Official Metaknight Discussion

[Flayl]

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

According to that I don't go to tournaments. Whatever searching algorithm you used is flawed.

 

[Crow!]

According to that I don't go to tournaments. Whatever searching algorithm you used is flawed.

It came from that player ranking project, which, because of the algorithm it uses, can not take any data from tournaments which did not upload their comprehensive results in tio format. This might be fine on average, but there's a lot of unknowns... does the likelihood of tourneys doing this depend on tourney location? Size? Player composition?

 

[rvkevin]

According to that I don't go to tournaments. Whatever searching algorithm you used is flawed.

I think he used Ankoku's data, so if your region doesn't post tournament results, you're not going to be listed.

 

[Flayl]

I post the results.

edit: http://theviashino.com/ssbb/tournaments-2009-9.txt

 

[Crow!]

I post the results.

edit: http://theviashino.com/ssbb/tournaments-2009-9.txt

The project in question takes full results. Like, all the way down to pools. When Humpy said he was using Ankoku's "list," he didn't mean what we understand that to mean at all.

There's also the possibility that the project (a fairly recent one, it seems) just simply misses some tourneys, too. Whatever the case, for our purposes, that project has some work to do before it's up to the caliber of Ankoku's rankings data we've been using.

Don't get me wrong.. such an ambitious project is to be encouraged. It's just not there yet.

 

[Overswarm]

The project is headed up by Rajam, and it has virtually none of the tournaments at this point in time. It's a lot of work and is very much in the early stages.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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

I dunno, AS A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION. Because we really do desperately need one, and I was prepared to compromise in order to achieve an eventual criteria that we could agree on.

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?

That's not what you asked, a little tip, "if you cannot say what you mean you can never mean what you say".


Regardless, as I pointed out, it's a fine criteria on it's own for tactics, but character banning generally requires more.


For character, my personal threshold is 75% + 1 of the otherwise viable cast, about equivalent to 80-20 or worse.


With tournament results to back this up (of the empirical MUs kind, not simply win ratio).


That's my default standard (would make me pro-ban regardless of a community criteria). My standard that makes me want something banned is this: Makes marth essentially non-viable.


Again, that's in the absence of a general community standard (or an unreasonable one is present).


So... why didn't you say so at the beginning?

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.

...

Erm, and that's why the +1 was there. It's literally impossible for, in a game with two characters a single character to overcentalize, because it would require him/her to render two characters non-viable.


Furthermore, it's nonviable... just because a single character beats a certain amount of the cast doesn't mean he renders them non-viable.

 

[Overswarm]

Adumbrodeus, I don't think you quite understand what we're saying at all.

Post clearly what exactly you're trying to say please; don't leave anything to the imagination or assume we know what you are talking about.







In other news:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/130347/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-24-2010#s-p1-so-i0

Doesn't the bit before the first commercial break remind you of anti-ban SO MUCH?!

 

[Asdioh]

Either anti-ban doesn't have an internet connection... or!

THEY NEVER LEARNED HOW TO REAAAAD T_T


edit: oh, the part where they're waiting for the president's thoughts, and then when they get 11 pages of it they're like "... now what :/?"

edit2: or practically the entire part before the commercial is what you're talking about, jeez

 

[Espy Rose]

OS.

5:00-5:20 in that video.

That was this discussion. So. ****ing. hard.

 

[Kuraudo]

Baw I'm Canadian cannot see.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Baw I'm Canadian cannot see.

German. Same deal.

 

[Overswarm]

OS.

5:00-5:20 in that video.

That was this discussion. So. ****ing. hard.

I thought the same exact thing XD

 

[Overswarm]

It's the daily show from Feb. 24th, 2009. Good luck!

 

[HeroMystic]

In other news:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/130347/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-24-2010#s-p1-so-i0

Doesn't the bit before the first commercial break remind you of anti-ban SO MUCH?!

That was just freakish with how spot-on it is.

 

[Asdioh]

You can't watch it if you're not 'merkin? I suppose that makes sense, with all the top-secret information contained in that video...

 

[Dark 3nergy]

SUMMMMMM SUMMMMMM EEEEET

so your saying smashers cant spell nor read




thats perfectly logical

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adumbrodeus, I don't think you quite understand what we're saying at all.

Post clearly what exactly you're trying to say please; don't leave anything to the imagination or assume we know what you are talking about.

I have.


For my personal criteria, sub in 75%, and everything else applies.

In other news:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/130347/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-24-2010#s-p1-so-i0

Doesn't the bit before the first commercial break remind you of anti-ban SO MUCH?!

... huh?

Sounds to me like pro-ban is in the clear majority in popular opinion, but they don't have the required votes to break a filibuster.

 

[Delvro]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/130347/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-24-2010#s-p1-so-i0

Doesn't the bit before the first commercial break remind you of anti-ban SO MUCH?!

Wow.... the similarities are scary.... it's always amazing to see such noticeable patterns in human psychology.

Republicans against healthcare reform = proponents of status-quo
Anti-ban = proponents of status-quo

both are characteristic of the same type of person and the same form of thinking. It says a lot about who you are.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Republicans would be pro-ban. Just sayin'.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Republicans would be pro-ban. Just sayin'.

They're also more often than not idiots. :V

 

[Delvro]

Republicans would be pro-ban. Just sayin'.

I respectfully disagree.

Republicans are labelled conservative, thus resistant to change.
Banning metaknight is a huge change in the metagame and will likely shift the scene completely.

That's my reasoning. =P
I guess it's not that big of a deal though.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Wow.... the similarities are scary.... it's always amazing to see such noticeable patterns in human psychology.

Republicans against healthcare reform = proponents of status-quo
Anti-ban = proponents of status-quo

both are characteristic of the same type of person and the same form of thinking. It says a lot about who you are.

I believe this correlation was strongly hinted at in the constructivism vs. originalism thread with a similar correlation.

 

[demonictoonlink]

They're also more often than not idiots. :V

So you agree that Republicans are idiots and republicans would be pro-ban?
But... ... Are you sure you agree with me here?

And my reasoning doesn't really follow OS's thread.

 

[etecoon]

associating anti-ban with the republican party...this is the most underhanded, dirty, low blow, AMAZING move yet

I love you overswarm

 

[Delvro]

associating anti-ban with the republican party...this is the most underhanded, dirty, low blow, AMAZING move yet

I love you overswarm

It makes a lot of sense though, doesn't it? Although maybe Republican is an oversimplification... conservatives would be more accurate, although the two groups are similar.

 

[Overswarm]

associating anti-ban with the republican party...this is the most underhanded, dirty, low blow, AMAZING move yet

I love you overswarm

Not exactly, just the constant evasion and backpedaling noted in the show.

I mean, come on.

The republican party is organized.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

They're also more often than not idiots. :V

yes but when you look at how democrats havent done **** in the senate, whose the bigger idiot. The group of people trying to fail at reform? Or the other group that is most likely to fail as well.

Then we all come full circle when it comes back to smash, because pro and anti cant get anything done!!!

Getting MK banned!? *adjusts monocle* PURPOSTERIOUS!!!!

 

[Delvro]

yes but when you look at how democrats havent done **** in the senate, whose the bigger idiot. The group of people trying to fail at reform? Or the other group that is most likely to fail as well.

Major flamebait right here.

 

[zeldspazz]

Ooh politics.

This always ends splendidly.

 

[demonictoonlink]

^
Agreed with zeldspazz. Imma sit back and watch for a few pages.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

Major flamebait right here.

How when im calling both parties complete morons? l2read

 

[MarKO X]

How when im calling both parties complete morons? l2read

Exactly...
how you gonna call everyone a moron and not expect to get attacked? :D

 

[Dark 3nergy]

This thread isnt about the United States politics, its about anti-ban raging about not getting what they want.

 

[etecoon]

its about anti-ban raging about not getting what they want.

really? because last I knew MK was still legal, there were no plans or even serious discussions about it in the SBR, and there were a large number of tournament hosts pledging to never ban meta knight even if the SBR wished it. just because anti-ban has thoroughly gotten its *** kicked in this debate doesn't mean that they're "not getting what they want".

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

It's hilarious that people are pledging not to ban MK against all evidence because their friends play MK or whatever.

 

[iRJi]

Does not matter. TO's can be replaced. >_>. People forget they are just children like everyone else lol. If one person has the capabilities of hosting a tournament, others can too.

 

[iceman48]

really? because last I knew MK was still legal, there were no plans or even serious discussions about it in the SBR, and there were a large number of tournament hosts pledging to never ban meta knight even if the SBR wished it. just because anti-ban has thoroughly gotten its *** kicked in this debate doesn't mean that they're "not getting what they want".

He didn't mean 'not getting what they want' in as broad a sense as you're looking at it, he's talking about the fact that every time anti-ban brings up something that even resembles criteria ("We want overcentralization. No, now we want numbers and data. No, now we won't allow numbers because they can be misconstrued. Haha."), they backpeddle and ask for something else, until they have reached the state they're in where they don't even argue, they bring up irrelevant points or cover their ears (or eyes, since this is a board.)

It's the same as the video, where the Reps said they wouldn't answer a guy without a mustache, then they said they wouldn't answer a guy without a handlebar mustache, then they said no, we won't answer anyone with a mustache.

Also, your second point is false, depending on your definition of 'serious'. There is a discussion about it in the SBR, as made apparent here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=264241.
Section 2 is pretty straightforward.

 

[ShadowLink84]

LOL@TO's pledging.

Yeah, battle lines are being drawn over a videogame character.
Congratulations!, the child is you.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

LOL@TO's pledging.

Yeah, battle lines are being drawn over a videogame character.
Congratulations!, the child is you.

I'd like to see how many of those TOs would change their minds if a different TO in their area began to have MK banned tournaments and ended up with more people showing up.

TOs can say whatever they want, but when it boils down to it they'll do what their customers want. If they want money, they have no other choice.