's 60:40 against the ban, and 50% of the players main that character, then the chances are that 80% of people who DON'T use the character, DO want him banned. Therefore, I would say ban that character.
Yep, and this totally removes any trace of misinformation or bias from the vote. There's no WAY that DK, Pit, and Peach mains will think "yeah, he might not be broken, but our chances of winning sure do rise if he's gone". Nah, all it does is shift the weight of the bias-both sides can be biased, but only one side's bias has any effect.
It's supposed to read, Imagine a game where all the characters are unique. There happens to be one character who goes between 55-45 and 60-40 with the whole cast (usually leaning towards 55-45) with a few exceptions in low tier going 70-30 or worse his way. Almost no character, and certainly no character who would be viable without him there, has him as their worst matchup. Is it still right to ban him? 
