Official Metaknight Discussion

[Sinz]

Nobody planks for 8 minutes lmao

You haven't been in Utah. =/
1 tornado to planking for the rest of the match.

Gay as ****,

 

[Kewkky]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before but why don't they do it pokemon style where they have tier-tourneys. They could have S-A tourneys, A-B etc.

Cuz Brawl is a fighting game and depends on skills. You have WAAAAY more options and depend more on player skill than a more-limited genre (turn-based, and only 4 moves per pokemon), so it wouldn't work out. Plus, tourney results fluctuate a lot with stuff we didn't expect (a Ness on 2nd place in a tourney back at january end/february start? Wow).

 

[Asdioh]

Because Ally and ADHD can beat M2K.

hmmmm... if you go to an MK banned tourney, and every one of your opponent agrees to letting you play MK, and you win in that tourney, is it legit?

Obviously. If they were stupid enough to let you play MK when they could have just said "no," then you earned your win, lol.

Because you main kirby and we want you to be miserable.

weird.

 

[Kewkky]

But if you're playing in an MK-Banned tourney, every opponent lets you use MK, you win the tourney by using MK... It's no longer an MK-Banned tourney now, is it? The winner used MK for all of his fights, the rules stated that MK wasn't allowed in the tourney, period... So...?

 

[Master Raven]

Sample Criteria:

If character only has 55:45 or higher matchups in his favor, show that at least 1/3rd of the remaining cast (50% or more of which is in the top 1/3rd of the tier list) have predominately 55:45 matchups against aforementioned character. If this is not the case, a ban is warranted.

If those characters do show to have close matchups against the character in question, and data shows the character to be unhindered by this, a ban is suggested (note Suggested, not warranted.)

This is exactly the kind of criteria I have in mind.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

read that sentence and got this

 

[Asdioh]

But if you're playing in an MK-Banned tourney, every opponent lets you use MK, you win the tourney by using MK... It's no longer an MK-Banned tourney now, is it? The winner used MK for all of his fights, the rules stated that MK wasn't allowed in the tourney, period... So...?

So your opponents were stupid.

If all my opponents let me play on Hyrule Temple, and I won the tourney, is it not a legit win? Of course it is, it's their choice. I don't know why you're making a big deal out of this

 

[adumbrodeus]

Planking is not stalling...Stalling is banned...Therefore planking is banned...great logic!

*facepalm*


By the logic that planking is stalling STANDING IN PLACE AND DOING NOTHING is stalling.


Which means that we have the other criteria, overcentralization.


In case you didn't realize this, I don't support the planking ban.

 

[rvkevin]

Which means that we have the other criteria, overcentralization.

Finally, someone is able to define over centralization! What is it?

What separates over centralization from centralization?

In case you didn't realize this, I don't support the planking ban.

No, I didn't realize it, when someone calls it "a banworthy tactic," I naturally (Though apparently falsely) assume they support banning it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Finally, someone is able to define over centralization! What is it?

What separates over centralization from centralization?

50%+1.

No, I didn't realize it, when someone calls it "a banworthy tactic," I naturally (Though apparently falsely) assume they support banning it.

...

STALLING, stalling is an immediately ban-worthy tactic. I think you misread.

 

[Overswarm]

50%+1.

Relative to?

If this was the case and there were only two characters in a game, they'd both be banned for over-centralization, one after the other.

You need more factors. 50% of how many characters? Viable characters or all characters? Why is 50%+1% reasonable if you're saying 50% for 1 character out of 36?

 

[Humpy Thrashabout]

Alright, so I'm not feeling these "The More You Know" Pictures. Please stop. Especially when they get quoted. It wasn't funny once, it isn't funny now.

ANYWAY! Fun stuff guys. I did some of that stuff with the previous ban poll and found some weird stuff.
So as we know:
-1,455 people voted "No" to banning MK
-1,724 people voted "Yes" to banning MK

We all have discussed whether or not Top Level of Play or Mid-to-Low Level of play matter and we have some disagreement. What I'm sure we can agree on is that people who don't (or haven't recently) attend tournaments shouldn't have a say. I took the list of pro-banners and anti-banners from the last poll and compared it to Ankoku's list:
-The list contains 1,517 names of tournament goers
-The vote had a total of 3,179 names

meaning ~1,500 votes came from people who made alternate accounts or don't even attend tournaments. After doing some Microsoft Excel Olympics I found:
-213 CONFIRMED player votes for "Yes" to banning MK
-224 CONFIRMED player votes for "No" to banning MK

This doesn't (and could never) reverse the decision, but it shows just how many votes are actually from people that matter. We need to find some other way of running a poll if it does come back to that.

EDIT: I uploaded the excel sheet I made so other curious parties and take a look.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0SNPAUZ3

 

[Kewkky]

What I'm saying isn't an argument at all. o_o

All I'm saying is that if it's an MK-Banned tourney, and every opponent lets you use MK, it's not an MK-Banned tourney anymore since there's an MK running around where he has been prohibited of showing up. So... That's about it.

The player might've been stupid, i don't care. All I'm talking about is the "MK-Banned" part. :|

 

[rvkevin]

50%+1.

50%+1.=150% or 1.5

What? How is this supposed to define something that is over centralizing.

Do you mean if it happens more than 50% of the matches?

And @Humpy Thrashabout
Not everyone's tournament tags match their SWF account...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Relative to?

If this was the case and there were only two characters in a game, they'd both be banned for over-centralization, one after the other.

*facepalm*

50%+1, so 50% of 2 is 1, 1+1=2. Therefore in a game with two characters, a character needs to render 2 nonviable... yea, no.

You need more factors. 50% of how many characters? Viable characters or all characters? Why is 50%+1% reasonable if you're saying 50% for 1 character out of 36?

It's a statutory definition taken from Sirlin, and of the otherwise viable characters.

I'm just defining it, not establishing a criteria based on it.

50%+1.=150% or 1.5

What? How is this supposed to define something that is over centralizing.

Do you mean if it happens more than 50% of the matches?

No, 50% is an operation, half of whatever input, and +1 means add 1 to the result.

 

[Humpy Thrashabout]

And @Humpy Thrashabout
Not everyone's tournament tags match their SWF account...

That would take some serious work to do. I was only really doing this because I was curious. I suppose there is a way to match extremely similar names, but I don't intend on doing that because it doesn't really seem necessary.

EDIT: Maybe there is a way to organize the list by number of posts to weed out more alternate names. I'm going to look into that.

 

[rvkevin]

So for something to be over centralizing in brawl it must render ~19 characters unviable?

EDIT: Maybe there is a way to organize the list by number of posts to weed out more alternate names. I'm going to look into that.

This seems reasonable, anyone with <100 posts could be ignored because they are either false accounts, or too new to the community to make an informed opinion.

 

[Asdioh]

You also need to consider that a lot of the people that vote don't even look at the arguments, and just vote on their "gut feeling," whether they are informed or ignorant.

 

[Humpy Thrashabout]

You also need to consider that a lot of the people that vote don't even look at the arguments, and just vote on their "gut feeling," whether they are informed or ignorant.

You could never figure out which people they are, and regardless, they aren't obligated to be informed to vote.

Anyone who is effected by the decision has a right to their vote.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So for something to be over centralizing in brawl it must render ~19 characters unviable?

I don't think 38 characters are "otherwise viable" when compared to any tactic.

 

[Overswarm]

*facepalm*

50%+1, so 50% of 2 is 1, 1+1=2. Therefore in a game with two characters, a character needs to render 2 nonviable... yea, no.

Saying 50% + 1 and not defining it means we have to wonder if you mean 150% (wtf?), or 50% + 1 of characters rendered nonviable, or 50% + 1 of tournament placements, or whatever else.

It's a statutory definition taken from Sirlin, and of the otherwise viable characters.

I'm just defining it, not establishing a criteria based on it.


No, 50% is an operation, half of whatever input, and +1 means add 1 to the result.

I.... don't care about Sirlin.


Now are you meaning the character makes above 50% of the characters non-viable? That can't really be proven except with tournament results, and if you mean 50% or more of the tournament placements that's insane. I'm not sure what your 50% refers to at all.

 

[rvkevin]

I don't think 38 characters are "otherwise viable" when compared to any tactic.

Well is that what the criteria says? That a tactic must render ~19 characters nonviable to be over centralizing? I'm just asking for clarification because you were the one that presented the criteria.

It wouldn't be too bad to say that if a tactic is used in over 50% of matches that it would be over centralizing...Considering that the character using the tactic itself would need to be used 50% of the time.

 

[MarKO X]

wait a minute... why is that wheel square?

 

[rvkevin]

wait a minute... why is that wheel square?

Because someone failed to mention that it should be a circle. Its like someone saying it should have a something on the front axle and not mentioning what shape he was referring to. Or kind of like saying we should ban a tactic if "50%+1." without referring to anything.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Saying 50% + 1 and not defining it means we have to wonder if you mean 150% (wtf?), or 50% + 1 of characters rendered nonviable, or 50% + 1 of tournament placements, or whatever else.

None of which could've possibly resulted in your scenario.

I.... don't care about Sirlin.


Now are you meaning the character makes above 50% of the characters non-viable? That can't really be proven except with tournament results, and if you mean 50% or more of the tournament placements that's insane. I'm not sure what your 50% refers to at all.

I don't care that you don't care, as I said, I was merely pointing out how the term was defined.

Well is that what the criteria says? That a tactic must render ~19 characters nonviable to be over centralizing? I'm just asking for clarification because you were the one that presented the criteria.

It wouldn't be too bad to say that if a tactic is used in over 50% of matches that it would be over centralizing...Considering that the character using the tactic itself would need to be used 50% of the time.

It's not a criteria, it's a term, and generally considered a minimum requirement for banning.

Because someone failed to mention that it should be a circle. Its like someone saying it should have a something on the front axle and not mentioning what shape he was referring to. Or kind of like saying we should ban a tactic if "50%+1." without referring to anything.

But it's more fun this way, I wanted to see what you guys could get from it.

 

[Crow!]

What I'm sure we can agree on is that people who don't (or haven't recently) attend tournaments shouldn't have a say. I took the list of pro-banners and anti-banners from the last poll and compared it to Ankoku's list:...

I'm not in Ankoku's data. I play in tourneys, I just haven't placed in the top 8. While we're at it, to the best I can tell, "Humpy Thrashabout" doesn't show up in Ankoku's data, either...

Were the opinions of legitimate, active, paying members of the community independent of their ability to place at least once, this wouldn't be a problem. But one would suspect that those who don't do well in tourneys tend to have a more negative opinion of MK than those who do, so the sampling method is probably biased.

Also, I'm not even 100% convinced that the people listed to be excluded need to be excluded... but that's another debate entirely.

We need to find some other way of running a poll if it does come back to that.

Online polls can have issues, yeah. It could be interesting to ask tournament organizers to ask "do you favor a MK ban?" as players register for tourneys.

 

[rvkevin]

It's not a criteria, it's a term, and generally considered a minimum requirement for banning.

Criteria for a ban: a rule or principle for evaluating a ban

A term that is generally considered a minimum requirement for banning.

Its the same thing...

Question for anti-ban: If a character was used in over 50% of games, would that warrant a ban?

 

[Humpy Thrashabout]

Uh, you're not looking at the full data. Your name shows up. As does mine. I also linked the excel sheet with all my work in a previous post.

I don't think it shows anything we couldn't have already guessed though.

 

[Overswarm]

adumbrodeus, please specify exactly what the hell you're talking about in a whole statement instead of pulling an Omni and showing a flawed, fragmented piece of a pseudo-intellectual argument and then acting superior when we have to piece together what you can't articulate.

 

[Crow!]

Uh, you're not looking at the full data. Your name shows up. As does mine. I also linked the excel sheet with all my work in a previous post.

I don't think it shows anything we couldn't have already guessed though.

Oh? That's interesting. Where'd you get a full list of the players to attend every tournament? Because I could easily imagine that being useful data for other purposes... Ankoku's .txt files on his thread only have the top 8, and I didn't think he collected anything more than that.

And yeah, I saw the xlsx link, but I can't open office 2007 stuff, so I just assumed the data you had access to was the same that I did.

 

[Humpy Thrashabout]

Sorry, I didn't even think about office 2007. If you need to open xlsx's a lot you should give Open Office a shot or try Google Docs:
http://www.google.com/google-d-s/sp...ha-na-us-bk&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=xls online

Here is where I got the data (unfortunately in .xlsx, but I'll convert it for you if you want because I think you're a nice guy):
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262480

This is my work in .xls format:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JHTSTAGN

 

[Crow!]

Sorry, I didn't even think about office 2007. If you need to open xlsx's a lot you should give Open Office a shot or try Google Docs:
http://www.google.com/google-d-s/sp...ha-na-us-bk&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=xls online

Here is where I got the data (unfortunately in .xlsx, but I'll convert it for you if you want because I think you're a nice guy):
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262480

This is my work in .xls format:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JHTSTAGN

Thanks!

A quick flip through the "players that don't exist" sheet revealed a number of notable names I recognize (Blubba_Pinecone, for instance, is personally responsible for more than half Link's points in Ankoku's chart.. RedHalberd, TheBuzzSaw (or "lolbuzz" as the post exodus Link mains call him) is in there, TheReflex Wonder...). Fixing it all, of course, would take forever and accomplish nothing.


Oh, interesting.. that's that chart Omni had pulled out without explaining what it was. In that ranking method, I'm almost 0.1% as good as M2K. 2.44 points ftw!

Also, its scoring method is really weird. It's probably the only option for ranking the low end of the player spectrum though.

 

[AllyKnight]

Ally I guess they don't know the matchup.

There's a reason Falcon vs Wario is in Wario's favor lol.

yeah same could be said for Falcon ;D

 

[Turbo Ether]

yeah same could be said for Falcon ;D

All Falcon has to do is plank. TRUST ME FALCON CAN PLANK I'LL SHOW YOU THIS WEEKEND.

 

[MarKO X]

All Falcon has to do is plank. TRUST ME FALCON CAN PLANK I'LL SHOW YOU MY MOVES THIS WEEKEND.

fixed

10completelyjustifieds

 

[adumbrodeus]

Criteria for a ban: a rule or principle for evaluating a ban

A term that is generally considered a minimum requirement for banning.

Its the same thing...

Question for anti-ban: If a character was used in over 50% of games, would that warrant a ban?

I said "generally".

You seem to be missing a key point here, while I suggested one as a starting point for debate on the issue, I haven't thrown my support behind a single ban criteria ever.

All I did was define the term.


Well, at least for a character ban, tactics, that's what's been used for a while now.

adumbrodeus, please specify exactly what the hell you're talking about in a whole statement instead of pulling an Omni and showing a flawed, fragmented piece of a pseudo-intellectual argument and then acting superior when we have to piece together what you can't articulate.

You seem to misunderstand, I was asked to define overcentralization, I gave what was the closest thing you can get to the dictionary definition of overcentralization due to the person that coined the term defining it as such, no more, no less.


So, this isn't an argument, I was defining a term, and that should have been evident from context.

 

[rvkevin]

You seem to be missing a key point here, while I suggested one as a starting point for debate on the issue, I haven't thrown my support behind a single ban criteria ever.

I'm still missing the point, why would someone suggest a ban criteria that they don't even support?

You seem to misunderstand, I was asked to define overcentralization, I gave what was the closest thing you can get to the dictionary definition of overcentralization due to the person that coined the term defining it as such, no more, no less.

Actually, he was spot on. You seem to be missing a key point here, I didn't and don't care about what the dictionary definition of over centralization is. I wanted to know what you considered to be over centralization in terms of ban criteria, you know, how it relates to Brawl, the game we're talking about. I thought that would be obvious considering we're on SWF in a Brawl thread that is talking about MK and usually the topic is about should we or should we not ban him.

So lets try this again...In your opinion, at what point does a tactic or character (in Brawl) become over centralized and/or warrant a ban?

 

[castorpollux]

All Falcon has to do is plank. TRUST ME FALCON CAN PLANK I'LL SHOW YOU THIS WEEKEND.

dood falcon's plank is beastly

 

[CRASHiC]

All Falcon has to do is plank. TRUST ME FALCON CAN PLANK I'LL SHOW YOU THIS WEEKEND.

Only on Norfair.

 

[Kitamerby]

wrong

Adumby, Overswarm is right. If two different characters were in a game, one would be obviously better and overcentralize the metagame to the point where the only real way to win would be to choose that character because he has an advantage on the other character and an even matchup with itself. As such, due to the character's complete and utter dominance of tournament results, the character would be banned.

...Then we're left with a game with one character who... yanno... overcentralizes the results himself so... he sorta needs to be banned too.

Then we all bash our heads against our desks because we all just did something ridiculously stupid that technically made sense.

Then we go read a book or take a nap or something.

Then we make fun of Inui for a bit.

Then we go back to Melee.