Feelings on MK and the MK ban after Apex

[EverythingSmash]

1: Otori==
2: Nietono==
3: Nairo==
4: ESAM==/
5: Ally==/
5: Kakera==/


1. Kakera & Otori==/
2. Mew2King & Anti==/
3. Gnes & Razer==/

And this is somehow going to be the results anti-ban leans on. There are an awful lot of masks in these results...

Well yeah there were a lot of masks 21 out of the top 49 were MK's in singles.

But I mean look at the top 50 singles in melee.
22 out of 50 were fox mains.
I fail to see how thats any less shocking then the mk's.

Tops tiers are top tiers for a reason.
( Not debating with you here, just pointing this out.!

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Tofu, the top tier argument you're giving does not work in the case of Melee. Fox did not win even close to most of the games. While he was arguably the best, other characters didn't just go even with him, he didn't have overwhelming wins like MK did.

They're honestly not comparable due to multiple factors. MK wins way more than he ever did. Many characters in many games are their own god tier. But unless they win most of the time compared to everybody else, there's literally no real problems. This is the only Smash that had that problem with one character. Before people cite the first SSB with Pikachu, they do not play enough to have to worry about a ban. If they had more tournaments, that could come up.

Being the best is not a reason for banning, having no weaknesses, clearly dominating every character in the cast via not only stats, but money, overall wins, and best options, and having parts of a ruleset only catered to you(Please point to a rule that caters to any other character in Brawl. If it did, yeah, MK being targeted specifically would hold no water. Guess what's not the case)

Likewise, the fact that people continue to put arbitary buffs that target MK makes me question if people actually believe he's not broken. If he's not, they would stop the hypocrisy and not put any debuffs on him. One only debuffs a character if they're a problem.

Also, I am not for banning stages to keep a character legal. Saying we should ban two stages first before MK is only doing it to keep him legal. Which is once again saying he's too good because of any reason. Nobody is beyond polarizing at this point that we needs rules or stages taken away for that character alone. Stage Striking is the closest we do if anything. But that applies to everyone, and not one single guy. If there's a reason to ban RC and Brinstar, I'd like to see it being discussed without ever using the excuse that MK can be legal again. He should not ever be a factor in that debate. For example, some characters are clearly the best on Final Destination(IC's especially). You don't see anybody trying to remove that stage from starters because one character is clearly one of the best there. But also note that it doesn't really only give one character an advantage. Project users benefit alone from the lack of platforms. So it's not pure neutral as people make it out to be.

Long story short, stages should be banned because it causes trouble in itself or is a problem with more than one character. No single character should make a stage a problem. And no single stage should make a problem for all characters.

 

[Kink-Link5]

RC and Brinstar are bad stages even with MK banned.

 

[John12346]

Waiting for the part where that is actually proven.

But if you want to prove your point, go right ahead, but we've got plenty to disprove all of the common complaints with both stages(although discussion is only on Brinstar atm), so you can't really call foul on them just yet.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Then they should not be referred to ever as an excuse to keep MK legal.

They should be discussed out of it. Not to mention, I don't agree with that. Both are very easy to tell when things are happening, aren't severely polarizing either. I've played on both multiple times. I admit the only reason I don't like RC is I'd rather concentrate on the fighting, but it doesn't really cause enough problems that every character or tons of characters have a huge advantage either.

Justify banning if, please. You cannot use MK in your argument. Being "bad" is not justification either. It's a statement with no weight.

 

[Steam]

RC and Brinstar are bad stages even with MK banned.

Not a reason to ban.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

But manipulated, [potentially intentionally] misinterpreted data and a 75% majority of whiny, pathetic scrubs is a legit reason to ban a character?

Good call.

 

[Steam]

But manipulated, [potentially intentionally] misinterpreted data and a 75% majority of whiny, pathetic scrubs is a legit reason to ban a character?

Good call.

All pro bans are scrubs? Prove that. In the top 100 of us players there was still a majority in favor of a ban.

And yes, democracy is usually pretty good.

Certainly better than banning stages because they are "bad"

 

[John12346]

But manipulated, [potentially intentionally] misinterpreted data

If you seriously want to have an interpretation battle over my data, I'm game.

What'chu got.

Edit: Gah Omni I'll respond to that in a bit, I'm busy with something super important atm

 

[Omni]

I already told you, John. The huge issue with your numbers is MK character representation.

Player X mains Falco or Olimar. Uses MK because they get taken to really bad stage like RC or Brinstar. But primarily sticks to their main. Gets 1st place.

And thus the info shows that MK magically got first place. But in reality MK netted higher amounts of wins on average due to the popularity of players picking him to adapt to ******** stages. I've been through MANY tournaments results threads and noticed this, however, your results do not show this nor does it reflect it. It skews MK's data to the favor of pro-ban even if the data doesn't truly reflect the proper character usage.

 

[Cassio]

and a 75% majority of whiny, pathetic scrubs

That number turns out to not be usable. Theres no clear indicator how many people want MK banned, aside from the poll regarding my specific region's opinion.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=317228

 

[Steam]

I already told you, John. The huge issue with your numbers is MK character representation.

Player X mains Falco or Olimar. Uses MK because they get taken to really bad stage like RC or Brinstar. But primarily sticks to their main. Gets 1st place.

And thus the info shows that MK magically got first place. But in reality MK netted higher amounts of wins on average due to the popularity of players picking him to adapt to ******** stages. I've been through MANY tournaments results threads and noticed this, however, your results do not show this nor does it reflect it. It skews MK's data to the favor of pro-ban even if the data doesn't truly reflect the proper character usage.

Mks could just as easily use another character, taking money away from mk. Iirc John actually looked into that and found eliminating the lesser used characters for each player would make mk even more dominant % wise.

 

[Omni]

Mks could just as easily use another character, taking money away from mk. Iirc John actually looked into that and found eliminating the lesser used characters for each player would make mk even more dominant % wise.

I call bull****. For two reasons.

1.) With the open stage ruleset, Metaknight has always been the go to character. A major reason why pro-ban wants MK banned is because of how much he is used; especially in regards to counterpick stages and leaning on his as a crutch for players with bad match-ups.

2.) John's numbers never took into account "lesser used characters". They took all characters who were listed by a player's name with an even spread.

What exactly are you citing?

 

[John12346]

I'm pretty sure Steam is citing this:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13578522&postcount=695

You'd think I'd have this bookmarked by now, because I post it so much.

I'll explain it in further detail if you need me to later, but I gotta finish writing a paper for now.

 

[Omni]

Yes, please do.

 

[John12346]

Alright, while the above method doesn't take into account the proportion of times each character was used for any isolated tournament, what is true is that character usage for a LOT of successful players varies, so the amount of money each player has won for their characters provided that they have won money from at least two tournaments, is almost always guaranteed to differ, giving the characters that see more tournaments more money.

I can tell you right now that for almost every successful multi-main player, the amount of money they have accumulated with each character is different(I know this because I manage the data), so Reduction takes advantage of that, which is our best alternative in the face of not knowing proportion of usage by player for each individual tournament.

If you're confused about the interpretation of the end result, it basically says that MK is one of the characters who LEAST relies on secondaries to win tournaments, and that the amount of money my charts claim that he's won are actually underestimations of what they truly are.

 

[Omni]

Alright, while the above method doesn't take into account the proportion of times each character was used for any isolated tournament, what is true is that character usage for a LOT of successful players varies, so the amount of money each player has won for their characters provided that they have won money from at least two tournaments, is almost always guaranteed to differ, giving the characters that see more tournaments more money.

Wow. Your method does not take into proportion exactly what my argument states. That, again, is my issue. Your substitute method for measuring this is not accurate. Further, more saying, "what is true is that character usage for a LOT of successful players varies" is an extremely large blanket statement that essentially isn't correct. Here is Apex's results

1. Otori
2. Nietono
3. Nairo
4. ESAM
5. Kakera
5. Ally
7. Razer
7. ADHD
9. Gnes
9. Rich Brown
9. OCEAN
9. DEHF
13. Dabuz
13. Mew2King
13. Brood
13. Rain
17. Havok
17. Fatal
17. Z
17. vVv Zero
17. mikeHAZE
17. Mr. R
17. Orion
17. Shugo
25. Coney
25. Jtails
25. Zex
25. Tyrant
25. Reflex
25. Seibrik
25. Will
25. Atomsk
33. Leon
33. Poltergust
33. Logic
33. Mikeray
33. Trela
33. Bloodcross
33. HolyNightmare
33. Denti
33. Illmatic
33. Trevonte
33. Toronto Joe
33. Salem
33. Nakat
33. DRN
33. FOW
33. DeLux
49. Fino
49. GDX
49. Shadow
49. Dark.Pch
49. Pwii
49. 4GOD
49. False
49. Sky`.
49. _X_
49. Kismet
49. san
49. NickRiddle
49. Vinnie
49. Dojo
49. Bassem
49. Seagull

That is Apex's result list. I only highlighted the players that I knew for a fact are solo-mains. Then I got lazy and stopped. However, I know there are plenty more. Esam is borderline and so is Ally due to his sole-MK play over the past year. Regardless, no matter how you spin it, solo-mains take the top spots on the most consistent basis.

So if your calculations are based on that blanket statement then I fear your basis is off.

I can tell you right now that for almost every successful multi-main player, the amount of money they have accumulated with each character is different(I know this because I manage the data), so Reduction takes advantage of that, which is our best alternative in the face of not knowing proportion of usage by player for each individual tournament.

I still don't quite understand the "Reduction" processing. But you're saying it somehow is a best "alternative" in the face of not knowing the proportion. I find this hard to believe so please expound on this point in more detail as I do not quite understand how this alternative works and compares with the actual percentage that cannot be calculated.

If you're confused about the interpretation of the end result, it basically says that MK is one of the characters who LEAST relies on secondaries to win tournaments, and that the amount of money my charts claim that he's won are actually underestimations of what they truly are.

MK relying least on secondaries is common sense. However, I do not understand how this information derives that the amount of money he actually makes is underestimated.

Call me a nitwit or dumb it down for me, bro. But so far I do not see how this reduction process properly gives an alternative (keyword: alternative) to a major determining factor of data.

 

[Thino]

Mks could just as easily use another character, taking money away from mk.

In theory yes, but in a practical way, what are the benefit for a MK main to switch to a lower tier character and how likely is it to happen?

 

[Steam]

That data doesn't show how a character relies on secondaries since secondaries are taken away. It shows how much a character is relied on as a secondary. As more gets reduced those secondaries get filtered out. The positive slope for mk essentially shows he loses money to his secondaries more than he gains from being a secondary.

@thino- I'd be inclined to agree but the data shows otherwise...

 

[Omni]

That data doesn't show how a character relies on secondaries since secondaries are taken away. It shows how much a character is relied on as a secondary. As more gets reduced those secondaries get filtered out. The positive slope for mk essentially shows he loses money to his secondaries more than he gains from being a secondary.

@thino- I'd be inclined to agree but the data shows otherwise...

I keep reading this and I'm still not understanding it.

1.) The data somehow shows how a character (player) relies on secondaries.
2.) The data somehow takes away the secondaries that were used.
3.) The data somehow shows how a character is relied on.
4.) The data somehow filters out these secondaries?
5.) The data somehow shows that MK loses more money as a secondary.

I understand what the results of the process; what I'm more concerned is exactly how those results are created. How do you determine which characters are secondaries? How do you determine how much or how little a secondary was used? What is the exact process of "filtering out secondaries"? Basically, what I'm asking is "How?"

Mind you, if the data shows MK lose more money as a secondary that make sense considering people who second MK are usually just PocketKnights. And we all know PocketKnights are extremely unsuccessful with the very rare exceptions.

 

[John12346]

Wow. Your method does not take into proportion exactly what my argument states. That, again, is my issue. Your substitute method for measuring this is not accurate. Further, more saying, "what is true is that character usage for a LOT of successful players varies" is an extremely large blanket statement that essentially isn't correct. Here is Apex's results

Well, remember, Apex is one tournament, and we do have a lot of multi-main players with a lot of success, I can attest to that personally. But this'll be explained below.

Also, by the end-result indicating that my charts in regard to MK are an underestimation, keep in mind that's really all I can put out on the matter. Because of the reason you mentioned above, it's not really possible to determine HOW HEAVY that underestimation is. It could be a little, or it could be a lot, but the idea is that the monetary problems regarding MK are even worse than what my initial charts have been indicating.

I still don't quite understand the "Reduction" processing. But you're saying it somehow is a best "alternative" in the face of not knowing the proportion. I find this hard to believe so please expound on this point in more detail as I do not quite understand how this alternative works and compares with the actual percentage that cannot be calculated.

MK relying least on secondaries is common sense. However, I do not understand how this information derives that the amount of money he actually makes is underestimated.

Call me a nitwit or dumb it down for me, bro. But so far I do not see how this reduction process properly gives an alternative (keyword: alternative) to a major determining factor of data.

Alright, first things first, lemme show you what I'm deriving all of the data from. From this link:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11959822&postcount=2

Go into the directory "Player Success Breakdowns for All MK Legal Tournaments" > "Individual Character Success" and from there, you can check out how much money each successful player has earned with each character. Simple stuff, but for this section, the money allotted to players are NOT split, so keep that in mind.

For example, if I won $50 in a tournament using Marth and Lucario, and then another $30 in another tournament using Lucario and Pit, it would say that I won $80 with Lucario, $50 with Marth, and $30 with Pit(As unlikely as it seems that people would vary their characters between tournaments, it actually does happen a lot, just check out the directory I pointed you towards for lots and lots of examples).

Now, from there, using Reduction, I first find the highest ranking character out of my group, Lucario. Then I figure out what 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the money for my most successful character is($0, $20, $40, $60, $80, respectively). From there, any character below those values is deleted for each Reduction percentage.

At 0% and 25%, no one is removed.
At 50%, Pit is removed.
At 75% and 100%, Pit and Marth are both removed.

I had to do that for EVERY LISTED PLAYER(was quite a ***** to do >.<), and at the end, I just added up the breakdowns for each character to create a modified No Split based on Reduction for each character at each percent. From there, I just noted down the proportions for each character and graphed them up.

Characters whose proportions went up as the Reduction percentage increased would indicate that they were less reliant on other characters to win, and we could rightfully assume that the amount of cash my initial charts said the character was winning was likely an understatement to some degree, and if the proportions went down, then we could assume the opposite.

MK's proportions went way up, moreso than any other character, so...

 

[Steam]

The data does not show how a character relies on secondaries. The mains will get all money to them and secondaries are filtered out Based on the %age of money they won compared to said player's main character

There's also really no way to determine how much of a character was used in a specific tourney since that would take forever even if we had access to that kind of data...

It just basically gets rid of lesser secondaries that are more likely to gain money from riding a more powerful main. A positive slope indicates that a character is less successful as a secondary/more successful as a main. A negative slope indicates they see more success as a secondary or pocket.

 

[theunabletable]

Not a reason to ban.

If it's better for the community it's the best reason to ban something.

So, yeah, it's a perfectly fine reason to ban them.

 

[John12346]

Except we never truly got a chance to test to see whether or not Brinstar/RC warranted a ban, because surprise surprise, 99% of the matches played there involved a Metaknight.

 

[Akaku94]

^that's the problem with almost every borderline stage imo. We were so quick to "zomg ban the cheap stages to stop MK" that we banned completely legitimate stages like Japes or PTAD...

 

[DMG]

Most banned stages aren't even close to borderline lol. The big issue really for most stage is how far you go to prevent stalling measures. Japes is playable if you tell people to actually fight each other. Onett is as well even despite the walls, but the ability to run circles around people is too good (too many breaks in terrain leads to bad gameplay). Bridge of Eldin isn't too bad IF people have to fight each other. etc

Think of some of the stages that could be legal if circle camping was outlawed. If you make a rule forbidding circle camping, Hanenbow is playable. Hyrule probably won't be saved anytime soon since that's a whole nother monster. A few stages are gone due to ******** hazards, but for the most part most banned stages have huge camping issues that you can't easily stomp out.

 

[Akaku94]

Japes is fine regardless; you can't stall there. Eldin has walkoff camping, Onett is debatable (though never debated lol). And banning circle camping isn't possible, since you can't define it without allowing for loopholes.

My point is that we just go out and ban stuff because we think it must be broken, without actually testing it...

 

[EverythingSmash]

Haha true true, all I know Is I hate playing DK against MK matchups constantly....

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But manipulated, [potentially intentionally] misinterpreted data and a 75% majority of whiny, pathetic scrubs is a legit reason to ban a character?

Good call.

Well you know, when that majority is...well the majority, yeah that have every right to do such.

I already told you, John. The huge issue with your numbers is MK character representation.

Player X mains Falco or Olimar. Uses MK because they get taken to really bad stage like RC or Brinstar. But primarily sticks to their main. Gets 1st place.

And thus the info shows that MK magically got first place. But in reality MK netted higher amounts of wins on average due to the popularity of players picking him to adapt to ******** stages. I've been through MANY tournaments results threads and noticed this, however, your results do not show this nor does it reflect it. It skews MK's data to the favor of pro-ban even if the data doesn't truly reflect the proper character usage.

Ok, so at each tournament we are going to get an exact ratio of usage or we're just going to guess?

 

[DMG]

Most of the stages that are banned, even if they were banned earlier for the wrong reasons (Dedede isn't the problem on Bridge of Eldin or Onett or Pipes), tend to still be unacceptable because of the stalling issue. A few of them with MK gone the picture does change a bit: Pipes is probably playable without MK and with a LGL 30 or lower.


Japes has plenty of stalling. You can even stall (briefly unless some character has come up with something really good) under the water itself. Above the stage, around the edges (doesn't have to involve specifically planking the edge, can just be semi sharking/fooling around), under the stage. There's lots of room and opportunity to stall. Not for the average character though.


Japes was legal in many regions for awhile before it was widely banned. Very few banned stages besides the obvious **** like 75M and Hyrule were banned off the bat with little/no tournament exposure. Some places in the EARLY days of Brawl had Hanenbow legal (might have been only as a teams CP stage but still). Corneria Norfair Mansion Green Greens Picto PTAD Distant Planet Japes Skyworld (yes the legendary Skyworld was legal some places, Dallas infamously had 1 TO that REFUSED to let this stage go ((maybe Summit as well IDR all of it specifically but I do remember skyworld lol)) ) etc tend to have had their day in the sun. To say that most banned stages went under the radar or were prematurely banned is frankly wrong. The only specific case I can think of is PS2. Everything else tends to have a good reason somewhere for keeping it banned.

 

[Strong Badam]

1: Otori==
2: Nietono==
3: Nairo==
4: ESAM==/
5: Ally==/
5: Kakera==/


1. Kakera & Otori==/
2. Mew2King & Anti==/
3. Gnes & Razer==/

And this is somehow going to be the results anti-ban leans on. There are an awful lot of masks in these results...

The results could have been 1-64 Meta Knight and I still would give 0 ****s.

 

[Steam]

If it's better for the community it's the best reason to ban something.

So, yeah, it's a perfectly fine reason to ban them.

and what makes you think the community will be better off without them? is there any proof of that? or even a reason to think so other than people complaining about them (often times because of MK)

 

[Thino]

Every single one of you guys using data as an argument namely has yet to explain the relationship between character dominance and character ban

aka when it was established and how

Or else I don't see the point in discussing how the the data is interpreted, apex results and even stage bans if you guys havent explained all that in the first place

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The community draws the line where is too far and it is arbitrary.

 

[Judo777]

and what makes you think the community will be better off without them? is there any proof of that? or even a reason to think so other than people complaining about them (often times because of MK)

No way to know until you try. Like that's the thing that I can't understand. The only way to PROVE it will be better for the community, is to try it out for a certain period of time and compare. Obviously the time period has to be sufficiently long for people to adapt.

You want proof? Well here you go we are trying to prove it, give us 8 months or w/e.

 

[infiniteV115]

@ Omni
Z uses Pikachu and Fox
Mike Haze said himself that he uses MK for Brinstar and RC
Mr.R uses a lot of characters other than Marth, including (but not limited to) Snake, MK and ZSS
Zex uses Marth and MK
Reflex uses Wario and PT AFAIK
Leon uses Marth and Peach
Logic uses Olimar, and occasionally MK

Edit: And I don't know how often Nietono uses MK, but I know for a fact that he used MK at a pre-Apex tourney in Japan where the top 6 used either MK or MK+someone else.

 

[Steam]

No way to know until you try. Like that's the thing that I can't understand. The only way to PROVE it will be better for the community, is to try it out for a certain period of time and compare. Obviously the time period has to be sufficiently long for people to adapt.

You want proof? Well here you go we are trying to prove it, give us 8 months or w/e.

at the very least there should be a poll on them. with and without MK banned.

dunno why the URC hasn't done that...

I wouldn't mind them gone though. Lucario/snake suck on rainbow and brinstar lol.

 

[Thino]

The community draws the line where is too far and it is arbitrary.

Of course.

In that case you agree with me that there's no need to use any kind of data whatsoever as justification or as reference for a line that is drawn in a arbitrary way.

Polls result should be the only argument pro-bans should use to justify the ban since it's arbitrary.

No way to know until you try. Like that's the thing that I can't understand. The only way to PROVE it will be better for the community, is to try it out for a certain period of time and compare. Obviously the time period has to be sufficiently long for people to adapt.

You want proof? Well here you go we are trying to prove it, give us 8 months or w/e.

What I'm curious about is, after those 8 months, how will you determine that a certain change in the ruleset was the better decision?

What kind of changes or results do you expect?

and as Steam mentioned, why proceed in a different way from, let's say, MK's ban and not being consistent in the way used to decide changes in the ruleset?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well that is half true.

See they still need data to show where the line was drawn. The Poll in itself showed what was too far with 75%.

People are different, some may be people who say he is too far with only a smig of good results, others may be fine even if he was Ivan Ooze broken and say it is a fair metagame.

Which more or less is why the community as a group should decide over indidivduals.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Lucario/snake suck on rainbow and brinstar lol.

Snake ****ing ***** on Rainbow 0_0