Official Metaknight Discussion

[CRASHiC]

MLG comes up with rules for this game?

 

[Zankoku]

MLG will determine the ruleset for the tournaments in their upcoming season, I imagine. Which will probably come mostly from the community.

 

[GwJ]

I'm not purple anyway, I'm red.

You're purple in my eyes. <3

 

[Turbo Ether]

Didn't they consult the SBR back in the Melee days?

If they use the SBR ruleset, as it is, Planking/Scrooging/etc. would be legal at MLG events.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Well, this just got a whole lot more important, then.

 

[DMG]

WHICH SOUNDS GREAT!

MLG is where the money is at man.

 

[Humpy Thrashabout]

What a weird time for MLG to pick up Brawl.

Is there any speculation on how this will effect this whole MK thing? Through what process do they come up with the rules?

 

[HeroMystic]

Looks like we don't have six months after all.

 

[fkacyan]

I still don't understand why scrooging doesn't fall under exactly the same banner as every other type of excessive stalling.

Random, but I want this addressed.

 

[Spelt]

wait ... mlg is picking up brawl?

 

[Overswarm]

-Actually, if you do all the math considering how many Fully Evolved/usable at all Pokemon in compared to the Brawl character count, Garchomps 42% (not 44 olo) is MUCH higher than say, MK at 42%. Garchomp was overly dominant when he was banned. It'd be like if MK usages hit like 60%, but thats because its probably an even longer process to ban a Pokemon than a character. I'm serious.

1. I asked you this very question, ironic you're trying to fire it back, huh? But it doesn't work the other way around, AT ALL. This is something that you need to understand is the community's decision. Smash is unlike any other game out there, so we need to grab at straws, try to find examples, and try to find a place where an MK ban is completely justified. Thats why I used Chomp as an example, as at 42% (as I said, like what would be 60% in comparison), was a bit TOO dominant at that number before being banned, and since MK usage isn't even at that number, a ban seems rediculous. My personal point where I'd give up protecting MK is..... 51%. My reasons for that should be obvious. More than half the Metagame of dominance is too much. But you guys should help sort out what IS too much yourselves, because thats the only 100% solid way to ban a character, pure statistics that meet the requirements the community set as a ban standard.

51%, there we go.

This isn't for a community, this is for you.

2. This isn't even a real question. The top Characters on the Character Ranking List solve the question for you.

From my perspective, it's pretty much MK, Snake, and Diddy. Anyone else is just WAY too low (and even Diddy is pushing it).

Bam.

54%, this is 3% higher than your 51% of top 3 placements of viable characters.

If you believe it's viable to say, Lucario:

35% compared to Snake's miserable 19%, which is then dropped even more and you have a consistent rate of decline.


Without bunches of random wins from non-viable characters, MK's dominance stats are pretty high.


With all characters, the list shows as thus:

MetaKnight	0.270531401
Snake	0.148148148
DiddyKong	0.07568438
Marth	0.046698873
Falco	0.035426731
Wario	0.049919485
IceClimbers	0.057971014
KingDedede	0.046698873
Olimar	0.025764895
Lucario	0.014492754
ToonLink	0.014492754
MrGameWatch	0.017713366
ZeroSuitSamus	0.00805153
Kirby	0.014492754
Pikachu	0.019323671
DonkeyKong	0.01610306
ROB	0.019323671
Peach	0.012882448
Wolf	0.017713366
Luigi	0.011272142
Pit	0.00805153
Fox	0.006441224
Sonic	0.004830918
Ike	0.011272142
SheikZelda	0.006441224
Ness	0.004830918
PokémonTrainer	0.006441224
Link	0.004830918
Mario	0.006441224
Yoshi	0.003220612
CaptainFalcon	0.003220612
Ganondorf	0.006441224
Bowser	0.001610306
Samus	0
Lucas	0.003220612
Jigglypuff	0

With no cutoff it is at 27%, second being 14.8%, third being 7.5%, 4th being 4.6%, and then a slow and steady drop off.

In case you didn't notice, the dominance rating basically cuts in half from each character onward.

 

[Overswarm]

I still don't understand why scrooging doesn't fall under exactly the same banner as every other type of excessive stalling.

Random, but I want this addressed.

You can get hit.

 

[ShadowLink84]

MY MIND.

 

[Spelt]

I think you mean percentage in top 10?

those are pretty **** stats right there.

 

[Code Lyon]

Lol looks painful.

 

[swordgard]

You can get hit.

If people doubt this, go rob, jump offstage and laser. You can hit MK even when hes under the stage. Its just really hard.

 

[Overswarm]

I think you mean percentage in top 10?

those are pretty **** stats right there.

No, % in top 3. These are the money spots. Basically, this is how often they make money in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Jack Kieser]

OS, why do you keep ****** with stats?! Seriously, at least lube it up first.

... oh, wait. This is anti-ban we're talking about here. Yeah, give it to 'em harder.

 

[Zankoku]

Top 4, OS. My data doesn't have a separation between 3rd and 4th.

 

[etecoon]

If people doubt this, go rob, jump offstage and laser. You can hit MK even when hes under the stage. Its just really hard.

see why do people want MK banned just use ROB

 

[Code Lyon]

Even though MK ***** ROB

 

[fkacyan]

If people doubt this, go rob, jump offstage and laser. You can hit MK even when hes under the stage. Its just really hard.

Rob can hit characters who can circle camp, but that doesn't stop us from banning stages on account of the circles. I fail to see why scrooging is legal. It's just like people want more ammunition to - ohwait.

I also realized why the data pro-ban has presented has always bugged me; it wasn't apparent, if they were actually doing so, that they were segmenting for tourney size. If they weren't this means that an MK who wins 30 times at a 13 person tourney has the same significance as a Snake who wins a national 30 times.

If the data is segmented, just link to an explanation of how so, and if it isn't, do so for increments of, say, 16 people. So see how dominant MK is in the 16-32, 32-48, 48-64, etc people bands.

 

[Overswarm]

Top 4, OS. My data doesn't have a separation between 3rd and 4th.

oh right, my bad. Knew I shouldn't have posted before I finished.

 

[Overswarm]

Rob can hit characters who can circle camp, but that doesn't stop us from banning stages on account of the circles. I fail to see why scrooging is legal. It's just like people want more ammunition to - ohwait.

I also realized why the data pro-ban has presented has always bugged me; it wasn't apparent, if they were actually doing so, that they were segmenting for tourney size. If they weren't this means that an MK who wins 30 times at a 13 person tourney has the same significance as a Snake who wins a national 30 times.

If the data is segmented, just link to an explanation of how so, and if it isn't, do so for increments of, say, 16 people. So see how dominant MK is in the 16-32, 32-48, 48-64, etc people bands.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263082

And we have come full circle.

 

[TP]

The new MLG announcement makes me no longer support a temp ban. Now we just need to choose a GOOD anti-stalling rule and stick with it, in my mind.

 

[Crow!]

I also realized why the data pro-ban has presented has always bugged me; it wasn't apparent, if they were actually doing so, that they were segmenting for tourney size. If they weren't this means that an MK who wins 30 times at a 13 person tourney has the same significance as a Snake who wins a national 30 times.

If the data is segmented, just link to an explanation of how so, and if it isn't, do so for increments of, say, 16 people. So see how dominant MK is in the 16-32, 32-48, 48-64, etc people bands.

As I had said, my data uses Ankoku's scoring system. That works so that the importance of a tourney is proportional to the total number of players attending and the entry fee (not venue fee). So if a national has the same entry fee but 10 times as many players as a local tourney, it is 10x as important. If one local has as many players as another but only a $1 entry fee, then it doesn't count as much as the other.

If you're interested in results from only tourneys of particular sizes, OS has linked to what he did a while go in that regard.

 

[fkacyan]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263082

And we have come full circle.

And I'm to take it that the figures there are overall. I'm fairly sure that I'm in favor of a temp ban at this point, but would it kill you to, in addition to the figures you have, do the same point-system analysis and % list for 3 or 6 month increments?

Showing the change, or lack thereof, would make for a stronger argument either way.

 

[Overswarm]

If by " a while ago" you mean "first post about all this", then yes

 

[Overswarm]

And I'm to take it that the figures there are overall. I'm fairly sure that I'm in favor of a temp ban at this point, but would it kill you to, in addition to the figures you have, do the same point-system analysis and % list for 3 or 6 month increments?

Showing the change, or lack thereof, would make for a stronger argument either way.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9422054&postcount=58

and

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


Should be enough.

 

[Asdioh]

I'll make it easy for you guys; you won't get a response from me and since you won't get one from me I doubt there is anyone else who would be willing to do so.

Good luck.

>_>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVV_2JawBgc

^dojo knows what's up.

This is what happens when a Metaknight plays the matchup like he should. I only watch the first ~1.5 minute and then the end, but he looked like he was doing it right for the most part. A little too aggressive with bananas at times when imo he could have just thrown it out of Diddy's reach, but... 2 stock.

Hey guys, remember when people thought that ICs beat Metaknight but then Mew2King learned the matchup?

Yes, he's just taking much longer to learn theDiddy matchup. It makes sense I guess, his bananas are totally unlike anything any other smash character has brought out before.

I think I'll support whatever rules MLG comes up with. :V

wut

*looks for this MLG announcement you guys are talking about*

edit: lol they renamed general brawl discussion

 

[Albert.]

****itt now I'm pro-ban xD

 

[Code Lyon]

I predict a rise of MKs due to the MLG signing....idk what to say I have fun fighting MK with Fox (I'm still pro-ban) but the level gayness I predict will skyrocket too.....

 

[Black Mantis]

Now that this game is in MLG, what's going to happen to MK?

 

[Code Lyon]

It was signed today so we have to really wait and see. Kinda tense if you asked me.

 

[Crow!]

As he has recently alluded to, a while ago Thiocyanide asked:

What I'm interested in as far as the data is concerned is whether or not is dominance has continued to rise over the entire interval or whether or not it has plateaued and begun to go down.

I might be down for a temp ban. Maybe. It's not something I'm willing to consider prior to seeing month-by-month analysis of character dominance.

Those following Ankoku's rankings over time basically know the answer, but here it is narrowed down to month-by-month results. You can, of course, mentally average to groups of 3 months or whatever if it makes things easier for you.

The slope of the least squares regression line for MK is +7.13% per year.

As you can see, there's basically two trends in the data. During months of especially large tournaments, MK kicks even more butt than usual, and the amount by which he has been dominating during those months has been increasing. During the other months, MK's climb has been a bit slower, but it is still definitely an increase with no signs of falling off.

The slopes of the "spikes" is +15.8% per year. The slope of the "baseline" is +5.77% per year. Any way you look at it, MK's dominance is still rising, and not showing signs of plateauing, and most assuredly not showing signs of going down.

Now, it's not always sound to extrapolate data past the range of dates it came from. But feel free to think about just how much even more ridiculous MK's dominance could easily be in as short as 2 years from now if nothing dramatic happens to stop the trend. But where we are now is, of course, already pretty bad.

 

[Black Mantis]

I'm just expressing my opinion here but MK is detrimental to this game. I still don't know how this could effect MLG though.

 

[laki]

TBH, am I the only one who sees the actions in this thread and regarding this debate as enough to get Omni removed from the BBR? He has advocated people going against the BBR decision should it not go his way, he has been flaming and trolling and consistently showing a ******** face, and he has obviously made it clear that the opinion of smashboards and SIMPLE LOGIC does not matter to the mass of Metaknight mains. I have not seen ANY BBR member post worse around here. Well, M2K, but that's a different story...

I...actually completely agree.

 

[UltiMario]

stuff

Garchomp has 42% total dominance, so I DID mean 51% total dominance by MK. You're statistics clearly show thats not the case, so.... yeah.....

I do feel that this whole "How dominant is too dominant" thing IS a really important question though. A community agreement on that justifies more of a ban rather than yelling at eachother about MK facts. I mean, if the whole community finally agrees on "When a character has X% total dominance, they are broken and banworthy", then all thats left to do is wait and see what happens, no more yelling and ranting and Omni exploding from anger.

I just think this works out the best because NEITHER side should have any objections to something like this. Anti-Ban will feel as if MK will never reach the problematic %, and pro-ban will feel as if he'll (quickly/eventually) get there and get unarguably banned. Sure, the deal itself of what dominance is too much will be a big arguement, but its one topic to be settled on, and once its settled, thats all there is to it, there is very little that could throw this off.

Just throwing that out there~

 

[Luxor]

Wow Crow. Where do you get all the time to do all this stuff?

 

[Throwback]

Crow's latest post is a very, very convincing pro-ban argument. It's downright scary, in fact.

The more data that I see, the more anti-ban appears to be selfish rather than community-focused.