Official Metaknight Discussion

[Jack Kieser]

Something that struck my interest. What percentage of the matches played by the "MK is legal" camp would be Meta dittos? And how long would they be satisfied with that "game?"

I guess that's the saving grace? That the people who play "MK legal" will only be MK mains and the few MK non-mains who disagree with a ban; everyone else will play "MK banned". Even being the most popular character, this probably isn't really 50% of the community. The only thing we could hope is that the % of players without MK is enough to sustain a viable competitive community long enough to recruit players to recoup the losses or make the "MK banned" scene die out due to low numbers and hope they come back.

 

[Espy Rose]

Kind of intrinsically impossible. We'd just be like "hey, that guy's good" and invite him to the BBR. Then he wouldn't be part of the other group.

Even though it probably wouldn't ever happen, couldn't the member just say "no"?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I think that the camp with MK allowed would eventually dwindle when they became jealous of how much more diverse and fun the other camp seems to be.

 

[rvkevin]

Now, if what you're saying happens, there will be a group of TOs hosting MK events, and a group hosting MK banned events. But, once that happens, they will realize that any cohesion the community had in the past (Brawl OR Melee) was a facade, and so the TO's can now do whatever they want, as long as they have players willing to play. Regions might destabilize and have 5 TOs with 5 different rulesets. TOs might never play the same ruleset twice. Ankoku's ratings will become meaningless because comparisons of skill from tournament results with different rules enacted will become useless.

Uniformity is what makes competition what it is; otherwise, it is impossible to compare the skill of two individuals (which is what competition is all about). The less uniformity there is, the less competition there is. This is why schisms kill games. Imagine if all of the sudden, half of the NFL teams decided that interceptions were illegal. If one team from an interception-legal region met with an interception-banned team at the Super Bowl, which ruleset would they use? How would they play? Short answer: they wouldn't.

This is what we're risking, the way I see it.

Wouldn't attendance signify which set of rules is better for the community? Taking your example even farther, if half of the NFL started playing touch football, and they are able to attract twice as many viewers, wouldn't it be wise to switch to the new rule set, if attendance diminishes, then they would revert to the old rule set and acknowledge that the experiment failed. They would never use the rule set at the same tournament, but there is nothing preventing players from participating in both tournaments. Sure, some MK players won't go to MK banned tournaments, but there is some sentiment that MK is causing lower attendance in some regions...If the change in rule set results in higher attendance (I admit this is hard to show), wouldn't it become uniform?

 

[Tien2500]

Wouldn't attendance signify which set of rules is better for the community? If the change in rule set results in higher attendance (I admit this is hard to show), wouldn't it become uniform?

That depends. Lets say for argument's sake we KNEW that attendance would go down if MK were allowed. I'm a player who plays and wins as MK.

On the one hand MK being banned would be better for the community but on the other hand it is detrimental to me personally. Its financially detrimental and it decreases my enjoyment.

In the NFL the rules are set by officials. In the Smash community we also have officials... but these officials are also players. So they're going to be unable to be neutral.

 

[Jack Kieser]

That depends. Lets say for argument's sake we KNEW that attendance would go down if MK were allowed. I'm a player who plays and wins as MK.

On the one hand MK being banned would be better for the community but on the other hand it is detrimental to me personally. Its financially detrimental and it decreases my enjoyment.

In the NFL the rules are set by officials. In the Smash community we also have officials... but these officials are also players. So they're going to be unable to be neutral.

I think what he's saying is, "If we don't know whether a MK ban is good or not, wouldn't we be able to find out based on tournament attendance?"

This is flawed, at best, because it assumes that we know what's best for ourselves. It also assumes that our criteria for "better" is accepted as "attendance-based". It's like asking a crack addict if crack is good for you. He'll probably say yes (because it makes him feel good), even though an outside observer sees otherwise. To the addict, it IS good for him, because his measure of "good for you" is "how do you feel", but to the observer, the measure of "good for you" might be "financial stability", "health" or "legality", in which case crack is bad for you.

So, if we all agree that our measure for decision making should be community consensus (whatever more people agree to), then attendance is an acceptable way to measure the effect of a ban. In terms of stability and overall health, this may very well be the case (because a community of 10 competitive players certainly can't thrive). Not everyone agrees, though. I suppose if we view Smash as a capitalist, money-making venture (and it is, based on how much cash we pulled in last year), then the more people we have, the more money we make, and thus population / attendance is the best measure for whether the ban is good or not.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's because 55:45 don't exist in other fighting games, because they don't exist period. Any game's matchup chart that isn't Brawl has who wins what in 10 sets/matches. You can't win 5.5 sets/matches. Having a 55:45 either means there are a lot of people disagreeing on whether the matchup is even or not or are simply downplaying a small disadvantage.

Two things.

1. You're ignoring the possibility that we're deriving it out of a hundred, and it's simply a more precise estimate. When there's a jump between 5 out of 10 and 6 out of 10 on a regular basis then obviously using measurements out of 10 doesn't fit from a statistical basis.


2. Since I don't remember any statistical logic applied to any MU discussion, let's just say that suggesting that there's any statistical validity to any of our MU logic has any statistical bearing is... questionable at best. They're better viewed as difficulty ratings.

I think that the camp with MK allowed would eventually dwindle when they became jealous of how much more diverse and fun the other camp seems to be.

Mr. Optimism! Sadly that's very unlikely.

 

[rvkevin]

This is flawed, at best, because it assumes that we know what's best for ourselves. It also assumes that our criteria for "better" is accepted as "attendance-based".

I don't get what it assumes; at best, it asks that we test our assumptions and go with the ones with the best results.

Isn't this what TOs are supposed to do, to increase attendance? More attendance=bigger pot=more incentive to win=more competition=?better community.

That depends. Lets say for argument's sake we KNEW that attendance would go down if MK were allowed. I'm a player who plays and wins as MK.

On the one hand MK being banned would be better for the community but on the other hand it is detrimental to me personally. Its financially detrimental and it decreases my enjoyment.

I don't get what your point is...I said in my example that if we did a test period with MK banned tournaments and attendance went down that we would revert back. If MK being banned is detrimental to you financially and decreases your enjoyment, wouldn't you quit? But if attendance increased, even with some MK players dropping out, is the community better off? I would say so.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Isn't this what TOs are supposed to do, to increase attendance? More attendance=bigger pot=more incentive to win=more competition=?better community.

Well, personally... I'd agree with you (to an extent). I think that competition can't survive without a fundamentally healthy foundation (that foundation being people themselves; no people means no competition). A lot of people, however, don't agree with that, mainly people who don't want MK banned. There are a lot of people who think that competition is a function of some "competitiveness quotient" or something, a factor that is independent of the people actually playing the game, and that this factor can be hurt by the policies we inflict upon the game itself (for instance, having items on makes the game less competitive in a measurable way, regardless of the people playing).

You could've at least referenced my counter-arguments in that.

Sorry; the whole thing was getting a little bulky. I can add them if you want; I didn't try to do that on purpose.

My reason why it could've worked ("could've being the operative word, when I proposed it, it was workable, and it's possible that it might be workable again sometime in the future, but that's not within the scope of what I'm discussing) is that the SBR (MBR and BBR both) derive their authority based on a perception of legitimacy I doubt that the membership would to a large enough degree to actually decide this issue, jepordize this, especially when it's close enough to be decided either way, especially when people notice the process and they are given a community mandate.

If they do, basically they've demonstrated that one side is correct in a very public manner, so while the BBR becomes basically meaningless it gives one side a very significant leg up, meaning that TO's running the "winning side's tournaments" will attract far more people.

Honestly, I think people are starting the realize how meaningless the BBR is the longer this debate goes on. It sucks for everyone, because the BBR brought with it a great deal of cohesion, but thems the breaks, I guess. There's not too much that they can do now to make themselves seem more legit other than to just do what the people want them to do and hope that people will listen more afterwards. It's a little disingenuous... but what other options are there?

However without deriving a popular mandate, at this point I don't think the BBR's decision carries enough weight to stop the inevitable split.


It's a matter of perception basically.

On this, I believe we agree.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Sorry; the whole thing was getting a little bulky. I can add them if you want; I didn't try to do that on purpose.

Very condensed, your summery leads inevitably leads the reader to the conclusion OS is right without saying it.

Things like "AD thinks the resultant PR issues would prevent people from waffling to the degree required to change the conclusion or minimize their effects"

Honestly, I think people are starting the realize how meaningless the BBR is the longer this debate goes on. It sucks for everyone, because the BBR brought with it a great deal of cohesion, but thems the breaks, I guess. There's not too much that they can do now to make themselves seem more legit other than to just do what the people want them to do and hope that people will listen more afterwards. It's a little disingenuous... but what other options are there?

Well, that was part of the the objective of what I was proposing, but in the end I think that the PR breakdown of the BBR is the least of the community's worries at this point, with the community actually breaking down being the bigger issue.

On this, I believe we agree.

Good to know, everything I was trying to do had an eye towards perception, and that's why it would've worked back then, because it led people to the proper perceptions, especially about their side getting a fair shake even if they lost.

Well, personally... I'd agree with you (to an extent). I think that competition can't survive without a fundamentally healthy foundation (that foundation being people themselves; no people means no competition). A lot of people, however, don't agree with that, mainly people who don't want MK banned. There are a lot of people who think that competition is a function of some "competitiveness quotient" or something, a factor that is independent of the people actually playing the game, and that this factor can be hurt by the policies we inflict upon the game itself (for instance, having items on makes the game less competitive in a measurable way, regardless of the people playing).

Understand the reason behind that, it's more then immediate raw numbers, decisions have major impacts on the long term health of the metagame because certain methods of decision-making turn people off towards joining the community, and cause people to quit when it's applied to things that they don't like even if they supported one use. Ultimately, the reason why we go for this is it lends stability, which is helpful in the long term, both in that people can expect similar results on similar issues, and that the community is attractive towards players who want a stable competitive game with mechanisms that allow for metagame advancement.


Basically, we take the long view on this.

 

[rvkevin]

A lot of people, however, don't agree with that, mainly people who don't want MK banned. There are a lot of people who think that competition is a function of some "competitiveness quotient" or something, a factor that is independent of the people actually playing the game, and that this factor can be hurt by the policies we inflict upon the game itself (for instance, having items on makes the game less competitive in a measurable way, regardless of the people playing).

I'm not entirely sure a "non-competitive" game would get more attendance than a competitive one. Lets say a college holds a tournament that is publicly held, follows the regular rule set with one exception, Smash balls are on...if you're in the area, you would probably play, but you would be unlikely to travel far for such a tournament (because Smash balls introduce so much randomness in the game that it makes it less competitive), thus decreasing tournament attendance. After Pound 4, I recall PR mentioning how unlikely it was for them to travel that far again just to get gayed by MK. Not sure, but players traveling could be considered an indicator of a healthy competitive game and more traveling=higher attendance...Unless you have your own set of ideals apart from the majority of the community (i.e. all the characters should be legal regardless), I don't see how attendance wouldn't show the more competitive game.

 

[ShadowLink84]

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).

The only place where he is actually banned (if you can call it that) was in Japan.
They us ea soft ban as well, so I don't think its valid to really bring him up.

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.

one thing you are forgetting is that it
DOES
NOT
MATTER.

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.

Correct. They simply hought he wasn't worth a ban.
Its simple as that.
Frankly, SF2 has imany of itsown issue but thats just me.
Never liked it honestly

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)

Warioman is invincible.
He would be banned.

 

[hough123]

I decided to check how characters limited by MK would affect a cast without MK. I tested Marth and DDD, here are my results. (All are based on the match-up chart)

DDD:

• 22 characters had a better match-up with him than MK.
• 11 characters had the same match-up.
• 3 had a worse match-up.
• 2 characters did not have data.

Marth:

• 16 characters had a better match-up with him than with MK.
• 14 had the same match-up.
• 10 characters had a worse match-up.
• 1 character did not have data.

Those were the only characters that I was sure of; if someone could list more (if there are more) I will gather data on those as well.

 

[MarKO X]

do Peach. they say she gets more viable without MK as well.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Mr. Optimism! Sadly that's very unlikely.

Depends how diverse the format would be, which is a debatable factor.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

do Peach. they say she gets more viable without MK as well.

And ROB. And maybe luigi.

A hard counter with MK basically completely invalidates you as a character.

 

[Tien2500]

And ROB. And maybe luigi.

A hard counter with MK basically completely invalidates you as a character.

I doubt Luigi would be viable either way. Especially seeing as noone plays him

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Wait, why? He has a few other "iffy" matchups but nothing as bad as MK.

 

[Chuee]

Boss plays Luigi.

 

[po pimpus]

I doubt Luigi would be viable either way. Especially seeing as noone plays him

We play him, we just don't/can't beat Meta-Knight...

That's about all I can add to this discussion without sounding horribly biased, because I am.

 

[salaboB]

EDIT: The only way I can think to stop this from happening is by using SWF itself as a weapon against non-conformity. SWF is the largest and most populous forum for competitive Smash, so the mods and people in charge would have to take steps to make people conform. If people don't play the "official" way, their results don't go into Ankoku's list. Players and tournaments that don't conform can't be in Power Ranking. Mods infract or ban players that discuss or organize non-sanctioned play. This is, obviously, an extreme example (and probably won't happen), but like I said... without a policing action of some kind, there is no such thing as uniformity or enforcement.

Couldn't whichever tournament type was the unofficial one get treated the same way ISP gets treated currently?

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Gdubs is insta-bad based on his MK MU. He's a great character, but very uncommon in tournaments to do MK.

 

[Chuee]

Gdubs has plenty of worse MUs than MK.

 

[Master Raven]

Who beats GW worse than MK? I know Snake used to be considered his worst MU but I don't even know if people think that any longer.

 

[Tien2500]

Wait, why? He has a few other "iffy" matchups but nothing as bad as MK.

All of his matchups are iffy because he's played so rarely so its hard to tell how he really does. Dedede is a bit of a problem and unless I'm mistaken I think Marth is very bad too.

 

[Tien2500]

lol wtf? 10 aafifc.

Edit: For a second there every post read a a f i f c... Dunno what was up with that.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Bad matchups for GAW include Marth, MK, Dedede, ZSS, Snake and a few others.

 

[Chuee]

Please tell me how D3 is a bad MU for Gdubz.

 

[The Nameless Wanderer]

Please tell me how D3 is a bad MU for Gdubz.

Guessing that DDD's Ftilt is great, GW has to space carefully or get 16%/ tech chased( he has a horrible tech roll and attack) and DDD is a hard mofo to kill unless you hit him with a Usmash.

Wouldn't say it's really bad though.

 

[Delvro]

Luigi's worst matchup is MK by far, but even without MK, Luigi still has more than 1 hard counter to deal with (DDD, Marth, possibly G+W)

 

[dcubed]

So I stated this once before, but I will say it again just because I now have 2 options for what to do with MK that isn't a ban.

-I personally think making MK only play on neutral stages would help the most. If he was limited to only a few stages, it would help lower his matchups with certain characters, thus balancing the game. Like I think Snake beats MK on a neutral stage, as well as diddy vs MK on a neutral stage.

-Second would be to limit who MK can play. If the matchup is too difficult, then ban MK from playing that character. So that would be anyone worse than say 60/40. That would help surge other characters who are pushed down in the tiers due to MK.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Hi, just dropping in to say that Ankoku closing the thread from time to time is getting old. Have a good evening.

 

[rvkevin]

-I personally think making MK only play on neutral stages would help the most. If he was limited to only a few stages, it would help lower his matchups with certain characters, thus balancing the game. Like I think Snake beats MK on a neutral stage, as well as diddy vs MK on a neutral stage.

I need some clarification:

If you use MK, and win the first round, are they forced to pick a neutral? If they pick a counter pick, are you allowed to use MK or is MK banned on counter picks. Because if its just that MK can't pick the counter pick, it dilutes the counter pick opportunities for other characters...for example, if its non-MK v Snake, the non-MK may be hesitant to counter pick Brinstar or RC against Snake for fear of them switching to MK, or at the very least, it would end up in MK dittos.

 

[Tien2500]

If we need to use special stage rules to balance MK he probably should be banned.

 

[OverLade]

-Second would be to limit who MK can play. If the matchup is too difficult, then ban MK from playing that character. So that would be anyone worse than say 60/40. That would help surge other characters who are pushed down in the tiers due to MK.

LOL@ this.

Amazing idea is amazing

 

[Chuee]

^^^
That is the best idea i've heard in this entire thread.

 

[MarKO X]

it's also just as scrubby as any other MK limit rule, direct or indirect.

 

[Tien2500]

it's also just as scrubby as any other MK limit rule, direct or indirect.

I'm ****ing tired of people throwing around the term scrub without the slightest idea of what it even means. So before you go around calling players scrubs allow me to educate you...

A scrub is a guy that thinks he's fine
And is also known as a buster
Always talkin' about what he wants
And just sits on his broke ***
So (no)

I don't want your number (no)
I don't want to give you mine and (no)
I don't want to meet you nowhere (no)
I don't want none of your time and (no)

I don't want no scrub
A scrub is a guy that can't get no love from me
Hangin' out the passenger side
Of his best friend's ride
Tryin' to holla at me
I don't want no scrub
A scrub is a guy that can't get no love from me
Hangin' out the passenger side
Of his best friend's ride
Tryin' to holler at me

 

[MarKO X]

lolwut. TLC for the win.
scrub is
1) a new player that's trash
2) a player who plays a game within rules that limit his full potential.

a rule that limits MK could be compared to the scrub rule of no throwing, because, you know, you're supposed to be perfectly safe and take no damage when you block. only now, you're actually trying to enforce it.

 

[lordhelmet]

^Says the MK main