Official Metaknight Discussion

[UltiMario]

I still don't understand why this thread is open for the time being.

All its going to be is spam and pointless arguing over details already talked about before until this MLG thing is over with.

lol

Edit: Oooh Ninja.

I skimmed your post.

We've shown that he is ridiculously overdominant.

I stopped skimming there.

You should understand why.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I still don't understand why this thread is open for the time being.

All its going to be is spam and pointless arguing over details already talked about before until this MLG thing is over with.

lol

Edit: Oooh Ninja.

I skimmed your post.



I stopped skimming there.

You should understand why.

We have. You're just not paying attention. You are denying EVERY PIECE OF STATISTICAL EVIDENCE WE THROW AT YOU. Take my challenge. MK being banned is the status quo; prove to me that he is not banworthy.

 

[UltiMario]

No I have not.

So please link me to the post which the agreement has been made on how much dominance is too much to I can get caught up.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No I have not.

So please link me to the post which the agreement has been made on how much dominance is too much to I can get caught up.

Please tell me you're trolling.

We have asked anti-ban quite a lot for what their opinion on too dominant is. What have we gotten back? Either silence or "LOL HE HASN'T WON A NATIONAL RECENTLY". How much is too much for you?

TBH, I've given up on expecting collaboration. The average anti-ban makes money with Metaknight and doesn't want him banned, and will bury their heads in the sand until the annoying ******* with the statistics goes away. To some of you, 100% is not enough.

 

[UltiMario]

I guess I'm one of the only anti bans that actually makes sense then.

 

[fkacyan]

We have. You're just not paying attention. You are denying EVERY PIECE OF STATISTICAL EVIDENCE WE THROW AT YOU. Take my challenge. MK being banned is the status quo; prove to me that he is not banworthy.

uh.... No, his being banned is not the status quo.

Why is the best character being the best a problem? As many people, including the smart people in pro-ban, have realized, it's not conclusive. Prior to MLG, the consensus was a temporary ban to test the assertion that the metagame would be 'better' (Again, this is subjective, though we can define criteria beforehand that everybody can agree on so we don't have another thread like this one).

Crow uses 5% as his null-reject number, one that is extremely generous. In a case like this you usually use .5% as your cutoff for rejection. That said, I'm just being picky; either way it's still rejected, but not by a factor as large as stated.

Anti-ban does not deny any statistical evidence you have shown us. We have questioned it to ascertain the accuracy, and then, we pose this question:

So what?

You can't prove that banning MK would make for a 'better' game any more than I can claim banning him will make it 'worse.' Hence, temp ban.

And, once again, I still don't understand why this thread is still open.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Why is the best character being the best a problem?

Stop it.

Questioning an old argument is dumb.

Me 3 for wanting "The Trolln' and Antiban Whinin' Thread" closed.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I guess I'm one of the only anti bans that actually makes sense then.

What's your criteria?

uh.... No, his being banned is not the status quo.

It's hypothetical. I'm challenging you to argue for the unbanning of MK if him being banned is the status quo.

Why is the best character being the best a problem? As many people, including the smart people in pro-ban, have realized, it's not conclusive. Prior to MLG, the consensus was a temporary ban to test the assertion that the metagame would be 'better' (Again, this is subjective, though we can define criteria beforehand that everybody can agree on so we don't have another thread like this one).

Crow uses 5% as his null-reject number, one that is extremely generous. In a case like this you usually use .5% as your cutoff for rejection. That said, I'm just being picky; either way it's still rejected, but not by a factor as large as stated.

Still smaller than .5%. And it's not just the best character; it's the best character at every level by an incredibly wide margin.

Anti-ban does not deny any statistical evidence you have shown us. We have questioned it to ascertain the accuracy, and then, we pose this question:

So what?

And HERE we have the problem. This is the ONLY anti-ban argument, and at this point, it's hardly convincing. At all. What more do you want from us? We've shown that MK is the best, best by quite a bit in fact. Not gonna regurgitate the facts here, but it's been shown.

You can't prove that banning MK would make for a 'better' game any more than I can claim banning him will make it 'worse.' Hence, temp ban.

And, once again, I still don't understand why this thread is still open.

It's still open because there's still stuff happening.

ANY ANTI-BAN! TAKE MY CHALLENGE!
The challenge is as follows: act as if you are not the status quo; rather, MK being banned is the norm. Try to argue for his legalization. I'm interested in hearing if there's any worthwhile argument coming out of here.

 

[UltiMario]

What's your criteria?

In the long run:

Have the community decide how much dominance is too much.
Ban MK if he hits that point.

 

[fkacyan]

It's hypothetical. I'm challenging you to argue for the unbanning of MK if him being banned is the status quo.

It's a fairly useless hypothetical, because I don't know what the metagame will be like if MK is banned; thus, I cannot answer your question.

And HERE we have the problem. This is the ONLY anti-ban argument, and at this point, it's hardly convincing. At all. What more do you want from us? We've shown that MK is the best, best by quite a bit in fact. Not gonna regurgitate the facts here, but it's been shown.

We want conclusive data that the metagame, tourney attendance, and game's image (This matters a lot more now that MLG is in the picture) will be better without MK, or at least enough to infer that it will be. No, terrible and subjective matchup data proves absolutely nothing.

It's still open because there's still stuff happening.

Stuff = Cyclical arguments.

MK is legal, he has an LGL if matches go to time. That addresses the two main points this thread has come to address. There's nothing more to discuss.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

In the long run:

Have the community decide how much dominance is too much.
Ban MK if he hits that point.

This is super helpful.

 

[UltiMario]

I said "In the long run" lol

If you want me to go into details then ask that specifically.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right, lemme ask really precisely.

What level of dominance would cause you, as a person, to think that Metaknight should be banned in tournaments?

 

[Chuee]

Ok, budget let me ask you something.
If Snake was the one dominating not MK(mk still best character) would snake be banworthy?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Overall course of the thread:
Significant anti-ban arguments are destroyed one by one each time someone comes out with data related to that argument (Flayl's case is particularly enlightening, since Flayl's research disproved his own anti-ban hypothesis). The end result is that support of a temporary (~6 month) MK ban was becoming overwhelming at about the time MLG entered the picture. MLG, however, has made the situation more complicated.

I've not kept up with this thread as thoroughly since I was admitted to the BBR, though, so I'm unsure if there has been any especially significant developments out here since then.

No, you forgot two.


1. We have no clear criteria.

2. (Which is the collineary to 1) I don't think MK's dominance is sufficient, I consider him sufficiently dominant at x point.



Basically, the long term problem stands that without a consistent standard, it's all subjective. Yea, he's dominant, but how dominant is dominant enough to be banworthy?


So without a consistent standard, we're basically left with "wait until he hits 2/3rds of the community's ban standards", and some people have extremely high ban standards.



Which reminds me, do you ever create something to "paint the bullseye"?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ok, budget let me ask you something.
If Snake was the one dominating not MK(mk still best character) would snake be banworthy?

You mean not that he has improved matchups/techniques; the only difference in the brawl scene being an extreme overload of snake mains as opposed to MK mains?

1. We have no clear criteria.

What are we waiting for? Let's make one!

2. (Which is the collineary to 1) I don't think MK's dominance is sufficient, I consider him sufficiently dominant at x point.

"I main MK and don't want him ever banned; X can change as I see fit with metagame developments". :V

 

[adumbrodeus]

What are we waiting for? Let's make one!

I've attempted my process through a number of routes, it simply lacks the support, people are too invested in their viewpoints at the moment.

It's meaningless if there isn't near universal agreement in at least the process that produces it.

"I main MK and don't want him ever banned; X can change as I see fit with metagame developments". :V

I think pretty much everyone has their "drop-dead" points, but that's the basics.

There's also the other side "I despise mk cause he counters my main/I was forced to main him or somebody else because of MK; X can change as I see fit with metagame developments".

 

[Chuee]

Yup, now answer away.

 

[UltiMario]

What are we waiting for? Let's make one!

This summarizes my feelings as well.


But for your initial question... I'll respond with....

Bad question

I find that it is unjustifiable for any one person to give any more than a "General Idea" of a dominance ban criteria. This is not just something one or a handful of people can come to a conclusion to.

For example, my dominance tipping point is 51%. Why? Because any character that shows the power to conquer more than half of any given Metagame is clearly broken and warrenting an immediate ban. It is extremely clear that if 51% of a Metagame is just a single character, then that Character is probably so immensly good that the 2nd best character wouldn't hold a candle to him, and if MK ever gets that high, thats probably going to be true. Now, this as an example is my "absolute" tipping point, one thats generous to MK and has no arguement if happens.

Now, what was it that I just said? Nothing more than an opinion. A personal preference. What about what other Anti-bans say? Pro-bans? There may be flaws in my preference, flaws in theirs as well. All these opinions would need to be averaged out into one final agreement.

And this only an explanation in which is only part of my opinion on what justifies a character to be banned/not, but if I say any more I won't be answering your specific question

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yup, now answer away.

Depends... If it's due to a rise in the number of snakes, then no. With snake, it's very, very easy to link the result of having, say, 6 snake mains in top 8 to the cause "over half the participants in the tournament are snake". I'm assuming this is what you mean. Assuming you mean that, say, existing snake mains just step it the **** up and we start seeing, instead of M2K, Dojo, Shadow, Tyrant, and Ksizzle in top-8 almost every national, Ally, Razer, Candy, (insert more snake mains here because I fail at knowing snake mains), then it would be a little more tricky to just say "no, of course not" with the logic I'm using to ban Metaknight. It would require testing if those guys really are just that much better than everyone else. Knowing how snake fairs? It would likely prove itself. But such a case is tricky.

There's also the other side "I despise mk cause he counters my main/I was forced to main him or somebody else because of MK; X can change as I see fit with metagame developments".

Not denying this.

 

[t3h Icy]

I haven't gone through even a portion of the thread, but I just want to mention about Pikachu in SSB64.

SSB64 is almost entirely based on combos and what it takes to begin a combo. All characters (except Samus) can 0-death almost every character. The (dis)advantages are highly based on approaching properly and how many ways one can 0-death the opposing character. Pikachu has an advantage against every character because Pikachu has arguably the best recovery, great priority, kill moves, speed, etc. All of that isn't stopping Falcon doing a Uair Combo to death, or Kirby doing his UTilt to Dair drills, but Pikachu certainly has the advantage in initializing.

Meta-Knight on the other hand, is very much different.

I just wanted to mention that. I'm pro-ban personally.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Ok, budget let me ask you something.
If Snake was the one dominating not MK(mk still best character) would snake be banworthy?

Do not ask of what is not a reality, Chuee.

 

[Chuee]

Who are you to say what snake players can and can't do?

 

[MarKO X]

Do not ask of what is not a reality, Chuee.

In all fairness, BPC did it first with his whole "argue to unban MK if MK was already banned" proposition.

to answer BPC's question: the only way I see MK getting unbanned is if a character actually superdominated with MK gone... I'm going to use Marth as a (not necessarily the best) example. MK locked down Marth and kept him from superdominating, so we need MK to "regulate the food chain" if you will. You can replace Marth with anyone you want, doesn't matter... but that would be the only reason to unban MK... to regulate the food chain.

the answer to Chuee's question: If Snake is dominating like MK is now, but Snake isn't the best character, and everything else within the game is the same such as MUs, I don't think he should be banned. If Snake, even with his "bad" matchups and "bad" stages, is winning and dominating, then you'd have to look at a couple of things: 1) popularity of the character, 2) whether or not people are playing against Snake with those bad characters and stages, 3) whether or not those characters or stages are actually bad against Snake, and 4) probably other stuff. But if a character is dominating and isn't the hands down best character in the game, I don't see a reason to ban him/her/it.

 

[theunabletable]

Which is simpler, table?

Identifying that MK disappeared for the last 45 seconds of the match.
Identifying that MK disappeared for 0.30 seconds rather than 0.25 seconds (or whatever the legal cutoff chosen is).

Banning the poorly defined AT itself is, in MK's down-B's case, actually harder to enfoce than the stalling rule.

Banning the entire AT gets the job done much easier.

If you don't notice that he's using the IDC, then there was absolutely no harm done as he wasn't stalling with it.

Wrong. With my gay stage rule, MK's opponent gets to chose if MK can scrooge or plank. Or stall. Tell you what-you try to scrooge/plank on MSI and tell me how that goes for ya. It solves both rule-breaking problems.

I think I've misunderstood exactly what the gay stage rule is.

I thought the gay stage rule was the one where MK can only CP neutrals. Looking at your last post, I'm guesing I was wrong... what exactly is it lol?

No... look again. I'm proposing we ban an overcentralizing, overdominating character, in part because he takes a basic game mechanic that everyone else can use and abuses it to the point of ridiculous.

Many characters have infinites, but Ice Climbers are the only one that could cause overcentralization and domination with their infinite without a percentage rule.

See, here is where you and I disagree. I place IDC in the same grouping as the Rising Pound ban, the limit on infinite CGs, etc.-it's character-specific based on that specific character's moveset and actions. Planking? Hardly.

The CG rule effects multiple characters.

A certain strain of his planking is unbeatable-not the entire thing. The "better way" doesn't exist, this is my problem.

Wait, so your train of logic is this:
"There is something that isn't completely ideal about LGLs, and there isn't anything better, so ban the whole character even though that is a far less ideal change than an LGL"?

If I'm wrong about that, quote that sentence and change it to reflect the way I was wrong, please.

I still hold getting rid of metaknight to be an improved option to a surgical rule which ultimately waters down the problem instead of getting rid of it.

I disagree very much. It's not watering down a problem, it's making sure our rules are enforceable.

If you have other reasons for thinking he should be banned, I have no problem with that. However hardcore planking should not have any stake what-so-ever in your opinion of whether or not he should be banned, as it's already illegal (with no way to enforce it).

I'm not trying to "water down" MK, I'm trying to convince people that the planking that DMG discovered is currently illegal with no way to enforce it, and because of that we HAVE to come up with a rule to enforce our current rules that MK breaks BEFORE EVEN ATTEMPTING to try and ban him.

 

[Masmasher@]

Well lol it not really 100%

Edit LGL is silly

 

[MarKO X]

MK's planking is illegal, but there is no way to enforce it...

lolwut

You don't use rules to enforce rules, you use people to enforce rules, no?

 

[theunabletable]

^How can we enforce the stalling rule, then?
MKs hardcore planking definitely fits the criteria, but how in hell do we enforce it?

Subjective people subjectively deciding if they're doing the correct planking or not?

Why can't we go the same route that we did with the IDC?

 

[1048576]

From what I gather, stalling takes time so you can call a TO or w/e, but IDC is broken and banworthy even if you only use it for 4 seconds to sit and wait for the opponent to drop his shield.

Planking is also hard to enforce subjectively without not letting MK grab the ledge at all, because the MK can claim "I was just waiting for a better position" like when all the other characters retreat to the ledge, when time runs out. A Peach (for example) can't make that claim when wallbombing in SSBM, and a Sheik shino stalling isn't effective, as previously pointed out. A LGL doesn't discriminate between stopping MK from using the ledge for legit reasons, like recovery, and stopping MK from planking. It just makes him do less of both.

Although, I'm in favor of watering MK down via arbitrary bans and limits, like the MK gay stage rule, until he is in line with the rest of the cast. It seems like a bad solution, but its better then letting him dominate the game or banning him altogether.

 

[MarKO X]

If you're questioning the proper way to enforce something dealing with a character... maybe the better option is to ban the character.

 

[fkacyan]

If you're questioning the proper way to enforce something dealing with a character... maybe the better option is to ban the character.

It's really hard to enforce speeding laws, so let's ban any engine that can go over 25 mph.

Ridiculous comparison is as ridiculous as the original argument.

 

[Javix]

Ban Yoshi, he's way too good his side-b is invincible.

 

[1048576]

I'll just repost this so the trolls don't obscure it in a sea of stupid.

From what I gather, stalling takes time so you can call a TO or w/e, but IDC is broken and banworthy even if you only use it for 4 seconds to sit and wait for the opponent to drop his shield.

Planking is also hard to enforce subjectively without not letting MK grab the ledge at all, because the MK can claim "I was just waiting for a better position" like when all the other characters retreat to the ledge, when time runs out. A Peach (for example) can't make that claim when wallbombing in SSBM, and a Sheik shino stalling isn't effective, as previously pointed out. A LGL doesn't discriminate between stopping MK from using the ledge for legit reasons, like recovery, and stopping MK from planking. It just makes him do less of both.

Although, I'm in favor of watering MK down via arbitrary bans and limits, like the MK gay stage rule, until he is in line with the rest of the cast. It seems like a bad solution, but its better then letting him dominate the game or banning him altogether.

 

[Tien2500]

It's really hard to enforce speeding laws, so let's ban any engine that can go over 25 mph.

Ridiculous comparison is as ridiculous as the original argument.

Except that driving is, usually, not a competitive event, limiting engines to 25 mph would lead to massive societal loss, and a ban on any car that could go over 25 would be trillions of times more difficult than enforcing speeding laws.

 

[Judo777]

It's really hard to enforce speeding laws, so let's ban any engine that can go over 25 mph.

Ridiculous comparison is as ridiculous as the original argument.

Lol speeding isnt hard to enforce police officers can pull you over if ur going 1 mile over the speed limit if they want. And if u are going the speed limit and everyone else is speeding he can pull you over for not moving the flow of traffic aka reckless driving. Its not hard to enforce there are like 500 tickets given out each in every region (population dependent ofc).

 

[fkacyan]

Except that driving is, usually, not a competitive event, limiting engines to 25 mph would lead to massive societal loss, and a ban on any car that could go over 25 would be trillions of times more difficult than enforcing speeding laws.

Seeing as all cars have to be inspected to be legally allowed to be on the road, no, enforcing an engine type wouldn't be difficult. In addition, can you prove that there will be no metagame loss for banning MK?

Lol speeding isnt hard to enforce police officers can pull you over if ur going 1 mile over the speed limit if they want. And if u are going the speed limit and everyone else is speeding he can pull you over for not moving the flow of traffic aka reckless driving. Its not hard to enforce there are like 500 tickets given out each in every region (population dependent ofc).

Really? So if every single car in town decided to speed, there would be a cop to pull over each and every one of them? This is the compliment to the argument that we don't have the manpower to watch each match for planking, btw.

Dang, my analogy is actually better than I had planned it to be.

 

[Masmasher@]

lets all get smart cars!

 

[UltiMario]

Its hard to enforce speeding laws on an empty stretch of road in Nevada, no police car can really go way far out there tenough to make surre nobody is speeding. Theres nowhere to hide either so people can just slow down when they see police cars.

Ban cars in Nevada.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

stopping someone for going 1mph over the limit is a waste of time for both parties..why would you argue this lol...

 

[vVv Rapture]

I think you guys took the analogy just a bit too far.

The difference is that an issue like that is black and white. They can absolutely tell if you are over the speed limit or not. There is no way to argue it unless you cannot understand basic numbers.

But IDC? How exactly do you know the difference between how it was inputted and what its purpose was? And you can tell yourself that people can, but there is no gun that you can point at the screen during a match that tells you all the data on the use of MK's down-b in pretty little LED lights.