Official Metaknight Discussion

[Kaffei]

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 know. I don't think OS can convince me to become pro ban, MK is my favorite character and it's not fair that I have to stop playing him(inb4 it's not fair to the community that they lose to a "br0ken char"). I know preferences are irrelevant, but still. I don't really have anything to contribute but I'm willing to try.

-gets ***** by proban-

 

[Raziek]

I don't think OS can convince me to become pro ban, MK is my favorite character and I know preferences are irrelevant, but still.

Well, if all humans made decisions completely logically, the world would be a different place. But we don't, which is why these things come up. It's cool to like MK, just as long as you understand his impacts and why they're a problem.

I apologize if I'm preemptively ****-blocking you, OS.

 

[C~Dog]

I know. I don't think OS can convince me to become pro ban, MK is my favorite character and it's not fair that I have to stop playing him(inb4 it's not fair to the community that they lose to a "br0ken char"). I know preferences are irrelevant, but still. I don't really have anything to contribute but I'm willing to try.

-gets ***** by proban-

So you would put playing your favourite character as a higher priority than having a potentially healthier metagame?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to box you in or anything, i'm just following what path i think OS might be going down.

 

[Raziek]

So you would put playing your favourite character as a higher priority than having a potentially healthier metagame?

Don't break the chain man, you can't follow up an elaborate answer with a simple question, that defeats the purpose. Let OS handle it. xD

 

[Kaffei]

So you would put playing your favourite character as a higher priority than having a potentially healthier metagame?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to box you in or anything, i'm just following what path i think OS might be going down.

No, but I'm under some belief that there is a way to solve this problem without banning MK himself.

 

[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 variety 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.

Excellent.

We'll ignore the first question because you answered yes to the second.

What you've said is that, to you, banning a character that is the only viable character in a game is okay if you get 2 viable characters out of it.

Is this incorrect?


Another question:

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with?

 

[Tommy_G]

What character does MK make unplayable that isn't already unplayable with the characters at the top?

Marth might be one, but he's already upper tier.

I love when people take responses and use them out of context. It's the same thing as biased charts made with cherry picked data.

All of the top MKers other than M2K are flock players. They just gravitate to the easier character. Usually this easier character is just simply one who's metagame developed faster because of the immense amount of people using them to learn strategies to counter bad match-ups. Once MK is gone(if ever), another character will take its place whether it's Marth, D3, or Snake and then we'll be back to stage 1 of the banning debate again.

It's how fighting games work.

 

[Kaffei]

Excellent.

We'll ignore the first question because you answered yes to the second.

What you've said is that, to you, banning a character that is the only viable character in a game is okay if you get 2 viable characters out of it.

Is this incorrect?

No, that is correct.

Another question:

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with?

No.

 

[Dekar173]

All of the top MKers other than M2K are flock players. They just gravitate to the easier character. Usually this easier character is just simply one who's metagame developed faster because of the immense amount of people using them to learn strategies to counter bad match-ups. Once MK is gone, another character will take its place whether it's Marth, D3, or Snake.

M2K is like, the definition of "flock player"

he plays top-tier, nothing else, because he views this game as a "job"



Seriously, I wish I had recorded the *****/moan-fest he had at PC Chris (who kept laughing/nodding his head waiting for him to walk away) about how he has no fun playing Smash anymore, and he only views this as a form of income, nothing else.

@Kaffei- lmao. Check and mate.

 

[Overswarm]

Excellent.

We'll ignore the first question because you answered yes to the second.

What you've said is that, to you, banning a character that is the only viable character in a game is okay if you get 2 viable characters out of it.

Is this incorrect?


Another question:

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with?

No, that is correct.

No. (to "another question")

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with, and they were the only three to do so in ten years?

 

[DMG]

What character does MK make unplayable that isn't already unplayable with the characters at the top?

Marth might be one, but he's already upper tier.

I love when people take responses and use them out of context. It's the same thing as biased charts made with cherry picked data.

All of the top MKers other than M2K are flock players. They just gravitate to the easier character. Usually this easier character is just simply one who's metagame developed faster because of the immense amount of people using them to learn strategies to counter bad match-ups. Once MK is gone, another character will take its place whether it's Marth, D3, or Snake.

The characters you listed have clear bad stages, and clear bad matchups (bad being clearly 55:45 or worse.) It would be hard to imagine a character dominating harder than MK currently does.

Using your question of who does MK beat that someone else doesn't beat harder, assume that is true. Are you suggesting that by removing MK, who you suggest is not the hardest counter out there for "good" characters, that one of those characters will become as dominant as him despite having a harder counter still in play?

I think it's hard to fathom a character taking the same spot as MK dominance wise when, as you suggest, harder counters are out there for those characters. If Falco loses to IC's worse than MK, how would removing MK benefit Falco that much? In fact, it might hurt him more as IC's would now not have to deal with MK, and would have an easier time rising through the ranks.

Snake/Diddy/even Marth have enough trouble or even matchups to almost assuredly not become as dominant as MK is.

 

[Tommy_G]

M2K is like, the definition of "flock player"

he plays top-tier, nothing else, because he views this game as a "job"



Seriously, I wish I had recorded the *****/moan-fest he had at PC Chris (who kept laughing/nodding his head waiting for him to walk away) about how he has no fun playing Smash anymore, and he only views this as a form of income, nothing else.

@Kaffei- lmao. Check and mate.

Not really seeing as M2K practically developed MKs metagame by himself.

Everyone jumped on it because it was already figured out.

@DMG
One character will "debilitate the metagame"(in quotes because I don't believe this is true for MK now) as MK is doing now if MK is banned. They will dominate because MK, their only apparent bad matchup is gone. Their matchups with MK gone might even be worse than what MK's are now. We will be back at square one in the ban debate until we hit one character left in the game.

 

[Overswarm]

Tommy is a troll, DMG; he doesn't actually look into anything before posting

 

[Justblaze647]

No, but I'm under some belief that there is a way to solve this problem without banning MK himself.

What exactly is the problem you are referring too? :/

 

[C~Dog]

DMG: Your sig hurts my eyes and makes your words rather hypnotizing.

 

[Kaffei]

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with, and they were the only three to do so in ten years?

No.

10PreCalculusIsBorings

What exactly is the problem you are referring too? :/

That he is disliked by the community because he breaks the game because he's too good because he has 0 bad MUs and 0 bad stages.

 

[Raziek]

Yeah, GG on that one. You hit the outlier flaw in your logic. Checkmate for Overswarm. Key phrasing in his question is that even though these three people succeed with these characters, they are ultimately still nonviable, but DO become viable if the first character is removed, which you approved by your logic.

 

[Overswarm]

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with, and they were the only three to do so in ten years?

No.

10PreCalculusIsBorings

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you were able to beat your 10 year old cousin's "viable character" when you were playing a non-viable character?

 

[Kaffei]

Yeah, GG on that one. You hit the outlier flaw in your logic. Checkmate for Overswarm. Key phrasing in his question is that even though these three people succeed with these characters, they are ultimately still nonviable, but DO become viable if the first character is removed, which you approved by your logic.

Huh? I don't get it.

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you were able to beat your 10 year old cousin's "viable character" when you were playing a non-viable character?

No.

 

[Tien2500]

That he is disliked by the community because he breaks the game because he's too good because he has 0 bad MUs and 0 bad stages.

Well I think we already established that you can't ban certain moves and we've tried ledge limits and scrooging... what else can be done?

 

[C~Dog]

Yeah, GG on that one. You hit the outlier flaw in your logic. Checkmate for Overswarm. Key phrasing in his question is that even though these three people succeed with these characters, they are ultimately still nonviable, but DO become viable if the first character is removed, which you approved by your logic.

I thought the implication was that the outliers character would be nonviable regardless of the dominating being banned or not.

 

[Overswarm]

Have faith, Raziek. I'm no stranger to the Socratic method

 

[Raziek]

Huh? I don't get it.

I'll let him explain it, since he hasn't yet made his final move. I'm going to sleep.

 

[Kaffei]

Well I think we already established that you can't ban certain moves and we've tried ledge limits and scrooging... what else can be done?

We need to get more creative and think outside the box's box.

 

[Raziek]

I thought the implication was that the outliers character would be nonviable regardless of the dominating being banned or not.

Last thing before I go. His hypothetical gives you 2 viable characters if you remove one, which is ultimately to the benefit of the game. It's not that hard to connect the dots.

 

[Tien2500]

We need to get more creative and think outside the box's box.

Well if you have a good suggestion let me know. But I think that instituting any crazy limiting policies on MK would be more detrimental than an actual ban.

 

[Dekar173]

Lmfao @ Kaffei once again.



I can beat a scrub's Akuma, but he's still banned. WTF?!?@!?@?!@?!

 

[Kaffei]

Lmfao @ Kaffei once again.



I can beat a scrub's Akuma, but he's still banned. WTF?!?@!?@?!@?!

What?? Dont laugh at me T T

 

[Overswarm]

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with, and they were the only three to do so in ten years?

No.

10PreCalculusIsBorings

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you were able to beat your 10 year old cousin's "viable character" when you were playing a non-viable character?

No.

To be clear, you are implying that if a character can have a "defeated" screen, they cannot be banned. Is this correct?

 

[Kaffei]

To be clear, you are implying that if a character can have a "defeated" screen, they cannot be banned. Is this correct?

Incorrect**

 

[Dekar173]

Correct. adfadfgd

Then you'll never be convinced that MK is bannable, because of your flawed logic (not to mention your vested interest!)

 

[Tommy_G]

Tommy is a troll, DMG; he doesn't actually look into anything before posting

Don't they have rules against libel and slander here?

 

[Overswarm]

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 variety 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.

Excellent.

We'll ignore the first question because you answered yes to the second.

What you've said is that, to you, banning a character that is the only viable character in a game is okay if you get 2 viable characters out of it.

Is this incorrect?


Another question:

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with?

No, that is correct.

No. (to "another question")

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you saw three people out of 30,000 succeed with characters no one else could succeed with, and they were the only three to do so in ten years?

No.

10PreCalculusIsBorings

Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you were able to beat your 10 year old cousin's "viable character" when you were playing a non-viable character?

No.

To be clear, you are implying that if a character can have a "defeated" screen, they cannot be banned. Is this correct?

Correct. adfadfgd

Can you explain how these three statements can all be true at once?

Statement 1: I would not be okay with a competitive game if it only had one character that had any real chance of winning.

Statement 2: I would remove a character from a game to increase character viability and health.

Statement 3: I would not ban a character if the game's programming was able to show a defeat screen.

 

[Kaffei]

Then you'll never be convinced that MK is bannable, because of your flawed logic (not to mention your vested interest!)

misread the question. Incorrect*

@OS: They can't, and I meant to say Incorrect.

 

[Overswarm]

Which statement was incorrect?

 

[Dekar173]

misread the question. Incorrect*

@OS: They can't, and I meant to say Incorrect.

It's as if you waited for OS to respond, and then changed your answer!

Remarkable.

 

[Kaffei]

u: if they have defeated screen they cant be banned
me: incorrect


@Dekar: No, I clearly edited it before posted his thingy... well it's both 2:24, but I'm being honest -__- I didn't read OS's thing before I changed my answer. I bet you dont believe me because im dumb

 

[Overswarm]

Or, simply misunderstood. Happens to the best of us.


"Originally Posted by me
Using the same game as before (1 viable character, remove him you get 2) would you still ban him if you were able to beat your 10 year old cousin's "viable character" when you were playing a non-viable character?

Quote:
Originally Posted by you
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
To be clear, you are implying that if a character can have a "defeated" screen, they cannot be banned. Is this correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by you
Correct. adfadfgd
"

Are the bolded answers now supposed to be "incorrect"?

 

[Justblaze647]

That he is disliked by the community because he breaks the game because he's too good because he has 0 bad MUs and 0 bad stages.

Do you agree that MK fits these characteristics? If so, what would you suggest the community do about this "problem?"

It seems like you're just shooting down the idea of a character ban simply because it makes YOU uncomfortable, without mentioning the possibility of an alternative.

 

[DMG]

Tommy, name the character that would come in and take MK's place dominance wise. What character out there has only 1 55:45 matchup, that happens to be against MK, with a harder counter than MK also present, that would magically dominate everything with MK gone?

If we are to assume that MK is not the hardest counter out there for characters like Snake, Diddy, Falco, etc. Then why are we to assume that removing MK will suddenly let those characters dominate? I could see if you removed that character's hardest counter, but in the case of MK who you think isn't the hardest counter for those characters, I find it hard to believe that someone would take his throne with him gone. Sure, you might have a best character, but I can guarantee you that character would not dominate at the same level as MK.