Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
MK can get a first place on Ankoku's list from Evo and he can get it from the random scrub tourney in Middle Of Nowhere, Idaho. I believe multiple people on both sides have stated the innaccuracy and uselessness of his list for this several times at this point.
The thing is, this isn't just getting top 8 at some random event. This is getting top 8 at a major tournament. You have to beat legitimately good players to do this, period. Even one placement in top 8 is a huge deal for a character. Sure Meta Knight does have a ton more, but a character ever doing this well is a proof of concept. These are good characters; Meta Knight isn't shutting them down (which would make them bad characters) because it's possible for them to succeed anyway. They may not be that popular or have that many amazing players behind them like Meta Knight does, but they can do it and have done it before, in a modern metagame.
I think you're overestimating the power of your posts. The outcome's pretty much already decided at this point: the poll will end up giving pro-ban 1-2 votes (3 if someone makes a bunch of alts or says vote yes for nude pics of milktea or something), but 2/3rds won't be reached and Metaknight won't be banned. And then the same people who were *****ing to ban him before will continue to ***** to ban him (very likely now citing "how close it was to 2/3rds"), and we're back to square one.
If I or anybody else can convince one person not to vote to ban, then I consider my job one done well.
You don't have to worry.
Fight on, street soldier.
My cut-off was 90+ people. You live in a really active region; setting the cut-off higher is basically just disenfranchising a ton of regions (I consider large regionals major tournaments), though indeed your active region was factored in far more than every other one so long as the tournaments were in Ankoku's raw data (that is the reported tournaments were looked at directly; Ankoku's compilation of the data was ignored).
No they wouldnt.
I beg to differ.
Then no more fights / arguments! It makes sense!
Seeing as both options run the risk of decimating the Brawl scene and ruining the metagame, your comparison to the climate argument is an inaccurate one.
But comparing arguments to things that they weren't saying is how discussions go here. All the great debaters do it.
MK is popular for tournaments, not necessarily a beloved character even by his mains. Take a look at the poll.
To start off with, I'd like to thank you for debating in a controlled manner as most of this thread is people going out for blood.
it's an interesting argument. though, i'd wager that the you don't actually risk decimating the brawl scene if you ban MK. Do we have some kind of figure to reference which gives us an idea of the spread of mains? Some kind of Brawl Census would be nice right about here.
OK, pardon me, semantics smartass. You used the same method as in the video you just linked, that is to say, the risk vs reward analysis, but instead using not the realistics but the worst-case scenarios.
Given how intelligent you generally are, I would expect you to watch the entire video he linked and then read his post in the context of the method he was emulating. I guess that expectation was set to high in this case.
Sorry, but the Gentlemen's Rule doesn't make sense at all.
Mmhm. Anyway, both options run the risk of having a stagnate metagame. Only one turns it on its head.
Throttle back a little - what I said was not semantics. This entire thread is bogged down with ridiculous strawmans, so forgive me if I'm a little hasty to defend my initial argument. I'm not emulating the video I presented. Risk management arguments are very old indeed.
If I may, the US Presidential elections have been, if I recall correctly, within ~5% or so.
You'll have to pardon me, then, because the thread is also full of people dismissing counter-arguments as fallacies when they aren't, and it's tiring.
Will never happen. There are people like HAZE, Ally. And I guess you haven't seen the fanboy sig, "
You are not infallible. Don't post like you are.
Oh. Excuse me for not following the pink-name rules. You still should be able to understand the point...
I don't. Your premise is invalid. I repeat, you aren't infallible. Don't draw conclusions on the future when you have no possible way of knowing the outcomes.
The idea that people are voting "no" because a good player might quit is ridiculous.
