Judo777
Smash Master
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,627
Not even close MOST of pro bans arguments held true for 3 years. Most of anti-bans arguments were along the lines of "its too early, now its too late, the community will die, people just haven't learned the MU yet, its not a problem with MK it's a problem with the LGL, how much money is too much money?" which btw none of those are even like concrete claims. It was just "we realize that the line is blurry, so we are gonna point at it the whole time that's our argument!"
Most pro-MKban arguments were proven wrong many times, and MK still got banned.
Also, BPC never said LGL was right, he just said people thinks it is a good rule.
Been wondering this as well
Pro bans arguments were more along the lines of "he has no even MU's, he is great on all the neutrals and only gets stronger on CPs, he has the option to time everyone out we just don't see it all the time because he doesn't need it, he has 1 move MU analyses, he wins like 60% of the money and about 1/5 of the country plays him"
All of those arguments still hold true.
They made a ground based starter system because AT THE TIME it seemed to yield balanced results. What people didn't realized was that "balanced results" were giving all of MK's closest to even MU's a huge bonus on game 1 possibly shifting the MU so they can beat the bat. But then when game 2 and 3 rolled around it was **** game 2 and "back to square one" game 3.So...about those pro-LGL arguments...
Do they not exist anymore, making anti-LGL provably correct?
ALSO: Why is our starter list still so ground-based?