Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

There is no data for those tournaments because different players have a different idea of what overcentralization is. Why would anyone want to collect data for something they don't even consider overcentralizing? I don't think 20% is overcentralizing and neither do a bunch of other players

You're extremely wrong on the last point.

And then you can't prove your point, can you?

20% of nearly 40 characters? You do realize that's 1/5 of the entire tournaments being won by one guy. That's pretty extreme overall.

Keep in mind that's when he's limited. He'd win more without the LGL, after all. In fact, that's literally the only reason he hasn't gotten a higher percentage.

Likewise, you mixing your goals. You cannot say Melee's characters are overcentralizing, but he's not. Nor can you even say they are even comparable.

The only overcentralization comparable is another game where only one character is a ultimate winning one. Melee does not have this, and thus, it's not comparable.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Do you have any means of proving that claim?

Yes. Zekey, Ally and Anuar voted for entirely different reasons

@Hyperfalcon, I'm not saying that the Melee characters are overcentralizing. They just are by your logic

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Okay, then prove it for every person who votes yes and no. Unless you can do that, your point isn't completely right.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Okay, then prove it for every person who votes yes and no. Unless you can do that, your point isn't completely right.

What? When did I say that everyone didn't vote for that reason? I'm right about what I said if I can prove that one person didn't vote for that reason

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

But can you prove the majority didn't vote for it because of that? A few people is not enough.

It doesn't change that he actually overcentralizes the game, regardless of the votes. Literally, the metagame is centered around him. That's an actual fact, and we both know that.

Even if people deny the truth, it doesn't change the facts here. The metagame is literally centered around him.

 

[Zankoku]

Why not????????

I mean, if Melee were summarized as rock paper scissors garbage, with garbage always losing, that's still quite different from the hypothetical Brawl overcentralization, which would be more similar to rock scissors. While both examples have a "chaff" option that would be unreasonable to choose, the first example still yields multiple equally viable alternatives while the latter example is left with no viable alternatives - just a single reasonable choice.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

But can you prove the majority didn't vote for it? A few people is not enough.

Maybe, but he also can't make that claim that the 75% of players who voted for the ban, voted for that reason

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I'm not claiming that as the reason, and I agree that not everybody said that.

However, you cannot claim he isn't overcentralizing the game either, since that's what is happening.

 

[Eddie G]

Maybe, but he also can't make that claim that the 75% of players who voted for the ban, voted for that reason

I never specified what their reasoning was.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I never specified what their reasoning was.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13683244&postcount=6157

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Actually, King Beef, you did imply that their reasoning was because of overcentralization. I think it was just bad wording.

But it's clear you meant that 75% of them consider Meta Knight a problem when they voted.

Now that that mishap is settled, let's move on form it.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I'm not claiming that as the reason, and I agree that not everybody said that.

However, you cannot claim he isn't overcentralizing the game either, since that's what is happening.

As I said before, different players have different ideas of what overcentralization is as far as percentages go

@愛sight, Think about the tiers and not the characters. Again, not me, just the logic, Is it right to have 4 broken characters but not one?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

As I said before, different players have different ideas of what overcentralization is as far as percentages go

Except that's not what I'm saying. 20% is a dominant force unless there were exactly 5 overall playable characters. However, if it was only 10, it wouldn't be centralizing. But when it's around 40 characters, and 1 is winning 20% of the time, that's an extreme in data.

It fits the definition perfectly: An extreme amount.

20% doesn't sound much at first, but when that's 1 out of 40 doing that, the numbers add up. He's the single dominant force, and is the entire metagame is centralized around him.

It's an extreme version of centralization. You cannot really misinterpret the numbers here. None of the data is incorrect either.

And even then, he's still centralized compared to anyone else. That's JUST as horrible.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Except that's not what I'm saying. 20% is a dominant force unless there were exactly 5 overall playable characters. However, if it was only 10, it wouldn't be centralizing. But when it's around 40 characters, and 1 is winning 20% of the time, that's an extreme in data.

It fits the definition perfectly: An extreme amount.

20% doesn't sound much at first, but when that's 1 out of 40 doing that, the numbers add up. He's the single dominant force, and is the entire metagame is centralized around him.

It's an extreme version of centralization. You cannot really misinterpret the numbers here. None of the data is incorrect either.

And even then, he's still centralized compared to anyone else. That's JUST as horrible.

Of those 40, about half are still not going to see much use after the ban and even more are still not tournament viable. It's really about 20% of 15 characters and that 20% is including MK secondaries

 

[John12346]

But when it's around 40 characters, and 1 is winning 20% of the time, that's an extreme in data.

Correction here.

MK is USED ~20% of the time.
He WINS somewhere between 36.77% and 53.20% of all tournament money.
48.23% to 67.54% if you narrow down the tournaments considered to regionals and nationals only.

Just so you have the data to argue with.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Of those 40, about half are still not going to see much use after the ban and even more are still not tournament viable. It's really about 20% of 15 characters and that 20% is including MK secondaries

They're used, though. They also make money at tournaments. I'm sorry, but what you're saying is not true. And actually, yeah, they've all been used. Read John#'s actual charts. Everybody got used, regardless of viability or not.

Also, John# just made it sound worse that I did.

MK is winning around 35% of the time. Or 40% if we average.

Every character gets used. And most of them weren't used because, you know, MK makes them not stand even close to a chance. Atleast they can try with other characters, but he slaughters all but a few characters.

 

[John12346]

Jebus, tell me, starting from Ganon, up to what character you consider unviable, and I'll calculate modified usage percentages for you.

If we begin to ignore characters in your scenario, then we need to eliminate their influence on the data, meaning that all of the remaining characters' usage rates will go up.

Shoot.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

It wouldn't work because of secondaries. ZSS and maybe TL in my opinion are the last tournament viable characters without having to use secondaries. There are some characters in there that are still not viable and some characters below that are viable so it's not 100% accurate, but it's close.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

It's not even close.

You cannot judge whether a character is played or not because of a Tier List. In MK banned tourneys, everybody made money. More than they did overall with him there.(although that's to be naturally expected)

The problem is, every character has been played, and MK just wins more money, wins more tournaments, and at an excessive amount. The data shows that. Are you denying data?

Likewise, the only thing Secondaries shown is the split. Since we both know MK wins more often, that means he'd be winning more money than anybody else. In fact, has any player used a secondary that was NOT MK?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

All that data has been taken from less than 35 tournaments compared to the hundreds of MK legal tournaments used for the other chart. We still don't know what will happen or if the ban will really even work

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Then the only solution is to get more data from MK banned tourneys, now isn't it?

That'll only work if MK is banned. You want more data to prove you're right? You have to keep MK banned.

That's just how it works. If you think the data isn't enough, then we have to keep working at it. Making him unbanned will not do that. No matter what, MK being banned is the only solution at this time.

Also, those MK Legal Tournaments also show that's he far beyond the cast too. Imagine that.

 

[Zankoku]

That sounds more like reasoning to collect more data than reasoning to not ban MK.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Then maybe we should bring back stages with permanent walk offs. We never had a chance to prove they were overcentralizing.

 

[John12346]

Have fun!

 

[Zankoku]

Then maybe we should bring back stages with permanent walk offs. We never had a chance to prove they were overcentralizing.

Both Yoshi's Island (Melee) and Distant Planet were legal stages during certain periods of Brawl's life. Evidently "experimentation" has led to the conclusion that the community at large prefers them off.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Those are not a character and can be stricken much easier.

By that logic, we should remove the LGL because we put it in way too early too, right?

And they were overcentralizing in Melee and 64. What's to say they won't be a problem here? Likewise, they're degenerate gameplay, are they not?

Here's the thing: MK is doing most of the degenerate gameplay. Walk-offs are degenerate gameplay.

You want to do this, you must remove the LGL too.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Those are not a character and can be stricken much easier.

By that logic, we should remove the LGL because we put it in way too early too, right?

And they were overcentralizing in Melee and 64. What's to say they won't be a problem here? Likewise, they're degenerate gameplay, are they not?

Here's the thing: MK is doing most of the degenerate gameplay. Walk-offs are degenerate gameplay.

You want to do this, you must remove the LGL too.

But they didn't ban their overcentraizing characters so we shouldn't either.

 

[Zankoku]

But they didn't ban their overcentraizing characters so we shouldn't either.

They also don't play Brawl, so we shouldn't either.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The top 4 of Melee weren't overcentralizing, so you can't say that. You cannot back that up with any data, so you're already wrong.

Try again with data. We proved he was overcentralizing. You need to prove they are too. If you cannot, then our data is correct, and so is our point.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

They also don't play Brawl, so we shouldn't either.

can you prove that?

 

[Zankoku]

can you prove that?

Yes, I can, actually. Unfortunately, by this point you've dodged so far off the initial topic that it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is that you pointed out that there weren't enough MK-banned tournaments to draw conclusions from. The only way to fix that is to hold more MK-banned tournaments. And I highly recommend you not ask me to prove that the only way to increase the number of MK-banned tournaments is to increase the number of MK-banned tournaments.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Yes, I can, actually. Unfortunately, by this point you've dodged so far off the initial topic that it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is that you pointed out that there weren't enough MK-banned tournaments to draw conclusions from. The only way to fix that is to hold more MK-banned tournaments.

There weren't enough tournaments to prove MK was overcentralizing.

 

[Eddie G]

There weren't enough tournaments to prove MK was overcentralizing.

Ok...you're just being ridiculously stubborn at this point.

 

[Zankoku]

you pointed out that there weren't enough MK-banned tournaments to draw conclusions from.

There weren't enough tournaments to prove MK was overcentralizing.

Unless you're trying to help people who are bad at reading by re-stating what I just said, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

 

[Judo777]

Those characters still overcentralize the metagame and it would be healthier for the metagame to remove them. More character diversity. Is it the best thing to do? Hell no

Wow this is literally the most ******** post I have ever seen. Wait so if any SEVERAL things over centralize the metagame then they should be banned???? In EVERY competative game in the history of forever the metagame has been centralized over the top tiers. That's WHY THEY ARE TOP TIERS! Melee doesn't OVER centralize around the top tiers because not EVERY top tier has no bad or even MU's below them.

Falco, Jiggs, Marth, Fox, Sheik, Peach. So your telling me two of those characters loses to every one of the others (top 4) in that list? I doubt it.

Yes in Super street fighter 2 turbo the game did centralize over the 4 top tiers (O Sagat, Claw, Boxer, Dhalsim) because they are top tiers. But its not like each of them didn't have tough MU's below them.

The problem in brawl is top tier is one character.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Think about the tiers and not the characters. Again, not me, just the logic, Is it right to have 4 overcentralizing characters but not one?

 

[IhaveSonar]

The top four in melee have reason to play as different characters; that reason is that they have eachother as equals. Thus, switching to other members of that top tier, or switching to lower-ranked counters to those four, becomes a viable option, and therefore spices up the metagame.

In Brawl, the top tier is one character. He has no equals, so therefore there are no reasons to play as any other character aside from him(assuming you are playing strictly to win.)

It is possible to pick more than one character in Melee and be put into a better situation.

In Brawl, picking characters other than MK will never be beneficial.

That is why he overcentralizes.

IMHO.

 

[Zankoku]

Think about the tiers and not the characters. Again, not me, just the logic, Is it right to have 4 overcentralizing characters but not one?

The tiers are defined by the characters within them, not the other way around. It's really stupid to say "well, yeah, Meta Knight's a whole level above everyone else, but that's fine, because he's a whole tier above everyone else."

In addition, centralization in Melee appears to be far less prevalent -telling is that nobody is surprised about a non-top-tier beating a top-tier unless it's surprising for said non-top-tier to be winning at all. Meanwhile you're here pointing out singular match-ups and citing sets that can be counted on one hand.

As to the question itself, I already mentioned that "centralizing" around four characters still leads to far more varied of an environment than centralizing around a singular character.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Okay, let's look at the Tiers.

Top Tier in Brawl: 1 Guy.

Top Tier in Melee: 4 Guys.

4 is better than 1, that also means more variety. Likewise, those Top Tier still lose often enough and each character does too.

The problem is, you cannot look at the Tier alone, Jebus. Want to know why? The characters make the tier, not the other way around. People don't just play because they're the top tier. They also play because they're the best character. Likewise, you always pick the top tier to win. If there's only one guy, the chances of you losing are slim. If there's multiple characters, you know that you won't always win.

Thus, let's look it another way: Choosing MK means it's an easy win. We don't want people to have super easy wins. That's not good for the game either.

No matter how you slice it, MK is the problem. Tiers are too subjective as well.

Likewise, you cannot say MK isn't the best overall character in the game, now can you? We all know he's the top dog, and everybody's below him completely. He has no actual equal.

Likewise, we're banning a character, not a tier. That's why your argument just doesn't work.

 

[IhaveSonar]

Top Tier in Melee: 4 Guys.

I realize this is completely irrelevant, but Jiggz and Sheik are girls. :D