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!
If Marth had only one bad matchup, the same bad matchup everyone has, MK, wouldn't Marth place higher in tournaments. Matchups are just random numbers determined by a few people, most of whom don't know what they're talking about. Tournament results are concrete evidence that cannot be refuted.
Why isn't it? o.O Elaborate more please. Every character in Brawl has a fair amount of weaknesses that can be taken advantage of, even Snake, even Marth. Even Melee Fox, Melee Falco, Melee Shiek, and Melee Marth had weaknesses that can taken advantage of. Not saying MK doesn't have any weaknesses... just saying he has very few.
it was stupid sarcasm because it was true.
He was being sarcastic. 45-55 is a very, very slightly disadvantaged match that is barely worth recognizing as anything other than even. The "exactly equal" skill thing only exists in theory fighter, anyway.ummm thank you?
you just proved my point... you have to be better than your foe (not just even) to beat MK with anyone except MK excluding luck.
No, because everyone else has more bad match-ups than Marth. Stop ignoring this part! Why aren't they suffering these bad match-ups? Because Meta Knight is still around.
I fixed my phrase up in that post, and tried to elaborate a little.
I adressed this in the quoted post...
Please read what you quote.
Lol... no.
No he isn't against it...just at the moment. It's just too early
He said "no"... this entire Marth tangent was his reductio ad absurdum explaining why an MK ban is a bad idea...
You... you... Republican!
Why must I state this time and time again?
Why objective? So that it's not subjective. So that it's not just due to the fact that we dislike Meta Knight or that we dislike playing against him or whatever.
So if 10.000 people who love items joined SWF tomorrow and demanded items be turned on or else they'd leave and never come back, we should listen to them? If 5.000 people whine about the use of the C-stick, should we ban it? If 7.500 people just love any number of the banned stages, turn them back on?
Sentance 1: How is he close to being too good if he has neutral matchups?
Nothing has ever been "discovered" about MK that has made him a better character. There are no ATs or tricks (LOL infin dimentional cape) to the character. People just pick him and do decently, then slowly MK users discover that fthrow is better than dthrow in many situations, that dair is better than nair is others. They realize that if they pay more attention to good spacing and always make use of high priority and/or disjointed attacks theres little hope of them being punished. They learn to watch air dodges and punish them better than any other character can. They use their tilts to keep dsmash fresh and learn to go for stage spikes and gimp them with dair and upb. All these and more are just learning the subtle ways of how to get this character to be unmatched in terms of pressure/punish/chasing/putting self in advantageous positions. No other character can do this better than MK.
Shhh... I'm trying to appease the whiners. Actually, "close" is exaggerating it. "Moving towards" rather. There are still characters with a reasonable chance of beating him.
No, we do not ban ATs unless they stall the game. It's a part of a character, be it by design or a programming error. You can't just arbitrarily ban a specific AT for being "too good" just because it makes that one character "too good". And what if it's a global AT or at least one shared by others? Only MK cannot use it.
Does this translate into "No character stand a reasonable chance of beating MK"? Is that your opinion?
Could you acknowledge the jillion mistakes you made that required us to repeat the same things over and over again?! At least when I make a mistake, I acknowledge I made it.
S1: I think you got a different definition of "too good".
This is just, and has been this entire time, muddying the waters.
Reasonable chance, not a chance. The word "reasonable" is subject but I'd say that 45:55s and 5-4s are reasonable. Debate me if you wish.
"He cannot be gimped, he has no weaknesses" - OK, but what if he's just not that good otherwise? What if he has few strengths? What if others can do what he does better in some aspects? What if...
paragraph 1: theyre arguement is as follows:
A hypothetical question (for you too, Yuna):
Again, so if the community wanted to ban the C-stick tomorrow, it would be warranted and not at all Scrubby? And we should just play along with it since the community knows best, after all?
Yes, TOs can. But the SBR must not support it just because they do. Also, what part of "The SBR rulelist is only a guideline." was too Italian por tua (<-- not sure about the spelling)?
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that some bans are justified, others not. I'm here to argue whether the ban is justified, not whether enough people have whined about it.
And it would be, in my opinion, wrong.
If we cannot come up with a good way of banning Meta Knight without adverse consequences, then he shouldn't be banned.
Petition the mods to have the thread split in two if you wish and see what they say. I will listen to the mods. I doubt SamuraiPanda is going to kick my *** for daring to go further than just "Yes or no" as this is a multi-faceted matter.
I accused you of being misleading when I misread your posts? And I have only accused you of poor word choices when you have made poor word choices. And at least I admit to having made a mistake instead of ignoring it completely as if it had never happened after derailing the thread for pages upon pages.
Then, IMO, he should not be banned.
Then we'll all have fun playing MK dittos or have a much greater possibility losing with other characters because they're all uphill battles vs MK.
well im not yuna but this is my opinion
Considering you have an MK avatar and banner, I find this part laudable.
That would be because Mk's haven't learned the match up yet. Like when it used to be Snake > MK.
Well, then, wait until that happens before crying "Ban now!"? If you're not one of them, then good work, little soldier.
well, do you find low tier characters in tourneys? in the last one i went to, the lowest tier was zelda. it doesnt take a tremendous amount of skill to beat a MK; its just one character. he has WEAKNESSES :O you have to learn to take advantage of them.Considering you have an MK avatar and banner, I find this part laudable.
Basically what your saying is that we can beat you, but we have to work hard to go even with you--something we can only do using specific characters we might not want to use otherwise, while you continue beating us with ease until we get better, then you only beat us with ease most of the time. Oh silly us, we only want a ban because we're lazy.
genius right. and i picked him even before the game came out, cause hes awesome like that. i didnt know that he would be the best, or that people would whine 28/7 about his "cheapness"What, you think I'm psychic and sit here refreshing this thread constantly just looking for any response of yours? I was already making that post when you put that up (Gee, where have we seen THIS line of reasoning? Oh right, double standards).
No that would be Yoshi. ;D
This does not qualify for the "no reasonable chance of getting beaten". Even matchups = reasonable chance
This does in no way pertain to "too good". It just means you have a limited number of stages where you perform worse on than "normal".
"Easiest road to victory" =/= "Too good
Scubby whining and scrubby behavior = We will listen to your concerns?
Yes, none of them actually pertain to "too good"/"no reasonable chance of winning over X-character". Some are connected to it, but you can qualify for all of those without coming even close to being "too good". You don't even have to be the best character to qualify for them.
I was actually going under the assumption that this AT would be character specifici, because, if a global AT adds depth to Brawl but makes one character overpowered, I think the depth of Brawl would take priority over that one single character, but wouldn't take priority over MULTIPLE characters.
I openly admitted that new tactics and strategies made him better, "otherwise it's just new tactics and strategies that would make him better... but they wouldn't eliminate the neutral matchups. " But I don't think it would push him over the top (Judging from the past metagame progression, but who knows, I could be proven completely wrong in the future). Oh and Perhaps I was mistaken mentioning the "change the neutral matchups part" I'm sure those could change to 60:40s in no time.
Pretty much agreed here, though, I'm wondering, you might have explained it before, if you have I apologize, but what is the threshold? Where does he become "too good"? In my opinion 60:40 is a reasonable chance, and even to a degree 70:30, Wolf vs MK is 70:30, yet we're told that Wolf still has a reasonable chance against MK. But even by going 60:40, does MK have to 60:40 and beyond the entire cast to go beyond the threshold? Does he have to 70:30 all the cast? 80:20?
I said this, so, I agree with it ^_^
Definitely a possibility, what's your definition of too good?
Important parts are bolded, I never said that no one has an unreasonable chance.
Point taken here, thanks for explaining.
The difference between you and me (or whoever it was that made that inane argument, but you apparently support it) is that I would never criticize someone for not being psychic.
Oh, hello. Were we asking for a list of qualifications that would catch MK but nobody else, or were we just trying to make an excuse to try to pick apart a post of mine again?
