Official Metaknight Discussion

[Crow!]

[amid similar attempts to portray those who gave certain arguments as being stupid. Ad hominem, anyone?]
... pro ban #3: uh... Overswarm has a picture with bar graphs and pie charts. statistics man...

Did you seriously just suggest that you don't think statistics are necessary? That you think non-statistically responsible data analysis can just be selected as better than REAL analysis?

The problem here is you're cherrypicking particular tournaments to suit the argument you're trying to make. Real conclusions REQUIRE statistics; given a large enough sample size (there ARE a large number of tournaments going on over the course of a year, after all), you can always find outliers that are arbitrarily far from the norm.

Right now, the only conclusions you can responsibly draw from the data you have presented are "Of a hand picked sample of tournaments from one weekend selected for the degree to which MK did not place well in those tournaments, MK did not place well in those tournaments." Well, duh. What did you expect? And why didn't you do this a week ago when the same argument was raging? Did that weekend not produce the data you wanted so you skipped it? These are the same sorts of demeaning questions scientists ask to call out the shenanigans of, say, a tobacco-company funded study which finds that cigarettes are not addictive. (Believe it or not, those exist.)

Until you average over all tournaments of a particular category, and have a large enough sample size to eliminate random noise, you can't just say your data's better than someone else who DOES do that stuff (in fact, they can legitimately say that theirs is better and yours is worthless). And even when you do, your results are restricted to the class of examples from which you collected your data.


Heck, I can point you to three tournaments that Link mains won. Just because I can pick out those tournaments doesn't mean that Link is good, it means that given the many thousands of SSBB tournaments that have been played you can find a couple where, for whatever reason, a Link pulled through.

I can say that in my region, MK dominance is pretty severe, but I'm not going to push that idea too hard because it's just one anecdotal point of data. Overswarm's data, however, shows that MK dominance is pretty severe overall, and that overall SSBB's tournament scene is not healthy for the long run, both in terms of diversity (which is annoying) and in terms of overall tournament attendance (which, if correct, is more or less a signal of eventual doom). He reached his conclusions responsibly given the data available, and the conclusions made are pretty significant.

Get back to the drawing board Omni. Who knows, maybe the conclusion you want to make can be made with data that is available (though I personally doubt it). But if so, you still haven't found the way yet.

 

[loki15]

I, at least, would be happy to see these results continue because, as was said, it leads to the conclusion that metagame is developing, and overcoming MKs dominance. But, as a whole, they aren't. This is from the newest update of Ankoku's character Rankings List.

S Rank «Uber» 43.23%
1 Meta Knight (179 top8, 126 top4, 72 top2, 75 wins, 452 total) - 4020.7
2 Snake (131 top8, 71 top4, 39 top2, 48 wins, 289 total) - 2024.0

4020.7+2024= 6044.7
4020.7/6044.7= .6652
.6652*.4323= .28755

28.8% of the tournament scores are going to one character. That's quite heavily centralized.

 

[Omni]

stuff

u mad?

i'm not cherry picking, Crow.

recent tournaments show Falco, Snake, Luigi, Diddy, and ZSS among more players taking 1st within a 1-month time span. if we're looking for an accurate reflection if our current metagame it's important to look at what is happening here and now.

very tough to compare the metagame one year ago with today. statistically taking the results of "what was" and saying that is "what is" is a logical fallacy. take that into consideration when you're looking at points and statistics.

the point is that i don't need to throw a bunch of outdated statistics to prove a point. the current metagame is speaking for itself. it's not stagnant. it's healthy. it's growing. it's competitive.

am i wrong?

 

[Jack Kieser]

And yet, Anti-ban keeps saying that we have to "only consider the highest level of the metagame" when we make decisions. Those tournaments are legit, and I'll never argue that they aren't, but I think it's obvious that we didn't have players playing MK at the highest level of the metagame at those tournaments; the metagame doesn't evolve from "8 MK's in the top 10" to "No MK's even placed" in one week.

By anti-ban's own logic, we shouldn't use those tournaments to base a decision off of.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Is MK's tornado actually banned?
Just curious,because I heard it's banned,but it isn't that much powerful,except when it's spammed... also nice one Omni

...No.

Where did you hear it was banned? That's ridiculous.

 

[Crow!]

u mad?

i'm not cherry picking, Crow.

recent tournaments show Falco, Snake, Luigi, Diddy, and ZSS among more players taking 1st within a 1-month time span. if we're looking for an accurate reflection if our current metagame it's important to look at what is happening here and now.

very tough to compare the metagame one year ago with today. statistically taking the results of "what was" and saying that is "what is" is a logical fallacy. take that into consideration when you're looking at points and statistics.

the point is that i don't need to throw a bunch of outdated statistics to prove a point. the current metagame is speaking for itself. it's not stagnant. it's healthy. it's growing. it's competitive.

am i wrong?

"Stuff" is what I get from the quote? Cute.

Anyway, if you want to take your data from "current" sources, sure, that's a legit and relevant set to take your sample from. But you can't just take anecdotal cases from there.

My suggestion if you are sincere: collect all the tournament data from the past 3 months or so (one month is probably still going to be too noisy, two.. not sure. 3 should be safe, and it's not like the metagame has been chaning any faster than that, and if you're claiming it has, then even the past 1 month would already be outdated anyway so it's not like you'd be gaining anything by restricting yourself to a month). You can even choose to split the data into "large tournaments" vs "small tournaments" if you feel like it and see how things shake out that way and overall, as long as within each category, all possible data points are accepted.

Do real statistics on that, and see what happens. Maybe I'll be surprised.

Continue to say "ooh, look at these three shiny tournaments I found from this weekend!" and people with any significant scientific background aren't going to take you seriously.

 

[Jack Kieser]

What's with this respectful posting, Crow! It's 7 in the morning; it's perfectly acceptable to simply post, "U mad, too? GG, anti-banner, lololol!" for another 30 minutes, at least.

 

[theunabletable]

And yet, Anti-ban keeps saying that we have to "only consider the highest level of the metagame" when we make decisions.

If we're doing anything else we're catering to the players who wouldn't win without MK regardless, right (by that I mean if we're banning MK because they aren't really good. We shouldn't cater to the bads/medium players, imo)?

By anti-ban's own logic, we shouldn't use those tournaments to base a decision off of.

But it is worth noting that Larry beat Tyrant (a top MK who is better than Havok who got like 7th at Pound 4) and DSF (who is also better than Havok (or usually places better, anyways)) again.

 

[Omni]

@Crow: what kind of results do you want to see, Crow? you never answered my question.

"the current metagame is speaking for itself. it is not stagnant. it's healthy. it's growing. it's competitive.

do you disagree with this?

and i'm not the type of person to make points using a bunch of statistics. there are many different ways to prove a point besides gathering results and making interpretations. when i see tournament results like these popping up on a frequent basis there should be no reason to make a deeper analysis. the game is just fine.

@Jack: i don't recall ever saying "only consider the highest level". an argument is that at the highest level of play a Diddy and a Snake still placed Top 3. at the highest level of play, DEHF's Falco is still outplacing Tyrant, DSF, and Havok. these regional results are simply showing that MK's dominance is not overwhelming even at a regional and local level.

what we are seeing here is a healthy metagame at all levels of play.

anti-ban's logic is not to "only consider the highest level" of play. that's silly. it's important to put emphasis on it, but it would be ignorant to completely rule out regional and local. i don't think anti-ban has ever isolated those level of competition so i'm not understanding where that statement comes from

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Why is this discussion even going on? Omni wins, you all lose.

 

[HyperGumba]

...No.

Where did you hear it was banned? That's ridiculous.

Oh,well thanks kind sir.

I dunno,somewhen when Brawl was out someone said this attack was banned and I thougt it was wierd. Maybe I heard it in relation to the playstyle of MK-n00bs.

Oh,and I think he shouldn't get banned,it is possible to win,just it isn't likely to see someone win with Ganon. Well,I can't speak for myself,I am just an amateur,so are my friends,so I don't really know how hard a real MKer would be to deal with...

 

[Omni]

Jack and Crow.

Are you two both Link mains?

 

[Crow!]

@Crow: what kind of results do you want to see, Crow? you never answered my question.

"the current metagame is speaking for itself. it is not stagnant. it's healthy. it's growing. it's competitive.

do you disagree with this?

and i'm not the type of person to make points using a bunch of statistics. there are many different ways to prove a point besides gathering results and making interpretations. when i see tournament results like these popping up on a frequent basis there should be no reason to make a deeper analysis. the game is just fine.

If what you say is true, then making those statistics should be easy, and it would would set the issue to rest. Not doing it is either just laziness or an attempt on your part to cover up data you don't like. People who doubt the conclusion you say you hypothetically could make are naturally going to assume it's the latter.

Seriously, why would you NOT make statistics, which really wouldn't take that long given that basically all the data you need is already collected in one place thanks to Ankoku, and yet devote hours arguing with people on forums about what you think a responsible study would obviously show? I don't get it.

----
As for your question, while emotionally I want to say "no, it's not," the fact is I have not myself collected data or analyzed any data relevant to it. I simply don't have the basis necessary to back up my conclusion and so I'm not going to push it.

Ordinarily this would mean that I should do the study myself or else feel stupid. Fortunately, someone already HAS done the study. I defer my answer to Overswarm, who appears to be one of only like three people around here to ever bother to at least try do stuff right. (The others that come to mind are Jack Kieser, with his experiments, and that Flayl guy, whose project to objectively analyze planking is probably doomed, but at least he's trying.)

As I said two posts ago, OS's data supports the conclusion that no, Brawl is not healthy as is. And right now his report is the ONLY data on the topic that has been presented properly. I'd go so far as to say that until someone comes along with a different report which is at least equally as statistically responsible, nobody has the right to claim he's wrong without doing the work themselves.


Edit: @ most recent post by Omni: I don't know Jack, if that's what you're asking. Never seen him on the Link Xat or at the AiB Link boards (that's where the Link community is, oddly enough). As for who I play, it's advertised in my signature.

 

[Omni]

@Crow: i don't argue with statistics for two reasons.

1.) i'm too lazy
2.) i don't need them

i try to stick to the bare minimum when it comes to statistics. i know who's good and who's bad. i know who's getting what place. im very aware of regional powerhouses and rankings.

i'm not understanding why you NEED statistics in order for an argument to have its own weight in the matter. my content still holds water and truth and most of which you have neglected to directly reflect or respond upon. instead i'm hearing, "omni, you make total sense from a logical and realistic point of view, but because you have no statistics you are light years behind OS". that's some poop.

-------

and as for your answer: i am disappoint. you don't need charts and massive amount of statistics to tell if a game is growing or not. just go to a few tournaments and watch/experience how players have grown with the time. stop relying on numbers and data when cold heart facts say otherwise

1.) diddy won a national
2.) dehf's falco still outplaces cali mk's
3.) md/va's top 5 has 1 MK
4.) wario taking 2nd behind M2K followed by Snake. all of which outplacing OS's MK
5.) riddle's zss 3-0'ing seibrik
6.) boss' luigi placing 1st for nearly an entire month over the entire cast
7.) ally still gets 1st with Snake and for lols, wins GF's with Captain Falcon
8.) lain wins another tournament with a fox and wolf trailing behind

like... these kind of results aren't fluke or rare. they're becoming more and more common. i am more surprised by the fact that MK is not doing better because i think he should be.

stop being anal about presentation. facts are facts. content is essential. OS's summary is legit, but it makes you wonder why he has to underhanded tactics to present them coupled with overdramatizing and constantly trying to appeal to emotion. if the data and interpretation of the data was clear, none of that would be necessary. you gotta' stop putting OS and his summary on this pedestal just because it has a lot of words; he has an agenda to persuade people to believe MK needs to be banned thus his presentation will be heavily biased yet you're soaking it up like it's candy

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Holy ****. Luigi? Kirby? Lucario?

Pro-ban get outta here.

Is anti-ban really that off?

Showing me a few tourney results where m2k only showed in one (which he won) won't convince me the bat now has any even matchups and ppl can counter him. Larry is stupid good at Smash but how Tyrant can't seem to beat him after so many matches is beyond me. I am anticipating when DSF and Dojo reach m2k's level.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yay for posting from an iPod in class! LOL. To answer Omni's question, I'm no longer a Link main. I keep it set to Link because I still love him, even if Sak was determined to make him trash in every Smash game from now until the end of time.

 

[Overswarm]

Uh, Omni?

At least try a little harder.

Your post:

1. Attacks an argument never presented

You list three tournaments saying "MK isn't dominating" when in fact he won one of them, placed 2nd and 3rd in another, had 3 MKs in the top 5 in one (I lost to 1st and 2nd place at my tournament :\), and was still the most represented character AND the most successful overall.

If you're going to post faulty data, you should have just posted your one tournament and said "the metagame is perfect and everything will be good forever".

2. Is as to sound data as finger painting is to fine art

You picked 3 random tournaments at a local level over the course of one weekend, see variance, and say everything is okay? Last time we had this discussion pro-ban posted tons of tournaments at the local level showing MK dominating and you specifically told us that people losing to MK at a local level was irrelevant and it was the big picture that mattered. This time around, I collected data from all the largest tournaments in two different size brackets (150+ and 100-149) and found MK dominance in both, then combined them and found more dominance. I posted the data and how I got to it and even gave visual help in the form of graphs using Ankokus chart.

Did I mention that Ankoku's chart shows what happens most often as a rule? It's set up to show what is most common in tournaments on his weighted scale. While only having a few tournaments they can skew results one way or another, after a large number of tournaments have been submitted you get a pretty good look at standard trends. We pointed this out last time, and MK was (still is) dominating.

Now you're posting random tournaments at the local level and saying your random data is as important as data picked that set a certain criteria over a long period of time? Why the flip-flop?

Also:

1. Boss (Luigi/G&W)
2. Chu (Kirby)
3. June (Lucario)
4. Candy (Snake)
5. ESOJ (Diddy)
5. Omni (MK)
7. P~S Logic (Olimar)
7. Meep (ICs)
9. Tantalus (MK)
9. g-reg (Jigglypuff)
9. Taj (MK)
9. K-9 (Pikachu)
13. Joe (Snake
13. Seagull (Wolf)
13. Sassy (Zero Suit)
13. Llama (Snake)
17. 23% (Ganon)
17. Mars (MK)
17. Manic (PT)

You have 3 MKs and a total of 19 entrants. This isn't even a local, this is more like a last minute get-together. Could it be that maybe your MKs are just bad? MD/VA is not the powerhouse that it used to be. It's sad to say, but it's true.

4. I take it back. Finger painting can be good.

Let's play Omni's game and pick whatever 3 tournaments pop up in the "tournament results" forum, eh? Let's go back one weekend.

Night Shade (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262693)
1: Darklink (Metaknight) $100
2: KiraFlax (Rob/Pit) $50
3: HadesBlade (Yoshi) $15
4: Bloodhawk (Snake/Lucario) $5
5: Wobbles (Wario)
5: Duff0 (Marth/Fox)
7: Silly Kyle (Peach)
7: darkshifter (King DDD)
9: Burt (Snake)
9: Sho'nuff (MK/Snake)
9: DK Speed (Diddy)
9: Lonewolf (Marth/MK)
13: Axe
13: Rain
13: Jane
13: DerpDaBerp
17: Swoops
17: Tommy Der Meister
17: Arod
17: Gah


Delta Upsilon (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262707)
Singles Results (30 Entrants)
1: Mew2King - Meta Knight ($139.20)
2: Blue Rogue - Wario ($63.80)
3: Kel - Meta Knight ($40.60)
4: Overswarm - Meta Knight($23.20)
5: KB - Peach($11.60)
5: Fizzle - Meta Knight/Lucario/Falco($11.60)
7: Z - Meta Knight
7: Suyon - Pit
9: AlphaZealot - Diddy Kong
9: Fonz - Lucario
9: DJIskascribbles - Meta Knight
9: Nope - Snake
13: Doctor X - Pit
13: Sil - R.O.B.
13: IThrowThings - Sonic
13: Sai - Diddy Kong
---Pool Cut Off---
17: Links24 -
17: Beegs - Marth
17: TheKeist - Kirby
17: Wakka - Diddy Kong
21: Banhammer -
21: XtacyFalco - Meta Knight
21: Argent - Pokemon Trainer
21: Crow! - Link/Yoshi
25: SG -
25: Urban - Lucas
25: Wisdom - Peach
25: Moose - Sheik
29: Juu - Pit/Mario
29: Kassandra - Lucas

Combo Breaker 5 (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262720)
1: Reflex(Pokemon Trainer)
2: player 1(Diddy)
3: Big lou(Luigi/Snake)
4: billy(Snake)
5: dyno(Wario/MK/Wolf)
5: Scat(Luigi/Snake)
7: Super Villian/Alby(D3/ICs)
7: Turtl(Falco/ZSS)
9: 4GOD
9: player 3
9: Eli
9: Neo X
13: Dude
13: Diablo
13: Link quen
13: Half
17: Alex
17: Frozen hobo
17: Mercy


OMG! Metaknight won 2/3 touranments!

Unless of course you're going to mention that "just first doesn't matter", in which case I can post this:

SCSA:
1.) DEHF (Falco)
2.) Tyrant (MK)
3.) DSF (MK)
4.) Mike Haze (Marth)
5.) Havok (MK)
5.) SK92 (Falco)
7.) Rich Brown (Olimar)
7.) Z (Pikachu)

C3:
1.) Boss (Luigi)
2.) Chu (Kirby)
3.) June (Lucario)
4.) Candy (Snake)
5.) Omni (Metaknight)
5.) Esoj (Diddy)
7.) Meep (IC's)
7.) PS (Olimar)

OC #2:
1.) Mew2King (MK)
2.) Blue Rogue (Wario)
3.) Capem (MK)
4.) Infern (Snake)
5.) Nope (Snake)
5.) Overswarm (MK)
7.) Champ (IC, Falco, MK)
7.) YBM (Kirby)

So what is it?

If "MK didn't win" is an argument and your data selection is sound, I have MK winning 2/3 tournaments. The one that didn't have MK win didn't have a single MK main. In addition to this, I have data showing that MK does win more than anyone else; look at Ankoku's data. He wins more.

If you flip-flop again and "more than first" matters once more, both sets of data show clearly that MK is the best choice. The only tournaments that don't are the ones without any MK mains and a tournament that had less attendants than a math club meeting.


Now if you wanted to go back and collect data for only tournaments with low attendance (32 and under would prolly be a good bet as that is a full bracket that requires no elimination), you could use Ankoku's point ratings to see how much MK dominates at a lower level. Just collect all the .txt files from Ankoku's tournament results (get the locals most recently posted, too) and ctrl+F and search for "entrants". You can then copy pasta all those tournaments, collect the data, and potentially say "MK doesn't dominate at a local level". Assuming that's worth anything, you have building blocks for an actual argument rather than a tantrum.

5. Ad Hominems and other logic meltdowns

Pro-ban needs to quit life.

you guys are silly.

Followed by

"hey, look at all these tournaments where an MK doesn't win or where an overwhelming amount of different characters place extremely well over or around MK's placement."

pro ban #1: uh... did they plank, scrooge, grab the ledge 50 times? MK didn't play gay enough!
pro ban #2: uh... we didn't say MK couldn't be beaten...
pro ban #3: uh... Overswarm has a picture with bar graphs and pie charts. statistics man
pro ban #4: uh... you guys have no idea how to play Luigi. wooow.
pro ban #5: uh... this doesn't look good for pro-ban, but i still want MK banned!

I suspect we'll get responses to all of these dumbed-down versions of prior statements made by forum members?

Oh wait, no. No we will not.

look people. these results are fuggin proof that the metagame is healthy and is moving in a direction that allows many characters to be viable. stop being so blind when reality is hitting you in the face. if u really can look at these results and find some kind of excuse to not acknowledge them then we already know debating with you is like a guy with no fingers. it's pointless

Pro-ban, I suggest we merely copy / paste this and replace the word "healthy" with "sick", "viable" with "non-viable", as we have just witnessed the epitome of discussion.

Data picked on the most recent weekend that only half-way helps your side with such small numbers that it is statistically irrelevant? Ad hominems and logical fallacies that all fit into one page? Dumbing down the statements of the opposing side? Inui supporting your posts in advance? Calling charts showing data collected over the lifetime of the game "pretty" and insinuating that they don't help when they are merely visual represenatations of data?

Clearly, we are out matched.




In the future, for both sides, please click the little red triangle to report any sort of bashing for either side. It's not really necessary. I know I have done it some, and Omni is also a victim. Inui I can understand, but Omni actually has a decent amount of brains behind him and normally at least attempts to be civil. It's a tense discussion and frustration is inevitable, especially when we're not only arguing with different goals but have different standards of gameplay. Still, do not accept this and just click the little red triangle. Nothing bad happens, they just get a temporary infraction that says "Chill, dude" and it goes away.


SPECIAL BONUS ROUND

I got ninja'd while posting!

@Crow: i don't argue with statistics for two reasons.

1.) i'm too lazy
2.) i don't need them

i try to stick to the bare minimum when it comes to statistics. i know who's good and who's bad. i know who's getting what place. im very aware of regional powerhouses and rankings.

i'm not understanding why you NEED statistics in order for an argument to have its own weight in the matter. my content still holds water and truth and most of which you have neglected to directly reflect or respond upon. instead i'm hearing, "omni, you make total sense from a logical and realistic point of view, but because you have no statistics you are light years behind OS". that's some poop.

Aha, admitting to laziness and stating he doesn't need statistics. Then a statement that he just needs the bare minimum. Confusing, but I can understand. He only wants the bare minimum when it comes to statistics... despite the fact that every statistics class tells you this is the exact opposite of what you should do and all your data is worthless if you omit relevant data.

1.) diddy won a national
2.) dehf's falco still outplaces cali mk's
3.) md/va's top 5 has 1 MK
4.) wario taking 2nd behind M2K followed by Snake. all of which outplacing OS's MK
5.) riddle's zss 3-0'ing seibrik
6.) boss' luigi placing 1st for nearly an entire month over the entire cast
7.) ally still gets 1st with Snake and for lols, wins GF's with Captain Falcon
8.) lain wins another tournament with a fox and wolf trailing behind

oh ho, a veiled attack at my skill level! Pro tip: Do research. I'm 1-2 with Blue Rogue after this weekend, losing on game 3 with a suicide at 13%. Not surprising vs. a good player. My other loss was to mew2king, meaning I lost to 1st and 2nd place and got 5th; not too shabby.

Wait a minute: Did Omni just post some data?

Something seems fishy here.... Boss "placing 1st for nearly an entire month"? Where? Oh, MD/VA. with your what, 20 entrants? Go Boss? He lost to Infern Angelis at Pound, and Infern got 4th at the tournament you're doggin on me about for getting 5th. Wait a minute, YOU got 5th. At a tournament with no entrants and a Jigglypuff getting 9th. You were the highest MK main out of three people that played MK. You didn't have good MKs attending your tournament to even attempt to take the top spots... in fact you didn't have MK mains showing up at all. Lain winning a tournament with a FOX and WOLF trailing behind? Considering the last time I saw Lain he got 7th at our tournament I'd be inclined to raise a few question marks on my own, but Lain has some skill behind him and a few glitches here and there isn't uncommon... except he's followed by a Fox and a Wolf, neither of which have done anything of importance in the past that I've seen.

Here's some tournament results for you:

Bobby, age 7: Metaknight
Krista, age 6: Snake
John, age 7: Metaknight

Can this be included too?

Wait a minute, Ally wins Grand Finals with Captain Falcon? It's been pretty clear at this point that captain falcon is bad, so maybe... maybe Ally is just really really good and can be considered an outlier due to his godliness OR his tournament wasn't that challenging? DEHF's Falco outplacing MKs? I recall this not being the standard without planking rules, but doesn't he still trade placements with other MKs? Last time someone said this they were corrected, but I'm not too up to date on Larry's individual performances so I can't say much and WAIT A MINUTE there were 3 MK's in the top 5, taking 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. The 4th was Mike Haze playing Marth. You're saying the best Falco in the world and quite arguably the best Marth in the world shared the top 5 with 3 MKs and presenting it as evidence that the game is healthy?


Omni, read up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking


SUPER SPECIAL BONUS EDIT:

That captain falcon winning grand finals of a tournament?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263540

Read up. Looks like there were a few MKs in attendance... gonne go ahead and submit to the "Ally is an outlier" theory, especially since he himself has stated Snake's ratings have been inflated due to his placements and that Snake should be lower on the tier list (that means he considers himself an outlier).

 

[Crow!]

@ Omni:

First, I do NOT tolerate people putting words in my mouth. I never said you made "total sense from a logical and realistic point of view". That particularly ticks me off because I was trying to be responsible and deliberately avoid arguing about stuff that I understand I may not be an expert on.

Instead, I choose to address the topic of trying to look at things scienficially, which IS what I am an expert on. I'm literally a pro at this kind of stuff (I'm on a fellowship; I get paid to do research and study.)

When I talk about the presentation of the data, I'm NOT referring to how pretty the charts are or how good the rhetoric connecting the charts are. I'm talking about whether or not the core science was done right. In other words, looking into whether the process used to determine whether the data MEANS anything was done right. It's all well and good to have data, but if you don't present it correctly, it's worthless, and nobody knows whether it supports conclusion A or conclusion B or none at all.

When you're trying to argue something, the whole POINT is to show whether or not facts you can collect from the real world support your conclusion. If you don't convince the person you're arguing with of THAT, you've obviously failed in your argument altogether. And the ONLY scientifically accepted way to do that, whether you're in Physics (such as myself), Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, Sociology... ANY respectable field, is with statistics.

So, because of my scientific training, yes, I AM going to look at your list of anecdotes (I, of course, could make a similar list of anecdotes in favor of the pro-ban view. It looks like OS beat me to the punch on THAT front too, though, LOL) and say, "until this is in some way analyzed objectively and is shown to be statistically significant, OS just simply wins by default."

And I do expect other people to do the same, and as a scientist I lose respect for anyone who doesn't.

 

[ph00tbag]

Omni some of your "proof" just shows the bias in your selection.

1. This has already been covered: ADHD is a self-centered jerk who thinks that he is better than the rest of us that that means MK isn't that bad.
2. Again, you're listing one guy who happens to be better than everyone in his region. Tell me how he did at Pound, again?
3. See 6.
4. How known for high level smash was Ohio before M2K moved there? Face it, M2K is the only reason they're currently relevant.
5. ZSS doesn't have a bad match-up on MK. And Nick and seibrik have played many times; at this point it's more about personal match-ups than characters.
6. Boss dominating in md/va is clearly not related to character. It's because no one in md/va is anywhere near as good as he is, except for a few other people who, for some reason or another, choose not to play metaknight.
7. It's like you want to invalidate your own claims. If Ally is beating his opponent with Falcon in Grand Finals, Ally clearly outclasses the guy, and likely outclasses the rest of his region.

I don't know how common those results are. I personally don't care, because I don't play this game anymore, but even I can tell, your argumentation here is pretty shoddy and underhanded (funny that you pan OS for doing the same). Your points reek of selection bias, and the fact that you ardently deny it is sickening.

 

[etecoon]

long post full of evidence of MK dominating

this is stuff we all know, MK is very dominant and a lot of top players use MK. you spend an enormous amount of time gathering evidence of how dominant MK is when we are already aware, the real issue is whether this degree of dominance is acceptable and this is a judgement call, it's not something you can argue with statistical data. you see MK winning a certain % and say unacceptable, some others see luigi winning tournaments and MK getting taken down in GF by captain falcon and say there's no way MK should be banned. neither of you are necessarily wrong, but ultimately this comes down to core beliefs that are unlikely to be changed.

 

[Overswarm]

this is stuff we all know, MK is very dominant and a lot of top players use MK. you spend an enormous amount of time gathering evidence of how dominant MK is when we are already aware, the real issue is whether this degree of dominance is acceptable and this is a judgement call, it's not something you can argue with statistical data. you see MK winning a certain % and say unacceptable, some others see luigi winning tournaments and MK getting taken down in GF by captain falcon and say there's no way MK should be banned. neither of you are necessarily wrong, but ultimately this comes down to core beliefs that are unlikely to be changed.

This is true, at least to an extent; I don't think anyone in their right mind would accept an 80% dominance ratio at high level play over a period of time, but human error and multiple other variables are involved that prevent that from ever happening.

Some people actually are concerned about the current degree, but weren't aware of how powerful MK was. My data was in response to previous anti-ban claims during the last discussion that simply said "at the highest level of play, MK doesn't dominate". Our approach last time was to show how MK ruined teh game at low/mid level play. After posting my data, Omni has proceeded to shrink his criteria from "highest level of play" to "first place" and has slowly started shying towards the lower level of play with his recent posts.

The data makes it pretty clear what is going on at that level of play, so there isn't any guesswork involved. The "judgement call" is the hardest part about all of this; a lot of high level players just don't want MK banned because M2K mains him and this is how M2K makes his living!

 

[Delvro]

I can deal with a lot of things regarding this whole metaknight debate, but I refuse to stand by and watch people pooh-pooh the statistical research that we have done on Metaknight.

You are biased. I am biased. We can only view a small portion of the picture and as humans we tend to selectively remember + emphasize what impacts us the most. "Remember the hits and forget the misses", one could say. This goes both ways. I've watched people quit over Metaknight and this makes me believe that he is killing the scene, BUT MY BELIEF HAS ABSOLUTELY NO VALIDITY WITHOUT DATA. Statistics, when done right, are infallible. Numbers are king.

I find it depressing that people are willfully rejecting data and research and replacing it with one or two cherry-picked observations, attatching their favored hypothesis about metaknight onto it.

With the amount of data we have, one or two observations means nothing!

If you're going to argue against the research OS has done, explain clearly and specifically what is faulty or invalid about the data (and unless the method of research was wrong, the data CAN'T be wrong), and then show us a set of unbiased, accurate data that supports your own conclusion.

This post is made specifically for all you people who love to pick 3 or 4 people who have beaten M2K or won a large tournament and then shout to us all "see anyone who can't beat MK is just lazy!"

No.
Just no.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

No one in their right mind would support an anti-ban for that reason OS. So M2K can keep winning money? lol.

 

[Overswarm]

No one in their right mind would support an anti-ban for that reason OS. So M2K can keep winning money? lol.

For what reason?

edit: Ninja'd!




....you'd be surprised. M2K lives off his smash winnings and his friends obviously don't want that to go. I feel bad about it. M2K is a little odd but he's not a bad guy at all, just a little off kilter. Also, for some reason he finds me when I'm sleeping at Nope's and tucks his feet under my legs for warmth. Kinda odd.

 

[etecoon]

I believe he mean this

The "judgement call" is the hardest part about all of this; a lot of high level players just don't want MK banned because M2K mains him and this is how M2K makes his living!

I don't see it as that far fetched, no one wants to betray their friends

 

[RDK]

And yet, Anti-ban keeps saying that we have to "only consider the highest level of the metagame" when we make decisions. Those tournaments are legit, and I'll never argue that they aren't, but I think it's obvious that we didn't have players playing MK at the highest level of the metagame at those tournaments; the metagame doesn't evolve from "8 MK's in the top 10" to "No MK's even placed" in one week.

By anti-ban's own logic, we shouldn't use those tournaments to base a decision off of.

This is an answer to pro-ban saying "It isn't a matter of MK being unbeatable per se, but oversaturating the tournament scene". Rankings, etc. I've hear this argument used on multiple occasions and can quote it a few times if you like.

Also I think Overswarm may have me on his block list because every question I've posed to him he's either completely ignored or not seen.

 

[Omni]

whoa

now thats what i call a response @OS, phoot, and Crow

for future reference, OS, if u want me to respond or answer a question try to keep it shorter. not to say that you didn't bring up any points, but your first post in this thread was the last time i told you i would respond to a large wall of text. btw, i disagree with a mass array of arguments and statements that you made

@Crow: ah, i see. well the reason why we have a hard time mixing is because i am the opposite of a scientist. that also explains why you highly approve of statistics. that would make our view on this subject and how it should addressed completely different which is totally cool.

i also didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

but realize that not all of us our scientist and don't think that there is only one specific path to proving points and making arguments.

@phoot: huh @ taking all of my statements and shooting them down. so are you saying i haven't made one valid argument this entire time? also, Boss is not "clearly better than everyone" in our region. he has only started to do well as of recently and this is his first time doing so. what are u talking about?

 

[Overswarm]

for future reference, OS, if u want me to respond or answer a question try to keep it shorter. not to say that you didn't bring up any points, but your first post in this thread was the last time i told you i would respond to a large wall of text. btw, i disagree with a mass array of arguments and statements that you made

Well I'm convinced.

but realize that not all of us our scientist and don't think that there is only one specific path to proving points and making arguments.

I'll just let crow handle this one.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

For what reason?

edit: Ninja'd!

....you'd be surprised. M2K lives off his smash winnings and his friends obviously don't want that to go. I feel bad about it. M2K is a little odd but he's not a bad guy at all, just a little off kilter. Also, for some reason he finds me when I'm sleeping at Nope's and tucks his feet under my legs for warmth. Kinda odd.

I don't blame people for feeling like banning MK would be betrayal, but if MK is bannable, assuming people agree he is, then he should be banned. Multiple MK mains would be heartbroken, yes, but so are those Akuma mains in SF2, or anyone who main a character that got banned.

M2K isn't a bad guy at all, but the meta-game can't die for one player if MK is truly bannable. All MK mains would have to switch mains, that's all that would happen.

 

[ph00tbag]

@phoot: huh @ taking all of my statements and shooting them down. so are you saying i haven't made one valid argument this entire time? also, Boss is not "clearly better than everyone" in our region. he has only started to do well as of recently and this is his first time doing so. what are u talking about?

I'm saying that the relevance of each of those results is undermined by the nature in which they were used. You're bringing up several anecdotal data points, without considering their mitigating factors. If you want these anecdotal points to be relevant, they can't have caveats like the ones you presented do.

Also, I didn't say Boss is clearly better than everyone (the quotes are unnecessary because that's a paraphrase); I said he is better than everyone, "except for a few other people who, for some reason or another, choose not to play metaknight." Most prominently among those is ChuDat. I'm saying if Chu picked up MK, he'd probably beat the snot out of Boss.

 

[etecoon]

I'm saying if Chu picked up MK, he'd probably beat the snot out of Boss.

chu secondaries MK last I knew and has attempted to main him before I think(or at least I'd heard that he had tried high tiers unsuccessfully before finding success with kirby)

 

[ph00tbag]

chu secondaries MK last I knew and has attempted to main him before I think(or at least I'd heard that he had tried high tiers unsuccessfully before finding success with kirby)

Like I said. For some reason or another.

 

[Overswarm]

Psst... ankoku updated his chart.

DETAILS
S Rank «Uber» 43.23%
1 Meta Knight (179 top8, 126 top4, 72 top2, 75 wins, 452 total) - 4020.7
2 Snake (131 top8, 71 top4, 39 top2, 48 wins, 289 total) - 2024.0

A Rank «Overused» 20.67%
3 Diddy Kong (76 top8, 31 top4, 23 top2, 23 wins, 153 total) - 1325.6
4 Marth (42 top8, 37 top4, 15 top2, 14 wins, 108 total) - 877.9
5 Falco (59 top8, 38 top4, 15 top2, 8 wins, 120 total) - 686.0


MK went up. Everything is fine. Nothing is ruined.

 

[xxCANDYxx]

lawl at pro ban....trying to make this look like science

why not waste your time ******* about mk and actually spend the time learning the matchup...i mean it works...ask ally and adhd...instead of staying on the boards and not improving

dont like it? play a different game...mk isnt going anywhere

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So now it's not really MK=Snake+Diddy, it's closer to MK=Snake+2xDiddy, or, more accurately, MK=2xSnake

 

[Judo777]

Im tired of people saying the "MK isnt unbeatable so he shouldnt be banned." Just because a character isnt unbeatable doesn't mean he doesnt have grounds for banning. In super streetfighter 2 turbo akuma was banned from tournaments for a really good reason. He has retardedly good zoning and extremely safe pokes along with stupid easy to land combos that can kill u if u arent paying attention. All this aside akuma was NOT unbeatable. There were many examples of good players beating akumas at high levels of plays they just had to play so stupidly uphill and they couldnt make hardly any mistakes.

Just cause MK isn't unbeatable doesnt mean he shouldnt be banned.

 

[boss8]

Im tired of people saying the "MK isnt unbeatable so he shouldnt be banned." Just because a character isnt unbeatable doesn't mean he doesnt have grounds for banning. In super streetfighter 2 turbo akuma was banned from tournaments for a really good reason. He has retardedly good zoning and extremely safe pokes along with stupid easy to land combos that can kill u if u arent paying attention. All this aside akuma was NOT unbeatable. There were many examples of good players beating akumas at high levels of plays they just had to play so stupidly uphill and they couldnt make hardly any mistakes.

Just cause MK isn't unbeatable doesnt mean he shouldnt be banned.

ur compariing street fighter with brawl.....

MK is beatable...learn the matchup....

til then stop complaining....cause MK isnt going anywhere....deal with it....

 

[dainbramage]

I find this useless.

6-4: Is what? Wins 6 games out of 10 verses 4 games out of 10. That just means 60% to 40%. That percentage is huge. For every 2 matches you win, your opponent should win 3. Best of 5, means you should lose. It just math my frend. In the Finals, thats a counter.
7-3: 70% to 30%? Thats insanely huge. Its more then double. In a best of 3 your opponent wins 2.33 games for every 1 you win. At this rate you cant even win a best of 3 unless your lucky. And forget about winning a best 5, this is hard counter, not just a counter.

Honestly, from a mathematical point of view, if skills is the largest determing factor, then the ratios for matchups should be very very close.

Here's some actual math (this is of course skewed by counterpicks, but hey. It's actually more favourable to the player with worse odds when you consider counterpicks). This assumes that you have an equal chance to win each match.


if you have a 40% chance to win a given match, you have a 35.2% chance to win a BO3, and a 31.577% chance to win a BO5.

If you have a 30% chance to win a given match, you have a 21.6% chance to win a BO3, and a 16.308% chance to win a BO5

20% - 10.4% for BO3, 5.792% chance to win BO5

10% - 2.8% for BO3, 0.856% chance for BO5.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well MK<Snake+Diddy+Marth. by 100 or so points.

People like MK.

 

[Overswarm]

Well MK<Snake+Diddy+Marth. by 100 or so points.

People like MK.

People like to win.