Official Metaknight Discussion

[Supermodel From Paris]

If anything, Diddy and Snake are artificially inflated because their counters are deflated by MK.

 

[Inaphyt]

So I had a thought that may or may not be accurate -- I don't know enough about other game's community decisions and preferred characters to say one way or the other. So, I'll lay out what I'm thinking and maybe someone that does know better than me can say whether it actually explains things or not. Also, my apologies for the length of this post, I think it's a bit rambly but I'm not sure how to put it shorter and explain what I'm going for.

Basically, I've long thought that MK's globally good MUs was a big problem. Now I'm wondering if my reasoning for that was wrong (I still believe it's a problem.) The logic went, "Since MK has no bad MUs or stages then he's the best pick for resisting counterpicks or for using as a secondary so everyone will use him." But that doesn't happen so much in other games even when they have a character that also has a set of only even at worse MUs, and with Crow's chart showing how much better MK is at winning tournaments (Note in case this was missed: It did not say MK was X times better than any other character, it showed he is X times better at winning tournaments. A relatively minor but key issue that I missed on my first go around with the data.) These games also have a full roster of lower tiered characters that occasionally have good MUs with higher characters. So what's different?

I think the issue is a combination of two things: One is that the Smash community on the whole falls in love with their characters, and tournaments reflect that. The second is that all the characters below MK are fairly close in ability to each other as far as winning tournaments go (Within a fairly wide band of characters.) The combination means that the real problem isn't that MK is unbeatably dominant (Snake can go pretty even with him, as could (currently) Diddy, and it's likely others can come close enough that skill will win out over character) but that with everyone playing their favorite, the chances for a non-MK to not run into one of their CPs while trying to win the tournament plummet.

So, do other fighting games have a more focused community that's willing to primarily play the "best" and the characters that have good MUs with that best? (For a Smash example, it would mean a majority of players would be MK, Snake, and Diddy -- maybe one other character that can stand up well against MK. This isn't what's currently happening.) Or do they stick hard to their favorites and try to make them work regardless, mowing down all the characters below the best and making it a struggle to get to the top of the heap for the finals match against that top character? I believe that's what's going on, and I also believe the Smash community is unlikely to ever change -- leaving MK three times (Minimum) better at winning tournaments and overcentralizing him.

Any thoughts? Is this accurate, and/or does it help explain the phenomenon of why a not too dominant character can become overly dominant?

tl;dr: MK is overly dominant not because he's unbeatable but because the Smash community plays a wide range of characters that tend to provide bad MUs against and eliminate many of the Snakes/Diddy's/etc. who could otherwise have a shot at winning against MK throughout tournaments.

I disagree with you on every level basically, people don't play characters because mk is cool, or they like super mario bros 2 so they play mario naaaay, the majority of people pick characters they feel comfortable with. Honestly if that was true why would anyone ever of played rob?

Mk is the best character at winning tournaments by far, so therefore mk is 2x(+) at least better than any other character.

Brawl would be 2x(+) at least more fun if mk was banned.

 

[Inaphyt]

If anything, Diddy and Snake are artificially inflated because their counters are deflated by MK.

Sorry for double post but this is an amazing point, diddy is weak against luigi and wario(imo) and peach and goes even with marth, all of those characters are stomped by mk so after mk has finished with them and diddy sneakily single nana lock his way through a tight squeeze he can have a good go at mk.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Inaphyt I dont recall O. Sagat ever being banned outside of one or two regions in the US.
While in Japan he is softbanned.


ANYWAYS, I do think we should focus on getting that criteria going.
Compromise you know?

 

[_OraNoS_]

The do complain, but the smash community seems to think a 4:6 is impossible and the person with the 6 should always win.

Which is rather silly.

...especially considering that a 4:6 could be perfectly even after 8 games while still following the assumption that the ratio will be the end result (when played to the appropriate number of games). To those missing an obvious fact: most tournament sets do not last 4 games(half of that). (this should leave the outcome to be decided primarily by the player's abilities and to a lesser extent, stages)

Side note: This does assume that the out of 10(or 100) ratio is 100% accurate and that if it was tied 4-4 and you played two more matches, the "6" would win each... every time. In this "matchup ratios are perfect" scenario, this also could lead to consistent 3-0 sweeps by the 3 of a 3:7 matchup (presuming the "7" would have won any remaining matches until #11). [this could also result in 2-0 sweeps by the underdog of the 2:8 and 1:9 (extended to out of 20, 1/10 x 2)]


I think the problem is the confusion over what a "X:Y" matchup equates to. It leads some people viewing a 35:65 matchup as "nearly impossible" while others think it's "really tough" ....or a 4:6 as a "counter" instead of "hard", "in the other guy's favor", etc.

tl;dr version: player ability makes an impact on a set's results (shouldn't this be obvious?)

Inaphyt I dont recall O. Sagat ever being banned outside of one or two regions in the US.
While in Japan he is softbanned.

I don't even know if he was banned that much.. he's allowed at EVO, and EVO's rules set a standard that many TO's follow or tend to take into consideration because most major tournaments leading up to EVO are essentially practice for it (on top of being a quality tournament on its own, of course).

Another funny thing that plenty of people forget (sometimes choose to ignore) is that in order to play Sagat, you have to input a (small) code in order to play him. Players who chose to use him are rewarded with one of the most simple and powerful characters in the game(outside of the undoubtedly best Akuma, who is also only selectable with a (more complex) code). Despite having no super meter (like ST Akuma), he's thought to be so much better than his "new" counterpart that selecting "new" Sagat isn't even considered in either tournaments or tier lists (regarding play outside of Japan). Despite all of this, he's still allowed over here.

Interesting comparable thought: How would our community react if you could select Wario-man in a simple manner like O. Sagat? (by just inputting a few directional inputs followed by a button press after selecting the character normally) He's considered to be a "better" version of Wario, while losing some functionality (4 of his 5 aerials force him to move upwards, iirc)

 

[hough123]

That's not how statistics work. 6:4 is a measurement of wins/losses of two players of the same rank over an infinite amount of matches. That means that you could win 60 matches of 60, and it would theoretically mean nothing more than that you won those matches. It would still be their favor in the long run. You should win 60 of 100, but you don't neccesarily have to.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That's not how statistics work. 6:4 is a measurement of wins/losses of two players of the same rank over an infinite amount of matches. That means that you could win 60 matches of 60, and it would theoretically mean nothing more than that you won those matches. It would still be their favor in the long run. You should win 60 of 100, but you don't neccesarily have to.

That's what it was originally supposed to be, but there's never been any effort to connect the ratios to any valid statistical logic (as in, this advantage "should increase the win percentage by x percent at the top of the metagame") so the reality is whether we admit it or not, it's a difficulty rating, and it's never had any real mathmatical basis.


It should.

 

[Eddie G]

If anything, Diddy and Snake are artificially inflated because their counters are deflated by MK.

I agree and have pointed this out numerous times. But nevertheless still a super ****ing valid point. Anyone who doesn't see this is in denial, plain and simple. xD

 

[Overswarm]

So I had a thought that may or may not be accurate -- I don't know enough about other game's community decisions and preferred characters to say one way or the other. So, I'll lay out what I'm thinking and maybe someone that does know better than me can say whether it actually explains things or not. Also, my apologies for the length of this post, I think it's a bit rambly but I'm not sure how to put it shorter and explain what I'm going for.

Never apologize for length when it's all legitimate information (or hilarious). The people that won't read it generally don't have legitimate arguments in the first place, or aren't invested enough in the outcome of the argument to really be considered a reliable source.

Basically, I've long thought that MK's globally good MUs was a big problem. Now I'm wondering if my reasoning for that was wrong (I still believe it's a problem.) The logic went, "Since MK has no bad MUs or stages then he's the best pick for resisting counterpicks or for using as a secondary so everyone will use him." But that doesn't happen so much in other games even when they have a character that also has a set of only even at worse MUs, and with Crow's chart showing how much better MK is at winning tournaments (Note in case this was missed: It did not say MK was X times better than any other character, it showed he is X times better at winning tournaments. A relatively minor but key issue that I missed on my first go around with the data.) These games also have a full roster of lower tiered characters that occasionally have good MUs with higher characters. So what's different?

I think waht- oh. You answers this already. Carry on. o_o

I think the issue is a combination of two things: One is that the Smash community on the whole falls in love with their characters, and tournaments reflect that.

Not so much, actually. The "falling in love with your characters" time was way back in the beginning of Brawl.

May/June 2008
S: Snake, Meta Knight, King Dedede
A: Marth, Mr. Game & Watch, Wario, Lucario, ROB, Falco, Olimar
B: Kirby, Donkey Kong, Wolf, Fox, Ice Climbers, Pit
C: Zero Suit Samus, Peach, Ness, Diddy Kong, Toon Link, Pikachu, Luigi, Captain Falcon, Zelda
D: Samus, Bowser, Ike, Jigglypuff, Pokémon Trainer
E: Lucas, Sonic, Ganondorf, SheikZelda, Mario, Link
U: Sheik, Yoshi

Even then, you can see that "falling in love with your character" doesn't necessarily represent success. The most successful character up at the top in relation to how far they've fallen? ROB for B-tier (dropping 8 spots) and Fox for C-tier (dropping 11 spots).

The bottom is definitely screwey, but since Ankoku takes only the top 8 and only good players/characters make top 8, the list gets less accurate as time goes on. You'd have to see the actual number of entries to see how inaccurate, but to put it in perspective the current list shows Metaknight with 452 entries and Jiggs with 3.


In other words, "falling in love with a character" doesn't really explain much because we don't do that. Good players drop bad characters and pick up better ones. I was winning with ROB, and after I left ROB plummetted. Three or four ROBs leaving later, and ROB's point accumulation went waaaaaaaay down because no one could win with him! Those that could chose a better path because they like winning and money.

So when all the data you have is looking only at the top 8, it's unlikely that you can imagine that people are just miffed that they can't play their "favorite character". Unless they're freakishly good or their favorite character is good, they're probably not seeing much love in the top 8 of tournaments anyway.

The second is that all the characters below MK are fairly close in ability to each other as far as winning tournaments go (Within a fairly wide band of characters.) The combination means that the real problem isn't that MK is unbeatably dominant (Snake can go pretty even with him, as could (currently) Diddy, and it's likely others can come close enough that skill will win out over character) but that with everyone playing their favorite, the chances for a non-MK to not run into one of their CPs while trying to win the tournament plummet.

I'll have information on exactly how silly it is to consider Snake and Diddy going "even" with MK is later, but you're right about non-MKs reaching thier CP characters.

Not only are MKs beating these other characters on average (this can be seen in multiple ways, the easiest of which is that MKs generally are the ones to take out MKs; it is rare for an MK player to not have a loss to at least one MK in tournament, and two isn't uncommon), but every non-MK can get "bracket gayed". DEHF fights a kirby and an IC at pound. Loses. Lain fights two MKs. Loses. Stuff like that isn't uncommon for non-MK characters because the matchups in Brawl are much more one-sided than people generally expect for a fighting game.

In general, most fighting games have their roster fairly close to one another. One or two may simply be better, but a good player can generally straight up out-skill an opponent that is otherwise "good".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCL12aJZkcI

You might recognize some of the names. Stuff like that isn't too uncommon in traditional fighters, but in Brawl you can't exactly take Jiggs and Captain Falcon and decimate the cast unless you are waaaaaaay better than your opponent or we've severly underestimated the characters... and if we have, those characters would be flooding the scene shortly and we'd get confirmation of it.

The reason isn't that we don't have skill gaps (we do), but more that characters can get totally destroyed by a counterpick. An "uphill battle" isn't nearly as winnable in the hard counters as one would normally expect it to be. Their "counters" in traditional fighters are more like our soft counters.

In other words, MK players have to be outskilled by a decent margin for a clear victory while other character players can run into matchups that are very much an uphill battle.

So, do other fighting games have a more focused community that's willing to primarily play the "best" and the characters that have good MUs with that best? (For a Smash example, it would mean a majority of players would be MK, Snake, and Diddy -- maybe one other character that can stand up well against MK. This isn't what's currently happening.)

Yes, it is, at the higher levels of play. It's not just Snake and Diddy though:

1  Meta Knight (179 top8, 126 top4, 72 top2, 75 wins, 452 total) - 4020.7
2  Snake (131 top8, 71 top4, 39 top2, 48 wins, 289 total) - 2024.0

A Rank «Overused» 20.67%
3  Diddy Kong (76 top8, 31 top4, 23 top2, 23 wins, 153 total) - 1325.6
4  Marth (42 top8, 37 top4, 15 top2, 14 wins, 108 total) - 877.9
5  Falco (59 top8, 38 top4, 15 top2, 8 wins, 120 total) - 686.0

B Rank «Standard» 17.28%
6  Ice Climbers (51 top8, 23 top4, 19 top2, 14 wins, 107 total) - 624.5 - A Rank
7  Wario (39 top8, 28 top4, 16 top2, 13 wins, 96 total) - 609.6
8  King Dedede (43 top8, 33 top4, 18 top2, 12 wins, 106 total) - 472.4
9  Olimar (29 top8, 21 top4, 10 top2, 7 wins, 67 total) - 358.6
10  Lucario (31 top8, 26 top4, 5 top2, 5 wins, 67 total) - 350.4

That's nearly a tier list of "how can work it vs. MK" + "doesn't get ***** by a common tournament character". MK dictates what characters are viable.

Or do they stick hard to their favorites and try to make them work regardless, mowing down all the characters below the best and making it a struggle to get to the top of the heap for the finals match against that top character? I believe that's what's going on, and I also believe the Smash community is unlikely to ever change -- leaving MK three times (Minimum) better at winning tournaments and overcentralizing him.

If people merely said "I like this character" and played them hoping to win against the odds, MKs dominance would be much, much greater than 3x better.

tl;dr: MK is overly dominant not because he's unbeatable but because the Smash community plays a wide range of characters that tend to provide bad MUs against and eliminate many of the Snakes/Diddy's/etc. who could otherwise have a shot at winning against MK throughout tournaments.

Your theory is sound to an extent, but you also have to remember that Metaknight was the one that took Snake's throne. Metaknight just really is that good. People at the top of tournaments ARE playing characters that work the best against MK... it just isn't enough.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I agree and have pointed this out numerous times. But nevertheless still a super ****ing valid point. Anyone who doesn't see this is in denial, plain and simple. xD

This line of reasoning extends a lot further back then you know, I pointed this out as an explanation for snake's dominance and in really early discussions about a possible snake ban (ludicrously stupid discussions I might add) I pointed out that MK cleared the field for snake, and he was the character actually shutting down the majority of the cast, snake was just picking up the pieces making mk the most banworthy.

 

[zeldspazz]

I have a serious question for you guys.


I see a lot of talk around this thread about how the tournament scene is going to die out whether MK is banned or not.

Im 14 years old, and next month I may be going to my first tournament. In 4-5 years when Im in college, I want to be able to travel OoS and go to nationals and such for brawl because I love the game and at this point in time Im unable to do so. But I feel like you all think the tournament scene is going to die out. Im just wondering, do you guys honestly think its going to by that time? Its pretty sad for me, this game is one of my favorite pasttimes and I hate for it to wither away.

Just a question.

 

[Omni]

Only time can tell, Zeldspazz.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I have a serious question for you guys.


I see a lot of talk around this thread about how the tournament scene is going to die out whether MK is banned or not.

Im 14 years old, and next month I may be going to my first tournament. In 4-5 years when Im in college, I want to be able to travel OoS and go to nationals and such for brawl because I love the game and at this point in time Im unable to do so. But I feel like you all think the tournament scene is going to die out. Im just wondering, do you guys honestly think its going to by that time? Its pretty sad for me, this game is one of my favorite pasttimes and I hate for it to wither away.

Just a question.

Well, Halberd thinks it's gonna die out (which is possible, I think there's a stable Brawl community, but I think a lot of people will either quit or go back to melee cause this game is simply too slow, I try to bring as many to melee as possible).


What I'm more worried about is the community tearing itself apart over this issue because of a decision-making process that separates us more.

 

[Kewkky]

Sorry, zeldspazz, but I think that yes, Brawl will probably be close to dead by then (i wouldn't doubt some hardcore fans would be playing it here and there, but Nationals and such will probably not be happening). It's not just about MK, it's the game as a whole that is driving people crazy (but MK is still a problem, which we can fix and make the game last longer competitively IMO)... Tripping, campy nature, slow game overall, no advanced flashy things to attract people's attention, time outs... There are so many things that could've been done better and made the great game we were all expecting, but it just wasn't so.

If, by when you're in college, no other Smash game is released, I'm willing to bet the Melee competitive community will have more life than the Brawl one... Although it will be almost dead as well. Nothing new will eventually get boring, and expecting OoC players to come and shake up the community scene to spur some new players is just a dream that will never happen. The only people to get shaken up are the players who are still playing.

So yeah, just my thoughts.


EDIT: Oh, and the Melee scene will probably move on as well eventually, what with the game getting older, having nothing new, and the pros growing older and shifting their attention to ther more important aspects of their life. That's 3-4 years from now, zeldspazz.

 

[solecalibur]

1. You can not predict the future
2. They said this 2 years ago

 

[zeldspazz]

I figured as much, alright guys. Thanks

I just hope youre wrong, lol >.>

 

[Kewkky]

1. You can not predict the future
2. They said this 2 years ago

Way to point out the obvious. It doesn't mean we can't answer his questions asking for our opinions with our opinions, Captain Duh.

 

[solecalibur]

Way to point out the obvious. It doesn't mean we can't answer his questions asking for our opinions with our opinions, Captain Duh.

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

[adumbrodeus]

It did last time. We met it.

Except the criteria was subjective, ergo people disagree that it was met, simple non?


That was why I proposed a rigid data-backed one.

This cannot possibly work, as explained countless times.

You have yet to give me a legitimate response as to why it's impossible.


You say that people will back away afterwards, but that would destroy their credibility. You say that people would not be interested, but negotiating for that type of thing is what committees are DESIGNED to do. You say that it's too late, well thanks for drawing the battle lines, you have yourself and omni to thank for that.


Yes it's too late now, but that wasn't the weakness of the proposal when it was proposed, just that was people refusing to listen.




So excuse me while I watch over there as you guys proceed to break the community in two. I'll be over here playing melee and SF.

Sorry, zeldspazz, but I think that yes, Brawl will probably be close to dead by then (i wouldn't doubt some hardcore fans would be playing it here and there, but Nationals and such will probably not be happening). It's not just about MK, it's the game as a whole that is driving people crazy (but MK is still a problem, which we can fix and make the game last longer competitively IMO)... Tripping, campy nature, slow game overall, no advanced flashy things to attract people's attention, time outs... There are so many things that could've been done better and made the great game we were all expecting, but it just wasn't so.

If, by when you're in college, no other Smash game is released, I'm willing to bet the Melee competitive community will have more life than the Brawl one... Although it will be almost dead as well. Nothing new will eventually get boring, and expecting OoC players to come and shake up the community scene to spur some new players is just a dream that will never happen. The only people to get shaken up are the players who are still playing.

So yeah, just my thoughts.


EDIT: Oh, and the Melee scene will probably move on as well eventually, what with the game getting older, having nothing new, and the pros growing older and shifting their attention to ther more important aspects of their life. That's 3-4 years from now, zeldspazz.

Super Turbo scene has been around forever, I don't see a reason why we can't do the same thing with melee.

 

[zeldspazz]

Something tells me I should learn my melee sitting in my basement

Spoiler

and get a new GCC so I can actually use it >_>

 

[Overswarm]

I have a serious question for you guys.


I see a lot of talk around this thread about how the tournament scene is going to die out whether MK is banned or not.

Im 14 years old, and next month I may be going to my first tournament. In 4-5 years when Im in college, I want to be able to travel OoS and go to nationals and such for brawl because I love the game and at this point in time Im unable to do so. But I feel like you all think the tournament scene is going to die out. Im just wondering, do you guys honestly think its going to by that time? Its pretty sad for me, this game is one of my favorite pasttimes and I hate for it to wither away.

Just a question.

This depends on several things.


Looking into attendance, virtually every region has had lowered attendance rates save for a few areas (one being my own!). I can't (currently) speak for other regions, but for my own we've found our attendance numbers have increased by focusing less on the competitive aspect of Brawl and more on the community and rewarding improvement.

Basically, we've started paying out to more places and "getting 1st" means diddly squat compared to playing in a falcon only tournament on a giant projctor meant for a lecture hall or playing beer pong at 3 a.m. That kinda stuff.


If your community is a bunch of nosebleeds, yes, it'll die. If it isn't, it'll flourish.

When? Can't really tell at the moment.

 

[Kewkky]

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

Unless you believe both games will live forever, you're wrong. I'm just telling zeldspazz what i'm thinking.

Super Turbo scene has been around forever, I don't see a reason why we can't do the same thing with melee.

Hey, I've been riddling my opinions with "probably's" and "maybe's" in case it actually doesn't happen. D:

 

[Overswarm]

Except the criteria was subjective, ergo people disagree that it was met, simple non?


That was why I proposed a rigid data-backed one.

I'm sick of this, so I'm gonna nip this in the bud.

Please give an example of non-subjective criteria.

You say that people will back away afterwards, but that would destroy their credibility. You say that people would not be interested, but negotiating for that type of thing is what committees are DESIGNED to do. You say that it's too late, well thanks for drawing the battle lines, you have yourself and omni to thank for that.

And? Who cares? Omni's changed his mind and slipped around like a greased pig long enough to where I'm struggling to find new anti-ban arguments. I've got a word document on my computer that has answers to over 20 individual claims, each of them being statstically proven incorrect beyond any reasonable doubt, yet they're still things brought up.

 

[zeldspazz]

This depends on several things.


Looking into attendance, virtually every region has had lowered attendance rates save for a few areas (one being my own!). I can't (currently) speak for other regions, but for my own we've found our attendance numbers have increased by focusing less on the competitive aspect of Brawl and more on the community and rewarding improvement.

Basically, we've started paying out to more places and "getting 1st" means diddly squat compared to playing in a falcon only tournament on a giant projctor meant for a lecture hall or playing beer pong at 3 a.m. That kinda stuff.


If your community is a bunch of nosebleeds, yes, it'll die. If it isn't, it'll flourish.

When? Can't really tell at the moment.

Hey from reading the last tourney results thread from a tourney in my area we had 60+ people in it, so Im still hopin.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Why not play both to cover your bases, Zeldaspazz?

 

[zeldspazz]

Why not play both to cover your bases, Zeldaspazz?

Im thinkin I probably should, Id have to go to a ton more tourneys to catch up with the times though

 

[Delvro]

Brawl may or may not die out, but the majority of players won't go back to melee unless they were big in the melee scene before brawl came out.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm sick of this, so I'm gonna nip this in the bud.

Please give an example of non-subjective criteria.

In this context?



If grab the ledge 30 times, you lose.



Simple, supported by a data set that either occurred or it did not, therefore given the data that it did in fact occur it automatically follows that the criteria was violated.


I'm not saying that the reasoning to put such a criteria in place might not have been subjective, however the fact that the criteria has or has not been violated is not.

And? Who cares? Omni's changed his mind and slipped around like a greased pig long enough to where I'm struggling to find new anti-ban arguments. I've got a word document on my computer that has answers to over 20 individual claims, each of them being statstically proven incorrect beyond any reasonable doubt, yet they're still things brought up.

When the BBR's power derives entirely from a perception of legitimacy, without it, the BBR could not function.


Claim=/= criteria, claims are merely test balloons that may or may not fly. The ones that stick around for a while are arguments, and arguments change as the metagame changes naturally. There's also many arguments, so a violation of a few rarely impacts a user's credibility, or even many over a long period.


Criteria declared in this manner would be a declaration to the community as a whole as their representatives, a clear statement of what is or is not banworthy. Backing out of this at a later date would be a PR fiasco.


Heck, backing out of their individual criteria would be difficult if they firmly declared them, but not as much as this would be.

 

[Overswarm]

In this context?



If grab the ledge 30 times, you lose.



Simple, supported by a data set that either occurred or it did not, therefore given the data that it did in fact occur it automatically follows that the criteria was violated.


I'm not saying that the reasoning to put such a criteria in place might not have been subjective, however the fact that the criteria has or has not been violated is not.

30 ledge grabs is subjective. Who says it can you only grab it 30 times? Why not 31? Why not 29?

When the BBR's power derives entirely from a perception of legitimacy, without it, the BBR could not function.

Uh huh.

We proved that wrong with Inui. BA DUM PSH

Claim=/= criteria, claims are merely test balloons that may or may not fly. The ones that stick around for a while are arguments, and arguments change as the metagame changes naturally. There's also many arguments, so a violation of a few rarely impacts a user's credibility, or even many over a long period.


Criteria declared in this manner would be a declaration to the community as a whole as their representatives, a clear statement of what is or is not banworthy. Backing out of this at a later date would be a PR fiasco.


Heck, backing out of their individual criteria would be difficult if they firmly declared them, but not as much as this would be.

Not some, ALL. All claims.

If someone makes a claim, it is not unusual to assume that this claim is important for their own personal criteria. Someone that says "Metaknight isn't dominant, he only has X% of wins! Look at THIS character with Y% of wins!" should be able to open their eyes if I show data that X% is wrong.



Adum, you're making a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge guess as to what actually matters.

You know who's going to vote not to ban Metaknight?

Mew2King. He doesn't want his main banned, because that's how he makes money. Period. It doesn't matter what happens, that will always be the case. This is not a "PR fiasco" because it doesn't change the end result.



Again, give me a non subjective criteria or argument in terms of banning Metaknight. If you say "Well THIS is concrete, but the way to get it is subjective", you've failed. Hell, all it'd take is one guy saying "I wasn't part of the group that said all that, I disagree" and your theory of "PR" falls apart.

 

[BSP]

Isn't it pretty much impossible to make non-subjective criteria (If we're creating it)? To have some validity in making the criteria, you would need to know about this game, and everyone's opinions will be different on when limits should be established, etc.

That being said, even if criteria is subjective, if it's widely agreed upon, I think it's all right. A good example would be the SBR recommended rulesets. They're subjective, but it works, and people accept it.

 

[MarKO X]

It's so impossible to come up with non-subjective criteria at this point that when

- you create a criteria based on what has already been banned
- you create a criteria that you want MK to fit, but things that are already banned don't fit it

people still disagree with it.

 

[Nanaki]

Isn't it pretty much impossible to make non-subjective criteria (If we're creating it)? To have some validity in making the criteria, you would need to know about this game, and everyone's opinions will be different on when limits should be established, etc.

That being said, even if criteria is subjective, if it's widely agreed upon, I think it's all right. A good example would be the SBR recommended rulesets. They're subjective, but it works, and people accept it.

The SBR recommeded rulesets are NOT widely agreed upon. There are various regions that remove/add various stages, ban certain infinites, use ledge-grab limits, etc.

Criteria by their very nature are subjective. I mean, it's in the definition of the word for crying out loud!

If you're going to make criteria, trying to make them 'objective' is not going to happen. Trying to make a compromise is more legitimate.

 

[MarKO X]

but even the compromise would have subjective value to it

 

[Overswarm]

It's impossible to create a non-subjective criteria in the first place.

Adum's (misguided) attempt at "truth" is to use "concrete numbers", but the numbers themselves are subjective in nature. While the outer shell may be valid, the criteria at its core is rotten. Should the criteria be met, someone could merely ignore it and say it is subjective in nature due to its creation.

What you CAN do, and what adum has suggested, is get concrete statements from people and then prove them wrong. I have done this; hell, I have one post that does nothing but take Omni's statement of "No, I wouldn't be okay with the current metagame is Ally and ADHD didn't exist" and show him why Ally and ADHD aren't indicative of any trends and they cannot be used as justification for holding onto Metaknight. Omni did not fall apart afterwards, even though his argument did. He just changes his stance.


Example for you:

The BBR neeeds a 2/3rd majority for any decision.

This makes it harder to ban something, so whatever is aroundi s most likely going to stay. It has to be pretty obvious to be banned, generally.

Closer votes however have shown flaws in this system. If we need 66% for something but have 63%, do we REALLY want to keep something?

The criteria is 2/3rds, set in stone. For most purposes, it works. For others, it doesn't. Nothing is without subjectivity.

 

[adumbrodeus]

30 ledge grabs is subjective. Who says it can you only grab it 30 times? Why not 31? Why not 29?

*facepalm*

The choice of actually having the rule in place is in all probability subjective, but whether or not somebody has violated it is COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE as I have said before.

Not some, ALL. All claims.

If someone makes a claim, it is not unusual to assume that this claim is important for their own personal criteria. Someone that says "Metaknight isn't dominant, he only has X% of wins! Look at THIS character with Y% of wins!" should be able to open their eyes if I show data that X% is wrong.

Why?

Somebody could say that because they recognize that it is part of another's personal criteria.

Somebody could merely be opposing another's false claims (remember, you saw me doing a lot of that against anti-ban in the first thread).


That's an assumption, but unless they say it outright it's impossible to lock them in on it (that's the same reason accusing people of being racists is stupid, proving an attitude is almost impossible, proving that an action is racist on the other hand, is rather easy).

Adum, you're making a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge guess as to what actually matters.

You know who's going to vote not to ban Metaknight?

Mew2King. He doesn't want his main banned, because that's how he makes money. Period. It doesn't matter what happens, that will always be the case. This is not a "PR fiasco" because it doesn't change the end result.

Again, give me a non subjective criteria or argument in terms of banning Metaknight. If you say "Well THIS is concrete, but the way to get it is subjective", you've failed. Hell, all it'd take is one guy saying "I wasn't part of the group that said all that, I disagree" and your theory of "PR" falls apart.

I'll separate out the two main arguments.

1. The only thing I was suggesting in terms of objectivity was that the fact that a criteria is met must be objective. Beyond that, a criteria requires validity which is a function of community consensus.


2. That's why a 2/3rds vote of the BBR should be required to put the criteria in place after the committee (I considered that implicit, at the very least majority was, sub-committees always have to report back to their central organization). If it failed, then the committee would have to work on it again.

That prevents people from being able to say "I didn't agree to this", and "I didn't know what I was voting for" is just as bad PR-wise.

As far as if they weren't, if the ban failed to get 2/3rds but the criteria met it, then the BBR would have PR fiasco as a whole, something I don't think the members want. Then there's the matter of process-based legitimacy.


Basically, if people see the BBR backing off it's own criteria formed in this manner, there will be hell to pay. Sure a few people will always vote yes or no, no matter what, but I don't think the vast majority of members are like that. And if they are, they know what the result will be.

 

[BSP]

What does "PR" stand for?

 

[Nanaki]

but even the compromise would have subjective value to it

...duh? Didn't I say that all criteria are subjective to begin with?

You compromise to create a (by definition, subjective) criteria that can be objectively enforced. Whether or not that's what adum is getting at, I'm not sure.

It's impossible to create a non-subjective criteria in the first place.

Adum's (misguided) attempt at "truth" is to use "concrete numbers", but the numbers themselves are subjective in nature. While the outer shell may be valid, the criteria at its core is rotten. Should the criteria be met, someone could merely ignore it and say it is subjective in nature due to its creation.

What you CAN do, and what adum has suggested, is get concrete statements from people and then prove them wrong. I have done this; hell, I have one post that does nothing but take Omni's statement of "No, I wouldn't be okay with the current metagame is Ally and ADHD didn't exist" and show him why Ally and ADHD aren't indicative of any trends and they cannot be used as justification for holding onto Metaknight. Omni did not fall apart afterwards, even though his argument did. He just changes his stance.


Example for you:

The BBR neeeds a 2/3rd majority for any decision.

This makes it harder to ban something, so whatever is aroundi s most likely going to stay. It has to be pretty obvious to be banned, generally.

Closer votes however have shown flaws in this system. If we need 66% for something but have 63%, do we REALLY want to keep something?

The criteria is 2/3rds, set in stone. For most purposes, it works. For others, it doesn't. Nothing is without subjectivity.

If you go back on it later, you're just ****ting all over the process and you have no business making the rules.

Edit:

What does "PR" stand for?

Public Relations.

 

[OverLade]

I think I'm gonna take a step back from this thread for a while.

I'll support pro-ban and w/e but a part of me wants to believe that we'll see more non MKs taking top spots at tournies etc..

For now I'll do my part and temporarily drop MK and see if I can still take top spots with Snake/Falco. You guys play nice in here.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What does "PR" stand for?

Public relations.

It's impossible to create a non-subjective criteria in the first place.

Adum's (misguided) attempt at "truth" is to use "concrete numbers", but the numbers themselves are subjective in nature. While the outer shell may be valid, the criteria at its core is rotten. Should the criteria be met, someone could merely ignore it and say it is subjective in nature due to its creation.

And that's where you have the publc.


Come on, do you really think that on a hotly debated topic like this, people won't notice if my methodology is followed and based on the resulting criteria MK is considered banworthy and he is not banned or the reverse occurs?

What you CAN do, and what adum has suggested, is get concrete statements from people and then prove them wrong. I have done this; hell, I have one post that does nothing but take Omni's statement of "No, I wouldn't be okay with the current metagame is Ally and ADHD didn't exist" and show him why Ally and ADHD aren't indicative of any trends and they cannot be used as justification for holding onto Metaknight. Omni did not fall apart afterwards, even though his argument did. He just changes his stance.

The thing is, you didn't really prove him wrong. The fact that they're not indicative of a trend in the character doesn't mean they're not indicative of the metagame as a whole. In other words, he's ok as long as occassional outliers occur.

Example for you:

The BBR neeeds a 2/3rd majority for any decision.

This makes it harder to ban something, so whatever is aroundi s most likely going to stay. It has to be pretty obvious to be banned, generally.

Closer votes however have shown flaws in this system. If we need 66% for something but have 63%, do we REALLY want to keep something?

The criteria is 2/3rds, set in stone. For most purposes, it works. For others, it doesn't. Nothing is without subjectivity.

Whether it works or not is subjective, the point is that unless the criteria is met, nothing happens. The truth of whether or not the criteria is met is an objective fact, so people can't go posting "BBR decisions" that have less the 2/3rds majority, otherwise they'll be ignored if they're not in it, and kicked if they are.

 

[Overswarm]

*facepalm*

The choice of actually having the rule in place is in all probability subjective, but whether or not somebody has violated it is COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE as I have said before.

Rotten at its core. Thrown out the window as irrelevant. Wrapping poop in a gift box doesn't make it a good present.

Why?

Somebody could say that because they recognize that it is part of another's personal criteria.

Thus, it'd be someone's criteria. I'm not sure on your point.

Somebody could merely be opposing another's false claims (remember, you saw me doing a lot of that against anti-ban in the first thread).

So?

That's an assumption, but unless they say it outright it's impossible to lock them in on it (that's the same reason accusing people of being racists is stupid, proving an attitude is almost impossible, proving that an action is racist on the other hand, is rather easy).

If they say it outright they can still say I changed my mind.

You can't lock anyone onto anything. That's the point!

I'll separate out the two main arguments.

1. The only thing I was suggesting in terms of objectivity was that the fact that a criteria is met must be objective. Beyond that, a criteria requires validity which is a function of community consensus.

Great, except.... the objective criteria is met subjectively, defeating the purpose. This isn't a constant. It's not scientific. You can't say "the criteria needed to be met for boiling water on Earth is for N amount of water to be at X degrees over Y surface area" and be proven wrong if you have the variables right because it is a constant. We do not have said constants.

2. That's why a 2/3rds vote of the BBR should be required to put the criteria in place after the committee (I considered that implicit, at the very least majority was, sub-committees always have to report back to their central organization). If it failed, then the committee would have to work on it again.

and the MK mains in the BBR voting not to ban MK? What about people saying "M2K is my friend and I don't want him to lose money"?

Why is the committee needed in the first place if you're giving it to the BBR?

That prevents people from being able to say "I didn't agree to this", and "I didn't know what I was voting for" is just as bad PR-wise.

So?

Omni literally said "I'm not going to read your arguments" after I trounced him and said he was "too lazy", but continued to argue with other posters who posted flawed arguments. No one is rallying for a new anti-ban voice.

As far as if they weren't, if the ban failed to get 2/3rds but the criteria met it, then the BBR would have PR fiasco as a whole, something I don't think the members want. Then there's the matter of process-based legitimacy.

*facepalm*

Not the point.

Basically, if people see the BBR backing off it's own criteria formed in this manner, there will be hell to pay. Sure a few people will always vote yes or no, no matter what, but I don't think the vast majority of members are like that. And if they are, they know what the result will be.

Now your making subjectively met objective criteria a holy grail even when the process is compromised. I'm not saying we should abandon the standard, but saying "Well this is our criteria!" and not changing it because you're afraid of a PR fiasco when it's the right thing to do is downright silly.

If you go back on it later, you're just ****ting all over the process and you have no business making the rules.

There are no police here, and it doesn't change most people's minds.