Why MK should NOT be banned (the opinion from someone who actually fights them)

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The whole reason for people like you wanting MK banned is all because you don't no how to fight him. You learn how to fight against other so called "broken" or "cheap" characters like Diddy and Snake, so why is MK any different?

Ah, new poster to smashboards on the argument.

How long have you lurked? How much do you play against high-level MKs? How often do you play against decent MKs? How much do you know about how metaknight works?

 

[kackamee]

Ah, new poster to smashboards on the argument.

How long have you lurked? How much do you play against high-level MKs? How often do you play against decent MKs? How much do you know about how metaknight works?

I lol'd.

I ACTUALLY considered going back to Melee after reading this thread. Because now MK's never going to be banned.

 

[ShadowLink84]

"Kabal is far and beyond the #1 character in the game".
He essentially dictates the match and really the only way to beat Kabal is to frustrate him and force mistakes.

EDIT: Oops, I was looking at the UMK3 Trierlist.
Kabal isn't as broken in Trilogy as in UMK3.
Noob Saibot & Rain are slightly better than Kabal in Trilogy.
Still, his Spin Dash is godly in both games nontheless.

his spindash is indeed godly but it wasnt anywhere as godly as it used to be in UMK3.
I was thinking of trilogy hence why he is nowhere near as broken as he used to be in UMK3.
At least in trilogy, the usage of subzero is a viable method of dealing with Kabal due to the nerfs that he suffered in transition.


Otherwise I definitely would not have argued in regards to Kabal being broken.

 

[LuigiMax]

This whole thread is full of none actual reasons for not banning metaknight.

First of all, just because X person can beat several top player metaknights does not mean that it should not be banned. The competitive scene is all about everyone and not just one person who has the skills to do so. The reason why people want him banned is due to the unfair things that he brings to the competitive scene in terms of every characters and not just diddy. His ability to be unfair against pretty much everyone on the cast is what's making a "boring game" into an "unfair/none competitive" game.

Example:

One of our top players from Puerto Rico is a Dedede player and he was fighting this noobish metaknight and he pretty much have the match won. The metaknight player counterpicked raimbow cruise and all he just did was tornado+run and re aply. He won sooooo unfair and scrubish.

Metaknight is the reason of why It does not take skills to win in Brawl. Havent you noticed that there is less and less people at local tournaments?? Pound was full because it was the biggest tournament there was.

If metaknight were banned, other character's metagame would evolve a lot and there will be more open spots for the lower tiers to rise up and I know for sure that any other characters on the cast has more than just 1 bad matchup in wich case they would be beatable with anyother character. Snake, diddy, dedede, marth, wario, and other tiers has bad matchups wich will lead to some closer matchups and most important, more people with lower tier characters as mains will travel to tournaments.

 

[Ripple]

MK is not the low tier's worst match over all.

snake, DDD, and G&W all ***** the low tier harder than MK

 

[B.A.M.]

this conversation is pointless because apparently Jack dictates what it means to be in the lower end of play and what strategies are high level or not. Oh and apparently hes the only person in the world aware of people being naturally better than others. I mean this is ridiculous, we cant speak for the average player thats so arbitrary. Banning MK for the sake of the lower end of the competitive spectrum is stupid. It is far better to teach them the matchup because again I really believe there are certain weakness that people can learn to punish relatively easily. Hes the best character in the game statistically. I mean think about it, how many characters worse matchups are MK mid tier on top(sorry Rob)? MK is only destroying those who just dont know the matchup. If you look at the matchup ratios, you would see hes always a hard matchup, but moreso than not he isnt ur worse matchup. Plus people have made numerous of progress on this matchup and this is with the myriad of MK mains attempt to counteract our strategies.

Ive watched larry destroy MK so easily even handle pro MKs. People that are of his skill level. It can be done and im sorry with brawl having little tech skill for the most part, all these strategies can be picked up by an average competitive player. So you cant make an excuse for the lower end of the spectrum, because at the lower end of the spectrum "broken" character entails the entire top tier. We can only stand for the top of the metagame, while trying to bring our community alongside with us skill-wise.

Banning MK will give our community an initial boom ex: HOBO, ( and thats assuming no MK mains quit) then it will come back down because there are worse matchups just as well as better matchups than MK. Over centralization is the ONLY legitimate argument. However I do believe its quite clear as why our community suffered that effect. Everyone for the most part believed MK was indeed unbeatable. Nado spam and dsmash ruled our community and people didnt know what to do. So they picked him up; thinking they would even the playing field. Low and behold everyone learns bit by bit the MK matchup and the average MK isnt so invincible anymore. However it is their main; most people are just going to try and stick it thru with MK ( he still is the best character in the game). It should be quite evident to everyone who has been in this Brawl community since the beginning that we are still suffering that backlash of the BRZOKEN NADO LOOP SMASH Era. People hop on bandwagons (nerds especially lol) its really that simple. These events have all been propagated by our initial depiction of MK.

People just cry about the MK match up because isnt an advantage for anyone even though their character has worse. We all can say MK is somewhat difficult for our character (misery loves company). I dont know about anyone said character but I think mine is making progress. We as a community need to grow.

 

[B.A.M.]

DOUBLE POST: Because Ripple knows whats up.

 

[Karcist]

The whole reason for people like you wanting MK banned is all because you don't no how to fight him. You learn how to fight against other so called "broken" or "cheap" characters like Diddy and Snake, so why is MK any different?

Strong first post.

Snake and Diddy Kong are not broken at all and MK is, simple as that.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I officially change my stance from pro-ban to anti-ban.

Good work, ADHD.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Just b/c M2K has little experience with the Diddy MU and ADHD has a really good grasp of the MK MU. People also need to look at the top players and see who they are and not just the symbols beside their name, because some of them have their own personal MU's. It just happens that M2K doesn't do so well against Diddy, and Ally has somewhat hard time against Marth IIRC. However, I'd love to see M2K get more Diddy experience and beat more Diddys, just like he did with the Snake MU. MK has no bad MU's, that is a fact. MK players have bad MU's, that's why ADHD was able to win Pound, it was all about the players in the bracket. I'm sure other top players might be able to beat ADHD, but ADHD didn't have to fight any of those people.

 

[Chuee]

Snake's worst MU is 55-45
Diddy's worst is about 55-45
MK's is 50-50
That's not a significant difference. At least not enough to make him broken enough to ban.
@RPSI: Then neither does snake or diddy. Even MU's aren't bad. Also, ADHD beat Havok, Ksizzle, and M2K. He might have lost to Ally, but he's probably the only one that could've beaten ADHD.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Let's ban all of them :D [/sarcasm]

I really just wanted to point out that ADHD winning pound doesn't mean MK is any worse.

 

[BSP]

If metaknight were banned, other character's metagame would evolve a lot and there will be more open spots for the lower tiers to rise up and I know for sure that any other characters on the cast has more than just 1 bad matchup in wich case they would be beatable with anyother character. Snake, diddy, dedede, marth, wario, and other tiers has bad matchups wich will lead to some closer matchups and most important, more people with lower tier characters as mains will travel to tournaments.

If by other characters you mean the S tier -MK and A tier. MK doesn't really invalidate anyone, but the other S tiers do. The S-B characters might get mixed up, but I doubt C or lower will move. I'm almost positive that if you don't have to tools to deal with MK, you can't deal with snake or marth.

Personally, I don't think anyone will move a significant amount with MK banned. With the combination of the rest of S tier, if you couldn't do anything with MK legal, you still probably wont get anywhere.

 

[WindMajor]

Snake's worst MU is 55-45
Diddy's worst is about 55-45
MK's is 50-50
That's not a significant difference. At least not enough to make him broken enough to ban.
@RPSI: Then neither does snake or diddy. Even MU's aren't bad. Also, ADHD beat Havok, Ksizzle, and M2K. He might have lost to Ally, but he's probably the only one that could've beaten ADHD.

Is Diddy's and Snakes worst matchups slightly on their favor, or to their disadvantage?

If it's slightly in their favor, then you're wrong.

Their worst matchup would be 50:50, and that would be against themselves. Also, picking certain stages can throw that ratio off balance.

 

[Nicole]

It's because many people have spent 2 years learning MK. It's less fair to take all that training away from them then it is to simply keep MK - all the others have to deal with is a potentially bad matchup, rather then having to choose another character.

Many of the pro players already know another character quite well. Dojo, for example, still wins MK banned tournaments in Texas. Not to say that everyone who plays MK has such a strong secondary, but I expect that professional smashers could learn another character with relative ease, seeing how good they are at the game already (unless the character traits of MK are the real reason why they are good enough to win tournaments - I have to doubt this to a degree).

 

[Karcist]

Snake's worst MU is 55-45
Diddy's worst is about 55-45
MK's is 50-50
That's not a significant difference. At least not enough to make him broken enough to ban.
@RPSI: Then neither does snake or diddy. Even MU's aren't bad. Also, ADHD beat Havok, Ksizzle, and M2K. He might have lost to Ally, but he's probably the only one that could've beaten ADHD.

Snake against Olimar is 40-60 as of recent discussion.
Diddy against Wolf is 40-60 as well.

Diddy and Snake both suffer weaker matchups against a few other characters (especially diddy).

Also, MK's only 50-50 matchup is against himself. We are talking about other characters chances against him, and his closest matchup is 55-45 keeping that in mind.

15 is a substantial difference

 

[BSP]

If you're pro-ban, what are you expecting to happen if MK does ever get banned? (Probably not gonna happen.)

 

[Karcist]

If you're pro-ban, what are you expecting to happen if MK does ever get banned? (Probably not gonna happen.)

Tourneys would be a lot more enjoyable and less centralized around a single character.

 

[6Mizu]

Just b/c M2K has little experience with the Diddy MU and ADHD has a really good grasp of the MK MU. People also need to look at the top players and see who they are and not just the symbols beside their name, because some of them have their own personal MU's. It just happens that M2K doesn't do so well against Diddy, and Ally has somewhat hard time against Marth IIRC. However, I'd love to see M2K get more Diddy experience and beat more Diddys, just like he did with the Snake MU. MK has no bad MU's, that is a fact. MK players have bad MU's, that's why ADHD was able to win Pound, it was all about the players in the bracket. I'm sure other top players might be able to beat ADHD, but ADHD didn't have to fight any of those people.

Let's ban all of them :D [/sarcasm]

I really just wanted to point out that ADHD winning pound doesn't mean MK is any worse.

rPSI's right!

 

[AllyKnight]

now that I think about it, ADHD did have like only MKS too which he's good vs wow sooo gay this is a fluke!

 

[Jack Kieser]

this conversation is pointless because apparently Jack dictates what it means to be in the lower end of play and what strategies are high level or not.

I most certainly do not! I use the terms "low-", "mid-", and "high-level play" based off of what I see and experience as an organizer of tournaments, which is probably a position of more perspective that you. For the record, though, what I consider each level of play to be (because it's not like an RPG, where we can say "this many wins and you become this level and are promoted to mid-level play") would be (in a 200+ man tournament):

Low = These people play more casually and won't make it out of pools. They probably haven't entered a large tournament before, and even if they have entered smaller ones, don't do particularly well. They are newer to the game, and thus don't use as many advanced strategies and don't know matchups beyond instincts.

Mid = These players know their stuff. They probably lurk SWF and actually know how their characters work, and know their hardest matchups; they may or may not know the rest of the cast so well. They know higher level techniques, but might not apply or execute them as well. In a large tournament, it is possible for them to make it out of pools, but that will depend on the number of pros there, and even if they do, they won't make it far in the main bracket. These people consistently take small community tournaments and Smashfests, as long as pro players aren't in attendance.

High = Pro players. These players will make it out of pools unless they are stopped by another pro (bad seeding). Most people know what pro players are.

Oh and apparently hes the only person in the world aware of people being naturally better than others.

Oh, I'm not the only person. The scientific community does, too. "Natural Selection" may not be the most feel-good scientific theory out there, but it is what it is; people have different sets of tools, good or bad, passed down to them through genetics. Sorry about that.

I mean this is ridiculous, we cant speak for the average player thats so arbitrary. Banning MK for the sake of the lower end of the competitive spectrum is stupid. It is far better to teach them the matchup because again I really believe there are certain weakness that people can learn to punish relatively easily. Hes the best character in the game statistically. I mean think about it, how many characters worse matchups are MK mid tier on top(sorry Rob)? MK is only destroying those who just dont know the matchup. If you look at the matchup ratios, you would see hes always a hard matchup, but moreso than not he isnt ur worse matchup. Plus people have made numerous of progress on this matchup and this is with the myriad of MK mains attempt to counteract our strategies.

Again, this would be fine (just learning the matchup)... if that wasn't what people have been doing for 2 years. I'm not speaking about people arbitrarily (without evidence to back me up, at least)... but you sure are when you assume that the only reason players you don't even know can't beat MK is because they haven't studied hard enough.

Even saying that, you still don't understand how communities/societies work, do you? Take a sociology class (assuming you're old enough to). Societies/communities are built from the bottom up, not the top down; the pros can't exist without the support of the lesser players (money, mostly). Without the "lower end of the competitive spectrum", the higher end has no meaning and ceases to exist. If you want healthy high-level play, you HAVE to foster healthy low-level play.

Ive watched larry destroy MK so easily even handle pro MKs. People that are of his skill level. It can be done and im sorry with brawl having little tech skill for the most part, all these strategies can be picked up by an average competitive player. So you cant make an excuse for the lower end of the spectrum, because at the lower end of the spectrum "broken" character entails the entire top tier. We can only stand for the top of the metagame, while trying to bring our community alongside with us skill-wise.

First of all, who is larry? Serious question; I usually don't know people by their real names. Also, I think we've established (thanks to ADHD) that one person doing something isn't sufficient enough evidence to support a claim; you have to be able to replicate results for data to be meaningful. Besides, when your argument hinges on the exploits of one person (Ally/ADHD, larry?), it shows how weak your argument is in the first place.

Banning MK will give our community an initial boom ex: HOBO, ( and thats assuming no MK mains quit) then it will come back down because there are worse matchups just as well as better matchups than MK. Over centralization is the ONLY legitimate argument. However I do believe its quite clear as why our community suffered that effect. Everyone for the most part believed MK was indeed unbeatable. Nado spam and dsmash ruled our community and people didnt know what to do. So they picked him up; thinking they would even the playing field. Low and behold everyone learns bit by bit the MK matchup and the average MK isnt so invincible anymore. However it is their main; most people are just going to try and stick it thru with MK ( he still is the best character in the game). It should be quite evident to everyone who has been in this Brawl community since the beginning that we are still suffering that backlash of the BRZOKEN NADO LOOP SMASH Era. People hop on bandwagons (nerds especially lol) its really that simple. These events have all been propagated by our initial depiction of MK.

Actually, if you knew Brawl history at all, you'd know that the "initial depiction of MK" was that he was trash. That being said, high tournament attendance is not as important as stable tournament attendance; it's better to know you'll have 150+ people in your bracket every time than to have 300+ today and 50+ tomorrow. If (when) MK finally gets the axe, some people will be, for lack of a better term, "butthurt" and leave because their easy wins won't be so easy and they won't want to learn anyone else; that's to be expected. Most MK mains won't, though, because either they enjoy the game more than they enjoy MK or because of that sweet, sweet cash pot. We'll still get large turnouts from new players, but less of those new players will leave because of MK, and attendance will start to stabilize. Within 3-5 years, the influx of new players (like in Melee) will subside and the game will reach pretty stable levels. Based off of history, that's my prediction (assuming a MK-less game).

You also forget that in low-level play... 'Nado and Dsmash are still pretty viable strategies. Even when they don't work, MK has so many other tricks that he doesn't even really need them. How many kill moves does he have? Dair, Nair, Dsmash, Fsmash, UpB, at least. All very powerful and all very fast (Fsmash is the slowest, and that still comes out on frame 24, which isn't terrible).

People just cry about the MK match up because isnt an advantage for anyone even though their character has worse. We all can say MK is somewhat difficult for our character (misery loves company). I dont know about anyone said character but I think mine is making progress. We as a community need to grow.

And we, as a community, CAN'T grow without a stable bottom end of play. Most people that say we need to grow "as a community" really mean that the top level of play (maybe mid-level) needs to grow. You forget that the bottom levels of play are just as much a part of the community as any other part.

All of this being said, I'm spending today playing Borderlands with my GF, so don't expect as many posts today. Sorry, guys.

 

[AvaricePanda]

No, I didn't notice that the fact people use MK in this game suppresses your total ability to be as good as you possibly can, and that by this logic MK suppresses a lot of character's metagames which could be unlocked after his ban.

No, I didn't realize that with the ban of MK, Brawl will suddenly be a competitive appealing game that will flourish so much more despite it's defensive and campy mechanics.

No, I don't notice how less people are going to local tournaments. Maybe if you backed it up with solid results and attendance from these multiple local tournaments, I'd be more inclined to believe you.

No, I didn't realize that Diddy vs. Wolf was 40:60 Wolf's advantage, coming from a Diddy main. Maybe if you backed it up with evidence from either character board as well as evidence from tournament matches rather than just saying it as a baseless statement, I'd be more inclined to believe you.

No, I didn't realize that M2K was the only MK that ADHD has consistently beat in tournament. Maybe you should look at the OP of this thread and not just assume, "Well I think M2K and every MK bad at the Diddy match-up so I'm going to invalidate ADHD's win."

Furthermore, I didn't realize that you could base a characters ban on how good they might be in a future match-up.

I didn't realize that low-tiers would ever be tourney viable if MK was gone.

I didn't realize that a character counterpicking a stage that's good for him and the match-up and winning from the stage was "gay" and why MK needs to be banned. I also didn't realize scrubs beat good players ever.

tl;dr: I didn't realize you could say vague, baseless statements that has been said for one and a half years with absolutely no evidence, data, or tournament results to back it up, be too lazy to look at the one and a half years worth of threads to see the 50+ responses to what you've said alone, be too lazy to elaborate on what's been said against it as a new argument or bring anything new to the discussion, and instead post only that as your argument and expect your opinion to win the debate.

 

['V']

Brawl is just broken. I think it's about time the community accepted this.

 

[Chuee]

Tourneys would be a lot more enjoyable and less centralized around a single character.

lol pro-ban scrub

Snake against Olimar is 40-60 as of recent discussion. I doubt top level snake/Olimar's agree with that.
Diddy against Wolf is 40-60 as well.
WOLF?!?!?!?!?
lmao

Diddy and Snake both suffer weaker matchups against a few other characters (especially diddy).

Also, MK's only 50-50 matchup is against himself. We are talking about other characters chances against him, and his closest matchup is 55-45 keeping that in mind.
DEHF said mk v Falco is 50-50 (with a ledgegrab rule) and ADHD said diddy v mk is 50-50. Both are top level players with their character in both play top level mks. Their opinion > Your's

15 is a substantial difference

In blueeeee.

 

[solecalibur]

The whole reason for people like you wanting MK banned is all because you don't no how to fight him. You learn how to fight against other so called "broken" or "cheap" characters like Diddy and Snake, so why is MK any different?

Is this the only argument that I see because there are a lot of people against metaknight that know the MU?

 

[AvaricePanda]

Is this the only argument that I see because there are a lot of people against metaknight that know the MU?

Obviously not. It's just the only argument you choose to debate against because it's a poor, horridly constructed "argument" (if you can even call it that). There are plenty of others; stop ignoring them.

 

[The Brigand]

Snake against Olimar is 40-60 as of recent discussion.

I doubt top level snake/Olimar's agree with that.

Diddy against Wolf is 40-60 as well.

WOLF?!?!?!?!?
lmao

Well, looking at the matchup chart here on this board, yeah, that's exactly what the Snake and Diddy players thought.

But that's not actually recent discussion. The Snake board's going over their matchups again, they're on IC and will be moving on to Olimar next. The Olimar board hasn't touched that matchup either.

The Diddy board has yet to touch the Wolf matchup and probably won't anytime soon, and the Wolf board declared it to be 50:50.

So yeah, no idea what that guy's going on about.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Wolf can do practical and effective things with bananas. Wouldn't call the matchup in his favor though. JJ Wolf can tell you more accurate information about this matchup than literally any other player in the country.

 

[Pierce7d]

The next time someone say Brawl is broken will be labeled stupid by Pierce.

Brawl is pretty well designed. Tripping, auto-powershielding, and sometimes grab armor, are unpleasurable effects. Otherwise the game has ABOVE AVERAGE mechanics, and is EXTREMELY competative.

Let me ask a quick question. Let's remove the top player from each character from play. They are all extremely over-talented and do not really correlate to the discussion at hand (because please wake up and smell the coffee. None of you are going to hit that level of play, ever). I'll be fair and also remove MK's best player.

So take M2k for MK, Ally for Snake, ADHD for Diddy, Malcolm or Hunger (pick one for Wario), Meep or Lain (Pick one for ICs), Larry for Falco, Lee (for Lucario), P~S (for Olimar), Anther (for Pikachu), Neo or MikeHaze (Pick one for Marth) etc for every character. Let's say these players ALL quit. Just one from each character.

Now I only removed one player for each character, but it only takes half a brain to realize that this will TREMENDOUSLY STAGGER RESULTS IN MK'S FAVOR, I ESTIMATE BY AT LEAST 5 TIMES.

Like I said, please stop focusing on only the top players for your arguments. I'm talking about rules that are being written for me and you to play by.

 

[etecoon]

The next time someone say Brawl is broken will be labeled stupid by Pierce.

Brawl is pretty well designed. Tripping, auto-powershielding, and sometimes grab armor, are unpleasurable effects. Otherwise the game has ABOVE AVERAGE mechanics, and is EXTREMELY competative.

Let me ask a quick question. Let's remove the top player from each character from play. They are all extremely over-talented and do not really correlate to the discussion at hand (because please wake up and smell the coffee. None of you are going to hit that level of play, ever). I'll be fair and also remove MK's best player.

So take M2k for MK, Ally for Snake, ADHD for Diddy, Malcolm or Hunger (pick one for Wario), Meep or Lain (Pick one for ICs), Larry for Falco, Lee (for Lucario), P~S (for Olimar), Anther (for Pikachu), Neo or MikeHaze (Pick one for Marth) etc for every character. Let's say these players ALL quit. Just one from each character.

Now I only removed one player for each character, but it only takes half a brain to realize that this will TREMENDOUSLY STAGGER RESULTS IN MK'S FAVOR, I ESTIMATE BY AT LEAST 5 TIMES.

Like I said, please stop focusing on only the top players for your arguments. I'm talking about rules that are being written for me and you to play by.

isn't this a contradiction? you say brawl isn't broken but then you say "if you take the best players out of the equation, MK's dominance is 5x worse than it appears"...that makes it sound as if it is extremely broken and is being held in check by just a few supremely talented people.

not saying it is or isn't broken myself, just the way you said this doesn't make sense to me

 

[RDK]

Tourneys would be a lot more enjoyable and less centralized around a single character.

I love how pro-ban expects this to pass as an argument.

Do we get to ban every character that doesn't strike my fancy then? Because I think the game would be a lot more enjoyable if we banned everyone but CF.

IMO Marth loses to ROB and DK and goes even with D3, Snake, and Wolf.

EDIT: Unless he planks DK

This is a joke, right?

That's what I don't get. You keep saying "we don't do this/that/the other" as if:

A ) everyone agrees with you
B ) we, as a community, ever want to do the same thing
C ) anyone is holding us accountable

I'm saving money up for Mass Effect 2, and I've told myself that under no circumstances will I spend it... but I'm the only one holding myself to it, because it's a decision I can only make for myself. If I really want to order pizza that day, who's going to punish me? Who's even going to care?

This is why I don't understand your position. If "we" just don't do that sort of thing, is it because the SBR says so? They already say they don't want to be a shadowy organization that passes laws down to us from the mountain. Do we tell ourselves that? If so, then who cares? We can do whatever we want to do, because it's our community, our game. And if it's because anyone outside of the community says so (SRK, Sirlin, Tekken, Mortal Kombat, etc.)... well, they can go screw themselves, because it isn't their game, is it?

We do these things because the majority of people agree with whatever the SBR happens to come out. That's why the majority of tournaments today don't employ scrubby ban policies, with the exception of NY and Texas. If TO's disagree they are perfectly welcome to deviate against the SBR rules; it's their tournament, they can do what they want with it.

But they don't. Which say something; most likely that they don't want to lose all that money to all the MK mains that would not attend if the ban was enforced. Either that, or they're actually okay with the rules, which blows your "dogma" argument right out of the water.

As for the rules themselves, we decided on these rules because once again: they minimize involvement as far as messing with the out-of-the-box version of the game. The less tinkering, the stricter policies and rules we can have, which means less subjectivity and less arguing. If we start banning characters to fix individual matchups, or for some other vague, ridiculous reason, like "HE'S DESTROYING THE METAGAME OMG", then everybody's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's.

Basically the golden rule is to play the game as close as out-of-the-box as it can be while still keeping it fair and competitive. You're the one advocating a position where we follow a ruleset just because you tell us to.

 

[Jack Kieser]

You know what, AvaricePanda? You have things entirely backward.

This whole Mk debacle started about 1 year ago, and the arguments Pro-ban has used has been largely the same. Meanwhile, Anti-ban flops between players, arguments ("he's not broken", "well, he's not broken enough", "well, we just don't ban things like that"). You know what that shows?

That Pro-ban's arguments have stood up to over a year of your half-***** attempts to disprove. Face it: one year later, and our arguments are just as strong as ever.

The top reason for players leaving Brawl (at any level) is still MK.
MK still does not have any significant weaknesses.
The matchup against MK has been learned forwards, backwards, and upside down by everyone.
We've given it 6 months.
We've given it a year.
We've given it two years.
Each time RDK brings up ban criteria, his argument gets weaker and weaker.

You keep bringing up new arguments because, just like MK, it's 2 years later and there still aren't any good counters. Why should we bring up new arguments when the ones we've had for a year now still are going strong? Face it: if you guys can't shut us down after a year of trying, you won't be able to. Your arguments are weak, circumstantial, and deny the basic reality of the situation. They haven't worked in the past, and they don't work now. So either you bring up something new that can shut us down, or you accept that you're wrong, because a year has passed and our arguments are still holding up just fine.

 

[RDK]

The next time someone say Brawl is broken will be labeled stupid by Pierce.

Brawl is pretty well designed. Tripping, auto-powershielding, and sometimes grab armor, are unpleasurable effects. Otherwise the game has ABOVE AVERAGE mechanics, and is EXTREMELY competative.

Let me ask a quick question. Let's remove the top player from each character from play. They are all extremely over-talented and do not really correlate to the discussion at hand (because please wake up and smell the coffee. None of you are going to hit that level of play, ever). I'll be fair and also remove MK's best player.

So take M2k for MK, Ally for Snake, ADHD for Diddy, Malcolm or Hunger (pick one for Wario), Meep or Lain (Pick one for ICs), Larry for Falco, Lee (for Lucario), P~S (for Olimar), Anther (for Pikachu), Neo or MikeHaze (Pick one for Marth) etc for every character. Let's say these players ALL quit. Just one from each character.

Now I only removed one player for each character, but it only takes half a brain to realize that this will TREMENDOUSLY STAGGER RESULTS IN MK'S FAVOR, I ESTIMATE BY AT LEAST 5 TIMES.

Like I said, please stop focusing on only the top players for your arguments. I'm talking about rules that are being written for me and you to play by.

You just mad contradicted yourself. Go back and read your post, seriously.

Brawl is well-designed.......except for the huge glaring fact that MK is better than the entire remaining roster by a fairly large margin? I wouldn't call that well-designed.

And concerning matchups and whatnot, we're always assuming the top levels of play. When has any matchup been based off of two complete n00bs playing each other?

How exactly did you get into the Smash Backroom?

You know what, AvaricePanda? You have things entirely backward.

This whole Mk debacle started about 1 year ago, and the arguments Pro-ban has used has been largely the same. Meanwhile, Anti-ban flops between players, arguments ("he's not broken", "well, he's not broken enough", "well, we just don't ban things like that"). You know what that shows?

That Pro-ban's arguments have stood up to over a year of your half-***** attempts to disprove. Face it: one year later, and our arguments are just as strong as ever.

The top reason for players leaving Brawl (at any level) is still MK.
MK still does not have any significant weaknesses.
The matchup against MK has been learned forwards, backwards, and upside down by everyone.
We've given it 6 months.
We've given it a year.
We've given it two years.
Each time RDK brings up ban criteria, his argument gets weaker and weaker.

You keep bringing up new arguments because, just like MK, it's 2 years later and there still aren't any good counters. Why should we bring up new arguments when the ones we've had for a year now still are going strong? Face it: if you guys can't shut us down after a year of trying, you won't be able to. Your arguments are weak, circumstantial, and deny the basic reality of the situation. They haven't worked in the past, and they don't work now. So either you bring up something new that can shut us down, or you accept that you're wrong, because a year has passed and our arguments are still holding up just fine.

Okay, at this point you're just delusional. You know perfectly well that anti-ban has been using the same exact argument for the entire time this debate has gone one. Which is what, like 2 years now?

Pro-ban's argument changes within the week.

Why does MK need a counter?

How is the amount of time that has passed relevant at all to the discussion?

He's still not good enough to be banned. Any reason you have to ban MK I can apply to any other character and not be laughed at by somebody.

Stop being a scrub, srsly.

 

[Nicole]

isn't this a contradiction? you say brawl isn't broken but then you say "if you take the best players out of the equation, MK's dominance is 5x worse than it appears"...that makes it sound as if it is extremely broken and is being held in check by just a few supremely talented people.

not saying it is or isn't broken myself, just the way you said this doesn't make sense to me

-BRAWL- isn't broken. MK's presence makes the game broken.

(I think that's what he was going for)

<3 Jack Kieser, that guy is ****ing smart.

 

[6Mizu]

now that I think about it, ADHD did have like only MKS too which he's good vs wow sooo gay this is a fluke!

See Ally thinks so too.
M2K just need more Diddy practice.

 

[Pierce7d]

I love how pro-ban expects this to pass as an argument.

Do we get to ban every character that doesn't strike my fancy then? Because I think the game would be a lot more enjoyable if we banned everyone but CF.

Really witty counter argument, except that in one case, MK actually over-centralizes the MK and has a massive negative effect on the health of Brawl. People like speaking in hypotheticals but you ACTUALLY hear people complain about MK. This thread alone is proof of that.

This is a joke, right?

Not at all. D3 doesn't shut out Marth's approaches nearly to the degree DK does, and doesn't have broken scary kill moves. For everyone that argues that you can just edgeguard DK to death, I can make the same argument for D3. DK's ftilt is better against Marth, and his Bair is better, and his Uair destroys stuff, AND his dtilt is a REAL poke. D3 has the chaingrab to be fair, but lately I've learned to exploit every other weakness of D3 making the chaingrab Marth's ONLY issue vs. D3, which is why it's even in the first place.

 

[RDK]

Really witty counter argument, except that in one case, MK actually over-centralizes the MK and has a massive negative effect on the health of Brawl. People like speaking in hypotheticals but you ACTUALLY hear people complain about MK. This thread alone is proof of that.

I just complained about every other character except CF. By your criteria, that constitutes proof that everyone except CF has a negative effect on the health of Brawl.

Not at all. D3 doesn't shut out Marth's approaches nearly to the degree DK does, and doesn't have broken scary kill moves. For everyone that argues that you can just edgeguard DK to death, I can make the same argument for D3. DK's ftilt is better against Marth, and his Bair is better, and his Uair destroys stuff, AND his dtilt is a REAL poke. D3 has the chaingrab to be fair, but lately I've learned to exploit every other weakness of D3 making the chaingrab Marth's ONLY issue vs. D3, which is why it's even in the first place.

I agree with most everything you said, except the chaingrab. And have we forgotten the D3 infinite? DK isn't even a viable character; we've discussed this.

 

[Chuee]

I love how Marth's say the have an advantage on snake but they lose to DK.

 

[Ripple]

I love how Marth's say the have an advantage on snake but they lose to DK.

do you actually realize how good DK is?

I know this will sound dumb but if DDD wasn't in this game DK would be almost as good as marth

 

[Jack Kieser]

I hope that enough time passes so that this isn't a double post.

I love how pro-ban expects this to pass as an argument.

Do we get to ban every character that doesn't strike my fancy then? Because I think the game would be a lot more enjoyable if we banned everyone but CF.

Honestly, I don't think anyone really thinks "it's not fun" is a legit argument. I don't support that.

That being said, yes, let's play with only Falcon from now on.

We do these things because the majority of people agree with whatever the SBR happens to come out. That's why the majority of tournaments today don't employ scrubby ban policies, with the exception of NY and Texas. If TO's disagree they are perfectly welcome to deviate against the SBR rules; it's their tournament, they can do what they want with it.

Can you speak about this stuff without using the term "scrub"? It's honestly a meaningless derogatory term, and a poster of your stature shouldn't be using it.

Also, the SBR says they only want their rulesets to be used as "guidelines", anyway. All this shows is that you agree with doing stuff because "that's how it's always been", which doesn't mean is wasn't monumentally stupid. You should know better than to use cheap populism as an argument.

But they don't. Which say something; most likely that they don't want to lose all that money to all the MK mains that would not attend if the ban was enforced. Either that, or they're actually okay with the rules, which blows your "dogma" argument right out of the water.

Or that they aren't progressive enough to make a change without being told to do so. Let's face it: Xyro's tournaments only got better with a MK ban. He had the balls to try something different, and it worked. Other TO's don't have the same balls, and they want the SBR to tell them its ok so they can cover their own *****. I don't blame them for that, but I do blame them for making the situation worse.

As for the rules themselves, we decided on these rules because once again: they minimize involvement as far as messing with the out-of-the-box version of the game. The less tinkering, the stricter policies and rules we can have, which means less subjectivity and less arguing. If we start banning characters to fix individual matchups, or for some other vague, ridiculous reason, like "HE'S DESTROYING THE METAGAME OMG", then everybody's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's.

Basically the golden rule is to play the game as close as out-of-the-box as it can be while still keeping it fair and competitive. You're the one advocating a position where we follow a ruleset just because you tell us to.

But we don't play Brawl anywhere near as close to out-of-the-box as we can. We've already established (multiple times, btw) that we selectively choose when to be conservative and when to be liberal, as long as it fits what we want to ban and what we don't. You still haven't given me that list of 6 100+ man All Brawl tournaments from before the first SBR ruleset. I even gave you all night. You haven't done it because you can't do it. Face it; we've already contradicted ourselves with your precious ban criteria, so there's no reason we absolutely have to follow it now. If we want to ban MK, we have full right to because it's not like we didn't do that with tons of stuff already.