popsofctown
Smash Champion
Even if volunteer bias was a massive 20% of the votes, proban would still have a simple majority.
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!
what variables in this matter? there are people that voted, and then the supposed people that didn't vote. those are the two variables. so it's really not "so many factors" -- just those two categories of people.You're stating precisely what I did two posts ago: Voluntary polls measure passion. Who spends a lot of time talking about the subject? Is it everyone in the community? Anyone who's spent even a small amount of time around this forum knows theres a group of people who spends more time arguing these things than that whole of the community in general. Theres so many factors present that simple questions become difficult to answer unless you hold down variables.
My completely subjective guesetimate is 60%. But yeah I also believe its likely a majority.Even if volunteer bias was a massive 20% of the votes, proban would still have a simple majority.
I just picked a random 25 users and 1/5 had less than like 40 posts and had no activity since 2010.Speaking from opinion 1 in 20 doesnt sound off. 2 in 3 sounds out there. My main point though was we cant accurately make that judgement and are better off not doing so.
None of the people who've left the community due to MK will come back for any length of time when he's gone. Despite what all you people think, you won't start winning when he's banned.I'm actually predicting a small boost if MK is banned. A good number of people have just gotten fed up with him. No clue if it will last or not.
You're kinda contradicting yourself. If people left because they think MK keeps them from winning, they will come back for some length of time. It doesn't matter what the reality is, it's what they believe..None of the people who've left the community due to MK will come back for any length of time when he's gone. Despite what all you people think, you won't start winning when he's banned.
Maybe they quit because they were tired of always losing against an MK, even though they knew they weren't gonna win the tourney? You don't have to be a top player to have a valid opinion, getting knocked out by varying characters is an indication that you have loads to work on (and you're working on them too, getting that MU experience YEAH), but getting knocked out by MK all the time is just boring.None of the people who've left the community due to MK will come back for any length of time when he's gone. Despite what all you people think, you won't start winning when he's banned.
I don't seem to recall this EVER being part of any pro-ban arguments...Despite what all you people think, you won't start winning when he's banned.
That's not what people argue in actual debates, but it's at the core of their thought process and why the ban discussion actually came up to begin with.I don't seem to recall this EVER being part of any pro-ban arguments...
With MK gone, the characters previously oppressed by MK's existence will be able to show their moves, and the metagame will take a defiant shift from "Learn how to defeat MK!" to "Learn how to defeat your counters!" Whether MK is legal or not, you're still going to need some 1337 skillz in order to win some fight money from tournies.
So you're just lazy. Got it.yeah if I were to quit because of MK it would be because I have to play him ALL THE TIME and fighting him is a huge chore and is very boring since I have to respect everything he does >_>
Cuz at the time saying he was overcentralizing was a bit of a stretch. But now that the game's progressed and LOTS of people have pocket MKs they use when they're in a tight spot, and now that we have much more data about MK's use, it's fine if we say he's overcentralizing the tourney scene.That's not what people argue in actual debates, but it's at the core of their thought process and why the ban discussion actually came up to begin with.
Overswarm didn't argue for the initial ban to see more character diversity.
I personally don't care about MK, but if I had to choose a side I'd go for pro-ban (which I chose). I am aware of how stupid MK can be, which is why I go with pro- instead of anti-. I main ZSS and Kirby, so Falco's not a problem for me at all, and now that I'm getting a lot of Olimar experience, I have to say that I don't think I have any MUs left unchecked that are bad for both characters (except MK of course, only way to fix this is using MK and I refuse to use a character I don't like to play as).I have not stated whether or not I am pro-ban or anti-ban at the moment, but the motivations of players on either side are heavily colored in the majority of cases by what they feel they stand to gain or lose.
I'm not disagreeing with either point; I actually just said that. I am trying to point out, however, that any influx of people you see when MK gets banned will likely be counterbalanced shortly thereafter by the same people leaving. This would be in addition to any loss of MK mains who simply do not have the motivation to start learning another character to the same level their MK was at.There are probably people that are pro-ban that just want MK banned for selfish reasons.
But then there are also probably people that are anti-ban that only want MK legal for selfish reasons.
<3There are probably people that are pro-ban that just want MK banned for selfish reasons.
But then there are also probably people that are anti-ban that only want MK legal for selfish reasons.
First and foremost of said reasons is that he is not actually broken.<3
I don't really want to have to read all of this thread to look for some reasons why MK shouldn't be banned, so can I be given some? I know many reasons given by players why he should be banned but I want to know why he shouldnt be.
Shameless self bump.There was a couple interesting ideas worth trying:
-Changing current DSR into "no stage may be chosen twice in a set"
-Changing current "counter-pick stage, then counter-pick characters" into "counter-pick either stage OR character".
Why they can't be implemented?
this is an uneducated and irrelevant post.So you're just lazy. Got it.
2 proposals
I don't mind the idea of DSR applying to any stage picked in the set, but there's little point to it. (assuming we still have the gentleman's clause in place)
Shameless self bump.
Can we please forget about MK for a moment?
I main R.o.b. and Lucario and I know how you feel.I personally don't care about MK, but if I had to choose a side I'd go for pro-ban (which I chose). I am aware of how stupid MK can be, which is why I go with pro- instead of anti-. I main ZSS and Kirby, so Falco's not a problem for me at all, and now that I'm getting a lot of Olimar experience, I have to say that I don't think I have any MUs left unchecked that are bad for both characters (except MK of course, only way to fix this is using MK and I refuse to use a character I don't like to play as).
This is the first time I've ever heard of anything like this. I find it somewhat amusing.Also my name is Robert so I want to win as a R.o.b. :D
My Meta Knight is easily better than my main, I would only do worse in tournaments if Meta Knight was banned.That's not what people argue in actual debates, but it's at the core of their thought process and why the ban discussion actually came up to begin with.
Overswarm didn't argue for the initial ban to see more character diversity.
You're not the best MK in our areaMy Meta Knight is easily better than my main, I would only do worse in tournaments if Meta Knight was banned.
Yet I am still pro-ban.
Hahaha I always get this at tournaments.This is the first time I've ever heard of anything like this. I find it somewhat amusing.
yesLet's say it doesn't become "dominant".
But several people decide to pull off more Will vs. Rich Brown stunts from time to time.
Do you think that's perfectly okay?
Or we could ban the character, and play the game without him.yes
it is not up to the players to decide how the game "should" function when pushed to its limits (i.e. "play to win"). outside of the banning of random factors such as items and polarizing stages or stages that randomize results more than desired, you shouldn't need anything else to ensure the competitive integrity of the game. banning specific strategies, limiting the number of times you can do something that occurs frequently while recovering, and even preventing players from choosing a character selectable from the character select screen should not be necessary. if it really is, the game's competitive integrity itself is shallow and weak, and it shouldn't be played competitively. play it casually, put up with the bull****, or find another game.
We're not switching to Project M. Stop asking.yes
it is not up to the players to decide how the game "should" function when pushed to its limits (i.e. "play to win"). outside of the banning of random factors such as items and polarizing stages or stages that randomize results more than desired, you shouldn't need anything else to ensure the competitive integrity of the game. banning specific strategies, limiting the number of times you can do something that occurs frequently while recovering, and even preventing players from choosing a character selectable from the character select screen should not be necessary. if it really is, the game's competitive integrity itself is shallow and weak, and it shouldn't be played competitively. play it casually, put up with the bull****, or find another game.