Official Metaknight Discussion

[Tien2500]

Brawl is even less balanced than Pokemon. This proves nothing.



19.

That number is still higher than the number of viable Characters in Brawl, which is 6-10 depending on what you call "viable"

No brawl is far more balanced than Pokemon. Try using Weedle vs Mewtwo.

Edit: Even if Brawl was less balance it doesn't change the fact that the two items you're comparing are far too different to yield any useful results.

 

[OverLade]

Lets base it on another fighting game instead. One that is in Brawl's own series, Smash 64.

Pikachu has no even matchups. Fox is the closest with a possible 55-45, but most Fox players think its 60-40. Every other character vs Pikachu is 60-40 to 80-20. There are a lot of MK's matchups that are harder for him than that of Pikachu vs any other character in Smash 64. Pikachu is better than MK and is not banned in Smash 64.

The ratios are relative. MK is far more broken than pikachu. Fox in Melee should be broken, but not only is it difficult to play him at the level where he is, he can be combo'd.

There aren't combos in brawl, but relatively, MK has the best combos and frame traps, and is the hardest character to combo.

 

[SmashChu]

This conversation is quite silly.

What normally warrants a bad is if the character breaks the risk/reward system. They are broken if there is no risk to picking them. The risk to picking Meta-Knight is a 5:5 match-up verses a better match up with some characters (Meta-Knight has 5:5 on most of the top tier where other characters have better numbers). Meta-Knight also isn't guaranteed to win matches when fighting other characters. So, you don't have a big reward for picking Meta-Knight, just the same reward as in every other fighting game when you can pick a top tier character. Some characters are comparatively better at fighting others then Meta-Knight, so you play a risk when choosing him over another. Contrast this with Akuma from SF2, who has air fireballs, top priority and has invisibility frames.

If the top 10 in a tournament was completely Falcon mains it would be a good indication that Falcon was broken or close to it...

No, it doesn't. It can mean that Falcon players are better then other players. There is no evidence in this scenario to say he is broken.

Nobody has claimed that MK cannot be beaten. They claim that the advantage gained by playing MK is great enough to damage the metagame.

Hey, guess what? Every fighting games has this. The Metagame is not going to be perfect. It is what it is. If Meta-Knight goes, someone else will take his spot. There will just be one less viable character.

Actually yes that is essentially what an outlier is. In ANY serious statistical analysis if someone is more than three standard deviations (I think) from the norm you throw out their data. This is the way stats are done. If you're measuring the IQ score of 20 different people and you have someone with an IQ of 250 you throw them out of the data. If someone has an IQ of 20 you throw them out two. Otherwise your data is skewed and wrong.

First, yes, no one knows what an outlier is. But your not right sadly. It's 3 standard deviations from the mean. In your scenario, if the mean is 40, and the standard deviation is 10, then 20 is within 3 Standard deviations from the center. The same is true for 250 is the mean is 200 and the Standard deviation is 20. Again, this is all dependent on your variable and experimental unit. Your test could have been for the IQ of a special ed. school. Or IQ for those who passed a genius test.

To summarize, an outlier is a number that is three standard deviations more/less thanthe mean.

Whether or not ADHD and ALly are outliers though is another question altogether.

Which requires
1)A Experimental unit
2)A variable
3)A mean
4)A standard deviation

You can not have any evidence that they are outliers unless you have these 4 things.

I don't think you understand what you are saying here. In this case you ARE an outlier. You are significantly better than everyone else so winning the tournament is a result of how good YOU are. Not how good FALCO is. Falco is not broken, you are. Overswarm is making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. That Ally, M2K, and ADHD are winning because they far surpass normal players, not because of their characters.

Again, you are missing the four requirements to prove that. The statistic was of 4 people, so the Standard deviation is probably though the roof. Not to mention you have no variable.

What I'm saying guys is stop talking about outliers.

Also, this isn't true. I've proven Ally and ADHD are, in fact, outliers... on several occasions. Here's the most recent:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9544720&postcount=3652

You did not prove it because there was neither a mean nor a standard deviation. In fact, I ran one of the Snake scores. The mean was 5.1 and the SD was 3.8. A score would have had to been over 16.5, but the best score was 14. You need some kind of numbers to claim you have an outlier. In other words, you proved nothing.

 

[Overswarm]

I'd say 20 is a decent estimate; there could be argued more or less, but 20 is a good number for our purposes with the data we have.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Brawl is even less balanced than Pokemon. This proves nothing.



19.

That number is still higher than the number of viable Characters in Brawl, which is 6-10 depending on what you call "viable"

19 is also higher than the number of viable characters in the vast, vast majority of fighting games ever made.

 

[Kewkky]

39 divided by a possible 3 characters any one player can use in a given best of 3 set.

19>13 by a 46% decrease from 19 to 13.

Not to mention Finals matches are best of 5.

2 characters. Name all the top players who use 3 characters for all their MUs, then name all the ones that use 2 or 1 only.

 

[iRJi]

Lets base it on another fighting game instead. One that is in Brawl's own series, Smash 64.

Pikachu has no even matchups. Fox is the closest with a possible 55-45, but most Fox players think its 60-40. Every other character vs Pikachu is 60-40 to 80-20. There are a lot of MK's matchups that are harder for him than that of Pikachu vs any other character in Smash 64. Pikachu is better than MK and is not banned in Smash 64.

You do know that the S64 community was like... 100 people right? (Unrealisticly of course, but it was really small lol)

 

[Eddie G]

Metaknight =/= Akuma.

Brawl =/= Street Fighter.

Get it out of your heads.

 

[OverLade]

I'm pretty sure banning MK would hurt the community Red Halberd, not save it.

No. Top MKs are smart players by nature and would continue to do well even if MK was banned as long as they used a decent character. People who don't use MK won't quit, and a lot of people who play MK only use him because they had to drop their previous main. The community will suffer very minimal losses, and a lot of players will very likely come back.

 

[UltiMario]

No brawl is far more balanced than Pokemon. Try using Weedle vs Mewtwo.

Edit: Even if Brawl was less balance it doesn't change the fact that the two items you're comparing are far too different to yield any useful results.

I'm not including NFEs and Ubers in my stats.

Buterfrees can beat Garchomp, Unowns can beat Salamence. Does this happen often? No. Is it possible? Yes.

In Brawl, Ganondorf can't beat ICs. Niether can many, many, MANY other characters. Some match ups ARE impossible as high levels of play.

They're different games, but they have one thing in common. They both have one certain character that gives the scene problems, one MUCH MORESO than the other.

Besides, there are literally NO GAMES out there that are comparable to Smash. These lines set out overcentralization just as well as any other game's example could.

 

[Kewkky]

Slight mistake o your part here. Its understandable.

By 115 (not 119), I mean any Pokemon that can be used to any sucess period. Not all of Brawl's characters can be used to any sucess.

As sad as it may be, there have been cases where Ganondorf (the worst character) has had success in tourneys.

37 is an overestimate. If you want to go with 37, then you have to compared with all ~260 Pokemon that are at least NU

Well, the worst Brawl character (Ganondorf) has done very nicely in tourneys, considering he's the worst character. I'm sure it's different than making a team of Magikarps, Kakunas and Metapods then going into a tourney expecting to win.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

OS did you really just say sonic is a tournament viable character?

To anyone saying MK is the reason the game is dying or even part of the reason, you're wrong. The game is dying because its bad. I've talked to a lot of top brawl players and they have all said the game is bad and they only play it for money.

OS stop trying to "revive" the game by attempting to alter the metagame potential. MK isn't a broken character that is warrenting a ban, he is just dominant. Let the game die if its bad, play some other fighting game if you want a deep long lasting metagame.

edit: and on the ssb64 pikachu, he is a lot more broken than MK. he has easy 0-deaths on any character that can be improvised however you want. His upb has invinicibility through the whole thing starting on frame 1 and very little end lag so you can use it to escape any other character's combos if there is a 1 frame gap and have virtually no risk of being punished. He has the best recovery, the best on stage game, the best combo game, the best everything. And he isn't banned.

and here is a video of the best player in the world vs one of the top 3 in the world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZ4dfEUc5I

 

[UltiMario]

As sad as it may be, there have been cases where Ganondorf (the worst character) has had success in tourneys.


Well, the worst Brawl character (Ganondorf) has done very nicely in tourneys, considering he's the worst character. I'm sure it's different than making a team of Magikarps, Kakunas and Metapods then going into a tourney expecting to win.

Well, you responded while I was typing my last post, so I guess its OK that you missed this.

I'm not using "useless" Pokemon in my stats. I never was. I was using "Pokemon that have some sort of viability and can definately be used in the OU scene (if used properly of course)"

 

[Tien2500]

No, it doesn't. It can mean that Falcon players are better then other players. There is no evidence in this scenario to say he is broken.

I said a good indication not definitive proof. If Falcon's results are that amazingly good its a sign that something is up with the character. There *could* just be ten really amazing Falcon players but that is far less likely than the character being extremely good.

Hey, guess what? Every fighting games has this. The Metagame is not going to be perfect. It is what it is. If Meta-Knight goes, someone else will take his spot. There will just be one less viable character.

I don't think any other character would be as good as MK is. All of the others have bad matchups and or stages.

First, yes, no one knows what an outlier is. But your not right sadly. It's 3 standard deviations from the mean. In your scenario, if the mean is 40, and the standard deviation is 10, then 20 is within 3 Standard deviations from the center. The same is true for 250 is the mean is 200 and the Standard deviation is 20. Again, this is all dependent on your variable and experimental unit. Your test could have been for the IQ of a special ed. school. Or IQ for those who passed a genius test.

I was trying to simplify it so I used the term norm instead of mean.

Again, you are missing the four requirements to prove that. The statistic was of 4 people, so the Standard deviation is probably though the roof. Not to mention you have no variable.

What I'm saying guys is stop talking about outliers.

Again I was trying to simplify it for him based on his own 4 person example.

 

[Ganonsburg]

3 standard deviations away is 99.7%.

MK is nowhere near controlling 99.7% of the game.
He's not even 1 standard deviation away (68% I believe)

ADHD would have to be one Diddy main among 99 good metaknight mains that excels far beyond these players.

You're stupid. It's not saying that 99.7% of something is this, it's saying that one thing is in the 99.7% percentile. So the smash scene isn't 99.7% Ally, M2K, and ADHD. These three (kings, of orient are) are in the 99.7% percentile, so they're achievements can't be used too much to explain what happens on average.

Also, an outlier is also defined as 1.5x(3rd Quartile-1st Quartile), and then add it to the 3rd quartile or subtract from the first. If something is outside this range, it's an outlier.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Lets base it on another fighting game instead. One that is in Brawl's own series, Smash 64.

Pikachu has no even matchups. Fox is the closest with a possible 55-45, but most Fox players think its 60-40. Every other character vs Pikachu is 60-40 to 80-20. There are a lot of MK's matchups that are harder for him than that of Pikachu vs any other character in Smash 64. Pikachu is better than MK and is not banned in Smash 64.

All right, Pika is the clear best.

Is he dominating the tourney scene as much as MK is now? I'm not sure if SSB64 even has big tourneys now-a-days.

This...

64 is incomparable to Brawl simply because character choice does not factor in as much. When one hit (hell, one shield hit) is almost always the end of the stock and only a few characters really have a serious advantage in approaching (this would be top tier) character choice doesn't matter as much at high levels. It's like choosing between the top 4 in MvC; it didn't matter because all of them were just as stupid.

 

[Kewkky]

Well, you responded while I was typing my last post, so I guess its OK that you missed this.

I keep missing your posts because this thread suddenly started going in hyperspeed!

I'm not using "useless" Pokemon in my stats. I never was. I was using "Pokemon that have some sort of viability and can definately be used in the OU scene (if used properly of course)"

Well, how many Pokemon are there that have at least a slim chance of winning against the optimum team?

And please still consider that Pokemon requires less hits to end a match than Brawl does. Brawl's matches take longer, so there's a lot of time to appreciate how annoying MK is (notice I didn't call him broken). The limiter to how a character can be "broken" in Pokemon can be seen easier than Brawl's limiter, since all it took for Garchomp to be "broken" was to be fast and powerful, enough to kill lots of opponents in one hit before they could react... What makes people so reluctant to take brawl out of our equation is how much wider the options in a match are, and how player's decisions are less-restricted to "attack or change Pokemon".

 

[Eddie G]

OS did you really just say sonic is a tournament viable character?

With MK gone, I don't see the absence of a possibility.

To anyone saying MK is the reason the game is dying or even part of the reason, you're wrong. The game is dying because its bad IN MY OPINION.

You forgot something at the end there.

I've talked to a lot of top brawl players and they have all said the game is bad and they only play it for money.

That's nice. What top Brawl players exactly? And are you implying that we should just gather 'round and abide by their opinion of the game?

OS stop trying to "revive" the game by attempting to alter the metagame potential.

...Why wouldn't he try if he enjoys the game?

MK isn't a broken character that is warrenting a ban, he is just dominant.

Maybe not broken, but certainly worthy of a ban, or at least worthy enough for the possibility of the ban to be brought up (more than once).

Let the game die if its bad, play some other fighting game if you want a deep long lasting metagame.

...Why? If we enjoy the game then why wouldn't we try to fix it? It sounds to me like you just don't care about the issue at all, and that's fine, but don't tell us to just give up as if we didn't care ourselves. Why don't you go play another fighting game instead of spending time making posts in a thread about a game that you obviously don't care what happens to? It'd be asinine for you to do otherwise.

 

[UltiMario]

Well, how many Pokemon are there that have at least a slim chance of winning against the optimum team?

And please still consider that Pokemon requires less hits to end a match than Brawl does. Brawl's matches take longer, so there's a lot of time to appreciate how annoying MK is (notice I didn't call him broken). The limiter to how a character can be "broken" in Pokemon can be seen easier than Brawl's limiter, since all it took for Garchomp to be "broken" was to be fast and powerful, enough to kill lots of opponents in one hit.

I'm just going to say thats wrong. It was Garchomp was Fast, Strong, and had great defenses. Not only that, it pretty much could go Swords Dance/Earthquake/Outrage/Fire Fang and obliterate literally everything in the game. Imagine if MK was Twice as strong and 1.5X heavier. Thats pretty much what Garchomp would look like in Brawl.


But when you're talking about top of the top theres like 25 top-of-the-top Pokemon, which is still a lot compared to Brawl's 3 at this point.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

This...

64 is incomparable to Brawl simply because character choice does not factor in as much. When one hit (hell, one shield hit) is almost always the end of the stock and only a few characters really have a serious advantage in approaching (this would be top tier) character choice doesn't matter as much at high levels. It's like choosing between the top 4 in MvC; it didn't matter because all of them were just as stupid.

What is this??? Do you even know what you're talking about? Stop writing off things with "facts" that you just made up.

 

[Espy Rose]

With MK gone, I don't see why not.

Just tossing this out there because Sonic came up.

Of all of the characters within the high-top tier, Meta Knight gives Sonic the most trouble (in my opinion). Meta Knight being banned would probably benefit him short term.

However, there's not much data, or anything besides theory-crafting to build on for other matches in the high-tier area (Zero Suit Samus, Olimar, ROB, Kirby, Pit, etc), so it's difficult to say how well Sonic would do until we manage to get more experience against these characters.

Though most of this is pretty opinionated, so it can be neglected, I personally feel like Sonic would probably do worse. [/thinks that Olimar, Luigi, and Diddy Kong wreck Sonic harder than Meta Knight overall]

Edit: Wait a minute, are you guys seriously comparing Pokemon to Brawl?
It's hard enough to compare Brawl to Street Fighter without issues...

 

[Raziek]

OS did you really just say sonic is a tournament viable character?

To anyone saying MK is the reason the game is dying or even part of the reason, you're wrong. The game is dying because its bad. I've talked to a lot of top brawl players and they have all said the game is bad and they only play it for money.

OS stop trying to "revive" the game by attempting to alter the metagame potential. MK isn't a broken character that is warrenting a ban, he is just dominant. Let the game die if its bad, play some other fighting game if you want a deep long lasting metagame.

edit: and on the ssb64 pikachu, he is a lot more broken than MK. he has easy 0-deaths on any character that can be improvised however you want. His upb has invinicibility through the whole thing starting on frame 1 and very little end lag so you can use it to escape any other character's combos if there is a 1 frame gap and have virtually no risk of being punished. He has the best recovery, the best on stage game, the best combo game, the best everything. And he isn't banned.

and here is a video of the best player in the world vs one of the top 3 in the world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZ4dfEUc5I

This kind of attitude is a huge problem. You would rather let the game die than attempt to improve the metagame? That's not the kind of attitude that should be present in a debate on the overall health of a game.

And please stop comparing SSB64 to Brawl, and Pikachu to MK. They are not the same game in terms of general playstyle, so you cannot effectively compare thier top characters.

SSB64 revolves around 0-d's, and as such, results in a very offensive playstyle. Brawl revolves (like most fighting games) in playing safe and camping.

On top of this, SSB64 had almost no competitive scene, and there was nothing like the SBR to make a call about whether you would ban Pikachu. It's not a valid comparison.

 

[Kewkky]

I'm just going to say thats wrong. It was Garchomp was Fast, Strong, and had great defenses. Not only that, it pretty much could go Swords Dance/Earthquake/Outrage/Fire Fang and obliterate literally everything in the game. Imagine if MK was Twice as strong and 1.5X heavier. Thats pretty much what Garchomp would look like in Brawl.


But when you're talking about top of the top theres like 25 top-of-the-top Pokemon, which is still a lot compared to Brawl's 3 at this point.

Well, better compare Garchomp to Akuma since they're both obviously broken, and the pro-ban leaders have made sure to not call MK broken.

Garchomp has great offense, speed and defense, huh? Well, what about MK's planking, scrooging, dair camping, smart tornado spamming, one of the overall faster characters in the game, best offense in the game, one of the overall best defenses in the game, overall best recovery in the game, and arguably best gimping game?

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

I predict that Ally will be unstoppable, should MK be banned.

didn't he get 7th at 2 tournaments?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This kind of attitude is a huge problem. You would rather let the game die than attempt to improve the metagame? That's not the kind of attitude that should be present in a debate on the overall health of a game.

And please stop comparing SSB64 to Brawl, and Pikachu to MK. They are not the same game in terms of general playstyle, so you cannot effectively compare thier top characters.

SSB64 revolves around 0-d's, and as such, results in a very offensive playstyle. Brawl revolves (like most fighting games) in playing safe and camping.

On top of this, SSB64 had almost no competitive scene, and there was nothing like the SBR to make a call about whether you would ban Pikachu. It's not a valid comparison.

Thank you for saying what I was trying to say better.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

With MK gone, I don't see the absence of a possibility.

but he isn't gone. Were talking about now lmao

That's nice. What top Brawl players exactly? And are you implying that we should just gather 'round and abide by their opinion of the game?

Lain, m2k, arty ect

Maybe not broken, but certainly worthy of a ban, or at least worthy enough for the possibility of the ban to be brought up (more than once).

The ONLY time a character deserves a ban is when it is broken. End of story. Thank you very much.

...Why? If we enjoy the game then why wouldn't we try to fix it? It sounds to me like you just don't care about the issue at all, and that's fine, but don't tell us to just give up as if we didn't care ourselves. Why don't you go play another fighting game instead of spending time making posts in a thread about a game that you obviously don't care what happens to? It'd be asinine for you to do otherwise.

The community doesn't "fix" a game. A community "plays" a game. The game exists as it is.

 

[Kewkky]

The community doesn't "fix" a game. A community "plays" a game. The game exists as it is.

So if a game was bad ONLY because the timer was always set to "1 second" and unable to be changed, bu there was an easily-accessible and harmless hack that allowed us to change the timer, you would be against it because we should play the game as it is and not try to fix it as a community?

 

[Turbo Ether]

didn't he get 7th at 2 tournaments?

I took those tournaments into consideration when I made my prediction.

Edit: Lol @ communities not fixing games. Last time I checked, we don't all play Brawl with a 2 minute timer and all items on.

 

[Ganonsburg]

So you're saying we should just play the game with all items, all stages, any glitches that might exist, everything? Even if it's broken, we can't fix it? If you say so...

 

[Raziek]

So if a game was bad ONLY because the timer was always set to "1 second" and unable to be changed, bu there was an easily-accessible and harmless hack that allowed us to change the timer, you would be against it because we should play the game as it is and not try to fix it as a community?

this.
10this.

 

[BSP]

didn't he get 7th at 2 tournaments?

Who placed in front of him? Meta Knights?

And I like what Raziek said, we can't compare SSB64 to Brawl, they are two totally idfferent games, with one being almost dead.

 

[UltiMario]

Garchomp has great offense, speed and defense, huh? Well, what about MK's planking, scrooging, dair camping, smart tornado spamming, one of the overall faster characters in the game, best offense in the game, one of the overall best defenses in the game, overall best recovery in the game, and arguably best gimping game?

MK is better defensively than Chomp, but Garchomp is better offensively. MK can't carry a berry that saves his stock (as the Yache berry did to save Garchomp), nor can he suddenly force someone to flee, for him to get a free doubling of his attack power (swords dance)

But, Garchomp doesn't HAVE to stall things out, because he can just go headfirst into EVERYTHING and wins with few to no issues. Well... not everything, but 99% of things.

 

[BSP]

I keep seeing that the only reason a character should be considered for a ban is if they are broken.

Where does this logic come from?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

but he isn't gone. Were talking about now lmao




Lain, m2k, arty ect




The ONLY time a character deserves a ban is when it is broken. End of story. Thank you very much.





The community doesn't "fix" a game. A community "plays" a game. The game exists as it is.

Credibility = lost. You refuse to fix the game for the good of the metagame; it's the same kind of upholding your principles that has creationism taught in schools.

So if a game was bad ONLY because the timer was always set to "1 second" and unable to be changed, bu there was an easily-accessible and harmless hack that allowed us to change the timer, you would be against it because we should play the game as it is and not try to fix it as a community?

This.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

The community doesn't "fix" a game. A community "plays" a game. The game exists as it is.

shouldn't you be rallying people to unban stages and items then?

Also who's arty?

 

[Raziek]

Could we please get the Pokemon discussion out of here? I understand the original intent was to compare dominance statistics, but they are fundamentally COMPLETELY different games. It's not relevant enough to provide anything concrete and worthwhile.

 

[Tommy_G]

I'm part of the Smash 64 community and it is a completely viable tournament game. It and Melee are the closest things to Brawl that we can get.

Match-up percentages are still match-up percentages. Whether it's a one hit = you're dead(you're an idiot for thinking that's how it always is in high level play in Smash 64, but moving on) vs whatever you assume brawl is. 60-40 still means one character has a 60% win rate vs another with a 40% win rate between those 2 characters

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

This kind of attitude is a huge problem. You would rather let the game die than attempt to improve the metagame? That's not the kind of attitude that should be present in a debate on the overall health of a game.

And please stop comparing SSB64 to Brawl, and Pikachu to MK. They are not the same game in terms of general playstyle, so you cannot effectively compare thier top characters.

SSB64 revolves around 0-d's, and as such, results in a very offensive playstyle. Brawl revolves (like most fighting games) in playing safe and camping.

On top of this, SSB64 had almost no competitive scene, and there was nothing like the SBR to make a call about whether you would ban Pikachu. It's not a valid comparison.

Like the other guy, stop talking like you actually know what the ssb64 metagame is like. To say it revolves around 0-deaths is like saying the brawl metagame revolves around airdodging.

And wouldn't you think that in a game where one mistake is punished very hard that there would be much higher defensive play?

 

[Raziek]

I'm part of the Smash 64 community and it is a completely viable tournament game. It and Melee are the closest things to Brawl that we can get.

And these tournaments are....... where? How many attend? What kind of numbers are we looking at here?

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Who placed in front of him? Meta Knights?

And I like what Raziek said, we can't compare SSB64 to Brawl, they are two totally idfferent games, with one being almost dead.

Of course MKs place ahead of him m2k doesn't get under 3rd but he got taken out by 2 falcos 1st then by a DDD and an MK.