Official Metaknight Discussion

[Overswarm]

Kaffei is pro-ban, he just hasn't gotten to the end of our discussion yet.

 

[Kaffei]

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"?

To be clear, I am implying that even if a character can have a defeated screen, they can still be banned.

I am definitely NOT pro ban.

 

[Overswarm]

K.

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?

Incorrect. 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 remove a character if anyone has ever defeated it.

 

[Tien2500]

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.

If MK were gone Mewtwo would be the top character.

Mewtwo is indeed in the game but he gets countered so hard by MK that he refuses to show up. Its sad.

 

[Overswarm]

Actually, mewtwo has a chaingrab on MK that combos into a fair that kill him. Seriously.

 

[ShadowLink84]

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

Its not slander if its true.

 

[Overswarm]

(It's not a trick question Kaffei, it's just a way to get you to write out your answer in the form of a statement without asking a dozen more questions for clarification; there is a very obvious and true answer to that series of questions, but only if you believe the answer)

 

[DMG]

When I first read the sentence, I read it as "Slather"

lol.

But yeah, I don't think the argument that "we can't ban MK cause someone else will take his spot" is really all that viable looking at the circumstances.

 

[Kaffei]

K.

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 remove a character if anyone has ever defeated it.

They can't really be true at once.
Can I talk about brawl now

 

[Tien2500]

They can't really be true at once.
Can I talk about brawl now

Lol. This is going in a circle. I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

[Overswarm]

But yeah, I don't think the argument that "we can't ban MK cause someone else will take his spot" is really all that viable looking at the circumstances.

Not only is it not true, everything we've seen dictates that isn't the case at all.

They can't really be true at once.

They can. Not with how you really think, but they CAN be true.

To simplify, does this statement describe your position:

"I would happily ban a character from a competitive game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would do so as to increase character viability and health, but if this character has ever been defeated in a match I would not ban it"

 

[Kaffei]

Okay I don't see what you are trying to do.. Make me say that MK is overcentralizing the game and that his tornado is evil and his SL is stupidly good and he's 4538795379x better than all the characters with his amazing recovery and laglessness and priority and 0 bad match ups and 0 bad stages and this makes all the other characters suck then MK beats them all at top play so it's better to ban him because he's breaking the game and with him gone we will have more variety thus the game is more fun and more ppl play cus it's more balanced now?

inb4checkmateOS
inb4lern2useperiods

Not only is it not true, everything we've seen dictates that isn't the case at all.




They can. Not with how you really think, but they CAN be true.

To simplify, does this statement describe your position:

"I would happily ban a character from a competitive game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would do so as to increase character viability and health, but if this character has ever been defeated in a match I would not ban it"

More like:
I would happily ban a character from a comp game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would so as to increase character viablity, but because this character is played by many it's not fair to ban him for the people who've worked hard with him so I dont want to ban him, but this is about the community, not just a piece of it.

But no one cares about what I say anyway because I keep contradicting myself and stuff and then everyone just lmfaos cus im dumb...

 

[Overswarm]

To simplify, does this statement describe your position:

"I would happily ban a character from a competitive game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would do so as to increase character viability and health, but if this character has ever been defeated in a match I would not ban it"

 

[Kaffei]

To simplify, does this statement describe your position:

"I would happily ban a character from a competitive game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would do so as to increase character viability and health, but if this character has ever been defeated in a match I would not ban it"

More like:
I would happily ban a character from a comp game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would so as to increase character viablity, but because this character is played by many it's not fair to ban him for the people who've worked hard with him so I dont want to ban him, but this is about the community, not just a piece of it.

But no one cares about what I say anyway because I keep contradicting myself and stuff and then everyone just lmfaos cus im dumb...

 

[iceman48]

I feel like I've heard those last two posts before.

 

[Justblaze647]

But no one cares about what I say anyway because I keep contradicting myself and stuff and then everyone just lmfaos cus im dumb...

Let's all stop our productive discussion so we can throw Kaffei a pity party. With a MK cake.

inb4equallyinsultingretort

Edit:

it's not fair to ban him for the people who've worked hard with him

ppl work hard with MK? when did that start?

 

[Overswarm]

Yes or no, please.

 

[rvkevin]

it's not fair to ban him for the people who've worked hard with him so I dont want to ban him, but this is about the community, not just a piece of it.

Self contradictory...

 

[Kaffei]

Let's all stop our productive discussion so we can throw Kaffei a pity party. With a MK cake.

inb4equallyinsultingretort

lol that would be cool!

@ OS: no

self contradictory..

Originally Posted by Kaffei View Post
But no one cares about what I say anyway because I keep contradicting myself and stuff and then everyone just lmfaos cus im dumb...

Already said that

 

[Overswarm]

According to your responses to the questions I've given, your actual response is yes. Given the question in a condensed format showing the results from several questions combined, you answered no.


Somewhere along the line, you either lied, changed your mind, misread a question, or are crazy. I'm assuming it's #3.

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?

Incorrect. 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 remove a character if anyone has ever defeated it.

They can't really be true at once.

To simplify, does this statement describe your position:

"I would happily ban a character from a competitive game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would do so as to increase character viability and health, but if this character has ever been defeated in a match I would not ban it"

@ OS: no

Which answer that you have given is incorrect and needs to be changed?

 

[MarKO X]

ppl work hard with MK? when did that start?

when ppl hard to lrn the diddy matchup?

 

[Kaffei]

Last answer should be Yes.
Sorry. I'm wasting ur time. it's 3AM and I cant think straight.

@Justblaze647: Don't even.

 

[Dekar173]

You forgot the part where

"omfg i main MK, WHY DOES HE HAVE TO BE BANNENEDDDDDDDDddDD BOOOOOOO"

 

[WindMajor]

He mains Toon Link.

 

[etecoon]

I'd also like to show something:

http://www.smashboards.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=263165


I am the #1 poster in this thread (woo!)

Omni is #3


Considering every time I've brought up a series of data to counteract things Omni has said he replies with "it's too long" or "I'm lazy" or "I don't have the time" while at the same time trying to contact TOs to convince them to "never ban MK no matter what", I am going to make the conclusion that he is lying.


So anti-ban, step yo game up.

wow, I somehow manage to be #6 even though I'm not actually pro or anti ban, lmao

look at overswarm overcentralizing the metagame with 2x the posts of the next person, BAN

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

I could see where dekar would be a difficult person to take instruction from...or converse with at all for that matter.

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.

marth is upper tier IN SPITE of meta knight, it doesn't mean that he isn't massively massively held back by him. marth isn't viable to win a regional, considering this, it's actually pretty silly that he is considered high tier. being a good character that gets ***** by MK makes you not a good character at all.

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

yeah, lets give no credit to forte, dmbrandon, plank, or teh spamerer, who all mained MK before him.

I think he was one of the last top level MK's to really embrace that MK is a defensive oriented character too

 

[Kaffei]

You forgot the part where

"omfg i main MK, WHY DOES HE HAVE TO BE BANNENEDDDDDDDDddDD BOOOOOOO"

ya that's basically it.

He mains Toon Link.

No, I main MK.
TL is just another fun to play char. only those 2 characters are fun to me.

 

[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?

Incorrect. 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 remove a character if anyone has ever defeated it.

They can't really be true at once.

To simplify, does this statement describe your position:

"I would happily ban a character from a competitive game if it was the only one that had any real chance of winning, and would do so as to increase character viability and health, but if this character has ever been defeated in a match I would not ban it"

@ OS: yes

You have just stated openly that you wouldn't ban any character in any video game ever as long as a 2 year old using the "one character" could lose to a seasoned veteran with a decade of practice using any other character, even if that one character was the only viable character in tournament level play.

In other words, you wouldn't just not ban Metaknight; you wouldn't ban anyone, ever, for any reason. A programmed defeat screen is enough.

I do not believe I need to explain why that is silly, but let me know if I do.



it's 3 a.m. here too!

 

[Justblaze647]

@Justblaze647: Don't even.

I can honestly say: This confused me.



Edit: @OS: Dude wtf is up with all the quoting? You're such a jerk lol

 

[Kaffei]

You have just stated openly that you wouldn't ban any character in any video game ever as long as a 2 year old using the "one character" could lose to a seasoned veteran with a decade of practice using any other character, even if that one character was the only viable character in tournament level play.

In other words, you wouldn't just not ban Metaknight; you wouldn't ban anyone, ever, for any reason. A programmed defeat screen is enough.

I do not believe I need to explain why that is silly, but let me know if I do.



it's 3 a.m. here too!

Isn't this what I have been saying since the beginning? And not a 2 year old.. what the heck lol. OS u go to VA tourneys? I know it's silly, which is why I asked if we could think of even more alternatives. inb4therearen't any

@justblaze: You're implying that MK doesn't require skill at all because "all you have to do is bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c up b up b up b up b up b up b up b up b up b up b".

 

[C~Dog]

OS leave the poor kid alone.

 

[Exceladon City]

You sound like you want to have your way at the expense of everyone else. Selfish person is selfish.

 

[Mortimer]

You have just stated openly that you wouldn't ban any character in any video game ever as long as a 2 year old using the "one character" could lose to a seasoned veteran with a decade of practice using any other character, even if that one character was the only viable character in tournament level play.

In other words, you wouldn't just not ban Metaknight; you wouldn't ban anyone, ever, for any reason. A programmed defeat screen is enough.

I do not believe I need to explain why that is silly, but let me know if I do.



it's 3 a.m. here too!

Your question was whether he could beat his 10 year old cousin, not some 2 year old. Do you know for certain that his 10 year old cousin is worse at video games than him?

@Kaffei, I respect you for working through all that, I wouldn't have had the patience or the inclination :D

 

[Overswarm]

To those confused by what I just did:


I have a series of true, absolute statements by Kaffei. If there were any holes in my questions it was MY FAULT, and thus he is not able to leave anything out. This means that I have information at my disposla.

What Omni has done earlier is never take a concrete stance, since then he can be proven wrong.

I did a one-shot version on Omni earlier by simply asking him if the current tournament results would be okay if ADHD and Ally did not exist. He said he would not, in fact, be pleased with those results.

I then proceeded to show how ADHD and Ally weren't indicative of any sort of trend with their characters, leaving Omni with two choices:

1) Say "as long as a character can be beaten by a player playing a different character, he can't be banned"

This is obviously illogical. You can spout off all day about how well ADHD does against MKs, but he doesn't show any sort of trend. The best you can do is say "well we need more time", but that isn't really applicable in this debate.

or

2) The data you've given is incorrect

It wasn't, so this isn't an option, but if he saw something I didn't he could use this option.

or

3) I've changed my mind


He chose the "I'm lazy and can't respond" option that doesn't really help him, but it's trapped him in a situation where he either has to take a new stance (weakness), show how my data is wrong (strength, but on my terms) , or openly claim to have a ridiculously crazy ban criteria (weak).


This is why the only vocal anti-ban doesn't say anything concrete.

 

[Exceladon City]

@Kaffei-You'd be surprised at how far people can get with Nado, Dair, Dsmash, Fsmash and Shuttle Loop.

 

[Kaffei]

You sound like you want to have your way at the expense of everyone else. Selfish person is selfish.

As much as I would like MK to be not banned, it's probably a better thing to do because everyone hates him because of already given reasons.

This doesn't mean I am pro ban.. I'm just crazy.

 

[Overswarm]

Your question was whether he could beat his 10 year old cousin, not some 2 year old. Do you know for certain that his 10 year old cousin is worse at video games than him?

@Kaffei, I respect you for working through all that, I wouldn't have had the patience or the inclination :D

Isn't this what I have been saying since the beginning?

Yes, I do now.



Basically, Kaffei is crazy.


(hey, I got same time ninja'd by Kaffei, both of us calling him crazy. Neat.)

 

[The Sage of Shadow: Darklink]

I heard you're the nicest person offline but such an illogical jerk online.

 

[Kaffei]

Yes, I do now.



Basically, Kaffei is crazy.


(hey, I got same time ninja'd by Kaffei, both of us calling him crazy. Neat.)

Lmfao. I'm not lazy! I'll answer more stuff.

@Above: OS is not being a jerk to me lol

 

[Justblaze647]

@justblaze: You're implying that MK doesn't require skill at all because "all you have to do is bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c down c up b up b up b up b up b up b up b up b up b up b".

M2K himself has stated openly multiple times that he single handedly developed ALL of MK's metagame. So when you say that you "work hard," aren't you just emulating the techniques that he supposedly crafted? That's not exactly my definition of "skill."

Also @ your description of MK play, because that is virtually it in a nut shell, if you add in a few rising dairs and some dtilt > grabs.

 

[Kaffei]

M2K himself has stated openly multiple times that he single handedly developed ALL of MK's metagame. So when you say that you "work hard," aren't you just emulating the techniques that he supposedly crafted? That's not exactly my definition of "skill."

Also @ your description of MK play, because that is virtually it in a nut shell, if you add in a few rising dairs and some dtilt > grabs.

That's true. That doesn't mean it makes it easy for me to practice and learn match ups and controlling the character himself.