Nova Scotia Thread

[swordgard]

Still, if you don't use him, then yeah your not... a Mk user, just saying that you could (not should) if you put the effort in.

Should if he wants to win.


Pick a top god tier!

 

[KMAG]

Drake12. For someone who wants MK banned, you have a really funny way of making people want to be him LAWL!!

 

[zhao_guang]

makes me want to pick up MK, especially against Jordan > : D

 

[Drake12]

Haha Kmag. We'll I'm basically saying that he could be a main if he wanted to and he can already challenge some other people.
I know I'm strong ban, but I also said that if I get tired enough of fighting him then I'll pick him up to and still vote to ban.

Besides we know that if I pick up Mk that the game will be over because I will perfect 3 stock everyone, and it's simply no fun, so I gotta make the competition. Screw M2K, it's all about drake.

 

[billybeegood]

Wait..mk = jv 4 stock? Everyone pick up mk!!!

 

[KMAG]

perfectly 3 stock everyone? your funny

 

[Raziek]

He's clearly just being a derpy kid and exaggerating for effect.

That said, picking MK as a means of beating players who are more skilled than you has been pretty much statistically proven by Crow! as a viable option.

I believe the numbers said that at any given level of play, MK gives as little as 3 and at most, 27 times better results than any other character you could choose.

 

[teenwolftoo]

I hope your MK has improved adapt, my ganon surprised you at my place in those friendlies.

 

[KMAG]

drake being derpy. should have known

 

[Syko_Lemming]

He's clearly just being a derpy kid and exaggerating for effect.

That said, picking MK as a means of beating players who are more skilled than you has been pretty much statistically proven by Crow! as a viable option.

I believe the numbers said that at any given level of play, MK gives as little as 3 and at most, 27 times better results than any other character you could choose.

27 times seems rediculously outlandish. Where are you getting these numbers?

 

[Croi]

I beat zhao with MK once. He's saying that I would have lost 9 sets over if I used anyone else.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I believe the numbers said that at any given level of play, MK gives as little as 3 and at most, 27 times better results than any other character you could choose.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Are you saying that a non MK user whose average result is 27th could be expected to finish 1st to 9th using MK, certeris paribus? Is first 27 times better that twenty-seventh?



Annnnnnd, I don't think you can justify banning something unless it's broken, I can't say anything about the game specifically since I know next to nothing about brawl, but I do know M2k lost to some cat's Olimar. I hate using specific matches to prove general point in smash as much as the next person, but I think it works when it comes to character bans; if that happens at the top level no ban is justifiable.


Also, I agree with whoever said this thread has gotten entertaining.

 

[Nysyarc]

Referring to a match like Brood vs MK can't justify anything for several reasons:

1. Brood isn't just 'some cat', he's clearly an exceptional player and probably the best Olimar main on the planet. Plus I guarantee you M2K was unfamiliar with the match-up at a high level.

2. Two players who are at the 'best' at their respective characters cannot be at the exact same level of skill. It simply is not possible. Just because San beat Gnes, a top Diddy Kong player, does not at all mean that Ike is a better character than Diddy or even that Ike wins in the MU against Diddy. To base character match-ups soleley on top-level player performance (let alone just one set in one tournament) would be laughably ridiculous.

 

[zhao_guang]

agreeing with nick, those numbers are outlandish

i've yet to see an MK main wreck through a tourny, or even WIN a tourny. just a few pocket MKs to deal with certain match~ups.

btw beware of cleatus' MK, it's real LMFAO

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Referring to a match like Brood vs MK can't justify anything for several reasons:

1. Brood isn't just 'some cat', he's clearly an exceptional player and probably the best Olimar main on the planet.

Wasn't denying this, I just didn't know the name.

Plus I guarantee you M2K was unfamiliar with the match-up at a high level.

I really have no idea if this is true, but in order to justify a ban (to me at least) this can't happen assuming M2K and Brood are even close to the same level.

2. Two players who are at the 'best' at their respective characters cannot be at the exact same level of skill.

Right, but M2K took a game off brood, no? Then they are close enough for the comparison.

It simply is not possible. Just because San beat Gnes, a top Diddy Kong player, does not at all mean that Ike is a better character than Diddy or even that Ike wins in the MU against Diddy. To base character match-ups soleley on top-level player performance (let alone just one set in one tournament) would be laughably ridiculous.

Sure, I mostly agree, but I wasn't talking about matchups. MK shouldn't be banned unless he is broken, and if M2K is fighting a unbelievable Olimar, best on the planet, and he cant simply go, "oh wow, he's good, but I'm MK!" and beat him guaranteed, then I don't see how you justify a ban.

Unless Brood is far far better than M2K, if that's true, I guess you're right.

....

 

[Nysyarc]

In any game with a broken character the player using said character also has to have skill. Maybe not as much skill as their opponent, but if their opponent has a lot more skill, better luck, more knowledge, better reflexes, port priority, more well rested, less crowd pressure, etc... anything can happen. There are so many things that play into the outcome of a tournament match that you simply cannot ever use real instances to determine MUs and character advantages.

And MUs and character advantages determine brokenness. MK has no bad MUs against any other character on basically any stage. And some stages elevate his already superior MUs to even more ridiculous levels. The only thing MK lacks is a 0 to death infinite of some kind. Otherwise he is superior in every way to every other character.

 

[Raziek]

Statistics! Crow! has them.

http://www.msu.edu/~worhatch/brawlpi...Statistics.ppt

 

[zhao_guang]

john we need to play A LOT at hellasmashed

 

[Nysyarc]

Statistics! Crow! has them.

http://www.msu.edu/~worhatch/brawlpi...Statistics.ppt

Lmao, that was a good read. It's so true too that in all those MK ban debates the pro-ban brought up good solid statistical data and the anti-ban rejected it with uninformed snide remarks and "lol that doesn't prove anything". It was a one-sided debate that still ended up in favor of the losing side.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

So those statistics are mostly well done, but there is one major likely source of bias; character popularity. Obviously different characters will have different player "depth of field" behind them. Let me use a melee analogy if I may; if I where to repeat this analysis within the melee community, with the top 15 of each fox, falco, puff, sheik and marth players, I would probably conclude fox and falco are broken and marth and puff suck, relatively speaking, because there are 15 amazing fox and falco players out there. Whose the 15th best puff? the answer is no one knows, and just because marth is out of vogue right now doesn't mean he's bad.

The ppt asks "What are the odds that 13 of the top 15 players happen to be MK?", well, my guess is the sample has a powerful self selection bias, and strong players are choosing MK.

Not that this bias totally invalidates the results, they make a strong point for MK being by far the best, but broken? I dont know about that.


That the anti-ban side used that average is just unfortunate for their side, obviously that guys never taken a stats class.





I'm super down Colin.

 

[Nysyarc]

It doesn't just "not totally invalidate the results", it doesn't invalidate the results at all. More top players use MK because he is the best character by a very good margin. In Melee we see more variety because every character has at least one or more counter-characters. MK has no counter-characters but himself.

 

[Raziek]

So those statistics are mostly well done, but there is one major likely source of bias; character popularity. Obviously different characters will have different player "depth of field" behind them. Let me use a melee analogy if I may; if I where to repeat this analysis within the melee community, with the top 15 of each fox, falco, puff, sheik and marth players, I would probably conclude fox and falco are broken and marth and puff suck, relatively speaking, because there are 15 amazing fox and falco players out there. Whose the 15th best puff? the answer is no one knows, and just because marth is out of vogue right now doesn't mean he's bad.

The ppt asks "What are the odds that 13 of the top 15 players happen to be MK?", well, my guess is the sample has a powerful self selection bias, and strong players are choosing MK.

Not that this bias totally invalidates the results, they make a strong point for MK being by far the best, but broken? I dont know about that.


That the anti-ban side used that average is just unfortunate for their side, obviously that guys never taken a stats class.





I'm super down Colin.

I don't think he's broken based purely on a statistical aspect, but my issue comes with him being the sum of his parts. I'll give the brief run-down on my reasoning.

1) As shown in the powerpoint, the results HEAVILY indicate that players who play MK win significantly more often than those who play other characters, at any given level. (I see it largely as a skill crutch.)

2) Having no bad stages or match-ups, MK completely breaks the counterpicking system. If every MK went Norfair or Green Greens, and played really gay, you'd probably see a lot more results indicating his superiority.

3) MK shapes the very meta-game around him. You don't have to look much farther than an East-Coast stagelist, or the Tijuana stagelist to see that some regions have begun shaping the stagelist solely around the concept of weakening MK. The starter lists in those areas extremely favor ground characters, and they've removed a lot of legitimate CPs, partially because they feel they are too strong for MK.

4) MK interferes with changes that SHOULD be made to make this system fairer, like adding an extra stage ban, adding more Cps, and expanding the starter list.

5) There are rules made SPECIFICALLY to target MK. The ledge-grab limit is basically an implied admission that MK is broken, because NOBODY else is unbeatable on the ledge. Not even close. Between the LGL, Planking Rules, Scrooging Rules, and IDC, MK is the single most targeted character by rules.

6) The game is a lot more balanced without him around. My speculations are as follows:

With MK in the game, we see a viable metagame of about 5 characters.

MK, Snake, Diddy, Falco, and Wario. MAYBE ICs or Lucario if you want to get generous. There are a couple other characters who show up here and there, but there's really only one or two players for these characters. Like NickRiddle for ZSS, Anther/Esam for Pikachu, Brood for Olimar, etc. Otherwise it's pretty much a legion of MKs.

With MK gone, I think you'd see a lot more characters become viable. A lot of characters like ROB, Marth and Dedede suddenly become a LOT more viable, since they were previously shut down by MK. Characters like Snake are brought more into line since most of their counters were held down by MK.

Without MK, I think you'd see Snake, Diddy, Falco, Wario, Marth, ICs, Dedede, ZSS, Pikachu, GW, Lucario, Olimar, Toon Link, Pit, and maybe a few others. Not necessarily in that order for terms of popularity or tier placement, but I think you'd get a HELL of a lot more variety without him.

You essentially go from having MK, and the top of A tier, to having all of A and B tier, most of C tier, and maybe even one or two in D tier (Like Peach, Fox, or Wolf)

None of these things individually is really enough to constitute a ban, but if you consider the characters as the sum of its parts (and the problems involved), I think the game would be a LOT better off without him.

 

[Croi]

5) There are rules made SPECIFICALLY to target MK. The ledge-grab limit is basically an implied admission that MK is broken, because NOBODY else is unbeatable on the ledge.

Really? Not Pit? I thought it was, like, one of the two things he had going for him.

The other being is spammability, coupled with a projectile. So...he and MK have a bit in common.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Gahh, I had a nice response written and then lost it like an idiot trying to quote something. Anywho, I basically fundamentally disagree with banning him for any reason other than domination of the scene.

In response to the idea of MK shaping the stage list, so what? fox shaped melee stage list almost by himself, the precedent exists. As for stagnating the metagame, that's not really a necessary repercussion is it? It's up to the players.

Also, not everyone wants to play on every stage you can possibly justify, so (4) seems like more of an opinion.

 

[Raziek]

Gahh, I had a nice response written and then lost it like an idiot trying to quote something. Anywho, I basically fundamentally disagree with banning him for any reason other than domination of the scene.

In response to the idea of MK shaping the stage list, so what? fox shaped melee stage list almost by himself, the precedent exists. As for stagnating the metagame, that's not really a necessary repercussion is it? It's up to the players.

Also, not everyone wants to play on every stage you can possibly justify, so (4) seems like more of an opinion.

And that precedent is WRONG in melee too! There's nothing wrong with Mute City, and in fact, I hear it's a strong CP for Peach and Jiggs, yet they banned it. I hear the same thing about Brinstar, I think it was. You don't ban a stage just because it's strong for a character, unless it revolves around a degenerate tactic like Dedede's infinites on Shadow Moses.

It is NOT up to the players, because the metagame WILL centralize around him because he's the best. It's not like people said, "Hey, this MK guy looks ******, let's all play him and develop his metagame really quickly." The best character in the game was found extremely quickly, and pretty much anyone who REALLY wants to win has switched to him.

(4) is based on originalist philosophy in that you should remove as little as possible from the game. This means stages are judged on an "Innocent until proven guilty" type deal.

If the stagelist has to be drastically restricted because of MK, I see very little difference between banning one character, and banning 12 or so stages, and implementing a bunch of rules that haphazardly nerf the rest of the cast for a legitimate tactic.

Also, the LGL is not intended for Pit, but it does indirectly nerf him. Pit's planking is 100% beatable, and there is no fundamental difference between ledge play or on-stage play.

The official BBR statement on the LGL:

Some tournaments have adoputed rules known as "Ledge Grab Limits," the most common form of which punishes players for snapping to ledges greater than some number of times by giving the player an automatic loss if the game goes to time. The BBR's formal stance is that Ledge Grab Limit rules should not be used in any of their various forms.


-SOME COUNTERPOINTS-
Most arguments that were made in favor of instituting a Ledge Grab Limit essentially appeal to the entertainment factor; it is alledged that extensively utilizing the ledge is either "gay," "boring," "stupid," or something similar. This, of course, is a matter of opinion, and similar allegations could be made regarding chaingrabs, projectile spam, and other strategies. In terms of competitive play, the BBR does not believe that any of these factors constitute bannable offenses.

A more serious allegation is that ledge play breaks the game; debate here continued, for example through the stage discussions, with the degree to which Meta Knight is (un)beatable when playing near each ledge consistently appearing in the discussions. However, the BBR finds that ledge based play is not fundamentally any different or "worse" than stage based play, and there is no reason for tournaments to prefer one type of play over the other. If ledge based play breaks Meta Knight, then that means that Meta Knight is broken, not that the ledges themselves are broken, and as such attempts to ban the use of the ledges is out of line.

Even if the above points are ignored, the BBR disapproves of Ledge Grab Limits as a practical matter; if too small, one can achieve victory by forcing his opponent to grab the ledge and then running the timer, even if he is behind in stocks. If it is too large, it is ineffective at its goal, allowing ledge play to continue for minutes. Some of us believe that these thresholds overlap, such that the "ideal" number causes both problems rather than neither.

Worse still are editions of the rule which target all characters rather than Meta Knight specifically; we do not find any other character to be unfair when repetitively regrabbing the ledge, and subjecting those characters for whom ledge-based play is an essential part of their game (notably ROB and Pit) to harsh penalties for playing properly is unacceptable.

Bolded for importance.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

You don't ban a stage just because it's strong for a character, unless it revolves around a degenerate tactic like Dedede's infinites on Shadow Moses.

I think this is wrong.
The use of a "degenerate tactic" shouldn't by required, after all, what constitutes this? Planking? Laser spam? Chaingrabbing? You seem to not allow any subjective separation of play styles (which I agree with). That seems to conflict with the above criteria for banning stages, I therefore propose stages are bannable if they offer an overwhelming advantage to one character. And Mute City does that for peach against most characters.

It is NOT up to the players, because the metagame WILL centralize around him because he's the best. It's not like people said, "Hey, this MK guy looks ******, let's all play him and develop his metagame really quickly." The best character in the game was found extremely quickly, and pretty much anyone who REALLY wants to win has switched to him.

Maybe is the short run. Brawl game out in '08 right? two years into melee sheik and marth were more developed than any others by a huge margin. If individual character metagames improve at a decreasing rate, other character should catch up, given time. Hopefully.

(4) is based on originalist philosophy in that you should remove as little as possible from the game. This means stages are judged on an "Innocent until proven guilty" type deal.

Once again, I agree but am quicker to feel guilt is proven

If the stagelist has to be drastically restricted because of MK, I see very little difference between banning one character, and banning 12 or so stages, and implementing a bunch of rules that haphazardly nerf the rest of the cast for a legitimate tactic.

I do see a huge difference between banning characters and banning stages. *Shrug* I just flat out disagree. As for the LGL and whatnot, I don't really know what to say, you have a good point, rules like that suck. I guess I would still prefer this to banning a character.




I really need to shut up now, I'm sure you've heard all these arguments before.

 

[zhao_guang]

tl;dr

play melee, there's 6 broken characters as opposed to 1.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Wait, who is the 6th?

 

[zhao_guang]

Marth, Fox, Falco, Jigs, Sheik and.....Peach?

Or Falcon.

Or Ganondorf

Or Luigi

take your pick

 

[Raziek]

Yeah, the long and short of it is I've seen all these arguments before, Spiff, and the grand majority of them have been fundamentally flawed in one way or another. That doesn't mean that I don't mind discussing it.

For your reference, a degenerate tactic is one that over-centralizes the game to the point that it becomes "Do this better than your opponent, or you lose." With stages like Shadow Moses, that means "Pick Dedede and wall-infinite" As such, things like Falco's lasers doesn't fall under that banner. You could argue Brinstar is too powerful for MK, but that's a problem with the character, not the stage. MK doesn't have any single tactic that's really broken there, he's just REALLY GOOD.

Planking, however, IS broken, because you actually CANNOT hit MK if he does it right.

Also, I don't think being a strong CP is a ban reason at all, especially with two stage bans. You can't ban Brinstar because of Mk unless you ban FD because of ICs. There's a big double standard centered around the "neutral" stages.

 

[KMAG]

so..........hellasmash anyone?

 

[Meta-K]

Rehearsal 10-5 in Clayton Park.

 

[Adapt]

I can't always agree to that, your MK can probably beat my ROB, hence why I went GW last time.
You could also easily be better with MK if you don't mind breaking your B button with all the nado.

Lets play a ZSS vs Rob and a MK vs Rob friendly match at the tourney. I'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from

I'll attempt to practice some MK as well as ZSS this week

 

[zhao_guang]

me and parker in grand finals

DONT DOUBT MWAHAHA!

 

[billybeegood]

^^^^^This^^^^^

 

[Raziek]

Not if I have anything to say about it.

 

[camden]

Not if I...lock Parker in a closet.

 

[KillLock]

kill...

lock???

 

[~Firefly~]

Lock that kill. B|

When's this hellasmash thing going on anyway? Can I assume it's happening this weekend? There's like, a 0.0001% chance I might end up passing through Halifax or wherever it is around that time, so it might be useful to know. :x

 

[KillLock]

if jake goes

ya'll be yoshi ***** and cornholed

ya'll should use mk against him it's your best bet