-
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!
Florida T.O. MK Ban/nerfing Discussion Thread.
- Thread starter Somacruz2
- Start date
- Status
<3 Mampam
Lol You use Yoshi. I nearly lost to Reflex's bro's Yoshi in a friendly because I got spiked. I don't see why you're complaining, he doesn't have as much trouble with MK as other characters.
-!-
Smash Lord
lol Finally someone thinks like me... DDD is more troublesome then MK imo... I tried doing Wario vs DDD and it's so frustrating... it really get's to me
I feel for Wario mains >.<
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
What?lol Finally someone thinks like me... DDD is more troublesome then MK imo... I tried doing Wario vs DDD and it's so frustrating... it really get's to me
I feel for Wario mains >.<
Learn2airdoge thank you.
We hate Wario.
Airdodging IS THE SOLUTION!!!!!
T3h Albino
Smash Master
air camping is annoying to d3
VSC.D-Torr
Smash Hero
This thread is dumb.
-!-
Smash Lord
Anyone knows how to, but I get bored quickly when I see my efforts look pointless after one grab
ummm I'm thinking of MM you with wario... I don't play him lol but I wanna see how I do against you after some practice... o.O
yea like I said bofer too... it's pointless
Poltergust
Smash Master
I'm not complaining about anything. I know that Yoshi can handle Meta Knight just fine. I just said that I'm neutral on the whole matter because I can't decide which side has the stronger argument.
(On the issue of standing infinites, here's a solution: choose another character. Problem solved. <_<)
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Sure, I'll moneymatch you. 3 dollars?Anyone knows how to, but I get bored quickly when I see my efforts look pointless after one grab
ummm I'm thinking of MM you with wario... I don't play him lol but I wanna see how I do against you after some practice... o.O
But really, when you get good with Wario, grabbing won't be a problem. The reason we have the matchup slightly in Wario's favor is because we can't small step a good wario because we can't get the grab.
I use to be anti-ban, then I became pro ban after seeing several tournaments. I understand both sides equally.I'm not complaining about anything. I know that Yoshi can handle Meta Knight just fine. I just said that I'm neutral on the whole matter because I can't decide which side has the stronger argument.
VSC.D-Torr
Smash Hero
Standing infinites are dumb too.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
ur mom is dumb
yummynbeefy
Smash Champion
standing infinites make what would be more like a 50-50 or a 40-60 into an lol matchup seriously the only thing thats holding dk back from higher tier placement is the d3 infinite bowser too
also what if you use dk and mario? then ur screwed
on the mk note i still believe mk should be banned but i doubt its really going to happen regularly at tourneys
Darktemplio
Smash Journeyman
Dont ban MK! at least not yet
...and using wario against D3 is really manly.
...and using wario against D3 is really manly.
Ruse
Fox
Poltergust
Smash Master
^People already know about that tournament...
Or Do They?
Noa.
Smash Master
I thought Crashic lived in GA?
Xyro77
Unity Ruleset Committee Member
hmmm why? Is it that i main a low tier and do well with her? Is it because i want to eliminate your broken character? Or is it i run a LONG lasting, VERY successful tournament series? Or is it i dont use a rule set the majority of the US uses? Or is i by my posts on a smash bros forum? Have you met me in real life? Have you seen/played me?
Im sure what ever your reasons are, they are 100% false or you have been lied to.
you dont have to believe me(you have your own opinions and i respect them). i dont ask that you do. I simply want you(all of you) to read the facts. More and more this game is becoming super metaknight bros and less and less super smash bros.
xyro
To the person who wondered if i was a girl. I am
I respect that you use a low tier character, and I understand that MK is too good. I also generally try not to judge people off of the forum, and CO18 told me that you're really cool IRL.
I do feel that the rulesets in Texas are rather unfair and give MK an advantage if anything (they also give characters like GaW an advantage)....
Aside from that I was reading your arguements with M2K though and I felt your points were a little misplaced.
Look at the game like it's melee. Melee has about 6 viable characters. You have to keep in mind that a lot of the issues is good players using MK and a lot of good players not using characters that have a viable chance against him. If everyone good that uses a low tier character picked up Falco/Diddy/Snake/Pikachu/character that has a legit chance against even a top MK then we would see less dominance. If we played the game like there were only that many viable characters then even good MKs would have trouble doing well all the time. WHOBO had a the best MKs in the US importantly, and a lot of good people using characters with pretty much no chance against him at the highest level.
Anyway Im a fan of your tournament series and your "Tasty" exclamations, I just felt your agruement was a lil off.
People should just man up and use better characters. MK will still win more obviously, but all the good peopel using characters that wont beat him will make a huge difference.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Nope. Cape Coral Florida.
I did live in Alanta when I was 7-9 though.
Xyro77
Unity Ruleset Committee Member
if you simply disagree with my reasoning, then thats all fine and good(we all have our own opinions) but to say im "not the most respectable dude" is kinda harsh. Im not asking for an apology cause you are still welcome to your own opinions. I just wanted to know why.
IMO my rules help the n00b players not get MOLESTED by broken stuff(ICG with ddd/ic or plainking with meta) while still allowing pros to still win.
I set a 55 ledge grab limit for metaknights ONLY( after seeing people abuse the "stalling" rule at world hobo i couldnt hold back anymore) because metaknight is the ONLY one with plainking that cannot be stopped if done right.
GW has counter characters AND stages. So my rules do not make meta/gw better. In fact i have redone the entire stage list and after hobo 16 it will start.
but in any case, i aint mad or anything. i just wanted to know why you tick the way you do. nothing big or dramatic
I dont really have any bias or anything, I've just heard rather negative stuff about you. Something about your combo video dissing Tudor or something.
Its not my place to form opinions on stuff I dont know about so I'll leave it at that.
Sorry for making you even come in here lol.
it still isnt that easy for wario..(even though im not too good on this..)
Xyro77
Unity Ruleset Committee Member
OH THE COMBO VID! yea i did. lol.
i personally dont think hes better than me but its my opinion.
Relax and carry on, ill leave ya in peace
Ballistics
Smash Champion
xyro the only time i thought brawl was cool was watching your combo video
you are for the mk ban right? Rep that ****
you are for the mk ban right? Rep that ****
Poltergust
Smash Master
Guys. Read this. ALL of it.
Now, under this kind of system does Meta Knight still warrant a ban? Does he make it so that there is less skill and diversity (and therefore, competitiveness) with him around than with him not being around? This can be used by both sides of the argument, so don't think that Eyada is pro-ban or anti-ban.I just want to preface this with an apology for the length.
I'm sorry. I tried to make it shorter.
I've already refuted the "popularity" claim.
Here's the post where I did so: Argument disproving "popularity" claim.
You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what diversity really is.
Diversity is the only valid argument, and that is true for all competitive games of every genre. No exceptions.
Even if people don't realize it, diversity was the reason that items and stages were banned in Melee; diversity is the reason that stages and items are banned in Brawl; diversity is the reason cards are banned in Magic: the Gathering; diversity is the reason that Akuma was banned in ST; diversity is the reason why he has been banned yet again in HDR; and diversity is also the reason why all things that have not been banned were not banned in the first place.
Diversity supersedes all other arguments for and against banning anything in a competitive game. All other arguments, of any variety, are sub-arguments that exist solely to help determine the final outcome of the diversity argument. At the final stage of reasoning of all arguments concerning allowing content in a competitive game, the final determining factor is always diversity (or lack thereof.)
The truth of the matter is that diversity is the only valid, justifiable criterion for deciding whether or not something should be banned in the context of a competitive game. Moreover, diversity has been the underlying justification behind all rule sets adopted by this community for both Brawl and Melee, even if it wasn't acknowledged or recognized as such.
A generalized summary of the argument supporting this is as follows:
1.) Establishing that "diverse" and "competitive" are really the same thing. This means that the diversity of a game is the sole factor in determining the competitiveness of the game. More diverse is more competitive, less diverse is less competitive.
2.) Establishing a clear concept of "completely dominant options" (i.e., an absolute lack of diversity) and "overcentralization" (i.e., extreme, but not complete, lack of diversity), showing why a game with those features is either not competitive at all or is strictly less competitive than it would be otherwise, and addressing how those two concepts help show that diversity is essential for competitiveness.
3.) Establishing that the goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game.
4.) Making the connection that premise (3.) combined with premise (1.) leads to the conclusion that the true goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize diversity because doing so leads to the maximization of competitiveness.
5.) Establishing the diversity-based criteria for banning something under a competitive rule set. Namely: An option in a competitive game can be justifiably banned when banning that option results in a net increase of diversity within the game. This means that the diversity lost by banning something must be less than the diversity gained by banning it. If the net result of a ban is a zero change in diversity or a decrease in diversity, the ban is not warranted. The goal of any ban is to maximize the competitiveness of the game by maximizing the diversity.
The first part, proving that competitiveness is determined by diversity , is the longest. I put this argument into writing a few weeks ago after re-reading Sirlin's book, mulling this idea over, and then deciding that it was accurate. I had no real intention of sharing it with anyone, but it is apparent that there is a great deal of confusion and disagreement circulating here concerning diversity and what sort of criteria can be used to justify a ban. Perhaps this will be helpful in solving the problem. I tried to format it somewhat for easier readability, but for the most part I just copy+pasted it, so I apologize for any reading difficulty. I have never presented this argument to a public audience for scrutiny before, so if you see any problems with it, please let me know.
For those who don't feel like reading the full argument, a grossly oversimplified, lazy, slightly inaccurate version of the logic is basically:
Diversity = the available viable options; more diversity = more options; more options = more possibility for skill; and more skill = more competitive, because skill = competitive. Apply the transitivity principle and you get Diverse = Competitive. (And yes, you also get that not Diverse = not Competitive.)
Then, once the fact that "diverse" = "competitive" has been established, it is obvious that "making a maximally competitive rule set" is the same as saying "making a maximally diverse rule set".
And the ban criteria comes from the idea that banning is used to maximize competitiveness. Competitiveness = diversity. Therefore, banning is to maximize diversity. Maximizing something means to increase it as much as possible, hence the criteria that a ban must result in increased diversity.
If you disagree with reasoning behind that, read the full argument. The full argument is not as imprecise, lazy, or flawed as that little summary is.
This post is already really long, so I will not put the explanations why this system supports items and certain stages being banned; however, if anyone cannot see why that is so, just post and I will respond with the explanations.
The full, rigorous argument is the following:
/* Defining a competitive game/*
1.) A game is considered competitive if the outcome of the game is determined by meaningful decisions made by the players; as opposed to being determined purely by luck or by random decisions which lack any sort of logical basis.
2.) Any option that can reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "viable" option.
3.) Any option that cannot reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "non-viable" option.
4.) Having only a single viable option in a game means that players must always choose that option in order to win.
5.) Therefore, games with only one viable option do not allow players to make meaningful decisions.
6.) Therefore, multiple viable options to choose from in a game are required before players can make meaningful decisions.
7.) Therefore, a competitive game must have multiple viable options.
8.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by players making meaningful decisions concerning various viable options within the game.
/* Defining Skill /*
9.) The ability of players to deliberate and then meaningfully decide between multiple viable options in order to maximize the possibility of victory is called "skill".
10.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by skill.
/* Defining Diversity and showing a relationship to Skill /*
11.) The number of viable options available for players to base their meaningful decisions upon in a competitive game is called "diversity".
12.) By definition, the larger the amount of viable options a game has (i.e., the greater the diversity), the larger the amount of meaningful decisions players will have to make concerning those options.
13.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (9. and 10.), a game with greater diversity will provide more opportunities for players to show skill.
14.) As a corollary, a game with lesser diversity will provide less opportunities for players to show skill.
/* Defining Competitiveness and showing its relationship to increased Diversity /*
15.) By definition of the word "competitiveness", a game's level of competitiveness is determined by how much competition it fosters.
16.) Following from (1. and 10.) and the definition of the word "competitive", a game being resolved by skill between players is a competition.
17.) By definition, a game being resolved by a greater amount of skilled exchanges between players is a greater amount of competition.
18.) Therefore, a game which encourages greater amounts of skill encourages greater amounts of competitiveness.
19.) An increased amount of diversity causes an increased amount of skill, as shown in (13.)
20.) Therefore, increased diversity causes increased competitiveness.
/* Defining Overcentralization and showing the relationship between Competitiveness and decreased Diversity. /*
21.) If a single viable option in a game renders a sufficient majority of, but not all, other options non-viable, that option is said to be "overcentralizing".
22.) By definition, an overcentralized game has less diversity.
23.) Following from (15. and 16.), and by logic similar to (17.), a game being resolved by a lesser amount of skilled exchanges between players is a lesser amount of competition.
24.) Therefore, a game which encourages lesser amounts of skill encourages lesser amounts of competitiveness.
25.) As shown in (14.), less diversity means less skill.
26.) Therefore, decreased diversity causes decreased competitiveness.
27.) Therefore, overcentralization causes decreased competitiveness.
/* Defining Completely Dominant and showing its relationship to Skill /*
28.) If a single viable option in a game renders all other options non-viable, that option is said to be "completely dominant".
29.) A game with a completely dominant option does not allow for meaningful decisions, as shown in (4. and 5.)
30.) By definitions shown in (9. and 10.), skill cannot exist without the ability to make meaningful decisions.
31.) Therefore, the outcome of a game with a completely dominant option is not determined by skill.
/* Identifying the conditions necessary for a game to lack Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
32.) As shown in (28., 29, 30., and 31.), a game with a completely dominant option does not allow for skill.
33.) By the definition of "skill" shown in (9.), a game with zero viable options does not allow for skill.
34.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not allow for skill.
35.) By the definition of diversity shown in (11.), a game must allow for meaningful decisions among viable options in order to have diversity.
36.) Therefore, as follows from (4. and 5.), a game with a completely dominant option does not have diversity.
37.) Similarly, a game with zero viable options does not have diversity.
38.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have diversity.
39.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have skill or diversity.
40.) Therefore, a lack of skill and a lack of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
41.) Therefore, a lack of skill necessitates a lack of diversity; and a lack of diversity necessitates a lack of skill.
42.) Therefore, a game with no diversity cannot have skill; and a game with no skill cannot have diversity.
/* Showing the conditions necessary for a game to have Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
43.) As a corollary to (34.), a game with two or more viable options does allow for skill.
44.) As a corollary to (38.), a game with two or more viable options does allow diversity.
45.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options allows for both skill and diversity.
46.) By the definition shown in (9.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill.
47.) By the definition shown in (11.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has diversity.
48.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill and diversity.
49.) As shown in (13. and 14.), the quantity of skill and diversity in a game are mutually determined.
50.) Therefore, the presence of skill and the presence of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
51.) Therefore, the presence of skill necessitates the presence of diversity; and the presence of diversity necessitates the presence of skill.
52.) Therefore, a game with diversity must have skill; and a game with skill must have diversity.
/* Using the logical equivalence of Skill and Diversity and the relationship between Skill and Competitiveness to show the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness. /*
53.) As shown in (42. and 52.), the logical conditions required for skill and diversity are equivalent.
54.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, the presence or absence of skill implies the presence or absence of diversity; and the presence or absence of diversity implies the presence or absence skill.
55.) Therefore, skill is necessary for diversity, and diversity is necessary for skill.
57.) As shown in (15. and 16.), skill is necessary for competitiveness.
58.) Skill and diversity are logically equivalent.
58.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, diversity is necessary for competitiveness.
60.) As shown in (20. and 26.), increased or decreased diversity causes increased or decreased competitiveness.
61.) Therefore, the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
/* Showing that the purpose of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game. /*
62.) The goal of competition is to test the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
63.) A Competitive Rule Set is a rule set meant to facilitate competition.
63.) The goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate competition.
64.) Therefore, the goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate testing the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
65.) Doing things that unnecessarily hinder one's attempts to do something is bad.
66.) Therefore, making a Rule Set that hinders the ability of one's tournament to effectively test the skills of players is bad.
67.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should facilitate competitive tournament play to the maximum extent possible.
68.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
/* Showing that the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness leads to the conclusion that Tournament Rule Sets should maximize Diversity. /*
69.) As shown in (61.), the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
70.) As shown in (68.), a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
71.) Therefore, maximizing diversity causes a maximization of competitiveness.
72.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize diversity.
/* Establishing a justifiable ban criterion under a Competitive Rule Set. /*
73.) As shown in (72.), the goal of competitive rule making is to maximize diversity.
74.) Banning is part of competitive rule making.
75.) Therefore, the goal of banning is to maximize diversity.
76.) Banning anything in the game means a loss of diversity.
77.) Banning everything in the game leaves a total of zero diversity.
78.) Not banning something means that diversity is maintained.
79.) Therefore, not banning anything is the best method of maintaining maximized diversity in an already maximally diversified game.
80.) Not banning something that is making other options non-viable means that maximum diversity is not being maintained.
81.) Banning something that is making other options non-viable means that those options will become viable as a result of the ban.
82.) By definition, if a ban results in a net increase of diversity then that ban contributes to maximization of diversity.
83.) By definition, if a ban results in a net decrease of diversity then that ban contributes to non-maximization of diversity.
84.) By definition, if a ban results in neither a net increase nor a net decrease in diversity then that ban contributes nothing to diversity.
85.) By definition, the only way to maximize something is to increase it.
86.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity help maximize diversity.
87.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity are justified.
/* Done /*
PolMex23
Smash Champion
Um...
Look, im not going to lie. I might have...had a small orgasm...
When I read this, then saw that you could have been a girl....
Im not believing it untill I see you at either Genesis or if you come down to FL...lol
But just the thought of that coming from a really hot girl/lesbian...I would have been in heaven...
...Ty, carry on xD
gallax
Smash Hero
OMFG!!!!!!!!! this is a day of days people. i have watched and helped out the pika community to my best efforts since brawl came out and through our labor we have found that in the end, PIKA CAN BE A MK KILLER!!!!!!
WAHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10millionpikachus
Darktemplio
Smash Journeyman
lol, xyro is not a girl.
But Id have to agree, a girl hosting major tourneys would be pretty cool.
HRNUT (Honey Roasted)
Smash Master
so if im right so far thats
8 for the ban
13 against the ban
8 for the ban
13 against the ban
Lol wtf tgm.
He's not a girl, Mike. Search TGM combo on youtube. That's "Xyro".
Noa.
Smash Master
Unfortunate that no one's responded to Poltergust's post.
Noa.
Smash Master
Well, I do believe that if we use Eyada's system, it does warrant MK for a ban.
If more competitiveness is offset by more variety, and banning MK would lead to more variety, then that would be enough to justify a ban, according to that system.
IMO
If more competitiveness is offset by more variety, and banning MK would lead to more variety, then that would be enough to justify a ban, according to that system.
IMO
MikeSanti
Smash Journeyman
Do tournaments with MK banned / No MK banned like HOBO. I'd have to agree with Seibrik's point though to not ban him yet.
B_AWAL
Smash Master
O god.... Y is this arguement STILL going on...
MikeSanti
Smash Journeyman
It's not an argument, it's simply a discussion on the matter. There hasn't really been much of a resolve to it so of course the discussion will continue.
gallax
Smash Hero
what if you had an experimental smash tourney with MK banned then you take a poll on how much people did or did not enjoy it. have 2 or 3 or 4 of these experimental tournies and see the outcome. if its obviously a better system than go with it. if not, then dont.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
- Status