Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Smooth Criminal]

Pro bans didn't put up the poll or make the final decision

Really?

News to me.

...Jebus, just stop.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Starphoenix]

The funny thing is that even with this ban the Brawl competitive community isn't going to be taken any more seriously. Just saying.

I don't think the Metaknight ban is that big of a deal. It is not as though he was taken out of the game entirely for every single person on the planet, just for a small niche group. Which means some of the water works can be turned off.

 

[Ripple]

>_> The pro-banners, Jebus. That's what he means by "us."

Smooth Criminal

I'm pretty sure he meant everyone

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I'm pretty sure he meant everyone

That's what I was getting at, Ripple. Everybody that voted for the ban, or wanted it.

>_> Please don't tell me you think I'm actually trying to support that dumb-dumb.

Smooth Criminal

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Really?

News to me.

...Jebus, just stop.

Smooth Criminal

That's why this was his comeback.

 

[Ripple]

That's what I was getting at, Ripple. Everybody that voted for the ban.

>_>

Smooth Criminal

you misunderstood, I meant everyone in general. no one wants to hear jebus

 

[Smooth Criminal]

you misunderstood, I meant everyone in general. no one wants to hear jebus

OH

Lmao.

Whoooops.

Smooth Criminal

 

[SaveMeJebus]

you misunderstood, I meant everyone in general. no one wants to hear jebus

Did you even read what he posted?

 

[Ripple]

I misread where the "us" was. but my point still stands

 

[Zankoku]

Cut it out, all of you.

 

[Ripple]

Cut it out, all of you.

you know its impossible with him in here

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Can we please room ban him? There is no way he's not trolling.

 

[Ripple]

and the mods know how annoying he can be, how much he sttrawmans, and how NO ONE wants to read his BS posts. no one has ever agreed with jebus

 

[WindMajor]

Forum Support.

End of story. This thread is about MK, not SWF users.

 

[Eon the Wolf]

Getting back on the topic of bans, and off the topic of annoying posters...and harking back to the fox v MK reference...I was curious, and had a thought; I hope one of you far more knowledge folk can help me understand...

Was there EVER a point in melee's history...where a character was viewed as so VASTLY superior for a multitude of years that a vote for banning was thought/done...? Cause I can't recall, and I've been wondering....If the fox v MK 'argument' had as much water as it supposedly does...why have I not heard of fox being/almost being voted on in regards to a ban, like MK just was...?

EDIT: I ask because, if no such thing can be remembered/found....How can one even begin to argue that fox is equal to MK in 'OP-ness'...?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

He isn't and it wasn't.

 

[Steam]

sheik was kinda like metaknight at first iirc. but then sheik got worse/others improved.

MK just got continually better.

and fox has bad matchups iirc and certainly doesn't have MK's dominance.

 

[Ripple]

Forum Support.

End of story. This thread is about MK, not SWF users.

yet it always devolves into that for some reason. I wonder what it could be

 

[Lokinario]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD11l3omQzM

Y'all seen it yet?

 

[Ripple]

Where did he get 11%? Pretty sure he didn't get that from me.

And I also don't see how the money split is biased. If mikehaze has a better way to do I suggest he say it

 

[tekkie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD11l3omQzM

Y'all seen it yet?

yeah but no one cares

 

[Flayl]

Smashboarders need to learn how to use citations :V

 

[John12346]

Ugh I'm in class right now so I can't listen in, but from what you guys are saying, it sounds like I'm gonna have to defend my honour over here...

 

[Samuelson]

you go gnes.

 

[mikeHAZE]

Here is the next video in my series
Metaknight Banned - The Facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD11l3omQzM
Enjoy.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Ugh I'm in class right now so I can't listen in, but from what you guys are saying, it sounds like I'm gonna have to defend my honour over here...

Herk. I should work on statistics tonight...

 

[Battousai780]

Where did he get 11%? Pretty sure he didn't get that from me.

And I also don't see how the money split is biased. If mikehaze has a better way to do I suggest he say it

The point is that he didn't get the 11% from you because the way you present your data is biased. Just like he said, it is not fair to evenly distribute tournament winnings among a players characters. What I gathered from Mike is that even if used in 1 set, the money is split evenly among all characters used in a tourney period. How is this not biased? Why don't you actually look at the % usage of the character and dibby up the money based on that percentage? If a character like MK is used the most, as he is because he is the best, (which happens in all games), the ammount of money he seems to win is incorrect and extremely biased.

 

[Ripple]

The point is that he didn't get the 11% from you because the way you present your data is biased. Just like he said, it is not fair to evenly distribute tournament winnings among a players characters. What I gathered from Mike is that even if used in 1 set, the money is split evenly among all characters used in a tourney period. How is this not biased? Why don't you actually look at the % usage of the character and dibby up the money based on that percentage? If a character like MK is used the most, as he is because he is the best, (which happens in all games), the ammount of money he seems to win is incorrect and extremely biased.

If we do that And weigh the money each should win. MK should be even higher

And MY chart can't even be biased. If it was reported that you used a character. You used them. End of discussion. There is no half use or 1/3 use. You used them.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

The point is that he didn't get the 11% from you because the way you present your data is biased. Just like he said, it is not fair to evenly distribute tournament winnings among a players characters. What I gathered from Mike is that even if used in 1 set, the money is split evenly among all characters used in a tourney period. How is this not biased? Why don't you actually look at the % usage of the character and dibby up the money based on that percentage? If a character like MK is used the most, as he is because he is the best, (which happens in all games), the ammount of money he seems to win is incorrect and extremely biased.

Find a better way to do it.

The split is an assumption that is necessary. There is no way to determine the percentage of character usage by every measured player in every measured event. Requesting that kind of detail given that we can't even get people to report full tournament with set counts is just absurd.

 

[Cassio]

The split is an assumption that is necessary. There is no way to determine the percentage of character usage by every measured player in every measured event. Requesting that kind of detail given that we can't even get people to report full tournament with set counts is just absurd.

Then theres no way to accurately measure the data. No Johns If the best method I have for making measurements is still innacurate, that doesnt suddenly make it accurate.

 

[Ripple]

Then theres no way to accurately measure the data. No Johns If the best method I have for making measurements is still innacurate, that doesnt suddenly make it accurate.

Then I guess I should just give up and forget the project

 

[Cassio]

Sorry, Im not trying (or didnt mean to) be mean here or anything because I know you guys but a lot of effort in and I applaud anyone who can put in effort to such projects, but you cant make true something that isnt true, you just have to acknowledge the weaknesses and criticisms.

 

[Flayl]

I don't think anybody is saying John's data is flawless, but it's definitely the closest thing to the truth that we can possibly have.

 

[Ghostbone]

Sorry, Im not trying (or didnt mean to) be mean here or anything because I know you guys but a lot of effort in and I applaud anyone who can put in effort to such projects, but you cant make true something that isnt true, you just have to acknowledge the weaknesses and criticisms.

I'm fairly sure they have acknowledged all the weaknesses in the data, but you take what you can get, the way the money is split now is fine anyway, people making problems out of nothing.

If you only use MK for one set, what if that set was GF?
If we were going to split the money properly, the other character should only get the money that would have been received in 2nd place, and MK should get the rest of the 1st place money.
If you couldn't have won the set you used MK in without MK, then how can you claim he wasn't just as important as your other character for advancing? And who's to judge if you needed MK? It just gets messy, and you can't be objective about it, without doing it the way John#'s is doing it.

Trying to split based on usage in tourney is just going to make MK even better, so we can basically say that MK is earning anywhere from 38% to 54% of tournament winnings, and it's really hard to refute that....

 

[Flayl]

It really depends on WHY MK was picked. If you assume he is always picked because he is NEEDED to win, then there's nothing wrong with John's data. Of course that's not always the case but it's impossible to know.

 

[stingers]

who picks MK when they don't need him to win lol
you could argue that some people do it because they dont want to deal with the MU with their real mains and use MK to make it easier but that's no different than needing him in effect

MK's pretty much the only character that when you see him next to a persons name, you know why they used him XD

 

[Cassio]

All you did was explain precisely why any measurements we take are going to be innaccurate. And no you dont take what you can get, lol thats why you always put a big astersk on information because it can drastically change the conclusions we come to if the information is incorrect.

 

[Battousai780]

I hear that this is the only way to measure the data? What bull**** excuse is that? Of course this is not the only method to analyze the data. It's so highly inaccurate which can easily be determined by the criteria of how the numbers are found.

Me providing a better method to calculate winnings is not necessary to determine that the current method has down syndrome. What I'm merely saying is that if we know that the current data is horribly skewed, no one should be able to use it in order to provide validity to their argument.

Also, the idea that a new set of data would show MK as being more broken is bias theory. How do you know what the data holds before you take it?

-edit-

Answer me this question: If your method is alright because in a set a person needed MK to win making the distribution of money even, how do you know that he couldn't have won otherwise with a different character? The only non bias is to show winnings based on the percentage of character usage in all matches. <--- Not hard when most TO's keep a bracket and can record this data. However, if you haven't recorded this data, you can't use it to say why MK is broken.

 

[Flayl]

Let's say that MikeHaze's 11% is true (mains and secondaries) - that of all players only 11% of them use MK in some capacity.

Those 11% players made over 50% of tournament money.

Are you unable to figure out the difference in the ratios by yourself?

 

[Battousai780]

Let's say that MikeHaze's 11% is true (mains and secondaries) - that of all players only 11% of them use MK in some capacity.

Those 11% players made over 50% of tournament money.

Are you unable to figure out the difference in the ratios by yourself?

Are you unable to figure out that the current data for winnings is done with bad math?