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

[Allied]

GRRR i really wish i had time to put detailed long responses for everything but i took me 45 minutes just to read the last 2 pages (Good Sh*t Overswarm lol)

TL;DR version for you guys

DMG has some great posts i will say

Pierce7d is biased in his previous posts and thats why he got trolled however i do kinda agree with him

Overswarm you mentioned before Anti-ban arguements have weakened while pro-ban's have stood strong which really isn't true at all for both parties (biased maybe, educate me)

You guys said a year ago brawl was going to be close to a deathbed but now it has more attendants at each tournament than it ever did before. but really i'd like some explaination on that

bbl

 

[Tyr_03]

I don't care anymore. I would go to MK banned tournaments because it really just doesn't matter. MK is really gay to fight against. But so are a lot of other characters like Snake, Diddy, Falco etc. depending on what character you play.

Honestly, low tier tournaments are awesome and balanced and fun. I don't care what anyone says. We should just do those.

 

[Kewkky]

You guys said a year ago brawl was going to be close to a deathbed but now it has more attendants at each tournament than it ever did before. but really i'd like some explaination on that

Well... Brawl IS fairly new (~2 years), and the competitive scene keeps growing with new players who transfer from casual/online to offline... It wouldn't surprise me if every time a huge tourney was announced new players who wish to become part of the competitive scene would find themselves traveling, making friends in the tourney, and decide they want to keep coming back. There's more people outside of the competitive scene than inside, so naturally there will be an income of players larger than the amount of people quitting because of X/Y reason.

However... The amount of people in tourneys would be larger had MK gotten banned earlier on, considering that the rate of people quitting/changing to MK to keep up is bigger than in other games' starting lifespans.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, this is the mindset of slippery-slope. What I don't know is, how can anti-ban ever think that people will want to ban Snake or Diddy afterwards? These characters, unlike MK, have clear disadvantages and can be worked around even by their advantaged MUs. MK can only be worked around at the top of his game by what, 2 characters? MK has too many "greats" and I barely even see any cons to him as a whole, at least Snake and Diddy have exploitable weaknesses that are humanely possible to reach with more than just "the characters with close-to-even-yet-disadvantaged-anyway" MUs.

No, it's called Reductio Ad Absurdem, which is a specific form of proof by contradiction. The difference is that slippery slope makes assumptions beyond something applies to the reasoning provided, it goes further. I didn't.


I was very specifically talking about banning without a criteria, with no criteria to judge by, then we're saying, "we'll ban whatever the hell we wanna ban", which means anything. No criteria is the same as saying we'll ban whatever is popular for a ban at the moment.

Well, it clearly is because some TOs are just stupid. here is no other definition for what they are, people plank and camp and stall in their tourneys as MK and they just let it slide. When was the last time you heard a TO disqualify a player for stalling?

What makes them even stupider is the fact that they create these easy-to-bend rules and expect MK players to be fair and abide them. And when people complain to the TOs about planking/scrooging/whatever happening in their matches, the TOs just shrug off the victims because the rules weren't broken. Instead of just shrugging off the reality that is MK pissing off players, the TOs should be extremely strict with their rules and disqualify people as soon as the intent of planking/scrooging/whatever has been confirmed, instead of waiting on some craptastic rules to be met, such as "70 ledge-grabs".

It's more because people are refusing to take the step of banning "going under the stage". Perhaps a more precise criteria is needed, but fundamentally scrooging is just another stall technique that's been discovered and needs to be banned ASAP.



As far as reading the intent, do you know of any TO's that are mind-readers, because I certainly don't?


The idea of competitive gaming is to do all that you can within the rules of the game to win. We pick precise rules to allow players to know exactly what is legal and exactly what is illegal in order to make them enforceable and make sure that people don't cross the TO's line without knowing it.


Without a line to cross, how do you expect players to know what is crossing the line?

Let's see... Take a large sum of the characters in the game, give them a disadvantage in a match, and pit them against a planking MK, who is arguably the best defensive character in the game. How do you expect them to retake the lead? They will either increase their disadvantage by jumping off and attempting to hit MK/stagespike him where they will then get hit/die as a result of attempting to get him out of there (otherwise known as 'stalling'), or in the rarest case they will regain the advantage and fight to keep it against one of the best offensive characters in the game.

Pit, G&W, Marth (and whoever else who else) can plank, sure... But do they also have a great offensive:defensive game to boot? MK excels greatly in both of these stats, bypassing almost the entire cast in defensive AND offensive individually... Giving him the unfair advantage of having both those qualities, as well as one of the best gimping movesets in the game to punish people who would want to stop his planking/camping/whatever, is to much for the entire cast to handle at the best possible scenario.

I don't know, we never bothered to explore it. Banning planking was a stupid knee-jerk reaction that came before it acquired widespread use. Heck, people were often simply too afraid to exploit it because it was socially unacceptable.


In the meantime, we never figured out if it was actually counterable reliably.

Logic is great and all, but sometimes you just gotta stop being a theorist and open your eyes. MK dominating is painfully obvious, but deduction/reasoning in the anti-ban is clouded due to some criteria they desire not being present, or at times some data not being tallied.

Painfully obvious? I see him dominating, but not to the extent you claim. I see him being a top tier, the same as most anti-ban people do.


If you ever hope to convince people of anything more then that, you need something more solid then "it's painfully obvious".

I think it's really simple.

Remove the rule against planking. It isn't stalling, after all. Now, watch how many of MK's matchups go from "doable" to "virtually unwinnable" and how much of the cast he shuts down. After all, he already "shuts down" about 40% of the cast in his matchups; how many more would become unwinnable if planking was a legal, viable strategy? Metaknight would almost certainly shut down at least half, if not far more.

I like this idea, it's not like it was proven banworthy in the first place.

No, we're not. We're looking at Brawl.

If someone is working for a company and the company wants him fired, but doesn't have "criteria for firing", they fire him. Then the criteria is made based off the guy who got fired. They evaluate this and change it as time goes on.

During the meeting, those that want him fired would propose criteria that the guy would fit (so he'd be fired). Those that wanted the guy to stay would make criteria in the opposite direction.

As a result, the criteria would be set by the majority and there would never be a compromise.

Huh?

Many in tiny companies, but almost all large companies have clear policies and procedures in regards to firing and do so in an organized fashion referring the criteria that company policy has dictated. Heck, if they fail to do so many companies can get sued.

No one is going to say "ban (character)". If they do, they won't be joined by many. We universally scoff at the idea of banning a character; MK has obviously broken the mold here.

How does that relate to the quoted section?

 

[etecoon]

However... The amount of people in tourneys would be larger had MK gotten banned earlier on, considering that the rate of people quitting/changing to MK to keep up is bigger than in other games' starting lifespans.

this is pure opinion, there is no data on how many people have quit because of MK, and many MK mains would have quit if he were banned, even more so now that even more time has elapsed and people have put more time into him.

 

[Allied]

Well... Brawl IS fairly new (~2 years), and the competitive scene keeps growing with new players who transfer from casual/online to offline... It wouldn't surprise me if every time a huge tourney was announced new players who wish to become part of the competitive scene would find themselves traveling, making friends in the tourney, and decide they want to keep coming back. There's more people outside of the competitive scene than inside, so naturally there will be an income of players larger than the amount of people quitting because of X/Y reason.

However... The amount of people in tourneys would be larger had MK gotten banned earlier on, considering that the rate of people quitting/changing to MK to keep up is bigger than in other games' starting lifespans.

I'm just curious how you know tournaments would be larger had MK gotten banned earlier on

i mean at first reason why brawl dropped off alot because simply put, it wasn't like melee and that was a good majority of brawl players and they switched right back into melee but i would honestly say that would be the biggest drop of brawl players.

Mk hasn't made brawl at all lose that many people regardless your going to lose players in fighting games like do you know how many people i know quit SF4 because of Sagat, or Melee because of Shiek (back in the day)

(opinion) i think its a healthy change that people quit because of MK i feel if they can't cope what with they are given they are the people that are not going to survive the tournament scene anyway.

anyway i really gootta go >__>

 

[Overswarm]

Huh?

Many in tiny companies, but almost all large companies have clear policies and procedures in regards to firing and do so in an organized fashion referring the criteria that company policy has dictated. Heck, if they fail to do so many companies can get sued.

We can't get sued, and didn't create criteria because we've never had to deal with a character like this before. The hypothetical example was involving a company in our position and having to deal with it.

How does that relate to the quoted section?

You only need rigid criteria for reference for future events. There won't be future events like this.

 

[Ripple]

I'm a little curious as to why the SBR said that if MK was not broken the third time they thought about it, then he would never be ban worthy.

 

[Kewkky]

I was very specifically talking about banning without a criteria, with no criteria to judge by, then we're saying, "we'll ban whatever the hell we wanna ban", which means anything. No criteria is the same as saying we'll ban whatever is popular for a ban at the moment.


It's more because people are refusing to take the step of banning "going under the stage". Perhaps a more precise criteria is needed, but fundamentally scrooging is just another stall technique that's been discovered and needs to be banned ASAP.

With simple reasoning we can figure out what is bannable and what isn't. If it takes the best of the best players using the very few characters that have a chance at beating MK both theoretically and practically, to actually win tourneys... Wouldn't it be a given that you have to reach those heights too in order to accomplish what they've done? Being the best of your character doesn't give you the freedom being the best of the ones who can contend with MK gives you.

As far as reading the intent, do you know of any TO's that are mind-readers, because I certainly don't?

At Pound4 teams battles, we had proof that the opposing team was planking us with the goal of timing us out. Real, actual proof, we even videotaped the whole match. What did the Tos do when we presented this proof? Nothing. The opposing team still won.

It doesn't take a mind-reading TO to figure that out.

And what about the infamous DEHF vs M2K match? What about all the other famous matches where MKs outcamp/stall people out? People have proof of the stalling and practically un-counterable gayness, yet TOs refuse this proof. There is no justification for this.

The idea of competitive gaming is to do all that you can within the rules of the game to win. We pick precise rules to allow players to know exactly what is legal and exactly what is illegal in order to make them enforceable and make sure that people don't cross the TO's line without knowing it.


Without a line to cross, how do you expect players to know what is crossing the line?

How do you expect players to even think about abiding the rules? Think about it... So much bending here and there, so much hate towards those tactics for over a eyar... And people still do it. I think people are smart enough to know what others hate about MK, but the call for money is too great and they do it anyway if it means filling their pockets with that green stuff.

I don't know, we never bothered to explore it. Banning planking was a stupid knee-jerk reaction that came before it acquired widespread use. Heck, people were often simply too afraid to exploit it because it was socially unacceptable.

In the meantime, we never figured out if it was actually counterable reliably.

Are you talking about planking? You DO know planking isn't banned, right?




Gotta go to college, be back in like 7 hours.

 

[4nace]

My issue with MK is not that he is unbeatable (Diddy may very well "counter" him, although I have my doubts and feel that long-term, MK will win that match-up) but that we have to create special rules just for him. Planking, circling etc. rules and ledge-grab limits are all primarily in place to stop MK from timing out matches after he gains a slight lead or doing other similar things.

If we are putting rules in place that stop MK from playing to win, then MK is bannable. Not because he is "overcentralizing" (and believe me, he might be; there's more to "overcentralization" than how many people are playing him) but because obviously he is broken in a capacity that requires us to create rules especially tailored to him. Even Pit is more easily dealt with when he attempts to Plank or circle camp.

This does not mean that we are required to ban him, simply that by the rules set and commonly associated with those required to ban a character, MK does in fact fit the criteria. I've heard rumors that Sirlin himself would have banned MK a long time ago, which will undoubtedly surprise those of you who hump his leg.

MK is inarguably a bannable character.

I don't know about you, but playing against a planking Pit or a planking G&W in the lead would suck just as hard as playing a planking MK. These rules aren't necessarily against MK, but rather they are against turning Brawl matches into 8 minute snore-fests that end at the selection screen.

 

[etecoon]

pit's edge camping has more of a risk than GAW or MK IMO, I don't think it's as bad. but GAW can be very good at planking too, maybe marth but I have no experience there, just based on him having a good mixup between ledge drop fairs and DS stalling that leaves him invincible nearly the entire time. but both of these characters have to regrab the edge, a lot. a ledge grab rule works vs them. a ledge grab rule doesn't totally work against MK unless you set the limit so low that it infringes on some characters normal gameplay

 

[stingers]

gaw is the best planker, but no gaw players do it

 

[Remzi]

I'm a little curious as to why the SBR said that if MK was not broken the third time they thought about it, then he would never be ban worthy.

They said it would be the final community vote, not the last SBR vote.

 

[Big-Cat]

No fighting game is inherently based on a CP system.

Even look at SF4, Sagat and Ryu have no counters. Ryu just has a bunch of neutrals with advantages mostly around the low tier, a balanced top tier.

Sagat on the other hand is MK like 6-4 most of the cast, with a few 7-3's. He does have some neutrals, Ryu, Akuma, and Dhalsim, but for the most part he wrecks the cast.

Now while he isn't as good as MK, he seems to share the same trait with the being uncounterable.

Sagat does have counters. The biggest thing with Ryu and Sagat (and Rufus and Balrog) is that they can combo into their damaging Ultras easily. Not many of the other characters have easy combos in their Ultras. Most of their moves can be countered. Projectiles can be countered with a Focus Attack followed by the appropriate dash. I'll give it to you that DPs have insane priority, but those can be countered as well if you can properly guess your opponent. Or, if you use El Fuerte like me, get them caught in an okizeme loop with Tortilla Propeller and really good timing.

All in all, Sagat is counterable. You just have to think while doing so like crazy. I've seen a number of matches where Sagat loses against characters other than Ryu, Akuma, and Dhalsim. A better example of bad matchups would be Zangief vs. Seth 8-2 or 9-1 in Seth's favor.

Speaking of CP systems, I'm curious how the heck this will be handled in SSF4 since we now have two Ultras more or less designed on this concept.

 

[AllyKnight]

You mean second, right? Wyatt, come over and play tomorrow!!! I have an inexplicable urge to **** your Peach some more.

Also, I have mostly withdrawn from this thread. Too many trolls.

Lastly, people are forgetting that ICs have some pretty bad MUs like Snake, ROB, I hear Lucas, etc. MK does not suffer this way.

In all other examples, the best character generally did not have a positive MU with over 30 other characters in their game, and those characters having very diverse playstyles.

Melee Fox is NOT better than MK in practice. He dies because he gets gimped. He has a very, clear, exploitable weakness, despite his amazing strengths. Jiggs is stupidly light. Falco is like Fox, Marth doesn't have the same level of blitzing pressure and safety, and has a decent, but linear recovery, and no amazing reliable kill moves on characters he can't CG.

MK doesn't rely on CG, because he has combos, in a game with no combos, and pressure, in a game with no shield stun. His has range, and transcendant priority, and when he needs REAL priority, he turns into a tornado, which M2k consistantly shield stabs my Falco's full shield with. It's the best tech chase in the game, in a game with tripping, and pops you into the air, which lets you use to to juggle over and over, and is combined with his Uair, which hits on two and ends on 13.

He also can fly, in a game where the objective is ring out. I'd like to point out that Jiggs in Melee can also virtually fly, and she took top two in Melee.

Also, he can FLY! Did I mention he can FLY. Flying is broken as ****. Give any single character in the game TWO more jumps and watch them never reach below B tier in this game. Even GANONDORF WOULD BE B TIER WITH 4 JUMPS, NO LIE.

Ics aren't in disavantage vs Snake if you know what you're doing with ICs sadly no ICs other than Swordgard know the real MU.

 

[adumbrodeus]

With simple reasoning we can figure out what is bannable and what isn't. If it takes the best of the best players using the very few characters that have a chance at beating MK both theoretically and practically, to actually win tourneys... Wouldn't it be a given that you have to reach those heights too in order to accomplish what they've done? Being the best of your character doesn't give you the freedom being the best of the ones who can contend with MK gives you.

We can apply that same line of reasoning to literally everything.

A clear criteria sets what evidence is admissible and the lines that are drawn as to when something is and isn't bannable.


With no criteria, I could literally say, "I wanna ban diddy just cause" and that would be just as admissible as providing a body of evidence.


No, lack of criteria is stupidity that is asking for arbitrary banning.

At Pound4 teams battles, we had proof that the opposing team was planking us with the goal of timing us out. Real, actual proof, we even videotaped the whole match. What did the Tos do when we presented this proof? Nothing. The opposing team still won.

It doesn't take a mind-reading TO to figure that out.

And what about the infamous DEHF vs M2K match? What about all the other famous matches where MKs outcamp/stall people out? People have proof of the stalling and practically un-counterable gayness, yet TOs refuse this proof. There is no justification for this.

Pound 4 didn't have a ledge grab limit for teams as I remember, though there was some miscommunication about this.


As far as M2K's scrooging, should've been banned immediately following the first instance, but to date it hasn't been banned so we really can't fault players for using it.



Regardless, if there is no rule in place either way, how can we fault players for using a tactic?

How do you expect players to even think about abiding the rules? Think about it... So much bending here and there, so much hate towards those tactics for over a eyar... And people still do it. I think people are smart enough to know what others hate about MK, but the call for money is too great and they do it anyway if it means filling their pockets with that green stuff.

They do or they get tossed, your examples are examples of a rule not being in place,

Are you talking about planking? You DO know planking isn't banned, right?

Planking is INTENDED to be banned via a ledgegrab rule.

We can't get sued, and didn't create criteria because we've never had to deal with a character like this before. The hypothetical example was involving a company in our position and having to deal with it.

Pro-active measures need to be taken, you don't just wait for a crisis to materialize.


As far as the company goes, exactly, your example was intended to be a direct copy of the situation at hand and therefore revealed no new information, a failed metaphor.

You only need rigid criteria for reference for future events. There won't be future events like this.

How do you know? I can think of a number of possibilities in terms of tactics and stages that need to be re-explored with a more all-encompassing criteria. And then there's the next game in the series.


Basically, your thinking isn't pro-active, and when we reach the situation where it's needed, we're left with... well this exact situation.

 

[Wiscus]

Oh too bad you guys got back on topic.
Someone should sticky this thread so whenever someone makes another one we can just point them to this one. No more "Oh lord, not this thread again"

Or
We could all just use jigglypuff!
I love this thread

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Sagat does have counters. The biggest thing with Ryu and Sagat (and Rufus and Balrog) is that they can combo into their damaging Ultras easily. Not many of the other characters have easy combos in their Ultras. Most of their moves can be countered. Projectiles can be countered with a Focus Attack followed by the appropriate dash. I'll give it to you that DPs have insane priority, but those can be countered as well if you can properly guess your opponent. Or, if you use El Fuerte like me, get them caught in an okizeme loop with Tortilla Propeller and really good timing.

All in all, Sagat is counterable. You just have to think while doing so like crazy. I've seen a number of matches where Sagat loses against characters other than Ryu, Akuma, and Dhalsim. A better example of bad matchups would be Zangief vs. Seth 8-2 or 9-1 in Seth's favor.

Speaking of CP systems, I'm curious how the heck this will be handled in SSF4 since we now have two Ultras more or less designed on this concept.

If Sagat really does have counters then why does he have a few 5-5's, a bunch of 6-4's and a few 7-3's.

You can fight a character through tactics, but it doesn't mean a character is even or a counter.

As far as M2K's scrooging, should've been banned immediately following the first instance, but to date it hasn't been banned so we really can't fault players for using it.



Regardless, if there is no rule in place either way, how can we fault players for using a tactic?

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't every tournament have a no stalling rule? Scrooging falls under this does it not?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't every tournament have a no stalling rule? Scrooging falls under this does it not?

It's always been more of a theoretical imperative because it's not a specific action, instead it's a set of actions that go together and amount to an infinite stall.


Also at that point, I don't think we were sure that it was an infinite stall though some tests have been done that pretty much prove it.


To neatly ban it, we need to ban something specific within the technique that it cannot work without. I personally suggest going under the stage.

 

[Eddie G]

Hmm...I'm starting to wonder...

For the longest time Anti ban has asked for data that clearly illustrates MK's dominance and influence of over-centralization in this game. This data has been presented (with Pound 4's results being the strongest and most recent example). Couple that with the fact that rules have been specifically created to keep MK in check (ledge grab limit, IDC ban, etc.) and you certainly have a character that should at least be considered for a ban.

But now, all of a sudden the focus has shifted from "show us hard data" to "we don't share a solid ban criteria". Shouldn't an issue such as the community sharing a common set of ban criteria have been addressed a long time ago? Has the SBR even muttered a word about the issue in the time leading up to this *inevitable* MK debacle? I feel as if pro-ban is being restricted from putting their currently obvious data of MK's over-centralization (and HEAVY INFLUENCE ON THE TIER LIST ITSELF, no doubt) to good use because of these unresolved criteria issues. It seems to be the only real obstacle that continues to propel these arguments, otherwise I'm sure we would have come to a clear answer by now, whether or not we keep him in or not.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

like all long threads were gonna go off topic for 2 -3 pages every so often then get back on subject

Definitely not what I was talking about. I was talking about the thread in general.

 

[DMG]

Lolololol.

We've never had a solid ban criteria. You can point to Sirlin, or Akuma, or whatever, but the fact is that we honestly don't and have not had an accepted Ban Criteria throughout the ages when talking about MK. We have "I don't think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable" and "I think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable".

I brought this up quite awhile to them, that a discussion about banning a character was fruitless without just about everyone agreeing on a common "line to cross" or criteria. Because then the debate becomes "Well I think he's not bannable because I think he needs to go a bit further to reach that status" or "I think he is bannable because he has reached whatever criteria I have laid out for him".

Even with the disagreement on what that criteria is, we haven't voted/decided/asked each other what it should be. And with that... BAM! No accepted Criteria. lol.

 

[Nanaki]

I'm not sure who said it, but by far the best post I've seen in this thread was an observation of how we are willing to ban multiple things around MK, which apply only to MK, or even put ridiculous stipulations in the rules regarding MK, but any mention of banning MK himself is thrown out as 'scrubby'.

This wishy-washy BS has to stop sometime.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

The rules surrounding MK are put in place to level the playing field considering him without eliminating him from the game completely.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Hmm...I'm starting to wonder...

For the longest time Anti ban has asked for data that clearly illustrates MK's dominance and influence of over-centralization in this game. This data has been presented (with Pound 4's results being the strongest and most recent example). Couple that with the fact that rules have been specifically created to keep MK in check (ledge grab limit, IDC ban, etc.) and you certainly have a character that should at least be considered for a ban.

But now, all of a sudden the focus has shifted from "show us hard data" to "we don't share a solid ban criteria". Shouldn't an issue such as the community sharing a common set of ban criteria have been addressed a long time ago? Has the SBR even muttered a word about the issue in the time leading up to this *inevitable* MK debacle? I feel as if pro-ban is being restricted from putting their currently obvious data of MK's over-centralization (and HEAVY INFLUENCE ON THE TIER LIST ITSELF, no doubt) to good use because of these unresolved criteria issues. It seems to be the only real obstacle that continues to propel these arguments, otherwise I'm sure we would have come to a clear answer by now, whether or not we keep him in or not.

Don't take just me as the focus, me and my "cabal" were always talking about criteria.


If you talking to the people who'd been asking for hard data before, I dunno what to say about them, but all I can say is that I'm not part of that.

Lolololol.

We've never had a solid ban criteria. You can point to Sirlin, or Akuma, or whatever, but the fact is that we honestly don't and have not had an accepted Ban Criteria throughout the ages when talking about MK. We have "I don't think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable" and "I think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable".

I brought this up quite awhile to them, that a discussion about banning a character was fruitless without just about everyone agreeing on a common "line to cross" or criteria. Because then the debate becomes "Well I think he's not bannable because I think he needs to go a bit further to reach that status" or "I think he is bannable because he has reached whatever criteria I have laid out for him".

Even with the disagreement on what that criteria is, we haven't voted/decided/asked each other what it should be. And with that... BAM! No accepted Criteria. lol.

And maybe that's why this issue will never be put to rest.


We're wrong to not have a solid ban criteria, and now it's gonna bite us in the ***, forever.

 

[DMG]

Sadly, I'm afraid that is what will happen.

 

[Pathetiqu3]

Lolololol.

We've never had a solid ban criteria. You can point to Sirlin, or Akuma, or whatever, but the fact is that we honestly don't and have not had an accepted Ban Criteria throughout the ages when talking about MK. We have "I don't think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable" and "I think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable".

I brought this up quite awhile to them, that a discussion about banning a character was fruitless without just about everyone agreeing on a common "line to cross" or criteria. Because then the debate becomes "Well I think he's not bannable because I think he needs to go a bit further to reach that status" or "I think he is bannable because he has reached whatever criteria I have laid out for him".

Even with the disagreement on what that criteria is, we haven't voted/decided/asked each other what it should be. And with that... BAM! No accepted Criteria. lol.

I agree completely. You should make a new topic about it so we can discuss it without piles of BS on top of it imo =)

The competitive pokemon community spends more time talking about what justifies a ban rather than if something should be banned or not =p. Maybe we should borrow a page from their book.

 

[Veril]

They said it would be the final community vote, not the last SBR vote.

How would that even be possible? The smash community is massive.

 

[Overswarm]

Lolololol.

We've never had a solid ban criteria. You can point to Sirlin, or Akuma, or whatever, but the fact is that we honestly don't and have not had an accepted Ban Criteria throughout the ages when talking about MK. We have "I don't think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable" and "I think he should be banned based on what I think is bannable".

I brought this up quite awhile to them, that a discussion about banning a character was fruitless without just about everyone agreeing on a common "line to cross" or criteria. Because then the debate becomes "Well I think he's not bannable because I think he needs to go a bit further to reach that status" or "I think he is bannable because he has reached whatever criteria I have laid out for him".

Even with the disagreement on what that criteria is, we haven't voted/decided/asked each other what it should be. And with that... BAM! No accepted Criteria. lol.

Dastrn and I both made threads. Locked.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Which would be fine, if they weren't subjective and ineffective changes overall.

I agree that the stalling rule (which is clearly aimed at MK) put in place at most tournaments are ridiculous (not in theory, but in practice), but the IDC rule obviously makes sense.

There really isn't a was to enforce the planking/stalling rule that's effective. We should be more worried about that than whether or not to ban MK, which isn't going to happen.

 

[DMG]

IDC is something that is pretty concrete enforceable though (aside from the fact that people can still technically extend their Dimensional Capes with control stick inputs similar to how IDC is done with the C stick. That could be a bit messy, but it hasn't yet shown to be a problem in tournament anyhow for the brother of IDC lol).


The thing about Planking is that the Planking Debate ALSO doesn't have an agreed on Ban Criteria. People, to this day, still disagree on how much tournament evidence, if any, we need to ban planking, or whether that evidence is truly valid (matches where someone planked, but did it against a character that was poor against it in the first place *Falco cough*, or whether someone really good planked someone clearly not as good who might not take proper steps to combat planking, etc).

 

[Veril]

Creating a solid ban criteria, if that were even possible, would involve an incredibly drawn out process. People would predictably argue with whatever was presented by the SBR, and in the end these arguments would be as subjective as everything else in this stupid debate.


IDC really can't be used as a justification for a MK ban. People will use it anyway.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

IDC is something that is pretty concrete enforceable though.

That was pretty much my point. Sorry, it came out a little unclearly.

Basically something like this makes sense, but the other "MK rules" (mainly the stalling/planking one) are difficult to enforce. Therefore, there should be more emphasis on thinking of a way to revise the rule or make a new one that is easier to enforce, instead of discussing something that anyone who has been here a while can see will not happen, as of what has been discovered to this day.

EDIT:

The thing about Planking is that the Planking Debate ALSO doesn't have an agreed on Ban Criteria. People, to this day, still disagree on how much tournament evidence, if any, we need to ban planking, or whether that evidence is truly valid (matches where someone planked, but did it against a character that was poor against it in the first place *Falco cough*, or whether someone really good planked someone clearly not as good who might not take proper steps to combat planking, etc).

Dammit DMG stop editing your posts.

Yeah, I know. This should be what is being discussed as opposed to the doomed "Ban MK" debate.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Honestly, people should try to make criteria that can best fit with what most people can reasonably agree with.

If people see flaws you can debate them until a near majority can be reached for agreement.

 

[DMG]

If other communities go through the process of creating and accepting a ban criteria, why can't we? You could argue that they would have to deal with people arguing with them, everything being subjective, etc. But they suck it up, and create one anyways.

Regardless of whether MK is banned or not, I think we should at least attempt to come up with a ban criteria that people can agree on. If we can't agree on a criteria, then Whala you can imagine how useless it is to talk about banning him.

 

[Turbo Ether]

SF4 Sagat is not comparable to MK. Sagat actually does have even matchups, and a possible small disadvantage to Ryu. MK has an advantageous matchup against every character in Brawl. Sagat is also nowhere near as dominant in the metagame as MK is. Character diversity among top placers is very good in the SF4 scene.

 

[Eddie G]

Well...we need something to go by, dammit. This back and forth nitpicking has gone on for far too long. Action needs to be taken by someone who has influence, this is ridiculous.

When actual criteria has been established and laid out, then the real discussion on MK can begin.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If other communities go through the process of creating and accepting a ban criteria, why can't we? You could argue that they would have to deal with people arguing with them, everything being subjective, etc. But they suck it up, and create one anyways.

Regardless of whether MK is banned or not, I think we should at least attempt to come up with a ban criteria that people can agree on. If we can't agree on a criteria, then Whala you can imagine how useless it is to talk about banning him.

^
<3

SF4 Sagat is not comparable to MK. Sagat actually does have even matchups, and a possible small disadvantage to Ryu. MK has an advantageous matchup against every character in Brawl. Sagat is also nowhere near as dominant in the metagame as MK is. Character diversity among top placers is very good in the SF4 scene.

As I said before, he is comparable but still not as good.

 

[RDK]

For the record Allied... I was anti-ban at first, then pro-ban, then anti-ban again, and am back at pro-ban after what I saw at Pound4. I keep thinking to myself "Hey, I probably overreacted, MK can't be THAT bad, heck I never lose to them in tourneys here in PR and I have literally three-stocked a good number while using Kirby, who's a character the boards agree is at a bad disadvantage...!", but everytime something comes up that reminds me why I even considered changing to pro-ban, I look for info that might help anyone else see it from my point of view (like Tekken4's lifespan and what caused its death) and come back to try and phaze some people.

Even if they don't change to "pro-ban" acknowledging that Brawl is in a similar situation that Tekken4 suffered would be enough for me... Which is why at the start of my thread I specified that I'm not attempting to start any "ban MK" debates, and that it was merely an informative read made to inform people. Heh, and look at what the thread has brought so far (my thread was the first in the recent series of MK debates so I guess I can take some blame for the whole debate thing reviving).

MK being banned in the end or not isn't as bad as people like RDK though. He might know how to debate, but he sure as hell doesn't know how to present his debates in a way it won't piss people off and blind them with rage.

I've been debating with pro-ban people both in real life and on the boards ever since this ridiculous topic came up. I'm about as frustrated with the opposite side as you are.

This discussion will never result in a change unless pro-ban can come up with an objective reason why MK, and not any other random character, deserves to be banned. Having no disadvantageous matchups is not good enough to warrant a ban. Shutting down a majority of the cast - and I mean completely shutting them down - is.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

If other communities go through the process of creating and accepting a ban criteria, why can't we? You could argue that they would have to deal with people arguing with them, everything being subjective, etc. But they suck it up, and create one anyways.

This, this, this.

No one's ever going to agree on everything that's proposed, but it makes sense to have the SBR-B or at least some members of it propose their criteria, and then have it be discussed and revised.

Regardless of whether MK is banned or not, I think we should at least attempt to come up with a ban criteria that people can agree on. If we can't agree on a criteria, then Whala you can imagine how useless it is to talk about banning him.

I agree. We skipped a step, and jumped straight to the banning before we knew what we were actually looking for in order to ban a character.