Official Metaknight Discussion

[solecalibur]

Question to Anti-ban what do you think a character needs before you would ban him?

 

[Masmasher@]

What about:
"Ban MK or watch Brawl die faster than it already will"

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

that is one of the reasons im on the fence about this.
from a competitive standpoint. he only shows potiential
but from a attendance standpoint the evidence is very staggering.

I look at this from a competitve standpoint but attendance does hold some significance.
is this game really worth it?

 

[salaboB]

that is one of the reasons im on the fence about this.
from a competitive standpoint. he only shows potiential
but from a attendance standpoint the evidence is very staggering.

I look at this from a competitve standpoint but attendance does hold some significance.
is this game really worth it?

If it's not worth putting lots of effort into saving, then it's also not a big problem to just try things and see if they help with minimal investment.

ISP or banning MK could both be investigated for easy implementation to see if they provide more fun (And thus more players at tournaments) for a while, since the current setup certainly doesn't seem to be holding on to players well.

 

[Nanaki]

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.

Overcentralization is THE ban criteria. If your only option is to play the character or lose, you ban it. The only other possible reason is 'brokenness', which would really just lead to overcentralization anyway.

'Character X has a tactic that can't be beaten'
Everyone plays character X at top level because of this.
Character X overcentralizes the game.
Character X is banned.

Not saying this applies to MK, but really, that post was ridiculous.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I still plan on meat-riding every player who is better than me, but you, sir, are my new favorite poster.

^ Yeah SL gets awesome like that when he has something important to say ^

Otherwise, he trolls more than the 09ers

O.O

 

[etecoon]

Read the thread.

been reading it, expected ridiculous comparison to items or some diatribe over how onett should be legal lmao

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

You're right.

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

No, tournament results show how well one player can do against other players.

 

[Tien2500]

No, tournament results show how well one player can do against other players.

Ideally. If we had a perfectly balanced metagame.

 

[ShadowLink84]

No, tournament results show how well one player can do against other players.

It hows both, thoughit is geared moreso towards player's rather than character.

 

[ETWIST51294]

And actually, SuperModelfromParis said Melees tier list is based on tourny results which is wrong. We base it off of character potential. Fox wouldn't be the best if we based it off of tourny results.

 

[ShadowLink84]

And actually, SuperModelfromParis said Melees tier list is based on tourny results which is wrong. We base it off of character potential. Fox wouldn't be the best if we based it off of tourny results.

It is based on both.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Ideally. If we had a perfectly balanced metagame.

No, it still is. To a lesser extent than if there were balanced characters in Brawl, I suppose.

I guess I'd say it is based on both character choice and player skill, like Shadowlink said. Character choice certainly plays a part in it, but player skill is arguably more important than that. If it were only based on character choice and matchups, then any MK player, even some random scrub, could beat any player who uses a character that MK has an advantage over, and that is obviously untrue.

 

[salaboB]

No, it still is. To a lesser extent than if there were balanced characters in Brawl, I suppose.

I guess I'd say it is based on both character choice and player skill, like Shadowlink said. Character choice certainly plays a part in it, but player skill is arguably more important than that. If it were only based on character choice and matchups, then any MK player, even some random scrub, could beat any player who uses a character that MK has an advantage over, and that is obviously untrue.

Crow!'s chart shows that MK is in fact elevating players above their skill level for amount of wins.

 

[Tien2500]

No, it still is. To a lesser extent than if there were balanced characters in Brawl, I suppose.

I guess I'd say it is based on both character choice and player skill, like Shadowlink said. Character choice certainly plays a part in it, but player skill is arguably more important than that. If it were only based on character choice and matchups, then any MK player, even some random scrub, could beat any player who uses a character that MK has an advantage over, and that is obviously untrue.

Obviously player skill plays some role. The question is how much of winning in Brawl is skill, how much is luck, and how much does MK change this.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Crow!'s chart shows that MK is in fact elevating players above their skill level for amount of wins.

Well that would make sense, considering MK is the best character and all.

 

[salaboB]

Well that would make sense, considering MK is the best character and all.

I only mentioned it because it somewhat disagrees with your comment that it's the players who do best against other players in tournament.

While that's true to an extent, it's more often true when both of those players aren't using MK.

 

[Tien2500]

Well that would make sense, considering MK is the best character and all.

Yes but the data shows that MK players across the board do twice as well as Diddy and Snake mains and 3-27 times as well as other characters. Its unlikely that virtually all MK players are twice as good as Snake players and Diddy players. So how much does picking boost a player and how much of a boost is acceptable if we agree that the goal of tournaments is to measure skill?

 

[rvkevin]

Yes but the data shows that MK players across the board do twice as well as Diddy and Snake mains and 3-27 times as well as other characters. Its unlikely that virtually all MK players are twice as good as Snake players and Diddy players. So how much does picking boost a player and how much of a boost is acceptable if we agree that the goal of tournaments is to measure skill?

It doesn't matter how well he does compared to other characters, as long as someone else ends up first. You only ban a character if you have to play that character or lose. So essentially if the results of every national are like for over a year; 1. Diddy, 2-*. Every MK that entered, followed by everyone else, it would be perfectly OK. Well, that's the vibe I'm getting from anti-ban. Care to correct me (If you do, please do more than "No, that's not my stance." Failure to state is a form of logical fallacy; essentially, if you never state your position, then you can never be proven wrong). I wouldn't necessarily define over centralization that way...

 

[Tien2500]

If the results are "1. Diddy, 2-*. Every MK that entered, followed by everyone else, it would be perfectly ." Then there is something out of the ordinary about the Diddy player. If only one player out of an incredibly large field is beating MKs then something is odd about that person. In any event I'd say those results would call for a ban.

Even so overcentralization doesn't necessarily mean that you have to play a character or lose. So far the only characters we've seen have any sustained success against MK are Diddy or Snake. ( And even then most of this success is accounted for by ADHD and Ally). If the only viable characters are MK and two characters that do well against him then I'd call that overcentralizing.

 

[salaboB]

It doesn't matter how well he does compared to other characters, as long as someone else ends up first. You only ban a character if you have to play that character or lose.

Anti-ban keeps saying this, and it's still entirely opinion.

In other words, you can't just say it like it's a proven fact -- you have to explain why it must be this way.

 

[rvkevin]

Anti-ban keeps saying this, and it's still entirely opinion.

Opinion or not, haven't I shown that opinion to be absurd through example or does anti-ban actually agree with that outcome (Or atleast I hope so)?

 

[salaboB]

Opinion or not, haven't I shown that opinion to be absurd through example or does anti-ban actually agree with that outcome (Or atleast I hope so)? If not, then I suspect the least plausible hypothesis fallacy would be in play.

You have most certainly not proven it's absurd to ban a character that's not "Play this character or win".

If you had, you'd have managed something nobody else has been able to in four MK discussion threads (This being the fourth) and would have ended the debate.

 

[Masmasher@]

its from a competitive standpoint. to keep a game competitive if there is another then its is competitive.

 

[rvkevin]

You have most certainly not proven it's absurd to ban a character that's not "Play this character or win".

If you had, you'd have managed something nobody else has been able to in four MK discussion threads (This being the fourth) and would have ended the debate.

I never said "proven." (Are you saying that you are OK with the scenario?) Get this notion of absolute out of your head. A character should not require 100-0 match ups before being banned.

 

[salaboB]

I never said "proven." (Are you saying that you are OK with the scenario) Get this notion of absolute out of your head. A character should not require 100-0 match ups before being banned.

You said "shown", how is that different from "proven"?

I know, arguing semantics and all -- but it's important to use the same terms or a discussion grinds to a halt fast.

 

[rvkevin]

You said "shown", how is that different from "proven"?

I know, arguing semantics and all -- but it's important to use the same terms or a discussion grinds to a halt fast.

Shown: to point out : direct attention to

Pointing to an opinion and showing it is absurd is not that same as "proving" it to be false.

Anyway, you can't "prove" an opinion is absurd because not all opinions are grounded in fact.

 

[salaboB]

Anyway, you can't "prove" an opinion is absurd because opinions are not grounded in fact.

Good opinions should have a basis in fact and should be provable to be absurd if the facts they are based in are incorrect.

Let's say it's my opinion that my constantly running red lights doesn't and will never hurt anyone. A great deal of facts disagree (People/cars getting struck by cars running red lights) and I would say that opinion was absurd (Or self serving and overall incorrect, absurd may be the wrong word - but I'm sure there are absurd examples that could be found).

 

[rvkevin]

Some people have the opinion that games should be played as they are presented. That means not removing any stages, items, or characters...can you prove this to be wrong?

Are you saying that you are OK with the scenario (1. Diddy, 2-*. Every MK that entered followed by everyone else)?

 

[HeroMystic]

Some people have the opinion that games should be played as they are presented. That means not removing any stages, items, or characters...can you prove this to be wrong?

It's wrong from the fact that the current metagame doesn't give a **** about them.

 

[Masmasher@]

thats simple
Randomness hurts competitiveness.
people shouldnt bring that up
The competitve standpoint is much more easier to support then the audience/attendance standpoint. because the very reason the community exists is for the competition.
Humans are too fickle...

 

[rvkevin]

thats simple
Randomness hurts competitiveness.
people shouldnt bring that up
The competitve standpoint is much more easier to support then the audience/attendance standpoint. because the very reason the community exists is for the competition.
Humans are too fickle...

Actually, you were unsuccessful. All you did was introduce your opinion on how the game should be played...you haven't proved that their opinion was wrong. And even if we focused on making brawl a more competitive game, not eliminating any character would still be able to accomplish that. If everything was MK dittos, then the person with the most skill would still win, hence being competitive. Its just that as a whole, we have an opinion that there should be character diversity and we differ at the point of how much character diversity must suffer at the hands of one character before we ban said character.

 

[salaboB]

Some people have the opinion that games should be played as they are presented. That means not removing any stages, items, or characters...can you prove this to be wrong?

Are you saying that you are OK with the scenario (1. Diddy, 2-*. Every MK that entered followed by everyone else)?

I can prove it wrong if the goal is to have player skill the primary factor in outcome, yes. For that goal, the opinion of leaving the game untouched is in fact provably wrong.

A lot of opinions can't be proven wrong, of course. When it's a gray area, it gets much harder to do. That's when you have to explain why your opinion is best.

So your responsibility would be to explain why it's best to go with "Only ban a character if it's play them or win" versus my "Ban a character if they're actively harming the tournament scene by being unbanned."

I can't answer your Diddy/MK question, as a lot of it depends on whether the community is thriving and the game is fun with those results or not. With the current situation that can result in tournament placings like that, it's not apparently thriving and fun and I do not find it happening to prove MK shouldn't be banned.

 

[Sinz]

And actually, SuperModelfromParis said Melees tier list is based on tourny results which is wrong. We base it off of character potential. Fox wouldn't be the best if we based it off of tourny results.

At the time of the tier list it was correct. Now he wouldn't be, but thing is the tier list is still correct.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

GUYS

I FOUND THE MK COUNTER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Sq_PuPc1M&feature=sub

 

[Masmasher@]

Actually, you were unsuccessful. All you did was introduce your opinion on how the game should be played...you haven't proved that their opinion was wrong. And even if we focused on making brawl a more competitive game, not eliminating any character would still be able to accomplish that. If everything was MK dittos, then the person with the most skill would still win. Its just that as a whole (If not, at least some people), we have an opinion that there should be character diversity and we differ at the point of how much character diversity must suffer at the hands of one character before we ban said character.

its not a opinion
its competition
if you have another then its competition.
Cause fighting games are with the intent of it least one other character against another. if not then it would be a single player game. the very sprit of fighting intent injected in the genre insures this. if not then metaknight would be...you guessed it overcentralizing. thats when you would ban him.

 

[Sinz]

GUYS

I FOUND THE MK COUNTER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Sq_PuPc1M&feature=sub

Wait. So you can do a 36% combo from a dsmash. Cool man. Pity that it is only a little bit more percentage than just double dsmash bair. =/ Isn't the problem landing the dsmash?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Wait. So you can do a 36% combo from a dsmash. Cool man. Pity that it is only a little bit more percentage than just double dsmash bair. =/ Isn't the problem landing the dsmash?

Actually the point of the video is that ZSS can cancel a footstool with dair under a platform, allowing her to potentially ROB infinite the whole cast under a platform.

 

[rvkevin]

its not a opinion
its competition
if you have another then its competition.
Cause fighting games are with the intent of it least one other character against another. if not then it would be a single player game. the very sprit of fighting intent injected in the genre insures this. if not then metaknight would be...you guessed it overcentralizing. thats when you would ban him.

There is nothing inconsistent in saying we should make the game competitive and we shouldn't ban any character (I'm done defending this absurd opinion that I used as a counterexample)...Its just that nearly everyone values character diversity. The amount we value character diversity differs and I think that's what seperates pro-ban and anti-ban. So how do we settle this difference in values?

 

[HeroMystic]

Actually, you were unsuccessful. All you did was introduce your opinion on how the game should be played...you haven't proved that their opinion was wrong. And even if we focused on making brawl a more competitive game, not eliminating any character would still be able to accomplish that. If everything was MK dittos, then the person with the most skill would still win, hence being competitive. Its just that as a whole, we have an opinion that there should be character diversity and we differ at the point of how much character diversity must suffer at the hands of one character before we ban said character.

I'm guessing you thought I was kidding when I said the metagame doesn't give a ****. I wasn't. The current metagame is based off of what we have now. It is the current status quo. If someone said, "Hey, lets play 2 mins on Spear Pillar competitvely!" Then no one would take them seriously. But if someone said, "Hey, we should play items because it adds depth to the metagame, and we can turn explosive items off", then you're directly attacking the metagame because the game itself becomes so "new" that it practically restarts the metagame.

Banning Metaknight would do the same thing, just at a lesser extent of "newness". That's why directly attacking the status quo involves convincing of the conservative party because they like (or tolerate) how the game is being played now.

 

[rvkevin]

Banning Metaknight would do the same thing, just at a lesser extent of "newness". That's why directly attacking the status quo involves convincing of the conservative party because they like (or tolerate) how the game is being played now.

I suggest you read the entire conversation (I simply used a not so commonly held opinion that I don't even hold as a counter example)...I don't disagree with you. Moving along...