Official Metaknight Discussion

[Dark.Pch]

Alot of what your complaining about is the play to win strategy idea most take up. Im afraid thats something you cant really ban since its a players decision to really want to win the tournament. And part of being a good player is being able to break through metas arsenal of gay and defeat him. That task can be made harder or easier depending on the tools you are given to work with, with whatever character your on.

I am not complaining about meta. I am one of those people that feel he should not be banned. You misread my post.

 

[WindMajor]

Is there actual evidence that tournament attendance is dropping due to MK?

There was a chart that showed a steady decline of attendants, but the anti-bans had an issue with it. The argument is in Omni's thread, and the link is in the OP of this thread.

 

[Tommy_G]

Pikachu is more broken in Smash 64 than MK is in Brawl, yet Isai still wins tournaments and beats top level Pikachu players with Link(someone considered to currently be the 2nd worst character in the game.)

Pikachu has an advantage over every other character in the game except maybe Fox. There's speculation that the match-up is even.

Problems with MK sounds like people need stop *****ing, grow up, and get better.

 

[Sosuke]

Isai is just that good.

 

[lordvaati]

with the Smash bros series, and most other fighters, the newcomers are usually overpowered in most ways. Nintendo's philosophy is to introduce a new character, see how he/she/it meshes up with the returning cast, and make the tweaks needed in the next game. in 64, Pikachu was pouhnd for pound the best character in the game, but since everyone else was new, they were all broken in their own seperate ways( DK's Grabs, Mario's Fireballs, Fox's aerials) so it was balanced in a starnge sort of way. in Melee, the new guys came full force. Cap's new Fair gave him the unaminous best killing move in the game, Marth had godly range fron his swords and grabs, but the pinnacle of the new additions came in the form of Zelda- or rather her alter-ego, sheik. intended to be a weaker but faster form, it was later revealed to be a far superior form, with shocking knockback in her aerials, a learning curve as small as Ganon's, and chaingrabs from hell, which shut down half the cast effortlessly. with speed, power, a small learning curve, and great matchups, Sheik reigned over the Melee metagame for a staggering 5 year, before it was eveled that Fox had a better game potential in 2006. even on the current tier, all the tops are 4 newcomers and 1 veteran. in 2008, Brawl has come to the scene, and like in tradition, the newcomers have taken over the scene. once again, a character intended to be weaker then in actuality has taken over the scene. thy name is metaknight. with many recovey options, an up-B with supreme knockback, and many other features, MK has daminated the scene for 3 lists and 2 years. now discussion has been raised over whether he should be banned. 4 times this was attempted, and 4 times this has failed. people rage, and demand a 5th list to end it all....in the 2nd year. on 9 lists, Sheik reigned on 7. with the 4th for brawl coming at anytime, people expect a new darknes with MK and want it stopped....forgetteing of the shift on July 8th of the 2006th year. my message is this: the melee community thrived for 5 years under the rule of an empress, and changed the world with their own hands. Who's to say lightning won't strike twice?

 

[Flayl]

There was a chart that showed a steady decline of attendants, but the anti-bans had an issue with it. The argument is in Omni's thread, and the link is in the OP of this thread.

You didn't read his post correctly. He's asking for a correlation between attendance dropping and MK.

Which honestly is going to be a hard question to answer because we would need to survey lots of people that quit attending tournaments...

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Pikachu is more broken in Smash 64 than MK is in Brawl, yet Isai still wins tournaments and beats top level Pikachu players with Link(someone considered to currently be the 2nd worst character in the game.)

Pikachu has an advantage over every other character in the game except maybe Fox. There's speculation that the match-up is even.

Yes, that's because it's Isai. He's a better player than the Pikachus, therefore he wins. That doesn't show that Pika isn't the best character or anything, it just shows that the best SSB64 player can beat the best character in the game.

It's the same thing with Ally and ADHD. They beat MKs. All that shows is that they are good enough to beat MKs.

Problems with MK sounds like people need stop *****ing, grow up, and get better.

I hate people who say this. I mean seriously, think about what you're saying. You're telling everyone other than Ally, ADHD, and maybe a few others that they should get better. THEY ALREADY ARE BETTER. And it's the fact that everyone other than these elite players cannot beat MK (and the fact that there are so many MK's dominating the scene that they are impossible to avoid) that is one of the reasons that pro-ban thinks he is overcentralizing the game and therefore wants a ban.

It seems like this is what a lot of anti-ban people use when they can't think of a real argument.

 

[Tommy_G]

Yes, that's because it's Isai. He's a better player than the Pikachus, therefore he wins. That doesn't show that Pika isn't the best character or anything, it just shows that the best SSB64 player can beat the best character in the game.

It's the same thing with Ally and ADHD. They beat MKs. All that shows is that they are good enough to beat MKs.



I hate people who say this. I mean seriously, think about what you're saying. You're telling everyone other than Ally, ADHD, and maybe a few others that they should get better. THEY ALREADY ARE BETTER. And it's the fact that everyone other than these elite players cannot beat MK (and the fact that there are so many MK's dominating the scene that they are impossible to avoid) that is one of the reasons that pro-ban thinks he is broken and therefore wants a ban.

It seems like this is what a lot of anti-ban people use when they can't think of a real argument.

Your argument conflicts with itself.

You say Ally and ADHD are good enough to beat MKs as how Isai is good enough to beat Pikachus, but then you say said players can't beat MK.

Maybe I should have been a bit clearer. The margin between Pikachu and the other characters exceeds the margin between MK and the other characters of their respective games. It is much harder for Link to beat Pikachu than it is for Snake to beat MK.

You're saying also Isai wins because he's a better player. In this case, if Ally and ADHD lose, it makes them worse players. I thought players that were worse were suppose to lose.

Stop taking credability away from good players just because they use a good character.

 

[Zankoku]

Wait, what's the problem with getting better? I mean, like you said, Ally and ADHD got better and can beat Meta Knight players. Are you saying that people like Ally and ADHD won't happen again? Is it because not all of our names start with A?

 

[Overswarm]

Rebuttal

First line and we encounter a major problem. Overswarm pretty much admits that Metaknight not falling from his throne is a problem. Him, and most pro-ban players, have a major issue with a fighting game having a dominant top character (probably because of Melee). However, as I've said time and time again, a game with a clear cut best character is perfectly fine. There have been dozens of extremely popular fighting games that have clear cut best characters. There have been dozens more where only 2 or 3 of the cast was truly tourny viable.

One character (MK) having clear dominance over the rest of the cast isn't anything new. It's new if the only competitive fighting game you've touched before Brawl was Melee.

You've tipped your hand a bit here, Omni.

You've said that emulating Melee, a game that has been played successfully for about a decade on a competitive level, is bad. Despite the fact that Melee is the closest relative to Brawl, I can understand this concept. Forge our own way, don't use other games as examples, just cut our own path. I don't necessarily agree with it 100%, but I understand the idea that we can't appeal to another game's success.

But then you follow it by saying we should emulate "dozens of extremely popular fighting games"! Why should we accept a game with a dominating character that only has 2 or 3 of the cast being viable?

Those games have no following. Melee beats them and it's a decade old! I'm not going to emulate games followed by 30 year old guys that travel once or twice a year to their rare big tournament event, nor am I going to emulate games with 20 year olds that say "yeah, he's broken, but the sequel will fix that next year". I won't accept the flaws that they have and consider it a success, especially if we get their pathetic numbers.

I was originally going to go through and collect data on SF4 characters to see how much of a parallel it was, but I'm unable to go in nearly as much detail as I'd like because they're all such tiny events. Bi-weekly events with 21 people showing up, consistent 16 man brackets, and they're local events. They don't have the travelling events on the basis that we do.

Why should we accept the standards of an inferior system? Smash is awesome.


So now we've got a few hints: It's not that you're against the banning of MK because you think things will slow down or maybe reverse... it's that it doesn't matter what the results are. If they aren't 100% MK in the top 8 at a national, I don't think it'd phase you. Hell, if that happened once you'd say it was a fluke.

Nothing to argue here. Statistical facts and a brief interpretation that I agree with.

For future reference I'll only quote statements that I have an issue with. If it isn't quoted, assume that I agree with the statement or the statement is a statistical fact.

Ditto

Yes, the best character in a game will dictate which characters in the rest of the cast are tournament viable. This is common sense but it seems that Overswarm is painting this fact in a negative light.

Yes, I am.

Smash is a game of counterpicks. Matchups are very, very important; because of how the game plays, your character can make or break you on a very consistent basis based on the player and stage. When one character is determining the entire tier list in smash, it means the following:

-that character has no direct counter

If he did, you'd see a near-equal rise between the two characters. If we saw a lot of Fox players appear out of nowhere and do great, you'd probably see a lot of Pikachu or ZSS appear shortly afterwards and create a large disparity in the results. We have not seen this, but instead have seen a rise in the original character followed by smaller rises in non-MK characters that aren't completely dominated by MK.

-that character has no bad stages

MK has bad stages, but they aren't legal anymore. If a character has really bad stages (like Diddy), you find the chance of an upset much more likely. Since the CP is often to go in favor of the non-Diddy, you'll find more Diddy sets going 2-1 at equal skill levels than you'd normally see in other matchups. This means the player only has to win one match to create an upset, which makes Diddy a less viable solo character when his bad stages are around.

It is not coincidental at all. I'm pretty sure Overswarm knows this so throwing in this "alternative" option is just for flavor. Again, it seems that OS has an issue with this fact in general.

It's the only other possibility I could think of, so I threw it in. Tasted spicy.

Metaknight dominates Dedede hardcore. This isn't a problem and it isn't surprising.

Replace Dedede with pretty much every character in Brawl. =P

Zangief in SF4 is a powerhouse in nearly all of his match-ups. Except one. Sagat. People argue that this match-up is either 70-30 or 80-20 in Sagats favor. The point is the best character in the game, Sagat, directly counters Zangief. Let's stop here. Is that a problem? I don't think so.

So then the next argument is, "But Zangief would be so much more tourny viable if Sagat was gone!" The answer to that comment is, "You are correct,", but what does removing the best character in the game in order to cater Zangief and the rest of the cast being inferior have to do with Sagat as an individual? Nothing.

That isn't my argument. I'm saying look at Snake, he does well but is countered by Dedede and has tons of other tough and even matchups! Pikachu, ROB, Olimar, Marth, Wario, even Pit have all been claimed to do okay vs. him. Look at Dedede, he is countered by Falco and Olimar. Look at Wario, he's got counters in characters like Peach for pete's sake. Look at Falco, he's countered by stages alone and has plenty of bad and even matchups. Look at the other top characters and you don't see "he dominates the entire cast except for X". You see "He beats these characters, goes even with these, loses to these" for all of them except Metaknight.

I may be using an outdated chart, so feel free to show me a new one, but...

The difference between the best character and worst character in the game is incredibly low. The worst character in the game has primarily 40-60 matchups and plenty of even ones.

From my research on shoryuken, zangief also isn't a powerhouse at all; Sagat, Ryu, and Akuma are all ranked above him on the tier list and all have an advantage against him. The most recent discussion also seems to be about the possibiliy of Akuma being the best character in the game, but that could easily just be talk.

I feel the same about Sagat in this game that I do in ST about O.Sagat. O. Sagat TRAMPLED on the majority of the cast but he lost to the others in the top 4. He lost to Rog, barely and also had slight disadvantage to Sim and Claw.

In SF4 it's kinda similar. He either goes even with Ryu or only has a VERY slight advantage and then Gouki flat out beats him. Match-up wise he is the strongest but at the end of tourney rounds where you will see more of the top 3 Sagat will get edged out.

Sagat also has legitimate gameplay weaknesses. He can be OSed AND safe jumped. Shotos don't really need to worry about this especially Gouki. He can also be outfootsied and is extremely susceptible to wake-up vortexes. He is strong but there are chinks in his armor. He isn't perfect. But then you look at Ryu and it's like...wtf does this guy suck at?

Gouki has that random factor as you mentioned. SF4 is SOOOOOOOOOO momentum based when it comes to knockdowns. That's why chars like Abel, Viper and even Elf can have strong showings. Give that ability to a solid foundation and you have Gouki.

It seems to me that SF4 seems to emulate Melee more than it does in Brawl. In Melee if you played a crappy character like DK, you could still be a beast once you got inside. The problem was GETTING there. In Brawl, you're good if you can GET inside because you have so many small chip-damage exchanges. Mobility is king in Brawl.

In SF4, you have a health bar. If someone knocks you down or uses a high damage combo, it doesn't matter that you're using a better character. You can read an opponent in SF4 and still win out because not only are the characters fairly close to each other across the board, but the game has a lot of momentum-based gameplay. Once you get the ball rolling in your favor, you can get a lot of damage done.

Brawl isn't like that. Brawl is "in and out". You get a good combo off at low %, but after that it's single hits, edgeguards, and reads.

So to compare MK to Sagat is pretty ridiculous. Sagat has glaringly obvious weaknesses and several other characters near or at his level.

Another issue I have with Overswarm is his attempt to cater to the rest of the cast; to let more characters have more chances of winning because that's what a fun game is all about. That's scrubby mentality. The point of having a "best character" in any game is the fact that they dominate the majority of the cast; if they didn't, they probably wouldn't be the best. What is occurring, still, is a conflict of how Overswarm views the metagame and how it should exist. He simply disagrees with the nature of a game where clear dominance exist. Is he wrong in his thinking? Nah, but I think maybe due to his lack of experience with 3rd party fighting games with the added fact that he participated in the Melee metagame sways his judgement in the creation of the metagame he wants to be portrayed for Brawl.

Cater to the rest of the cast? You live in the region that bans planking and standing infinites and every stage with moving parts!

The point is that we don't have to have an overly dominant character. No one cares if one character is just shown more often in tournament, and everyone knows there will be a tier list... but Metaknight is clearly a step above and beyond every other character in the game.

Yes, Metaknight is still the clear winner. Putting emphasis on the fact that Metaknight is the best character in the game isn't an argument.

For you. Some people still argue that Snake or Diddy have a shot... they don't. It has and always will be Metaknight.

I'm also not merely stating that MK is the best character in the game. I'm showing you exactly how dominant he is. To you this means nothing; you're okay with nearly supreme dominance. For those that would like to enjoy Brawl, it's a big deal.

However, the fact is that a non-MK user has recently started to dominate MK in tournament. Not only has this Diddy dominated MK, but he has proven that Diddy can handle the rest of the cast just as well. The reason the results show a small spike with Diddy is because one player is using Diddy's potential at a much higher level calibur.

You cannot ignore the fact that a Diddy took 1st place in one of the biggest national brawl tournaments up to date.

The argument, "But it's one person," or "ADHD is special" is bologna. What ADHD did was show to the smash scene that Diddy has the potential and capabilities of wreaking absolute havoc in the game including against Metaknight himself.

Ally's Snake, taking 3rd at the same tournament, is the same example with ADHD. These players aren't special. We all picked up the disc and started from the same point; these two players simply have put the most effort in to opening and exploring a character that is more complex and harder to use than MK.

They ARE special. That's why we've lost high level Snake players and why even Ally himself picked up MK.

Also:

ADHD camps and just waits for openings to present themselves, and the MK mains, being less technical than any Diddy main with items, fall into the traps and, not knowing their options, get *****.

It's NOT an even match-up, the instant MK mains practice item techs, Diddy will have a new counter- MK.

It's funny how the Diddy-BR has gotten to the point where they have made a pact to not tell anyone how to play the Diddy MU, or even go to the extent of telling crewmates INCORRECT things to do against Diddy.

Oh boy.

and my original statistics showing that most Diddy and MK mains think it is either in MK's favor or an even matchup. These are people that play the matchup and at ALL levels of play. The only high profile MK to say it is in Diddy's favor is M2K, who has previously said a plethora of ridiculous things, and the only high profile Diddys to claim it is even has been ADHD and AZ.

So yeah, they're special. All of the data we have indicate that they are what we call an "outlier". Not the standard. Not something to expect happen in large numbers.

The Metaknight "issue" that you refer to is very unclear at this point. Ally's Snake and ADHD's Diddy is proof that there are characters who can go toe-to-toe and beat both Metaknight and the rest of the cast. It's actually perfect example of how players can break through the Metaknight barrier. ADHD was not this dominant when the MK issue was around a year ago, however one year later, look at him. Growing. Growing = healthy.

Metaknight had a headstart because he was the best character in the game. The best character being overused and overplayed and thus outspeeding the metagame race is not surprising nor abnormal.

First, Snake and Dedede were the most played at the beginning of the game. We have plenty of data to show this; you even agreed with it early. Metaknight was LATE to the game. M2K mained D3 in the beginning even, remember?

also,

No. ADHD and Ally are proof that players can beat MK. Players=/=characters. Just because two of the top players in the world can defeat MK does not mean that every Diddy and Snake can beat every Meta Knight.

You never responded to the people that responded to you.

Red light. This is Overswarm hinting again to his true intention: attempting to create a metagame that is similar in nature of Melee's. However you cannot ignore the growth that stares us in the face. Diddy is a threat. Snake is a threat. It is up to the community to pick up and possibly expand these characters. That's already 3 characters who are "viable".

What is this based upon? Using the ADHD/Ally example really doesn't work when you use it as a generalization. The only thing it proves is that two of the best players in the world are capable of beating another one of the best players in the world.

Speaking of viable, we have players like DEHF's Falco who consistently takes 1st place in West Coast. Players like Boss' Luigi and Logic's Olimar and Chu's Kirby completely dominating their scene. Riddle's Zero Suit Samus just recently placed over Seibrik in the Florida region. Ice Climbers is a huge threat to Metaknight.

Tournament Results please.

How are ICs a huge threat to MK? What are you basing this off of?

These results aren't fluke. It's growth. It's people expanding their characters without a massive army behind. Not only is it possible for people to place over MK, but it is happening on a very consistent basis and rapidly increasing as time moves forward.

No one's arguing that MK can't be beaten.

Yeah, except as I showed in my data, MK has been a clear consistent winner when everyone gets together. Hell, Tyrant and Dojo, two of the best MKs in the world, didn't even attend pound.

This is simply Overswarm being a drama queen and trying to capture the audience's attention by showing a statistical fact that does not directly relate to MK's existence.

A more accurate description of what that chart shows is the initial boom of the game. Then slowly but surely all of the MELEE players who did not like the change in the game dropped from the scene.

Bad, Overswarm. Bad.

This is being researched, and was stated in the beginning. Also, it's already been proven it wasn't a "melee boom" because the graph starts in june. Brawl was released in March. The decrease is real, and we're looking into it; we haev to manually collect data that hasn't been reported.

More importantly, I don't think there is a smasher I know that hasn't had multiple quit and mention MK as their reason. It's a big enough deal to where people don't have to read about it on smashboards; they talk about it every tournament.

What does an argument changing have to do with anything if previous arguments still directly answer "new" arguments that are being made?

That's the thing.... they don't. Anti-ban arguments have changed over time and adopted ADHD as their new hero instead of Ally. That kinda thing.

You simply want him banned based on your interpretation of how you believe the metagame of Brawl should exist. Do not impose your ideals as absolute and suggest such a need when many people will share many different and equally as important views on the subject. This has been my main quarrel with you, Overswarm. Your ideas are not superior. They are views. There are many paths of finding a solution and yours is simply one path.

The fact that he can present his views in a logical and cohesive manner is nice. It's not like he just said "I'm in the SBR, ban MK."

Metaknight does not need a "magical counter". This emphasis on finding someone who can defeat Metaknight is, again, you being discontent with a best character existing in competitive fighting game. You disagree with its setup and wish you establish a new one.

Isn't this just your opinion of "it's okay if MK limits the game to three potential characters and has an insane win ratio"?

By people, I hope you mean the SBR. The majority public does not whine about LGL's or gliding limits. At Pound 4, none of these "problems" even presented themselves. However, most pro-ban players will use what they can get as ammunition to present a case against Metaknight. In reality, these "issues" only reveal themselves once in a blue moon.

The majority public doesn't whine about LGLs or gliding limits because they hurt Metaknight. M2K stalled Ally to time without doing these things. We don't have to scrounge around for things to use as ammunition, they're given to us at every event.

The fact that multiple characters can use the same technique is a good one. It means that it isn't character specific. The fact that Metaknight can do it the best simply reestablishes why he is #1 in the tier list.

The fact that he can do it to the extent that he can reestablishes the fact that he is head and shoulders above everyone else.

I disagree. I don't think the character is the problem. I truly believe that the majority of the community was spoiled by Melee's metagame and wishes to have a repeat metagame with Brawl. That and the majority will have scrubby mentalities when it comes to dealing with the best character in a game just like EVERY other fighting game community.

What about everyone who plays Brawl that didn't play Melee?

The ohio smash scene has about, oh, ZERO FAMILIAR FACES. It's me, AZ, and Kel. Past that, I don't see anyone from Melee days except on very rare occasions. This isn't a problem that can be solved by saying 'you have expectations from Melee'.

 

[Espy Rose]

And it's the fact that everyone other than these elite players cannot beat MK (and the fact that there are so many MK's dominating the scene that they are impossible to avoid) that is one of the reasons that pro-ban thinks he is broken and therefore wants a ban.

It seems like this is what a lot of anti-ban people use when they can't think of a real argument.

I could've sworn that the pro-ban argument wasn't/isn't using "MK is broken" as a means to get him banned.
Yeah, I'm positive.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Sup guys, I feel strongly about Metaknight being banned so I quote a lot and really on logical fallacies to win arguments.

 

[-Mars-]

Try spelling rely right next time when you try to make a joke.

 

[xDD-Master]

so omni, if MK is proven to completely shut down(65-35 or worse) 1/2 -2/3 of the cast you couldn't care? you'd still be anti-ban?

just curious

@ripple: considering that MK has enough 50/50 matchups no i don't find it a problem. this game wasn't made in a way where all characters should have an equal chance for placing 1st place and being tournament viable nor should we attempt to force the game to follow that kind of metagame if it doesn't naturally fall in place as is

You didnt answer his question LAWL

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Your argument conflicts with itself.

I'm pretty sure you misread my post.

You say Ally and ADHD are good enough to beat MKs as how Isai is good enough to beat Pikachus, but then you say said players can't beat MK.

I clearly said "You're telling everyone other than Ally, ADHD, and maybe a few others that they should get better." I think you misread.

Maybe I should have been a bit clearer. The margin between Pikachu and the other characters exceeds the margin between MK and the other characters of their respective games. It is much harder for Link to beat Pikachu than it is for Snake to beat MK.

True enough. But at the same time, what Pika player is even close to Isai's skill level? (Forgive me for not knowing names or anything, I don't follow SSB64 very closely).

You're saying also Isai wins because he's a better player. In this case, if Ally and ADHD lose, it makes them worse players. I thought players that were worse were suppose to lose.

I'm confused as to what you're saying here. Yes, a player that loses is a worse character. ADHD and Ally win, though.

Stop taking credability away from good players just because they use a good character.

Please show me where I did this.

Wait, what's the problem with getting better? I mean, like you said, Ally and ADHD got better and can beat Meta Knight players. Are you saying that people like Ally and ADHD won't happen again? Is it because not all of our names start with A?

Of course it's possible for people like ADHD and Ally for emerge. But let's look at it like this: Brawl has been out for almost 2 years. Two players (Ally and ADHD) have shown that they can beat the best MKs, including M2K, on a consistent basis. Two players in two years. That's not to say that it's obviously going to follow a pattern of one player each year, but the fact that only two players so far have shown that they are capable of "dethroning" the best Meta Knights shows just how difficult of a task it is.

Also, it's not like the MK players are waiting for everyone else to catch up to their skill level, they're getting better also.


EDIT:

I could've sworn that the pro-ban argument wasn't/isn't using "MK is broken" as a means to get him banned.
Yeah, I'm positive.

That's beside the point. I'll reword my post if it makes you happy.

 

[Espy Rose]

That's beside the point. I'll reword my post if it makes you happy.

Please do so. The last thing we need in here is more confusion because of a post that doesn't properly convey one's statements.

 

[GreenFox]

We've tried Brawl up until now with MK legal. Why can't we have a six month temporary ban? Consider the findings, the changes in character trends, and then make a final vote after the summer has passed.

This is the best I've heard yet ban him for a short period and see how the community reacts then decide from there

 

[Overswarm]

Hey guys, remember this?

MK	96.6
Snake	50.3
Dedede	24.3
Wario	21.3
Falco	19.8
Diddy	14
IC	9.1
Lucario	5.5
ZSS	5.5
G & W	4
Marth	3.3
ROB	3
Fox	2
Pikachu	1
Kirby	1
Olimar	1

That's the data using Ankoku's scoring system (ignoring entrants, entry fee, just straight points) for all tournaments since the start of Brawl that gave us 150 or more entrants.


Someone in the other thread posted "What about tournaments with 100 entrants". I had set the cap at 150 since if you have 150 players that generally means travel, and travel means the best players; the winning players travel so they can win!

But I got to thinking, and figured I'd do it anyway. This uses tournaments with 100-149 players only. So take the rest of the info with a grain of salt! Tournaments with 100 people can just be large regionals only enticing people from a state or two over in some areas.

MK	172.35
Snake	71.1
Dedede	27.55
Wario	34.1
Falco	49
Diddy	25
IC	19.05
Lucario	23
ZSS	11
G & W	13.8
Marth	33
ROB	10
Fox	1
Pikachu	3
Kirby	0.5
Olimar	5
Wolf	1.25
Peach	2
Luigi	8.3
Lucas	5.3
D Kong	1
Pit	1
Pokemon	2.3
Ness	1

That's the data from all the tournaments with 100-149 players attending. MK wins again!

Here's the % of points taken breakdown:

MK	33.11
Snake	13.65
Falco	9.41
Wario	6.55
Dedede	5.29
Diddy	4.8
Lucario	4.41
ICs	3.65
Z Samus	2.11
G & Watch	2.65
Marth	6.33
ROB	1.92
Fox	0.19
Pikachu	0.57
Kirby	0.09
Olimar	0.96
Wolf	0.24
Peach	0.38
Luigi	1.59
Lucas	1.01
D K	0.19
Pit	0.19
Pokemon	0.44
Ness	0.19

Again, a statistically whopping victory.



Graph showing MKs dominance from the first post:

Graph showing MKs dominance from the new post:

Hey, that's not so bad, is it? Yeah, Metaknight has an ungodly spike, but he also has a pretty big dip! Snake seems to be doing "alright", and while MK is a clear winner it seems, more or less, that the game is balanced. Characters are skyrocketting up and down on the chart as you'd expect from a balanced game. MK just is a tiny bit better according to this chart; an irritating consistency, but nothing major. Snake is just a lesser version of MK here until we realize this is only for tournaments with 100-149 players.

Let's combine it with the other info I gathered. We now have a graph showing the total point accumulation and timeline of all tournaments from the beginning of brawl with 100 or more players.

lol @ the idea of Diddy being a possible counter. Not only has Diddy not surpassed Snake's performance by any means, they switched places at the end of the graph.


To bring across a point that some people seem to ignore or dislike, I'm posting one more of these pretty little things.

Make sure you recheck the Legend, Snake is no longer the red boxes.

That's the graph without MK. Do you see the drastic differences in placement? You have different characters spiking in all directions with no consistency overall. That means that when you remove MK, the game is balanced. It's not a slippery slope situation. It's a guy with a handgun at a knife fight. Metaknight alone has taken well over 34% of the points from tournaments with 100 or more players. When you make it stricter and go to just the tippity top, using only 150+ players he grows more dominant.

Metaknight dominates at all levels of play.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Please do so. The last thing we need in here is more confusion because of a post that doesn't properly convey one's statements.

Edited with "overcentralizing" as opposed to "broken."

Is that better?

 

[Tommy_G]

I'm pretty sure you misread my post.



I clearly said "You're telling everyone other than Ally, ADHD, and maybe a few others that they should get better." I think you misread.
Everyone who complains about metaknight instead of getting better are those who I was addressing, not Ally or ADHD


True enough. But at the same time, what Pika player is even close to Isai's skill level? (Forgive me for not knowing names or anything, I don't follow SSB64 very closely).
There are plenty of people who could get to that level if they practice enough. It shows that player skill always overcomes character skill.



I'm confused as to what you're saying here. Yes, a player that loses is a worse character. ADHD and Ally win, though.
I'm saying if someone loses, it makes them a worse player. It has nothing to do with their character choice.


Please show me where I did this.
By implying people who play MK shouldn't lose because they play MK.

Comments in bold

OS I could probably find enough graphs and such to combat your point, but its just too much work for me to care. People trying to prove a point always find evidence to back their claims, but ignore all of what disproves it during their search. Sheik and Marth dominating Melee for a good while is a good example.

 

[Nanaki]

Geez, 33% of all points is pretty amazing. I didn't think it was quite that high.

The only problem I see with your 'sans-MK' graph is that those are tournaments involving MK, aren't they? Just with MK's results removed? We have no idea if those would correlate with a MK-free environment or not.

Regardless, it's a cool graph and something to take into account, even if it's not foolproof.

 

[Espy Rose]

Edited with "overcentralizing" as opposed to "broken."

Is that better?

As long as no one gets the wrong idea due to odd wording, then I'm good with it <3

=====

My only problem with that last graph, OS, is that it doesn't take into account the interactions of all of the characters in a Meta Knight-less environment. It just simply removes MK from the graph, and uses the same results from those same tournaments.

If you wanted that graph to be effective in proving that the game's more balanced with Meta Knight gone, you'd have to run several tournaments over the span of several months, and graph that data as well and compare.

I'm pretty sure that solution also has its holes as well.

However, it DOES look nice. Good ****.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Everyone who complains about metaknight instead of getting better are those who I was addressing, not Ally or ADHD

There are plenty of people who could get to that level if they practice enough. It shows that player skill always overcomes character skill.

How do you know?

I said this in response to Ankoku's post, but I think it applies here as well:

"Of course it's possible for people like ADHD and Ally for emerge. But let's look at it like this: Brawl has been out for almost 2 years. Two players (Ally and ADHD) have shown that they can beat the best MKs, including M2K, on a consistent basis. Two players in two years. That's not to say that it's obviously going to follow a pattern of one player each year, but the fact that only two players so far have shown that they are capable of "dethroning" the best Meta Knights shows just how difficult of a task it is.

Also, it's not like the MK players are waiting for everyone else to catch up to their skill level, they're getting better also."

I'm saying if someone loses, it makes them a worse player. It has nothing to do with their character choice.

So if the best Ganondorf player loses to a crappy ICs player it's because he's worse?

By implying people who play MK shouldn't lose because they play MK.

I'm sorry but I don't see where you're getting this implication from. I apologize if I made it seem like I thought that way, but I don't. Of course they're going to lose, I never said MK was unbeatable.

 

[Overswarm]

Geez, 33% of all points is pretty amazing. I didn't think it was quite that high.

The only problem I see with your 'sans-MK' graph is that those are tournaments involving MK, aren't they? Just with MK's results removed? We have no idea if those would correlate with a MK-free environment or not.

Regardless, it's a cool graph and something to take into account, even if it's not foolproof.

I know.

I can't find data on MK-banned tournaments, and even if there was I don't know if it'd be conclusive enough.

You can, however, see that these characters all had to deal with MK and each other. While characters like Kirby, ROB, Pit, and Pika might make a sudden strong showing if MK was banned, you can also see that Snake can do pretty well just based off the consistency of his placements. The more erratic a character's placement, the less likely they'll do well on average if MK is banned (unless somehow these top players are getting knocked out by MK, but I doubt it)

 

[Ripple]

I'd like to say something to the anti ban.

you said that since ADHD did it, anyone should be able to do it. just get better. it takes 1 person to prove a characters viability.

well what about bum in melee? he proved that a low tier can go up against the best characters in the game? no he didn't


he proved that no one knew how to play DK. what happened after that MLG? it never happened again. people learned the latch up.


I may be wrong but the next nationals, I guarantee that MK will sit right back on his throne

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

If you want to look at the MK banned tournies I know that a couple of the Hobos banned MK, i'm pretty sure there was a tourney in florida with MK banned and there was a tourney in PA with MK banned. The PA tourney was one of the Drexel biweeklies. But every MK banned tourney I've seen snake has won with the exception of the Drexel biweekly where a random IC won.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Didn't Gness Fliphop win one of the the MK banned HOBOs? If it wasn't him, it was someone else who was unexpected to win.


EDIT: Here are the results from all of the HOBOs with MK banned that I could find:

HOBO 18 <-Razer won
HOBO 17 <-Razer won
HOBO 16 <-Razer won
HOBO 12 <-Fliphop won

That's all of them I think. So yeah, 3 Snake wins and one Diddy win.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Didn't Gness (?) win one of the the MK banned Hobos? If it wasn't him, it was someone else who was unexpected to win.

I don't think so i'm pretty sure Razor took them all. But this is just going off the top of my head.

 

[Overswarm]

I recall one having Diddy winning.

Even MK banned tournaments currently don't show much. It's still the same peopel playing the same characters; there is no time for growth, because no one says "MK is gone", they say "MK is gone here" and don't change anything because they travel. So MK banned tournaments don't give us too much information. :\

 

[Nanaki]

I know.

I can't find data on MK-banned tournaments, and even if there was I don't know if it'd be conclusive enough.

You can, however, see that these characters all had to deal with MK and each other. While characters like Kirby, ROB, Pit, and Pika might make a sudden strong showing if MK was banned, you can also see that Snake can do pretty well just based off the consistency of his placements. The more erratic a character's placement, the less likely they'll do well on average if MK is banned (unless somehow these top players are getting knocked out by MK, but I doubt it)

Yeah, that's a bit of a pickle. If you wanted to delve reaaaally deep into it, you could look at the brackets for all of the tournaments and use some statistical interaction tests to determine MK's effect on every character - then remove his confounding factor and see what the characters' results are like. The data pool is probably large enough to remove the confounding factor of player skill.

I don't think you're quite insane enough to try to pull that off. That could probably end up being a master's thesis type volume of hours..

Honestly, I'm still on the fence on the whole ban issue, but I think it's probably more of an issue with my general reluctance to remove elements from a game unless it's absolutely necessary than from a lack of solid evidence that he's causing problems.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I posted the HOBO results threads where MK was banned above, in case anyone wants to take a look.

Yeah, Fliphop won HOBO 12 with Diddy.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Sup guys, I feel strongly about Metaknight being banned so I quote a lot and really on logical fallacies to win arguments.

lol

BTW, Ankoku hasn't included all tournaments, and not all tournaments were reported. For example, Diddy shouldn't only have 14 points if ADHD has won both Pound4 and SNES. Just one example.

Thanks for providing the information regardless though, OS, although I can't seem to make out at all what those bottom multi-color linegraphs are supposed to show. They honestly just look like a jumbled mess.

However, how come this is only a super-pressing-important issue after a national? Nationals only show that top players get the top spots, and many top players main MK. There shouldn't be any surprise at the results, so I'm not sure why some people on pro-ban or anti-ban is saying, "6 MKS IN TOP 12 OMFFG" or "LOL ADHD WON THOUGUH" like the results are actually any bit of a surprise.

Someone in another thread said it best: there's no question that MK is dominating. However, how much domination is too much is a completely subjective call.

These arguments aren't bad, but they've been said for the past year, and in the end it's all subjective. Nothing about MK has changed in a year, so MK is bound to stay unless something game-breaking is found out about him.

So I agree with Hylian--all of these threads are just either redundant, annoying, or both.

 

[Overswarm]

For most people it is reluctance, and it's a natural way to feel. I'm the same way, and was actually against the ban at its inception. It took a while for me to go to ban side, but it's been a non-stop addition to "point for pro-ban" since I've joined. Nothing has ever happened on a consistent basis that made me say "whoa, maybe there's hope!"

A lot of people assume that I wanted MK banned because I mained ROB. Then I switched mains and people said I wanted MK banned because I'd already made up my mind and couldn't change it no matter the data.... but all I've ever seen are hiccups and a few good players. I get excited when it appears like there is a glimmer of hope for beating Metaknight. I would **** bricks if I woke up a week later and someone found a guaranteed 0-death on MK that works with 1/3rd of the cast and I'd spend the next week perfecting it and maining whoever the hell I wanted. There just hasn't been more than a few blips on the radar though.

Someone telling me that MK isn't a problem because over the course of two years we've had a grand total of two players show themselves to have a chance at beating the MK threat is the equivalent of telling me a box isn't heavy because a body builder lifted it once.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Keep putting that pressure on, Overswarm. Your arguments are only getting better, and the data you're compiling is only getting more ridiculous.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Someone telling me that MK isn't a problem because over the course of two years we've had a grand total of two players show themselves to have a chance at beating the MK threat is the equivalent of telling me a box isn't heavy because a body builder lifted it once.

But OS, the box ISN'T heavy, you're just too weak to lift it!

lolo

Honestly, if there's any doubt in anyone's mind now that MK is bad for the game, they're hilariously biased or ultra-conservative and stubborn.

 

[Overswarm]

lol

BTW, Ankoku hasn't included all tournaments, and not all tournaments were reported. For example, Diddy shouldn't only have 14 points if ADHD has won both Pound4 and SNES. Just one example.

SNES didn't have 150 entrants; SNES was included in the second set of data and later combined with the first.

Thanks for providing the information regardless though, OS, although I can't seem to make out at all what those bottom multi-color linegraphs are supposed to show. They honestly just look like a jumbled mess.

http://www.college-cram.com/study/accounting/presentations/758

However, how come this is only a super-pressing-important issue after a national? Nationals only show that top players get the top spots, and many top players main MK. There shouldn't be any surprise at the results, so I'm not sure why some people on pro-ban or anti-ban is saying, "6 MKS IN TOP 12 OMFFG" or "LOL ADHD WON THOUGUH" like the results are actually any bit of a surprise.

Top players generally will main the same character if he's the best chance of winning, but not all. But if you have only two people beating out the masses that main MK, that's a big deal.

The information comes up after a national because humans, by nature, are emotional creatures. I've heard nonstop complaints and grumbling about MK for a long time now. We had a BBR "gag" thing going on where we just didn't discuss the MK business until later (since otherwise we could get nothing done), but that data has gotten increasingly in favor of pro-ban. I was given permission to discuss it and have been told multiple times by the powers that be that we can make our own posts outside of the BBR, so out the gate I went.

Someone in another thread said it best: there's no question that MK is dominating. However, how much domination is too much is a completely subjective call.

True to an extent, yes.

I'm pretty positive that in a game with (what, 29 characters?), MK taking up as many points placement as he does is a big deal. It used to be the argument for anti-ban that MK was a problem at lower and mid level play, but we shouldn't care about that because it'll eventually even out; at top level play, it was said that things evened out.

My data has shown that MK's dominance grows as you go higher up the ladder. It's not like melee where you had a bunch of Foxes and Marths winning with easy shine gimps and CGs until they get to the top and meet real competition.... this is some heavy stuff.

These arguments aren't bad, but they've been said for the past year, and in the end it's all subjective. Nothing about MK has changed in a year, so MK is bound to stay unless something game-breaking is found out about him.

So I agree with Hylian--all of these threads are just either redundant, annoying, or both.

The information I've seen ahs shown that it has consistently grown in favor of pro-ban.

Pro-ban's argument has been pointing at a burning building saying "OMFG LOOK", and the fire has continued to grow.

Anti-ban's entire argument has been "So what?"

 

[Overswarm]

Keep putting that pressure on, Overswarm. Your arguments are only getting better, and the data you're compiling is only getting more ridiculous.

I'm just getting warmed up.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

BTW, Ankoku hasn't included all tournaments, and not all tournaments were reported. For example, Diddy shouldn't only have 14 points if ADHD has won both Pound4 and SNES. Just one example.

Well the thread hasn't been updated since before Pound, so those results aren't counted yet.

 

[Overswarm]

I added Pound 4 to my data.



Look at ankoku's thread when you get a chance... they're all MK MK MK at the local level too

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I've yet to read a good answer as to why we're OK with banning items and stages that interfere with the top-end game, but banning a character goes too far.

We used arbitrary (and often inconsistent) justifications to ban many items and stages, but numerical and statistical evidence showing MK's ludicrous levels of dominance are simply ignored.

We should play with Smash Balls on or allow Port Town as a CP, because neither of those are "overcentralizing" (lol) and we can't prove they're broken. Some characters' Smash Balls kill instantly or some characters have an easier time obtaining the Smash Ball. "So what?" Maybe these characters are just better, right? Maybe some characters get gayed by the water on Pirate Ship, or maybe it's too easy for some characters to camp the upper platform. Again, I ask: "So what?"

Characters aren't sacred. They can be broken and bannable and undesirable just like items, stages, and infinites that are banned in some areas.. Ban MK.