Official Metaknight Discussion

[Kaffei]

Alright, I'm gonna pull a Socrates here.

I'll ask a simple question, and you'll answer with a simple answer.




Would you be okay playing a fighting game competitively if it only had one character that had any real chance of winning?

No.

10ThatWouldBeBorings

It's not.

The problem is when the popular character is also too good.

No other character can get an advantaged matchup against MK (Even reaching 50:50 is debatable) and you can't haul him off to a CP stage to push yourself to a better matchup because he does well everywhere.

He is the only character in the game that exhibits that behavior, and it is weakening the diversity of the tournament scene -- which will lead to boredom, which will lead to people quitting.

Everything going on now with MK was predicted during the first MK debates. I have little reason to believe that the more doom-ey predictions won't eventually get there as well, given enough time if MK is left alone to keep pulling people to play him (Or just shrugging and going to find games that they actually enjoy playing competitively)

Couldn't we just ban a characteristic of MK instead of the character as a whole? Like banning Tornado or something? (Sorry for all these stupid questions I'm just really curious.)

To answer your question, the main point is that MK's dominance is not a function of popularity, which was anti-ban's last standing semi-respectable argument, from the best I can tell. This data shows that, at any given level of skill, players make themselves able to score at least twice as many points on Ankoku's list (and presumably make that many times as much money) if they play as MK than if they play as any other character.

And it's only that good if you're playing Snake at very high levels of play; any other case and you're shorting yourself a lot more money than that.


Also, the start of this post is funny. You know who else is popular and a very good character? (Insert banned character from any fighting game here.)


Also, not sure where the "the other top tier characters place variously when MK is excluded" statement came from, btw. I really don't think I did any such analysis, since that would require a large body of MK-banned tournaments to pull data from, since excluding MK would almost assuredly warp the metagame.

... You know what, that's a great idea. I say we start collecting data on that immediately.

This is what I was referring to: http://www.msu.edu/~worhatch/brawlpics/6MonthMKDominance.PNG I don't understand this

 

[Spelt]

All characters are 50:50 or we break out the ban hammer. Is that what I hear?

that's EXACTLY what he's saying.
all characters not being 50:50 obviously means there's only one character with a real chance of winning.


(i would be loling too hard at your post to reply but fortunately i'm too busy trying to find the logic)

 

[demonictoonlink]

Spelt, why did you suddenly become pro-ban? You never even play competitively.

 

[Tien2500]

Couldn't we just ban a characteristic of MK instead of the character as a whole? Like banning Tornado or something? (Sorry for all these stupid questions I'm just really curious.)

The problem is that such methods would be much harder to enforce or apply than a character ban. MK doesn't have one obviously broken move or technique. (Except the banned IDC). And how do you enforce a ban on nado? You'd need a ref to watch every match. And you also have to figure out what to ban which is an even bigger more mine filled area.

 

[Overswarm]

Alright, I'm gonna pull a Socrates here.

I'll ask a simple question, and you'll answer with a simple answer.




Would you be okay playing a fighting game competitively if it only had one character that had any real chance of winning?

No.

10ThatWouldBeBorings

If a game could have one viable character out of 50 or, if that one was removed, 40 viable characters out of the remaining 49, would you consider removing that one character good for competition?

 

[Spelt]

Spelt, why did you suddenly become pro-ban? You never even play competitively.

i've always been pro-ban. and yes i do.
you've even seen me at tournaments?
too bad whenever i ask for friendlies you just kind of blow me off.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Crow i love you


Edit: Everyone NEEDS to check out crow's post and comment **** it!

Here we go.

My raw results are here: LINK
Feel free to peruse that, try to reproduce my results if you want, and most importantly, if you want this sort of ranking set up for your own character so you see who's who within your main, you can find all that info here.

----------
PURPOSE
----------

The main idea here is to determine the skill distribution among characters. This should give, as objectively as is possible, a display of which characters are "popular" at various skill levels.

If a character is simply better than another, one would expect the shape of these curves to be the same, but one curve to be higher than another at any given rank, vertically in the plots I will make.

If a character is simply more popular than another, one would expect the curve at any particular skill level to stretch out to higher ranks, horizontally in the plots I will make.

Of course, the two ideas are difficult to separate. We will therefore search for convenient reference points in the data to compare one character to the next.


-----------
METHODS
-----------

I created a Python script (provided in the zip file above) to use Ankoku's tournament results .txt exports and used Ankoku's scoring system to determine how much each player scored in each tournament for 1. the past 13 months of complete data (January 2009 through January 2010), and 2. the past 6 months (August 2009 to January 2010) of complete data.

These players and results were binned into the characters they represented. Within each character, players with identical names are automatically combined, and for each of Meta Knight, Snake, Diddy Kong, Falco, and Marth player, I manually went through the lists to find names that appear to be of the same player and combined them.

I admit that I do not know the tournament scene as well as I might; it is possible that I failed to merge some results under separate player names that should have been together. I invite people to inspect my .xls files in the .zip above to verify I didn't miss anyone.

It should be noted that no integer number of months would exactly reproduce Ankoku's current score per character, but 6 months came pretty close. Either Ankoku's export wasn't a complete represenation of his data, or the method of treating odd cases was different from mine. I have no reason to believe the errors are systematic, so the results should not be biased either way.


----------
RESULTS
----------

Above, I show, for each of the past 6 and 13 months, how many points each player scored with a given character as a function of their rank within that character, at two different levels of zoom for each data set, for each of the five best overall performing characters.

(Note: I know I accidentally changed the rank scales between 13 to 6 months. It's probably still fair, though, since 13 months has more people in it than 6. If this really bugs someone, I'll go through the effort to fix it and reupload.)


Below, I show histograms: they show how many PEOPLE scored between X and Y points. At each successive bin, the point values are doubled. These histograms should be better at displaying how the tournament scecne looks for the medium-low skill levels.

Fun fact:
In the past 6 months, Ally is the 9th highest ranked Meta Knight. (Overswarm is 10th).


----------------------------
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
----------------------------

At this point this report becomes slightly more subjective.

Looking at the top few spots, it is obvious that the top player of each of Meta Knight, Snake, and Diddy Kong are outliers and do not fit their characters' overall trends.

For Diddy, Marth, and Falco, except for the top 3 players, those characters appear to be farily close in tournament performance from one to the next, though it appears Falco wasn't as good a year ago as he has been in the past half year. Snake has been better than those three, but the degree by which Meta Knight is better than Snake at all ranks is much higher than the amount by which Snake is better than the others.

This much could have been guessed just by Ankoku's summed data in his ranking list, but this does show that Meta Knight isn't worse than other character(s), in which case his high overall performance would require a very, very long "plateau" at a medium-high skill level, much longer than for Snake, to make up for the point difference observed.

As for popularity versus character goodness, first let us look at the 13 month data again.

There is a "kink" at around rank 6 for both Meta Knight and Snake, indicating the rank at which the players drop off from being high level players to being the next level down, indicating equal popularity. Throughout this zone, each MK player scored more than 2x as many points as each Snake. At 13 months, the rest of the data is pretty smooth and does not lend itself well to differentiating between skill and popularity; suffice it to say that MK's dominance does not disappear at any level, although some of the other characters do cross each other from rank to rank.

In the 6 month data, there are two usable kinks in Snake's data, and one in Meta Knight's data. For high level play, MK is about 2x better a character than Snake and slightly more popular among players at that level. It is not immediately obvious where to link up the second kink, but the two extremes of justifiable locations both say that MK is more popular, and differ in saying whether at medium-high level of play MK continues to be a 2x better a character at 1.5x the popularity or if instead MK is 3x as popular as Snake at that level.

Without a specific reason to believe that the selection of Snake or MK changes greatly between high and medium-high play, I'm inclined to believe that MK simply continues to be slightly more popular but 2x as good as Snake, and 3-5x as good as other characters.

Looking at the tails of the rank plots, it is clear that the amount by which MK has been outperforming other characters at ranks up to 27 or so has increased dramatically between 13 months ago and 6 months ago. For the next 10 ranks it's less pronounced, then it becomes roughly equivalent to the 13 months ago level.

Now let us compare the 13 month and 6 month histograms. The amount by which MK is more popular than other characters at lower levels doesn't appear to have changed much, but at medium and medium-high levels of play it does; his increased level of dominance appears to come primarily from there.


A side note: there are a lot more players in the 13 month data than in the 6 month data; a bit less than half as many, it appears. This would be consistent with both the following theories:

1. At every month, the set of players that make it to the top 8s in some tourney is selected in such a way that the players who have earned points in previous months are preferred NOT to hog the same spots again, so that the total number of unique players is linear in time.
2. The number of competitive players (that is, those who play brawl and actually have a shot at getting top 8 or better) has gone down by more than 50% in the past 13 months.

The first theory is obviously wrong. I can't prove or disprove the second with the data I have right now, but it is clear that the competitive Brawl community has been shrinking by some amount.


So, how much better is MK than other top characters? Let me finish with one more graph.

 

[Kaffei]

The problem is that such methods would be much harder to enforce or apply than a character ban. MK doesn't have one obviously broken move or technique. (Except the banned IDC). And how do you enforce a ban on nado? You'd need a ref to watch every match. And you also have to figure out what to ban which is an even bigger more mine filled area.

You don't necessarily require a ref. The opponent fighting MK can stand up for him self if the MK uses Tornado. Some MUs are actually hard for MK without Tornado, isn't that true?

If a game could have one viable character out of 50 or, if that one was removed, 40 viable characters out of the remaining 49, would you consider removing that one character good for competition?

Of course! The community would become healthier, but that isn't the strict case with Brawl.
And then I'm going to bring up Diddy, Snake, Falco and Wario. Then you are going to bring up that only a select FEW have been able to place top with those specific characters. Then the cycle repeats.

._.

 

[Dekar173]

Again, MK:Diddy is NOT 55:45, I'm tired of seeing so many scrubs say this.



Diddy LOSES to MK, as in HARD COUNTER when the MK knows wtf they're doing.

M2K does NOT know what he's doing, in fact, local MK players here in Nowheresville, New Mexico are BETTER at the Diddy match-up than M2K is.



Seriously if you want to beat M2K in tourney, play Diddy, done deal.

If you want to beat other MK players... it's a different story.

 

[Overswarm]

Couldn't we just ban a characteristic of MK instead of the character as a whole? Like banning Tornado or something? (Sorry for all these stupid questions I'm just really curious.)

This is known as a surgical change.

Surgical changes will change the very interactions in the game, while a global change will not.

Banning a character is a global change. If we banned Metaknight, there would be side effects from the changes but no actual direct changes to already existing situations. Falco vs. D3 doesn't change if MK is in or out of the game, for example.

Banning aspects of a character is a surgical change; if planking means Falco gets destroyed, then adding a LGL to fix that "problem" means that suddenly Falco can win the MU against Metaknight.

Unfortunately, surgical changes don't have "set in stone" consequences, while global changes do. By adding a LGL, we simply had MKs evolve scrooging tactics and limited potential ledge play tactics from other characters, like Pit. In effect, it did not good.

To make sure the rule is worthwhile, we have to figure out why we don't want it and to what degree we can remove it without affecting the rest of the game. Virtually all surgical bans cannot do this cleanly, making them very sloppy and inefficient.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Excuse me ignorance, but all that data shows to me is that MK is popular and that he's a very good character, and that the other top tier characters place variously when MK is excluded. Can you explain to me why this is a problem?

look at the graphs where he drew arrows from snake's line to MKs it shows that there are about the same number of top Snakes and MKs unless i got it wrong

 

[Kaffei]

Again, MK:Diddy is NOT 55:45, I'm tired of seeing so many scrubs say this.



Diddy LOSES to MK, as in HARD COUNTER when the MK knows wtf they're doing.

M2K does NOT know what he's doing, in fact, local MK players here in Nowheresville, New Mexico are BETTER at the Diddy match-up than M2K is.



Seriously if you want to beat M2K in tourney, play Diddy, done deal.

If you want to beat other MK players... it's a different story.

Teach him the MU.

This is known as a surgical change.

Surgical changes will change the very interactions in the game, while a global change will not.

Banning a character is a global change. If we banned Metaknight, there would be side effects from the changes but no actual direct changes to already existing situations. Falco vs. D3 doesn't change if MK is in or out of the game, for example.

Banning aspects of a character is a surgical change; if planking means Falco gets destroyed, then adding a LGL to fix that "problem" means that suddenly Falco can win the MU against Metaknight.

Unfortunately, surgical changes don't have "set in stone" consequences, while global changes do. By adding a LGL, we simply had MKs evolve scrooging tactics and limited potential ledge play tactics from other characters, like Pit. In effect, it did not good.

To make sure the rule is worthwhile, we have to figure out why we don't want it and to what degree we can remove it without affecting the rest of the game. Virtually all surgical bans cannot do this cleanly, making them very sloppy and inefficient.

But how could MK evolve even more if we took away his Tornado.. Actually you're right this is a stupid idea cus the MK could lose a match if he were to accidentally press B instead of side B or something. >_>

 

[Crow!]

Couldn't we just ban a characteristic of MK instead of the character as a whole? Like banning Tornado or something? (Sorry for all these stupid questions I'm just really curious.)

Sure, let's do that. We'll file it in the ruleset right next to "MK cannot press C-stick upward while doing down-B (even though we can't actually enforce this)", "MK is not allowed to abuse the ledge to stall (even though our various attempts to enforce this with things such as ledge grab limit have had minimal success)", and most recently adopted in various locations, "MK is not allowed to abuse his gliding ability underneath stages to stall."

.... Sarcasm aside, the point is that this is what we've been doing, and yet even with these new rules MK's domination still continues to grow. Constructing artificial, hard to enforce rules which modify what the character fundamentally is, really is a lot more radical a change to the game than just pulling the plug on the character. If you want to micromanage specific characters, go to the Smash Workshop and check out BBrawl and Brawl+.

 

[MarKO X]

No.

10ThatWouldBeBorings

Unless the character was THAT fun to play, no?

Couldn't we just ban a characteristic of MK instead of the character as a whole? Like banning Tornado or something? (Sorry for all these stupid questions I'm just really curious.)

Didn't we already try that?

This is what I was referring to: http://www.msu.edu/~worhatch/brawlpics/6MonthMKDominance.PNG I don't understand this

the x-axis of the graph is rank
the y-axis of the graph is how many times better MK is than a character.

as you go further down the x-axis, the plot on the y-axis gets bigger. Actually, that has nothing to with the following point.
it's basically showing that no matter the population of a character, MK will be y amount of times better than the character at a particular player ranking.

 

[Tien2500]

You don't necessarily require a ref. The opponent fighting MK can stand up for him self if the MK uses Tornado. Some MUs are actually hard for MK without Tornado, isn't that true?

I don't know because MK has never had to battle without tornado. As for standing up for yourself that might go something like this

"He used Tornado"
"Nu uh"

or

"He used Nado"
"My bad hand slipped"

Its going to be very hard to regulate. And even if it does deciding what exactly makes MK broken is nearly impossible and in general its a bad idea to alter movesets of characters. IF MK actually needed moves banned to make him balanced he should probably be banned.

 

[Kaffei]

Unless the character was THAT fun to play, no?



Didn't we already try that?



the x-axis of the graph is rank
the y-axis of the graph is how many times better MK is than a character.

as you go further down the x-axis, the plot on the y-axis gets bigger. Actually, that has nothing to with the following point.
it's basically showing that no matter the population of a character, MK will be y amount of times better than the character at a particular player ranking.

-MK is fun to play for me.. In fact he's the funnest to play for me, but opinions vary so who cares.

-Banning Tornado? When did we ever try that? It's still a bad idea anyway. Forget I even brought that up.

-Oh, ok.

I don't know because MK has never had to battle without tornado. As for standing up for yourself that might go something like this

"He used Tornado"
"Nu uh"

or

"He used Nado"
"My bad hand slipped"

Its going to be very hard to regulate. And even if it does deciding what exactly makes MK broken is nearly impossible and in general its a bad idea to alter movesets of characters. IF MK actually needed moves banned to make him balanced he should probably be banned.

Yeah that's what I basically said up there ;s

 

[Dekar173]

Teach him the MU.



But how could MK evolve even more if we took away his Tornado.. Actually you're right this is a stupid idea cus the MK could lose a match if he were to accidentally press B instead of side B or something. >_>

He's not a good student, he just sits there and *****es about how he can't learn "insert random thing" in a weekend.

I tried to at pound, but he absolutely would not listen.

Pro-tip he only ever regular get ups after being tripped

 

[Raziek]

I don't know because MK has never had to battle without tornado. As for standing up for yourself that might go something like this

"He used Tornado"
"Nu uh"

or

"He used Nado"
"My bad hand slipped"

Its going to be very hard to regulate. And even if it does deciding what exactly makes MK broken is nearly impossible and in general its a bad idea to alter movesets of characters. IF MK actually needed moves banned to make him balanced he should probably be banned.

Well, Ally plays without tornado, but we all saw how well that went. (Lost to Vex's Bowser lololol) (Not dissing Vex, but Mk losing to bowser is big lolz)

You can't just ban a move, both for the reasons you stated, and the inherent problems that come along with a surgical ban.

 

[Espy Rose]

He's not a good student, he just sits there and *****es about how he can't learn "insert random thing" in a weekend.

I tried to at pound, but he absolutely would not listen.

Pro-tip he only ever regular get ups after being tripped

lol.

Work for yo' money, M2K.

 

[Overswarm]

Alright, I'm gonna pull a Socrates here.

I'll ask a simple question, and you'll answer with a simple answer.




Would you be okay playing a fighting game competitively if it only had one character that had any real chance of winning?

No.

10ThatWouldBeBorings

If a game could have one viable character out of 50 or, if that one was removed, 40 viable characters out of the remaining 49, would you consider removing that one character good for competition?

 

[Tien2500]

Well, Ally plays without tornado, but we all saw how well that went. (Lost to Vex's Bowser lololol) (Not dissing Vex, but Mk losing to bowser is big lolz)

You can't just ban a move, both for the reasons you stated, and the inherent problems that come along with a surgical ban.

Was there a reason Ally wasn't using Nado or does he just prefer not to?

 

[Kaffei]

He's not a good student, he just sits there and *****es about how he can't learn "insert random thing" in a weekend.

I tried to at pound, but he absolutely would not listen.

Pro-tip he only ever regular get ups after being tripped

Maybe you are both a bad student and a bad teacher.

:|

If a game could have one viable character out of 50 or, if that one was removed, 40 viable characters out of the remaining 49, would you consider removing that one character good for competition?

already answered that:

Of course! The community would become healthier, but that isn't the strict case with Brawl.
And then I'm going to bring up Diddy, Snake, Falco and Wario. Then you are going to bring up that only a select FEW have been able to place top with those specific characters. Then the cycle repeats.

._.

 

[Kaffei]

sorry double post

 

[Overswarm]

Alright, I'm gonna pull a Socrates here.

I'll ask a simple question, and you'll answer with a simple answer.




Would you be okay playing a fighting game competitively if it only had one character that had any real chance of winning?

No.

10ThatWouldBeBorings

If a game could have one viable character out of 50 or, if that one was removed, 40 viable characters out of the remaining 49, would you consider removing that one character good for competition?

Of course! The community would become healthier, but that isn't the strict case with Brawl.

Simple answers only please.

So now given only the information you've presented we can conclude that banning a character for
-making a healthier community (your words)
-increasing character viability (your responses)


Is this correct?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Again, MK:Diddy is NOT 55:45, I'm tired of seeing so many scrubs say this.



Diddy LOSES to MK, as in HARD COUNTER when the MK knows wtf they're doing.

M2K does NOT know what he's doing, in fact, local MK players here in Nowheresville, New Mexico are BETTER at the Diddy match-up than M2K is.



Seriously if you want to beat M2K in tourney, play Diddy, done deal.

If you want to beat other MK players... it's a different story.

Oh name calling, how cute.

Define what you mean by hard counter and why MK is a hard counter for Diddy.

 

[Crow!]

Oh sorry Kaffei, I somehow missed this part of your post when quoting the other.

This is what I was referring to: http://www.msu.edu/~worhatch/brawlpics/6MonthMKDominance.PNG I don't understand this

That graph is the following:

Take the 6-month score vs. rank plot.

For each character who isn't MK, divide MK's score by that character's score at that rank.

So when you see Falco at rank 1 (the far left side of the graph) as being 6, what that is showing is that M2K, while playing MK, has scored 6 times as many points on Ankoku's tournament results ranking list than DEHF has while playing Falco. This continues, pairing up the 2nd best MK player with that of each of the shown characters, and the 3rd best, and so on.

 

[Kaffei]

Simple answers only please.

So now given only the information you've presented we can conclude that banning a character for
-making a healthier community (your words)
-increasing character viability (your responses)


Is this correct?

That is correct. (Am I allowed to say more cus I dont like simple answers :[ )

 

[MarKO X]

-Banning Tornado? When did we ever try that? It's still a bad idea anyway. Forget I even brought that up.

I will forget you brought that up, but I was talking about IDC, and (although it affects the whole cast) planking via the LGL.

 

[demonictoonlink]

i've always been pro-ban. and yes i do.
you've even seen me at tournaments?
too bad whenever i ask for friendlies you just kind of blow me off.

I would never deny you friendlies...

 

[Kaffei]

Oh sorry Kaffei, I somehow missed this part of your post when quoting the other.



That graph is the following:

Take the 6-month score vs. rank plot.

For each character who isn't MK, divide MK's score by that character's score at that rank.

So when you see Falco at rank 1 (the far left side of the graph) as being 6, what that is showing is that M2K, while playing MK, has scored 6 times as many points on Ankoku's tournament results ranking list than DEHF has while playing Falco. This continues, pairing up the 2nd best MK player with that of each of the shown characters, and the 3rd best, and so on.

That makes more sense. Thanks.

 

[Overswarm]

Alright, I'm gonna pull a Socrates here.

I'll ask a simple question, and you'll answer with a simple answer.




Would you be okay playing a fighting game competitively if it only had one character that had any real chance of winning?

No.

10ThatWouldBeBorings

If a game could have one viable character out of 50 or, if that one was removed, 40 viable characters out of the remaining 49, would you consider removing that one character good for competition?

Of course! The community would become healthier, but that isn't the strict case with Brawl.

So now given only the information you've presented we can conclude that banning a character for
-making a healthier community (your words)
-increasing character viability (your responses)


Is this correct?

That is correct.

Nope! Simple answers only, you'll get your time to speak freely.

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere concrete with you personally.

If only one character was viable in a game with 50 characters, would you ban that character to make the game have 5 viable characters with the remaining 49?

 

[Dekar173]

Oh name calling, how cute.

Define what you mean by hard counter and why MK is a hard counter for Diddy.

Name calling appears to be the only way to get it through people's heads when they're wrong on the boards. If it were in person, I feel I'd have a much easier time explaining things but alas, I've only got text to broadcast such things atm.



The Diddy Backroom has already explained that they'd prefer it if I didn't say anything, so I'm gonna go ahead and leave it up to Overswarm whenever he finishes up his video/wall of text on the Diddy match-up.



Two things I'll say- if Diddy is barreling and you aren't punishing it, you're doing it very wrong.

If you tornado, end it right next to the edge of the stage- you're not getting punished with a kill move/grab anymore! Huzzah!

@Kaffei- tell that to Havok M2K just doesn't listen, plain and simple.

 

[Kaffei]

Nope! Simple answers only, you'll get your time to speak freely.

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere concrete with you personally.

If only one character was viable in a game with 50 characters, would you ban that character to make the game have 5 viable characters with the remaining 49?

Yes.

10IWantToElaborateOmg

 

[Raziek]

Was there a reason Ally wasn't using Nado or does he just prefer not to?

I seem to remember him saying something about proving that MK doesn't even need Nado to win, but I can't remember. Don't quote me on it.

Unfortunately, the funny part is, is he's like, top 10 MK's without tornado, with very little time actually playing him, because Ally is THAT good. (hence why we label him an outlier)

 

[Overswarm]

Alright, I'm gonna pull a Socrates here.

I'll ask a simple question, and you'll answer with a simple answer.




Would you be okay playing a fighting game competitively if it only had one character that had any real chance of winning?

No.

10ThatWouldBeBorings

If a game could have one viable character out of 50 or, if that one was removed, 40 viable characters out of the remaining 49, would you consider removing that one character good for competition?

Of course! The community would become healthier, but that isn't the strict case with Brawl.

So now given only the information you've presented we can conclude that banning a character for
-making a healthier community (your words)
-increasing character viability (your responses)


Is this correct?

That is correct.

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere concrete with you personally.

If only one character was viable in a game with 50 characters, would you ban that character to make the game have 5 viable characters with the remaining 49?

Yes.

10IWantToElaborateOmg

Superb! You'll be able to elaborate soon, promise.

Two questions:

Does this mean that the DEGREE of viability change is irrelevant if it is at LEAST a 1:5 ratio?

If only one character was viable in a game with 50 characters, would you ban that character to make the game have 2 viable characters with the remaining 49?

 

[Justblaze647]

Name calling appears to be the only way to get it through people's heads when they're wrong on the boards.

Welcome to the internet

Also, Crow wins because he mains Link.

Spoiler

idk about that Yoshi thing though lol

 

[Tien2500]

I seem to remember him saying something about proving that MK doesn't even need Nado to win, but I can't remember. Don't quote me on it.

Unfortunately, the funny part is, is he's like, top 10 MK's without tornado, with very little time actually playing him, because Ally is THAT good. (hence why we label him an outlier)

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm right behind Ally :[

 

[Kaffei]

Superb! You'll be able to elaborate soon, promise.

Two questions:

Does this mean that the DEGREE of health change is irrelevant if it is at LEAST a 1:5 ratio?

If only one character was viable in a game with 50 characters, would you ban that character to make the game have 2 viable characters with the remaining 49?

1st question: Could you dumb it down? I'm unable to comprehend what you are specifically saying.

2nd question: Yes.

 

[Raziek]

Moving this to it's own post because it ended up longer than expected, and I don't want you to miss the point of why OS is keeping it simple.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the point of a Socratic discussion is to be asked extremely simple, but specific questions until you reach a final verdict, based on the series of logical followups.

As it stands right, not, either you'll be lead by Overswarm into agreeing that you think MK should be banned for reasons that pro-ban considers valid, or he'll find a flaw in your logic, and you either change your mind because of it, or you reject it, and we get to see that you're wrong.

It's actually quite simple, and it's one of my favorite techniques for breaking through flawed logic. However, it's less effective in forums because the chat style is more suited for IM's or real life.

I believe for the first question he's asking you whether you think it matters if the game only gets a little bit healthier, or a LOT healthier, as long as at least 5 characters are made viable.
__________________