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

[DMG]

IDC being used for or against a ban on MK would be silly. IDC on any character would be broken, and need to be removed. Once removed, it has no impact on the character. I would be disheartened if a side used IDC as an argument over whether MK is bannable or not.

 

[Overswarm]

Mew2King's reasoning is "I WORKED SO HARD FOR SO LONG ON METAKNIGNT AND BANNING HIM ISN'T FAIR AND ALSO DIDDY IS BROKEN".

Umbreon's reasoning is "I don't care if he takes every spot, he doesn't break the game. Play Metaknight or play a different game."

There are dozens of differeing viewpoints everywhere inbetween that cannot ever be compromised.

And like I said: the criteria set would either already fit metaknight or not based solely on where you stand in the debate. So we'd have exactly 0 change based on wherever we are when we create it for the first time.... and I'll guarantee you that if we made it years ago when we discussed it (the banning criteria that WAS talked about has since been met), then their criteria would simply change.


Making criteria doesn't work when you realize that the people making the criteria don't have to abide by it.

 

[Eddie G]

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.

Um...shut up and pay attention to the discussion at hand.

It is already understood that criteria requested by both parties are not what is widely accepted by most of the community and until said criteria has been established, the MK ban discussion will remain fruitless.

So you can stop playing your silly game of "cat and mouse" with pro-ban, because it's pointless if either side tries to prove something under no clear criteria.

And it's funny how you think that only pro-ban should come up with proof on anything; you're such a silly, cocky man. Why don't you go back to discussing the game you actually play and leave this issue to those it actually affects.

 

[DMG]

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.

The criteria you proposed, shutting down a majority of the cast... that's not agreed on though. If we took your criteria, it's clear MK would not need to be banned. But people don't all share your criteria, which is the problem (not that everyone can't agree with what you specifically think, but that people overall can't agree on something together).

Anything objective that someone would present/say to be criteria, would be subjective in itself though. Let's say, shutting down 2/3rds of the cast. Sounds like an objective thing, right? Well, what if I come in, and ask why does it have to be 2/3rds of the cast? Why not 3/4ths? Why not 4/5ths? Why is the line drawn there?

I think people should suck it up and start to at least broadly discuss what they think the criteria is, and then through IDK an Act of God, agree on it, and then have the REAL ban discussion take place lol. But people are just gonna argue back and forth over criteria or what they think it should be and what not.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

IDC being used for or against a ban on MK would be silly. IDC on any character would be broken, and need to be removed. Once removed, it has no impact on the character. I would be disheartened if a side used IDC as an argument over whether MK is bannable or not.

I know. If this is going off my point, this is NOT WHAT I MEANT. I meant that rules like this are put in place instead of banning him completely.

 

[DMG]

I addressed that to Veril actually. He was talking about people using IDC as arguments for the MK ban, so I responded that I think it would be silly for anyone to use that as a legitimate argument in that debate.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

OK good, I thought so but I was just clarifying.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

I do agree with the notion of creating ban criteria. If not for banning MK, but for at least having some kind of list of a organized thought process a mass collective could agree apon. In future SSB series this issue might come back again, so learning from the problems MK is giving us now will much better prepare us for future SSB releases[if any].

 

[RDK]

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it
is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

A- Everything we have banned in Super Smash Brothers history has met both of these
criteria, and
B – Besides Metaknight, there is nothing we have yet to ban that satisfied both of these
criteria.


As listed in the post. What we need from that is information and motive. We have both.

The "slippery slope" argument is a little old; Snake, Diddy, ICs, Wario, they ALL have bad matchups and bad stages. Metaknight has consistently shown that he does not.

Everyone pay attention to this, because this is a complaint that pro-ban makes literally every debate cycle.

There is a difference between centralization and overcentralization. MK, along with every other character in the better half of the top roster, centralizes the game around itself. That's just the natural order of things.

Overcentralization means that MK has such good inherent properties that you must essentially play as him, or you stand no chance of winning. He needs to be able to invalidate the majority of the remaining cast to effectively centralize the game around himself to the point of absurdity. Nobody has shown that he does.

What is obvious is that Brawl is a terrible game with terrible mechanics and terrible balance. Something like this was bound to happen, and if it happened differently we'd be arguing about some other character in a slightly different situation. This is why we need strict ban criteria. You can't ban things on a whim; there needs to be solid reasons why we ban things, so that in the future we can apply said criteria to every situation that comes up.

"MK is too good" is not solid criteria.

 

[CRASHiC]

Oh hey look, RDK quoting something and posting something that doesn't even relate to what he's posting. Like he's done throughout this entire thread.

 

[Eddie G]

I have a feeling RDK would take interest in setting a solid ban criteria to the likes of something impossible/unattainable rather than agreeable between both parties. His use and focus on absolutes in a debate disgusts me, to say the least.

 

[DMG]

RDK the thing is that NOT EVERYONE AGREES ON THE SAME CRITERIA FORRRRRRRRRR OVER CENTRALIZATION!

Sirlin outlined some good things. Indeed. But we don't need to dry hump his every word. Communities make their own criteria for themselves, whether you think it be right or wrong. People's opinions WILL differ from yours, and you are criticizing people for having different ones from you.

MK is too good is not solid criteria... IN MY OPINION. That's the part you forget to add.

 

[RDK]

Um...shut up and pay attention to the discussion at hand.

It is already understood that criteria requested by both parties are not what is widely accepted by most of the community and until said criteria has been established, the MK ban discussion will remain fruitless.

You're wrong. Apparently it is accepted by the majority of the community seeing as how Texas is so far the only state to actively ban MK. All the other regions seem to be just fine as far as MK goes.

And it's funny how you think that only pro-ban should come up with proof on anything; you're such a silly, cocky man. Why don't you go back to discussing the game you actually play and leave this issue to those it actually affects.

Arguing with you is like yelling at a baby.

The burden of proof rests with pro-ban; they are asserting MK is too good, and he needs to be banned. Do you expect people to just believe whatever you say? Just because you say it?

Get over yourself. You're pissed off because you got your *** handed to you by an MK one too many times.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

I have a feeling RDK would take interest in setting a solid ban criteria to the likes of something impossible/unattainable rather than agreeable between both parties. His use and focus on absolutes in a debate disgusts me, to say the least.

Im a big fan of the "Report Post" button. Arent you?

You're wrong. Apparently it is accepted by the majority of the community seeing as how Texas is so far the only state to actively ban MK. All the other regions seem to be just fine as far as MK goes.



Arguing with you is like yelling at a baby.

The burden of proof rests with pro-ban; they are asserting MK is too good, and he needs to be banned. Do you expect people to just believe whatever you say? Just because you say it?

Get over yourself. You're pissed off because you got your *** handed to you by an MK one too many times.

Can you kindly quit ****ting up this thread with your whiny posting style? No one really cares what you think.

 

[RDK]

Sorry DMG, here's my response to you; there's like 10 people I have to respond to.

The criteria you proposed, shutting down a majority of the cast... that's not agreed on though. If we took your criteria, it's clear MK would not need to be banned. But people don't all share your criteria, which is the problem (not that everyone can't agree with what you specifically think, but that people overall can't agree on something together).

I'm open to new criteria, but nobody has presented a decent, objective candidate for a new ban criteria as of yet. So far it's been nonsense about how he has no disadvantageous matchups, or how there are too many people playing as him.

How is that an argument?

Anything objective that someone would present/say to be criteria, would be subjective in itself though. Let's say, shutting down 2/3rds of the cast. Sounds like an objective thing, right? Well, what if I come in, and ask why does it have to be 2/3rds of the cast? Why not 3/4ths? Why not 4/5ths? Why is the line drawn there?

Said character has to shut down a majority of the cast. Whatever fraction is used is just a reflection on the size of the roster; it's not subjective.

I think people should suck it up and start to at least broadly discuss what they think the criteria is, and then through IDK an Act of God, agree on it, and then have the REAL ban discussion take place lol. But people are just gonna argue back and forth over criteria or what they think it should be and what not.

We already have a criteria. If people want MK banned, they need to revise the current criteria in a way that is objectively applicable to future events similar to this one.

 

[DMG]

People can disagree on the fraction used however.

We don't have a criteria that is agreed on by people.

For Decent, Objective Criteria, I'm not sure what would qualify near unanimously. What qualifies as Decent, Objective Criteria to you personally could differ from what other people think.

 

[Remzi]

Just caught up with my reading and would like to make a few notes:

-Overswarm makes an excellent point regarding ban criteria. It is far too late to set ban criteria now after we already have a bannable offense (MK) under the scope. Lesson learned for SSB4 I guess...

-Marth cannot plank, Marth was never able to plank, Marth will never be able to plank. Not effectively or safely anyways. Honestly, if Marth could plank, I would abuse the **** out of that.

-Veril: I agree with you, leaving the community out of the next vote is absurd, makes the SBR seem kind of self absorbed as well.

-In the end, this is a game. Sure, Metaknight may not be broken, he may not literally kill the community, he may not be unstoppable, but everyone and their mother knows we'd have a better and more diverse game without him. Almost everyone anyways...

-Adum, I understand why you're saying that if we ban MK without a criteria, other characters can be banned in a similar fashion. But think realistically for a moment, we aren't all ban-happy idiots trying to make low tier characters viable or any of that nonsense. We went through Melee without banning Sheik, Fox, Marth, or anyone else who reached a phase of "domination." MK is clearly a different case and we have more than enough reason to believe that a new MK type threat will not come about if he is removed.

-If MK plays the MU correctly he beats ICs 60-40 IMO.

 

[RDK]

People can disagree on the fraction used however.

We don't have a criteria that is agreed on by people.

I realize it's not "agreed upon" by the entire Smash community, but it's the criteria we've used in the past for literally every single ban decision we've made.

In which case pro-ban needs to come up with a new criteria to satisfy everyone, which is going to be ridiculously hard. My point was that you give too much credit to your own side as far as exactly how many people want MK banned. People seem to be alright with it, seeing as how every state besides Texas continues to allow him in tournaments.

 

[Eddie G]

You're wrong. Apparently it is accepted by the majority of the community seeing as how Texas is so far the only state to actively ban MK. All the other regions seem to be just fine as far as MK goes.



Arguing with you is like yelling at a baby.

The burden of proof rests with pro-ban; they are asserting MK is too good, and he needs to be banned. Do you expect people to just believe whatever you say? Just because you say it?

Get over yourself. You're pissed off because you got your *** handed to you by an MK one too many times.

Right, because you apparently know all about me, the regions, the players of those regions, what they think, and so on.

Amd I've defeated noteworthy MKs and have taken matches off of top MKs in my region, with Peach. It's amazing just how little you know.

 

[DMG]

Actually New Mexico and... Idaho? Have been banning MK at their tournaments forever. Texas has mostly been an experiment in Houston specifically, where we rotate between MK banned and MK staying.

And yes, making that new criteria would be hard. Reeeeeealy hard lol

Also I'm not pro ban actually.

 

[Remzi]

I realize it's not "agreed upon" by the entire Smash community, but it's the criteria we've used in the past for literally every single ban decision we've made.

Food on low would very unlikely fit into Sirlin's ban criteria, if thats what you are referencing as our current criteria. If it isn't, what IS this criteria that we've used for "every single ban decision" in the past?

*EDIT: I'm also neither pro nor anti-ban, pro is just making far better points right now...

 

[RDK]

Right, because you apparently know all about me, the regions, the players of those regions, what they think, and so on.

I'm merely making an observation. We haven't seen a huge protest and drop-off in tournament attendance have we? Haven't tournaments been getting bigger?

Amd I've defeated noteworthy MKs and have taken matches off of top MKs in my region, with Peach. It's amazing just how little you know.

Then why do you have such a big problem with MK? You seem perfectly capable of handling him yourself.

 

[etecoon]

everyone and their mother knows we'd have a better and more diverse game without him.

entirely hypothetical, no one actually knows **** about what would happen because it hasn't happened(at least not in competitive regions, texas doesn't really have a full ban on...) and diversity = better is also completely objective although I would agree.

 

[gallax]

Just caught up with my reading and would like to make a few notes:

-Overswarm makes an excellent point regarding ban criteria. It is far too late to set ban criteria now after we already have a bannable offense (MK) under the scope. Lesson learned for SSB4 I guess...

-Marth cannot plank, Marth was never able to plank, Marth will never be able to plank. Not effectively or safely anyways. Honestly, if Marth could plank, I would abuse the **** out of that.

-Veril: I agree with you, leaving the community out of the next vote is absurd, makes the SBR seem kind of self absorbed as well.

-In the end, this is a game. Sure, Metaknight may not be broken, he may not literally kill the community, he may not be unstoppable, but everyone and their mother knows we'd have a better and more diverse game without him. Almost everyone anyways...

-Adum, I understand why you're saying that if we ban MK without a criteria, other characters can be banned in a similar fashion. But think realistically for a moment, we aren't all ban-happy idiots trying to make low tier characters viable or any of that nonsense. We went through Melee without banning Sheik, Fox, Marth, or anyone else who reached a phase of "domination." MK is clearly a different case and we have more than enough reason to believe that a new MK type threat will not come about if he is removed.

-If MK plays the MU correctly he beats ICs 60-40 IMO.

not that im pro-ban or anything but i think more people need to be like bengalz here. he seems like hes being reasonable and understanding. he is also being smart.

 

[Remzi]

entirely hypothetical, no one actually knows **** about what would happen because it hasn't happened(at least not in competitive regions, texas doesn't really have a full ban on...) and diversity = better is also completely objective although I would agree.

In the end, this is a game. Sure, Metaknight may not be broken, he may not literally kill the community, he may not be unstoppable, but everyone and their mother knows we'd have a better and more diverse game without him. Almost everyone anyways...

It wasn't really meant as a point anyways. Just kinda pointing out that it might be a good idea to get the sticks out of our arses and not be so 100% formal about everything. We need to make decisions that benefit the game and community as a whole. This wouldn't be the case if we had established a rigid criteria in advance, unfortunately that isn't the case...

 

[Nanaki]

And like I said: the criteria set would either already fit metaknight or not based solely on where you stand in the debate. So we'd have exactly 0 change based on wherever we are when we create it for the first time.... and I'll guarantee you that if we made it years ago when we discussed it (the banning criteria that WAS talked about has since been met), then their criteria would simply change.


Making criteria doesn't work when you realize that the people making the criteria don't have to abide by it.

This man has hit the proverbial nail on the head.

If the criteria are "must have 70-30 or better over 2/3 of the cast", then we're into a whole new region of cloudy area, matchups. And matchups are about the most ridiculous kind of bat**** crazy nonsense I've seen on Smashboards. Adding incentives for 'ratios' to sway one way or the other (banning MK being a consequence of a particular ratio) would just add to the ridiculousness of MU discussions around here.

Long story short, any criteria we set are almost certainly going to be subjective in both their nature and their measurement.

As neither a pro- or anti-ban fan, I have to say MK's probably here to stay - regardless of whether or not he's 'bannable'.

 

[Inferno3044]

What is obvious is that Brawl is a terrible game with terrible mechanics and terrible balance. Something like this was bound to happen, and if it happened differently we'd be arguing about some other character in a slightly different situation. This is why we need strict ban criteria. You can't ban things on a whim; there needs to be solid reasons why we ban things, so that in the future we can apply said criteria to every situation that comes up.

I highly disagree. Brawl is not a terrible game and it doesn't have terrible mechanics or balance. Just because it's different from other fighting games doesn't mean it's bad. There are good reasons for why most things are banned. For example, stages like WarioWare and Spear Pillar have gimmicks on the stage to make it very unbalanced. Dedede's infinite grab is banned because it makes 5 characters completely useless. The only bad mechanic in this game is random tripping.

The balance is only seen as bad because these select few characters are very well above most of the cast. You can say Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is unbalanced because Magneto, Sentinel, Storm, and I think Cable just **** everybody. If you take out MK, Snake, Diddy and a couple bottom tier characters the game is pretty balanced. Unfortunately at least half of the smash community uses MK or Snake and we know how good the true potential of Diddy is. Without these 3, your top tier would probably be Falco, Wario, and ICs and there are characters that can definitely beat those 3.

 

[HeroMystic]

I highly disagree. Brawl is not a terrible game and it doesn't have terrible mechanics or balance.

With the exception of MK, Brawl is actually balanced. If bans can be lifted on a good amount of stages, it'd be even more balanced. How the game is played though, is an entirely different story and often opinionated.

Dedede's infinite grab is banned because it makes 5 characters completely useless.

It's not banned. TOs themselves just often ban them and players, even DDD mains themselves frown upon it. That's all I'll say about it and I don't want this to shift to an infinite debate like last time, which is why I'm saying it first.

 

[RDK]

It wasn't really meant as a point anyways. Just kinda pointing out that it might be a good idea to get the sticks out of our arses and not be so 100% formal about everything. We need to make decisions that benefit the game and community as a whole. This wouldn't be the case if we had established a rigid criteria in advance, unfortunately that isn't the case...

Rigid criteria:

Does the tactic / character over-centralizes? Is the game completely centralized around one tactic or character to the point of absurdity? (The majority of the roster is usually where we draw the line here; in this case 2/3rds).

Is the tactic / character anti-competitive? Is there excessive randomness, lag, or does it take away player control in an unreasonable way?

Does the tactic / character prevent competition? Are there freeze glitches, invisible characters, stall tactics, are characters removed from the field, etc.?

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

Thank you, now would somebody with influence actually start this discussion up?


I've been saying this since the debate started, but nobody listens to a lowly old pink name.

Mew2King's reasoning is "I WORKED SO HARD FOR SO LONG ON METAKNIGNT AND BANNING HIM ISN'T FAIR AND ALSO DIDDY IS BROKEN".

See, what we have there is an obvious conflict of interest. Yes, he has a right to vote, but he's obviously too invested, he SHOULD withdraw himself.

Umbreon's reasoning is "I don't care if he takes every spot, he doesn't break the game. Play Metaknight or play a different game."

There are dozens of differeing viewpoints everywhere inbetween that cannot ever be compromised.

And like I said: the criteria set would either already fit metaknight or not based solely on where you stand in the debate. So we'd have exactly 0 change based on wherever we are when we create it for the first time.... and I'll guarantee you that if we made it years ago when we discussed it (the banning criteria that WAS talked about has since been met), then their criteria would simply change.


Making criteria doesn't work when you realize that the people making the criteria don't have to abide by it.

Maybe this should have been thought of beforehand.


And sure they don't HAVE to abide by it, but on the other hand, a lot more people will be willing to abide by a criteria that they hammered out in debate consistently then just randomly decide to ban a character they don't wanna ban.


It's a matter of psychology, having a clear criteria applies psychological pressure and makes people more likely to decide in a fashion consistent with that.

-Marth cannot plank, Marth was never able to plank, Marth will never be able to plank. Not effectively or safely anyways. Honestly, if Marth could plank, I would abuse the **** out of that.

Lol, true. He's got got the ability to be invincable on the ledge... and he can't do **** with it.

-Adum, I understand why you're saying that if we ban MK without a criteria, other characters can be banned in a similar fashion. But think realistically for a moment, we aren't all ban-happy idiots trying to make low tier characters viable or any of that nonsense. We went through Melee without banning Sheik, Fox, Marth, or anyone else who reached a phase of "domination." MK is clearly a different case and we have more than enough reason to believe that a new MK type threat will not come about if he is removed.

Honestly, my concern isn't so much characters, people have more of a tie to characters, so banning characters is a DRASTIC step that few people are willing to take it. My concern is gutting EVERYTHING ELSE in the metagame.

Again, an easy example is the MU surgery that's been performed with DK and marth, another is the ridiculously conservative stagelists, I could go on, but you get the point, we're already at the "ban first, ask questions later" stage, and setting this kind of precedent wrong will only make it worse.

I realize it's not "agreed upon" by the entire Smash community, but it's the criteria we've used in the past for literally every single ban decision we've made.

In which case pro-ban needs to come up with a new criteria to satisfy everyone, which is going to be ridiculously hard. My point was that you give too much credit to your own side as far as exactly how many people want MK banned. People seem to be alright with it, seeing as how every state besides Texas continues to allow him in tournaments.

The problem, as we've discussed, is that Sirlin's PRINCIPALS are good, but it doesn't go automatically to a firm unambiguous criteria.


What we were talking about was developing a firm unambiguous criteria, mine's useful, but I think most people will think it demands too much, even anti-ban.

 

[C.J.]

For the record, food on low and pictochat don't fall under those.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Rigid criteria:

Does the tactic / character over-centralizes? Is the game completely centralized around one tactic or character to the point of absurdity? (The majority of the roster is usually where we draw the line here; in this case 2/3rds).

Yes. As of now, then entire metagame focuses around Metaknight; you choose your main based on how well they do against MK, spend the majority of your time training against MK, and still end up playing MK because he's simply the best choice.

As if that's not enough, he also has planking/air camping, which is totally over-centralizing; it's very easy to argue that most of the cast (I could argue 1/2, and I'm sure someone with more experience, like Overswarm, could argue 2/3's without breaking a sweat) can't deal with it in any significant way, and the other people who can do it can't do it anywhere near as well or as effectively. Meanwhile, it's almost impossible to ban; any ledge grab limit we set will be, ultimately, a totally arbitrary number, and air camping is impossible to limit without judges.


Is the tactic / character anti-competitive? Is there excessive randomness, lag, or does it take away player control in an unreasonable way?

Yes. Planking could be argued, but scrooging is WAY more apt here. This is also unbannable, because where do we draw the line? Plenty of characters can go beneath stages (Sonic, Pit, ROB, just to name 3) and still not be able to stall out matches because they can't plank like MK can (which is a component of scrooging). We can't set a limit to going under the stage because (except for MK), doing it a few times can be totally legit, but any number we set would be totally arbitrary.

Does the tactic / character prevent competition? Are there freeze glitches, invisible characters, stall tactics, are characters removed from the field, etc.?

MK is full of stall tactics that shut out most of the cast. This last one is so close to the second that it's not really a different criteria.

Responses in lime.

 

[Remzi]

Rigid criteria:

Does the tactic / character over-centralizes? Is the game completely centralized around one tactic or character to the point of absurdity? (The majority of the roster is usually where we draw the line here; in this case 2/3rds).

Is the tactic / character anti-competitive? Is there excessive randomness, lag, or does it take away player control in an unreasonable way?

Does the tactic / character prevent competition? Are there freeze glitches, invisible characters, stall tactics, are characters removed from the field, etc.?

Food on low does not over-centralize.

Food on low is not anti-competitive. It is not excessively random. Players to a degree know where an item will pop up and who gets the item has a lot to do with stage control and understanding probability. "Unreasonable" is subjective, but I think we can all agree for the most part that it doesn't take control away from the player in an unreasonable way.

It certainly doesn't prevent competition.
-----

This is coming from someone who is against any sort of item interference. I feel like food on low should be banned. But if the above was actually the criteria we've been using for all past cases, food would still be legal.

 

[SuperScizor]

This might not prove anything, but I beat a Lv. 9 Meta Knight as Samus with 3 lives to spare. (I only died once, and that's because I got caught under FD trying to Screw Attack.)

 

[Remzi]

This might not prove anything, but I beat a Lv. 9 Meta Knight as Samus with 3 lives to spare. (I only died once, and that's because I got caught under FD trying to Screw Attack.)

Unless you have video evidence, I don't think anyone here is going to believe you... I certainly don't.

 

[-Mars-]

This might not prove anything, but I beat a Lv. 9 Meta Knight as Samus with 3 lives to spare. (I only died once, and that's because I got caught under FD trying to Screw Attack.)

yea i'm having a lot of trouble believing you as well......any chance you could get a vid up?

 

[RDK]

Responses in lime.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Food on low does not over-centralize.

Food on low is not anti-competitive. It is not excessively random. Players to a degree know where an item will pop up and who gets the item has a lot to do with stage control and understanding probability. "Unreasonable" is subjective, but I think we can all agree for the most part that it doesn't take control away from the player in an unreasonable way.

It certainly doesn't prevent competition.
-----

This is coming from someone who is against any sort of item interference. I feel like food on low should be banned. But if the above was actually the criteria we've been using for all past cases, food would still be legal.

But then food on low is banning itemless brawl, is no items anti-competitive and/or excessively random?


Yes, when we're talking about pre-sets, each one is evaluated on it's merits as a tournament standardization issue.

 

[-Mars-]

Superscizor just gave proof that MK doesn't need to be banned and you people are simply overlooking it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

But then food on low is banning itemless brawl, is no items anti-competitive and/or excessively random?


Yes, when we're talking about pre-sets, each one is evaluated on it's merits as a tournament standardization issue.

Ok, that's BS. If we're really starting from scratch and applying a standardized banning criteria, only banning things when absolutely necessary, then why would we ban food on low? First, we'd ban all items on high, then medium, then move to low and start banning items one by one until reaching food on low.

Tournament standardization is a BS cop-out. Food on low is not "banning itemless Brawl" because "itemless Brawl" is not a default setting; if we were doing it right, itemless Brawl would have never even existed because we would have realized we didn't need to go that far.

EDIT: Oh, real mature, RDK. Real mature. <_< >_> <_<

...*runs away to cry moar*