Official Metaknight Discussion

[Budget Player Cadet_]

In Crow's chart, the reason why mk "dominates" even at player level of 1 is because m2k goes to many more tournaments. It doesn't mean that he beats everyone everywhere. On the contrary, ADHD has a better tournament record with him and doesn't use mk

The reason why the rest of mk's points are so high is because good mk mains go to more national tournaments. It has nothing to do with mk being broken and doesn't warrant him a ban.

This post is so ridiculously wrong... Tien just summed it up for you. It's an absolute coincidence that at ALL LEVELS OF PLAY the top level players of MK go to around 3x as many tournaments and get about 3x as many points. Terrible. Terrible terrible terrible.

no one is saying mk isnt the best character? what you said doesnt show ban worthyness. It shows that a top character exists. There is nothing wrong with that. It happened and happens in other fighting games. Plus your other statement about mk players being better players then alot of other players is also sort of true. Think of it this way, if you woke up one day and found out that you were the best player in the world would u really play ganon just so you could prove somethin? Only if your isai. In melee, sure alot of other players did well, but for a while it was mainly the top 4 placing highest. Because good players will play good characters. Cause and effect. So i wont say mk players are always better. But i would say most mk players are better players then ganon and lower tiered players. Because they have noticed limitations that skill cant overcome and need access to more options and are following the metagame. But it still is not a metagame where it is play as mk or get out. So banning seems a lil premature. Diddys snakes olimars ics falcos are still doing well.

Nobody cares if it happened a lot in other fighting game. At this point, a lot of the community wants to see Metaknight gone. It's been a majority for quite a while, but we need 2/3rds... Let me put it this way. If, theoretically, within the year, 90% of the community leaves because they're sick of MK, will you still be using this argument?

OVERSWARM WHERE IS YOUR COCKSWOGGLING $%&# VIDEO??????? I BELIEVE YOU WANTED TO PLANT A NAIL IN THIS COFFIN!

 

[Tommy_G]

I don't need to prove anything anyways. Even if I looked and didn't have to skew my numbers overcentralization is not a criteria for ban, so it wouldn't matter if I was right or wrong. More points means more people playing him. It doesn't mean he's that much better.

 

[Flayl]

I don't need to prove anything anyways. Even if I looked and didn't have to skew my numbers overcentralization is not a criteria for ban, so it wouldn't matter if I was right or wrong. More points means more people playing him. It doesn't mean he's that much better.

This is what we call backpedalling (are you taking notes etecoon).

 

[adumbrodeus]

Guys, remember statistics prove correlation, not causation.

In the above case, I'd rather live in Snakeville.

Edit: maybe MK players go to more tourneys and are better because they have MK? Just thinking aloud...
I'm still trying to see for myself if what Tommy said is making sense, and as it stands.... I still don't know. It would definitely help if Tommy had proof rather than just a random explanation.

What's wrong with nuclear reactors?

 

[ETWIST51294]

get *****, Tommy G.

I remember arguing with you a long *** time ago. That **** was annoying.

 

[MarKO X]

I don't need to prove anything anyways. Even if I looked and didn't have to skew my numbers overcentralization is not a criteria for ban, so it wouldn't matter if I was right or wrong. More points means more people playing him. It doesn't mean he's that much better.

Well, you see, Crow's charts went beyond that. It already separated population from points scored.
What I thought you were talking about was the frequency of going to tourneys to get the number of points. Cause like, if you take player MK and player S, and player MK goes to 5 tourneys while player S goes to 3, player MK is more likely to get more points than player S.

And that, folks, might be the flaw with Crow's data.

 

[Tien2500]

Guys, remember statistics prove correlation, not causation.

Yes but we can never really prove causation. Even in very rigorous scientific studies causation can rarely be proven with complex variables.

Well, you see, Crow's charts went beyond that. It already separated population from points scored.
What I thought you were talking about was the frequency of going to tourneys to get the number of points. Cause like, if you take player MK and player S, and player MK goes to 5 tourneys while player S goes to 3, player MK is more likely to get more points than player S.

And that, folks, might be the flaw with Crow's data.

Yes but the problem is that Crow's data only turns out like that if ALL MK players go to more tournaments than their non-MK counterparts. Its far more likely that MK is the determining factor rather than number of tournaments.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

get *****, Tommy G.

I remember arguing with you a long *** time ago. That **** was annoying.

No Spam. C:

They close this discussion a lot cause of it.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

If you look next to "reaching" in the dictionary, you'll see Mark and Tommy's avatars next to it.

 

[MarKO X]

Yes but the problem is that Crow's data only turns out like that if ALL MK players go to more tournaments than their non-MK counterparts. Its far more likely that MK is the determining factor rather than number of tournaments.

That's true, but if I know anti-ban like I know anti-ban, it'll be the hook they ride on because "the burden of proof lies on pro-ban and if you can't prove otherwise, you can't ban MK."

this will lead into another 50-something pages of endless, semi-pointless discussion.

lol SFP. you hatin right now, i'm pro-ban, but you're right.
anti-ban will be reaching.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't need to prove anything anyways. Even if I looked and didn't have to skew my numbers overcentralization is not a criteria for ban, so it wouldn't matter if I was right or wrong. More points means more people playing him. It doesn't mean he's that much better.

Even if I looked and didn't have to skew my numbers overcentralization is not a criteria for ban, so it wouldn't matter if I was right or wrong.

skew my numbers overcentralization is not a criteria for ban, so it wouldn't matter

overcentralization is not a criteria for ban

GTFO. Seriously.

EDIT: So that you know why I say this: the reason I say this is because Pro-ban has been saying for the last eternity that "MK should only be banned if he overcentralizes, which he doesn't". Well tell me. What is the new criteria for a ban-when you select MK, your opponent's controller automatically catches fire?

Also, you do realize what you're saying, right? You're saying, "If the metagame becomes beat metaknight or join metaknight, we can't ban him." Do you have any idea how idiotic that is? If MK limits a metagame to MK and maybe one or two chars that go somewhere near even with him, he's still not bannable in your eyes.

 

[Masmasher@]

i thought overcentralization was valid criteria for a ban. Though meta knight isnt at that point yet.
i know you say he dominates at every level of play but does the lower level really matter?

 

[ETWIST51294]

I don't think a character being overcentralized is valid for a ban. Fox, Falco, and CF would be banned in Melee if it was.

 

[MarKO X]

well, don't the vast majority of players start up at the lower level of play?
if MK dominates at every level, does it matter if the lower level matters or not?

 

[salaboB]

i know you say he dominates at every level of play but does the lower level really matter?

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me right now.

 

[Tien2500]

I don't think a character being overcentralized is valid for a ban. Fox, Falco, and CF would be banned in Melee if it was.

How'd CF get in there? If anything it should be Sheik, Marth, Fox, and Falco and since there are a bunch of characters its not overcentralizing.

 

[MarKO X]

CF Knee'd his way in.

 

[ETWIST51294]

CF is overcentralized. They're more Falcon players in the US than Sheik and Marth. Falcon just isn't as good as those characters so you don't see him as much.

 

[Tommy_G]

Now I remember why I stopped posting here. there's no arguing with this logic of "no, no, no, backpeddling...no youre an idiot get *****"

Real rude.

Charts show a possibility of overcentralization. Overcentralization isnt criteria for ban. Charts don't show criteria for ban. They mean nothing.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yes but we can never really prove causation. Even in very rigorous scientific studies causation can rarely be proven with complex variables.

Pointing it out, because it's important to note.

The alt-text is:

Spoiler

correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

 

[Masmasher@]

well overcentralization is play mk or lose. hes not quite at that point yet..
I say the lower level doesnt really matter as much if we are looking at this from a competitive standpoint. at the highest level of play there is strong evidence that he shows potiential to dominate.
But thats just it... hes shown potiential for the past 2 years of this game. the lower level doesnt matter as much because if the higher levels can stop overcentralization then there is a path for the lower levels to wortk towards.
Now from a attendance standpoint the evidence shines MUCH, MUCH stronger.

LOL you dont need a statistics class to learn tha correlation =/= causation

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't think a character being overcentralized is valid for a ban. Fox, Falco, and CF would be banned in Melee if it was.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

A character overcentralizing the metagame is one of the most traditional reasons for banning in any situation. You can't have 3 characters overcentralizing, it doesn't work that way. You have Fox, Falco, CF, and anyone that can beat them. That's not overcentralized.

i thought overcentralization was valid criteria for a ban. Though meta knight isnt at that point yet.
i know you say he dominates at every level of play but does the lower level really matter?

Well, to answer your question, who pays into the grand prize at tournaments? Who helps pay venue fees? Would M2K be able to make a living off of smash without the lower level? People who say the lower level doesn't matter is stupid.

Also, it may not be "Pick MK or die" but look at the tier list. I mentioned before (and so did OS) that it's pretty much a list of "Who doesn't get ***** by MK" + "Who doesn't get ***** by everyone else". Marth has THREE bad matchups, two of which are only 55:45, and he's in A tier. ROB only really has MK as unwinnable AFAIK, and is around B tier. Peach is lower C tier, but really doesn't do badly against high and top tier.

This is why we're vouching for a temporary ban. So we can see how much of this we're right about. Actually gathering data on this is important; it means we can see if our claims of a more diverse metagame are correct. We can see how much more diverse the tournament results are, see who wins what, see which new characters seem to be winning a lot, and make sure that nobody falls into the role previously taken by Metaknight-that is, taking up half of top 8s all the time, dominating the rest of the cast, having no bad matchups, et cetera. THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO TEMPORARILY BAN METAKNIGHT AT THIS POINT. Beyond the money of the Metaknight mains who are unwilling/unable to switch, and those who are afraid of what will come out, and who know what will happen will be favorable for pro-ban and refuse to go forwards with it for exactly that reason.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I don't think a character being overcentralized is valid for a ban. Fox, Falco, and CF would be banned in Melee if it was.

If we're talking about multiple characters then no "overcentralizing" is really occuring. Melee's tier list isn't almost entirely based on how well the character does against one other character, it's more based around how well each character does vs. each other.

 

[MarKO X]

Now I remember why I stopped posting here. there's no arguing with this logic of "no, no, no, backpeddling...no youre an idiot get *****"

Real rude.

Charts show a possibility of overcentralization. Overcentralization isnt criteria for ban. Charts don't show criteria for ban. They mean nothing.

well, you were backpeddling.
and why isn't OVERcentralization criteria for a ban?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Now I remember why I stopped posting here. there's no arguing with this logic of "no, no, no, backpeddling...no youre an idiot get *****"

Real rude.

Charts show a possibility of overcentralization. Overcentralization isnt criteria for ban. Charts don't show criteria for ban. They mean nothing.

Translation: nothing means anything get better

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

We're seeing anti-ban's favorite strategy again-claim a previous criteria was not enough and then make a new, unreachable criteria. Oh boy, how awesome!

 

[Tommy_G]

i have said overcentralization isnt ban criteria for this whole time ive been in here.

More points in crow's chart=/= better player.

I'm done.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

i have said overcentralization isnt ban criteria for this whole time ive been in here.

More points in crow's chart=/= better player.

I'm done.

More points in crow's char doesn't mean the better player, but it also doesn't 100% point to overcentralization. What points to overcentralization is a whole different criteria; you seem to be missing the entire point.

 

[ETWIST51294]

Mybad, I was thinking about it in a different way.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Tommy_G thinks MK should crash the game or something similar before he's banned.

 

[Masmasher@]

Crows post shows POTIENTIAL for overcentralization

 

[rvkevin]

well overcentralization is play mk or lose. hes not quite at that point yet..

At what point would you define he would over centralize the meta game?

In other words, if every national tournament for one year went like this, 1. Diddy, 2-*. Every MK that entered, followed by everyone else...would that be OK? After all, someone was able to win without MK (consider him the Isai of brawl)...If its not OK, then your definition of over centralization is flawed.

 

[Chuee]

Melee's tier list isn't almost entirely based on how well the character does against one other character

Neither is brawl's.

 

[salaboB]

Neither is brawl's.

You're right.

But Brawl's tournament results focus on how well you can do against one specific character.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Neither is brawl's.

This is pretty much demonstratably false (not that the tier list is really the point anyway).

Our current S tier is pretty much "who can fight kinda MK and isn't ***** by anyone else who can kinda fight MK."

The exception is King Dedede who probably should not have been S tier anyway (and definitely will NOT be this time around).

 

[etecoon]

Tommy_G thinks MK should crash the game or something similar before he's banned.

it would be silly to ban a character that is so blatantly not broken

 

[Masmasher@]

At what point would you define he would over centralize the meta game?

In other words, if every national tournament for one year went like this, 1. Diddy, 2-*. Every MK that entered, followed by the low tiers...would that be OK? After all, someone was able to win without MK (consider him the Isai of brawl)...If its not OK, then your definition of over centralization is flawed.

Play MK or lose...
Its not my defintion its the competitve defintion.
this is why this case is so different. metaknights data shows that he has the POTIENTIAL to overcentralize...
Thats just it. hes had the potiential for years now. when people complain about losing the work they put into mk because of a ban they arent really right but the point is that in most games character bans happen MUCH earlier then this. thats one of the reasons the community is in this position.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

it would be silly to ban a character that is so blatantly not broken

Read the thread.

 

[salaboB]

Play MK or lose...
Its not my defintion its the competitve defintion.
this is why this case is so different. metaknights data shows that he has the POTIENTIAL to overcentralize...
Thats just it. hes had the potiential for years now. when people complain about losing the work they put into mk because of a ban they arent really right but the point is that in most games character bans happen MUCH earlier then this. thats one of the reasons the community is in this position.

What about:
"Ban MK or watch Brawl die faster than it otherwise would"

Other games have died from similar issues (Well, at least one has...) There's no real reason to believe Brawl will be immune.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What about:
"Ban MK or watch Brawl die faster than it otherwise would"

Other games have died from similar issues (Well, at least one has...) There's no real reason to believe Brawl will be immune.

I count Tekken 4 and BlazBlue... There's probably more.