Official Metaknight Discussion

[Espy Rose]

It was usually Gnes/Razer winning the tournaments, something that was painfully obvious whenever MK was banned.

You three monopolized the results. Always.

 

[Overswarm]

Hm test ban...texas is way ahead if thats the way its going.

We banned mk a while back...tourneys did see more diversity at the top and overall, especially at the beginning...in the end it was usually snake/diddy winning the tourneys, though that could be easily predicted.

Yeah, my own prediction is we'd at least have a month or two of Snake/Diddy doing amazing before they started to decline.


While I am glad to have seen test bans of MK in Texas, it'd need to be more global for us to see anything along the lines of a trend.

 

[DFEAR]

Current trends:

Non-philosophical arguments have all been factually debunked. Popularity of MK isn't a reason for anything, MK really DOES do that much better, Ally != Snake, ADHD != Diddy, have proven there is no current character counter nor any trend for such a thing (characters like Pikachu and Fox actually have more of a chance of being an MK counter with current data), have proven any attempt at using statistical data for the anti-ban side has been faulty in method and/or data used, and have found no other avenues in which to look.

Philosophical trends such as "it's okay to only have one viable character out of 36!" aren't really arguable unless we figure out what IS important to those people, and at the moment we can't really argue them.

Future arguments, such as "How do you know the game will better if MK is gone" are unanswerable because we aren't psychic.

We CAN test them though.

Current direction is to move towards a test ban for 6 months, and then to compare the data and make our decision afterwards.

the solution seems inevitable. also when will wario/falco step up their **** like snake and diddy

 

[Overswarm]

the solution seems inevitable. also when will wario/falco step up their **** like snake and diddy

Haha, wario actually already had his time to shine, sadly. Falco may or may not have peaked.

 

[DFEAR]

seriously? wario cant get any better? but i always feel like he has so much more to him than just timing out ppl, just look at that waft and fsmash! also since watching underground and tommy's falco long ago i see a lot of speed/mixup potential in falco

 

[Overswarm]

seriously? wario cant get any better? but i always feel like he has so much more to him than just timing out ppl, just look at that waft and fsmash! also since watching underground and tommy's falco long ago i see a lot of speed/mixup potential in falco

It doesn't necessarily mean he can't get any better, but more that he's already had a time in the spotlight and better options have been found.

 

[DFEAR]

i see. brawl is still a baby compared to melee.

 

[JUDGE]

the solution seems inevitable. also when will wario/falco step up their **** like snake and diddy

i don't see any problem with that.
even if we have more falcos/snakes/diddys/warios and marths(when mk is gone he will definetly become top tier)
but there will always be chars on the top. the only difference is that they are winnable MU not like mk

 

[1048576]

I want to know how popular MK is in tourneys with relation to Snake and Diddy. Seems like that's the missing piece of data for a convincing pro-ban argument.

Obv. if you had a tourney with 500 Jiggs and 10 Snake, you wouldn't expect more than 1 or 2 Snake in top 8. (and then people would mistake Jiggs success for brokenness and switch to Jiggs) Maybe MK's dominance is simply self-perpetuating.

 

[Overswarm]

I want to know how popular MK is in tourneys with relation to Snake and Diddy. Seems like that's the missing piece of data for a convincing pro-ban argument.

Obv. if you had a tourney with 500 Jiggs and 10 Snake, you wouldn't expect more than 1 or 2 Snake in top 8. (and then people would mistake Jiggs success for brokenness and switch to Jiggs) Maybe MK's dominance is simply self-perpetuating.

Been there, done that.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9585089&postcount=5511


Old.

Join the party.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Been there, done that.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9585089&postcount=5511


Old.

Join the party.

It's good data, but it's not the end all be all, it's still merely correlation.


A controlled experiment would be optimal.



Yes, this means I have properly examined the data and will be posting impressions at some point in the near future.

 

[Overswarm]

A controlled experiment would be optimal.

It's what we waaaaaaaaaaaant

 

[Espy Rose]

Then doooo~ it.

 

[DFEAR]

Then doooo~ it.

community efforrrrrrr~t

 

[Asdioh]

Doooo~ it!

 

[Overswarm]

I still push for BBR announcement. If you want to start contacting TOs and do something from the ground up, feel free, but I'm more of the mind to discuss it in the BBR.

 

[Tien2500]

It's good data, but it's not the end all be all, it's still merely correlation.


A controlled experiment would be optimal.



Yes, this means I have properly examined the data and will be posting impressions at some point in the near future.

You can run all the statistical tests you want you're never going to prove causation. You can also run as many experiments as you want and you will never prove causation. The only way I could think of to show causation is to clone a top player 36 times, raise them in the exact same environment have each main a character in different character in smash and then pit them against eachother in tournament play.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's what we waaaaaaaaaaaant

I think the more relevant question is what are we testing?

Character viability, or MK's true power in the metagame?



A temp ban would produce data about character viability, but nothing in terms of character power in the metagame.

You can run all the statistical tests you want you're never going to prove causation. You can also run as many experiments as you want and you will never prove causation. The only way I could think of to show causation is to clone a top player 36 times, raise them in the exact same environment have each main a character in different character in smash and then pit them against eachother in tournament play.

That's why there's controlling for variables.

That's why we can develop tightly controlled conditions, where we can prove causation.

 

[Tien2500]

That's why there's controlling for variables.

That's why we can develop tightly controlled conditions, where we can prove causation.

No I don't think you can. If you can find a way to isolate "Smash Brothers Skill" then hats off to you. I simply don't think it can be done. Its too complex of a variable.

 

[Overswarm]

A temp ban would produce data about character viability, but nothing in terms of character power in the metagame.

A character's power in the metagame is relative to the other characters in the game, so it kinda goes hand in hand.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No I don't think you can. If you can find a way to isolate "Smash Brothers Skill" then hats off to you. I simply don't think it can be done. Its too complex of a variable.

Makes it all the more fun to figure out. We'll see though...

A character's power in the metagame is relative to the other characters in the game, so it kinda goes hand in hand.

Not really. Character viability is a matter of how many characters it clearly negates, character power is a matter of how strong a character the character is in the current metagame.

 

[1048576]

Been there, done that.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9585089&postcount=5511


Old.

Join the party.

Yeah, I read that post. It says nothing about how many Metaknights and Snakes there are, just that the best Metaknights are better than the best Snakes, which you would expect if MKs outnumbered Snakes 10 to 1 whether or not MK was broken.

 

[Overswarm]

Makes it all the more fun to figure out. We'll see though...

Please tell me you're smarter than this.

Not really. Character viability is a matter of how many characters it clearly negates, character power is a matter of how strong a character the character is in the current metagame.

I bolded the things that weren't true.

Character viability is measured solely by tournament placement potential; this is best seen through actual tournament placements.

Character "power" is the same exact thing.

Ivan Ooze is insanely powerful in his game. If you put Akuma, who was banned, in Ivan Ooze's game, Ivan Ooze would kick his ***. This doesn't mean Akuma isn't powerful or viable.... because viability is determined by the characters you are fighting against. This is why a character like ROB can't be viable in a tournament full of MKs, but he can in a tournament full of captain falcons.

 

[Overswarm]

Yeah, I read that post. It says nothing about how many Metaknights and Snakes there are, just that the best Metaknights are better than the best Snakes, which you would expect if MKs outnumbered Snakes 10 to 1 whether or not MK was broken.

The main idea here is to determine the skill distribution among characters. This should give, as objectively as is possible, a display of which characters are "popular" at various skill levels.

If a character is simply better than another, one would expect the shape of these curves to be the same, but one curve to be higher than another at any given rank, vertically in the plots I will make.

If a character is simply more popular than another, one would expect the curve at any particular skill level to stretch out to higher ranks, horizontally in the plots I will make.

Of course, the two ideas are difficult to separate. We will therefore search for convenient reference points in the data to compare one character to the next.

 

[1048576]

Ok, see you would get those results if there were the smae number of Metaknights as Snakes but Metaknight was a better character. You would also get those results if MK outnumbered Snake 10 to 1 and Snake was actually the better character.

That third sentagraph you bolded is difficult for me to parse. Either way the shape of the curve is irrelevant, right? It wouldn't mean anything if Diddy was practically a step-function, just that the best Diddys are far superior to the next best Diddys. Same thing if its a straight line. It just means there's no stand out Warios or w/e. It doesn't mean there are many or few Warios.

 

[Overswarm]

Good players play good characters. Good characters place well in tournaments.

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


MK gets 60.9% of the total wins between him and Snake, with Snake getting 39% of the wins.

MK gets 57.7% of the top 8 placements shared between them, with Snake getting 42.2%.

The gaps do not indicate that Metaknight is simply super popular, nor do the placements. In addition to this, the gap lessens when considering the lowest ranked point placement (top 8s).

If you're assuming that MK is merely "more popular", you wouldn't see the gap be so large at higher levels. So, assuming you're still asking about popularity, what you're really saying is "MK is more popular and also all of the placing MK players are just better players than Snake players".

Crow demonstrated earlier the odds of this occuring.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Please tell me you're smarter than this.

Really?

A nice tightly controlled sample could establish causation.

I bolded the things that weren't true.

Character viability is measured solely by tournament placement potential; this is best seen through actual tournament placements.

Character "power" is the same exact thing.

Ivan Ooze is insanely powerful in his game. If you put Akuma, who was banned, in Ivan Ooze's game, Ivan Ooze would kick his ***. This doesn't mean Akuma isn't powerful or viable.... because viability is determined by the characters you are fighting against. This is why a character like ROB can't be viable in a tournament full of MKs, but he can in a tournament full of captain falcons.

You misunderstand, I'm talking measuring what characters are viable now as compared to what characters are viable with MK gone, a metameasurement of viability.


In other words, the proper expirement for that would be a temp ban to see the metagame without MK.



Character power in the metagame would be measuring how much of an increase the character gives to a players skill in the current metagame.



The two can be summed up in two statements:

1. How many characters are viable with MK in the metagame as compared to without MK in the metagame?


2. In the current metagame, how powerful is MK compared to the other viable characters.



Let me give you an example, say we have a character that 90-10'd the entire bottom 2/3rds of the spectrum, let's say this is grab = death territory with good grab range and set-ups. The other characters however, are immune to this for one reason or another and cannot take advantage of that particular issue, meaning that MUs are relatively balanced beyond that. Furthermore, this character performs unremarkable against the viable characters.


This is an extreme example, but I think it should be obvious that while this particular character is not particularly powerful in the metagame it has defined, it negates so many characters so badly that it decreases the number of viable characters significantly. With that bad of a match-up, nobody in the bottom 2/3rds of the spectrum is viable, yet the metagame isn't particular good for the character.



The point is, the measures are distinct, a character may excel against the viable characters, eliminate a lot of otherwise viable characters, or do both. A temp ban can only illustrate increases in number of viable characters.

 

[1048576]

Good players play good characters. Good characters place well in tournaments.

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


MK gets 60.9% of the total wins between him and Snake, with Snake getting 39% of the wins.

MK gets 57.7% of the top 8 placements shared between them, with Snake getting 42.2%.

The gaps do not indicate that Metaknight is simply super popular, nor do the placements. In addition to this, the gap lessens when considering the lowest ranked point placement (top 8s).

If you're assuming that MK is merely "more popular", you wouldn't see the gap be so large at higher levels. So, assuming you're still asking about popularity, what you're really saying is "MK is more popular and also all of the placing MK players are just better players than Snake players".

Crow demonstrated earlier the odds of this occuring.

this part

If MK is more popular, it follows that the placing MKs would be better than the placing other, because its likely that there's a couple MKs in say the top 5 best players, while there might only be one Snake. The second best Snake might likely only be the 8 or 9th best player, depending on Snake's popularity.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Really?

A nice tightly controlled sample could establish causation.





You misunderstand, I'm talking measuring what characters are viable now as compared to what characters are viable with MK gone, a metameasurement of viability.


In other words, the proper expirement for that would be a temp ban to see the metagame without MK.



Character power in the metagame would be measuring how much of an increase the character gives to a players skill in the current metagame.



The two can be summed up in two statements:

1. How many characters are viable with MK in the metagame as compared to without MK in the metagame?


2. In the current metagame, how powerful is MK compared to the other viable characters.



Let me give you an example, say we have a character that 90-10'd the entire bottom 2/3rds of the spectrum, let's say this is grab = death territory with good grab range and set-ups. The other characters however, are immune to this for one reason or another and cannot take advantage of that particular issue, meaning that MUs are relatively balanced beyond that. Furthermore, this character performs unremarkable against the viable characters.


This is an extreme example, but I think it should be obvious that while this particular character is not particularly powerful in the metagame it has defined, it negates so many characters so badly that it decreases the number of viable characters significantly. With that bad of a match-up, nobody in the bottom 2/3rds of the spectrum is viable, yet the metagame isn't particular good for the character.



The point is, the measures are distinct, a character may excel against the viable characters, eliminate a lot of otherwise viable characters, or do both. A temp ban can only illustrate increases in number of viable characters.

I don't think I've heard of a fighting game that banned a character that wasn't the best character, excluding council specific characters.

DeDeDe is Brawl fits this in a way.

 

[Kaffei]

OS, please present to me list of tournaments that ended up as the 1st place winner being a non-MK player, just like you did with the MK playing 1st placers.

please please!

 

[Overswarm]

OS, please present to me list of tournaments that ended up as the 1st place winner being a non-MK player, just like you did with the MK playing 1st placers.

please please!

PM Ankoku and ask for the data; I copy pasta'd a list he gave.

It's going to be a bit larger (or at least **** well better) if you're comparing every other character.

 

[Kaffei]

PM Ankoku and ask for the data; I copy pasta'd a list he gave.

It's going to be a bit larger (or at least **** well better) if you're comparing every other character.

Alright, how about "viable" characters?

 

[Orion*]

Alright, how about "viable" characters?

this game sucks, even with mk gone most characters are still not "viable" in the competitive term. all getting rid of mk does is make marth a viable tourny winner personally -.-

boss can pick mario and **** ****, doesnt mean the character can realistically win a national.

 

[Crow!]

this part

If MK is more popular, it follows that the placing MKs would be better than the placing other, because its likely that there's a couple MKs in say the top 5 best players, while there might only be one Snake. The second best Snake might likely only be the 8 or 9th best player, depending on Snake's popularity.

Have you read this post? OS mentioned it but I'm not sure if it was in his recent list of links.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9626469#post9626469

In short, it's absurdly unlikely for as many of the most skilled players to be the be MK as would be needed for that theory to explain the data. People with more intuitive feel for statistics could see that directly from my charts based on the shapes and heights of the curves, but there it is in numerical form.

 

[HeroMystic]

boss can pick luigi and **** ****, doesnt mean the character can realistically win a national.

Fixed. Why are people still thinking Boss mains Mario?

 

[Kaffei]

this game sucks, even with mk gone most characters are still not "viable" in the competitive term. all getting rid of mk does is make marth a viable tourny winner personally -.-

boss can pick mario and **** ****, doesnt mean the character can realistically win a national.

That is not what I wanted to read...

 

[Espy Rose]

Fixed. Why are people still thinking Boss mains Mario?

Has he ever outright announced it?

It's always hard for people to KNOW if he hasn't.

Shugo's been suspected of dropping Sonic for Falco for quite some time now, but I've yet to hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak.

 

[Spelt]

you know ... it could be because he uses the mario icon.
just maybe..............

 

[Espy Rose]

If that was the case, then Ultimate Razer mains Jigglypuff.

 

[HeroMystic]

Look at Boss' recent tournament results... hell, he's been maining Luigi in tournaments for the past six months. He only uses Mario in friendlies.