Might have Atomsk too, I don't know which character he uses.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Official Metaknight Discussion
- Thread starter Hylian
- Start date
- Status
B0NK
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,282
lol. This deja vu all over again for me:
Omni said:
This is from the time of last poll thread when Md/Va was having their own regional discussion on the ban. Thread name is "Dear Md/Va," and the arguments presented are pretty much the same as they are now except I refer to fighters that DID ban characters since Omni likes to use other competitive fighters as evidence. That was his response.hova said:
For those that are curious that old thread showed that the majority of Md/Va does not want him banned. I believe this is because Metaknight has never been a dominant character in our region as people can see from our results.
Chances are if we were to have another regional discussion, the same people would be for banned/anti-banned and the arguments would once again become based on two opposing ban criteria. Omni's black and white "he is either broken or not broken," and the other presented by hova:
Which has been the problem in the argument to begin with, each side and individual has a different ban criteria and I don't believe it is possible to create one both sides can agree on. As of now it seems that the two arguments are stillhova said:
Anti-banned: Metaknight's dominance does not show he is broken. Since Metaknight can not be shown to be broken he should not be banned.
Pro-banned: Metaknight's dominance is having a negative effect on the smash community and there are no signs that his dominance will decrease or improve the community. Since Metaknight is harming the community he should be banned.
The arguments will not end since the community can not agree on a ban criteria. So I still see these arguments as pointless. The Smash community has not banned any characters (or saw a reason/need to) in the past unlike other fighter communities so I don't see Metaknight ever getting banned.
Also I would love to see Omni or another anti-banned side member respond to Overswarms post because I would hate for it to get ignored because Omni didn't feel like reading it. Same thing happen to my argument last summer =/
AllyKnight
Banned via Administration
Like Falcon would say YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHH. And my region doesn't suck, we definatly got Best ICS. Best ROB and our players are very good. (Atleast in Quebec ;D)
I don't main MK, so winning with him is very funny. I main Snake and Falcon like day 1. MK is just for fun.
Crow!
Smash Lord
Thanks for toning things down a bit.
Warning: this post became MUCH longer than I expected it would.
tl;dr version: the reason you need to use the scientific method to resolve arguments is that other methods just don't work when two sides actively disagree with each other; science, when done properly (easier said than done), has the ability to create a clear cut winner and break the stalemate.
I'll aknowledge that there is more than one way people can try to argue a point. I'll also admit that it is natural for people to go for a sort of, how to put it, "follow stories and try to learn a lesson from them" sort of approach. But it doesn't work. If it did, let me assure you, scientists would be all over that, as exciting results from interesting but poorly controlled experiments sure are easy to come by. (Instead, scientists go back and try to recreate the interesting result in a CONTROLLED experiment, and THEN they make the claim.)
Informal arguments are fine as long as there's nobody contesting the data. A kid asks why you don't cross the road without looking, and you tell a story of someone getting hit by a car. Pretty straightforward, it makes intuitive sense to everyone, case closed - but it's closed NOT because you've PROVEN that crossing the road is dangerous, it's settled because everyone's dropped it. Crossing the road carelessly gets banned and that's that.
Since you seem to like examples, let's keep going with that route. In fact, let's go with an analogy which is pretty close to this debate here which you can find if you go to google news.
If we replace this road crossing thing with, say, why you don't use cell phones while driving, suddenly the situation is a lot more nebulous. People might say that cell phones are no more distracting than other things, or they might say that in some ways it actually keeps them more alert for some reason, or they might call to question the core idea that distractions lead to more accidents, or all sorts of other things. Worse, some people personally benefit from having cell phones available while commuting - I know that in the past, my Dad frequently had the opportunity to bill clients for his commuting time to a court AND bill another client for a telephone conference simultaneously - so can you really trust everyone's arguments or not?
Suddenly, merely talking about individual accidents isn't good enough. It doesn't matter how compelling your stories of particular accidents are, or how well you can categorize the accidents with each other, or even what reasons you give that you personally think "make sense" to explain why you should use the phone or not - if it "made sense" to the other side of the argument, you wouldn't be HAVING the argument (unless, maybe, if they truly hadn't heard that argument before, not usually the case, or if they really don't think they're right but will argue for it out of personal benefit, which hopefully isn't the case but could be.)
So what's the out? How do you resolve the deadlock? Statistics. Cold hard science. As they say, the facts don't lie (at least, not unless the person doing the research does something wrong, in which case the facts didn't lie, the researcher did.) For this example, it has been statistically shown that driving while operating a cell phone is as strongly correlated with accident rates as is being drunk: this obviously led to the pro-ban side winning in several states.
You can't contest properly statistically analyzed facts. Not without doing your own study and claiming that the other side's methods were wrong or don't apply. At that point the argument is one which DOES have a clear winner: Did someone lie? Were there effects which are important that haven't been considered? Does the proposed change have unintended consequences, or accomplish the goals it's supposed to? You can CHECK those things, objectively, and decide on a winner. The rebuttal in this example is, after the ban was in place, some studies recently have called some question to the effectiveness of the cell phone ban in reducing accidents, regardless of what the cause of the apparent ineffectiveness of the ban was. Now some of the laws could be in risk of repeal and other states are much less likely to adopt them.
I suppose I should put in the footnote that you can avoid appealing to statistics and still be rigorous - but only when you're declaring arguments that you can express in the form: in EVERY (or in THIS PARTICULAR) case where A is true, B is true. But even then you technically ARE doing statistics on it, but it just doesn't look like statistics - if you find a single case where A true but B is false, the statistical probability of that is zero and so you have statistically disproved that statement even though your data consisted of only one point.
This shows up most frequently in Mathematics, where you can start with a few postulates and build theorems that, if they aren't right, require breaking at least one postulate which you just assume to be true (you have to start somewhere...)
Master Raven
Smash Master
Espy you act like MK is Sonic's only bad MU
If Meta Knight was Sonic's only bad match up, he'd be top tier.
Sonic's horrible for a reason. 35:65s, 40:60s, and 45:55s all across the board, with only two or three 50:50s and maybe two 55:45/60:40s in his favor.
Remember, Sonic's terrible for a reason.
It just so happens that Meta Knight manhandles him completely.
I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty about tournament placings because they've been posted numerous times for everyone to see. Also, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between anti-ban and pro-ban about how the placements are interpreted.
OS. Could you conclusively give us a rough number describing exactly what "dominating" tournament placements means? How many top spots must a character take, and at how many consistent events, before said character is considered to be "dominating" and a hindrance to the metagame?
Secondly: is dominating the tournament scene automatically correlative to that character being broken? I.E., a character can be overused without actually being the best thing since sliced bread.
Thirdly: this is my personal opinion, but I feel that ADHD winning a national tournament with Diddy is more than ample evidence that Metaknight A) was never "dominating" the tournament scene like some people say he was, and B) doesn't have to as long as people continue to develop other characters. ADHD is living proof of this.
Also, what pro-ban doesn't realize is that allowing the MK overuse to run its course is probably the best thing to do at the moment. The more and more people become familiar with the character, and the more other characters' metagames are developed, the easier it will be to deal with him.
That, or just pick up MK and play with him. This is a competitive fighting game community. Do whatever it takes to win.
Kill people if need be.
The graph you posted concerning tournament attendance was bogus, as pointed out by several people on several occasions.
I don't dispute the overuse of MK in tournaments because it's obviously there; anyone with eyes can see that.
I don't quite understand what player skill has to do with MK tournament dominance. Whether or not the players are any good don't really effect the amount of people using him in a tournament setting.
They either used him or they didn't.
Edit: as for the size of the tournaments, I would put credibility as data more towards what notable players attended the tournaments and not on how big it was.
Nobody is disputing the fact that clearly MK is the best choice. I'm not sure if Omni thinks that coming in first is more important than how many players actually used MK throughout the tournament, but I think everyone here agrees that it's the latter that counts. One player using MK consistently through an entire tournament and winning with little to no other MK's showing up is not evidence for dominance.
Secondly: I'd still like to hear your opinion on why you think tournament dominance makes characters ban-worthy. Would you like to go back and dig up old Melee tournament results and look at which characters dominated during different periods?
Games go through phases. I'm not saying Brawl won't stay this way, because it very well might. But I don't see how dominance - a property that has little to no correlation with actual brokenness and can change with the community - can ever be an objective ban criteria.
Do you understand what I'm getting at? Hypothetically speaking Captain Falcon could become the most played and most won-with character tomorrow. That doesn't mean he's broken, it means he's overused.
And in MK's case it means that a good chunk of the competitive Brawl community are tier-wh0res, and rightly so. Emphasis on competitive.
No, he was presenting it as evidence towards his point of view that MK is not dominating tournaments, whether that means simply 1st place (I'm assuming) or number of players.
I can't speak for Omni so I'll let him answer this himself, if he ever gets around to it.
Soooo.....****ed if we do, ****ed if we don't? I'm not exactly sure how you can include data both for and against your side and call them both data for your side.
In fact this tournament flies in the face of your theory. MK in fact did not even come close to dominating this tournament, be it regarding placements or overuse. On top of that, Captain Falcon took first place.
Yes, the Metaknight barrier stopping any other character from breaking through the top ten spots is visibly apparent.
Pro-ban needs to be able to make actual predictions and have those predictions confirmed. You can't count the hits and.....count the misses also, but for your side.
Good try though.
That being said; questions pro-ban needs to answer:
1) What constitutes tournament dominance?
2) How many (top?) spots must a character take before said character becomes "dominating"?
3) Why should metagame health / variety take precedence over tested competitive rules and policies?
4) What criteria can be made that explains why Metaknight is worthy of a ban, and can this criteria be applied in future situations without making arbitrary decisions?
5) OS, why the hell are you using Metaknight?
Master Raven
Smash Master
If that's the case then I can see your reasonings better now.
You like to end posts with "questions pro-ban needs to answer" so I am just going to repost my post from page 52 of this thread.
Before I leave for the day I just wanted to post my opinions and ideas on these.
1.) I would say if a character was placing 5+ of the top 8 in 4 (an arbitrary number, basically a significant portion of major tournaments) major tournaments in a year, a ban might be considered. Just an idea, I do not know tourney results (except the infamous pound 4/genesis results) so I would like to point out if tourney results really are like this I am not calling for a ban soley because of it.
2.) This is a question niether side can refute/support because short of tournament results, we have no way to measure it. Frame data is irrellevant because there is no solid way to compare them between characters given the amount of options Brawl offers compared to a traditional fighter. Moveset could be, but again we would need a standard. Not something as hard to pin down as a banning criteria (this would merely be a part of a proper pro-ban argument), but something based on data. Still, this is not obviously not without flaws (there has to be a best character in the game).
3.) I am no expert on this debate, so I have nothing concrete, but tournament results would be a start (see #1 as an example). Or moveset (see #2). The problem I see is that so many Pro-Banners use attacks of character, judgement, and emotion as arguments (anti-bans are not exempt from this either) which simply do not work towards advancing the argument in any way, as a rebuttal will be aimed at the attack, not the reasons behind the argument.
4.) If, and this is a big if, we could come up with something that somehow worked around the aforementioned problems, it could be saved and used as a future banning (or unbanning) criteria. We have a long way to go before that happens however.
I hope this post was constructive in some way.
QUICKEDIT: I would be interested to see how far along the BRoomers are towards this.[/quote]
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Crow, may I just say that, as a Philosophy major and advocate of the scientific method...
Say the word, and I will defy biology to have your children.
...no homo. Yes, homo.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Which s why he has been rather consistent in terms of tournament ranking?
For one who says he is terrible, we've seent hat most Sonic users are rather average.
As for MK, meh i use marth.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Removing your color, hurts the eyes
"Dominance" is not a number; it is relative to other viable characters. Ankoku's current chart widens the gap a bit, with MK at around 4020 points and Snake around 2024 points and Diddy at 1325.
Metaknight is in his own tier. For some reason Snake is in the same tier as him, having 700 more points than Diddy, but Metaknight is clearly a step beyond Snake. Falco, the lowest of A rank, is at 658 points (that's about 700 below Diddy), meaning if you compared Snake and Falco's points, Diddy is in the direct center.
The top 5 characters are Metaknight, Snake, Diddy, Marth, and Falco, in that order. Metaknight has 4020 points. The remaining four combined have a point total of 4913.5. That's almost 900 points difference, which isn't much considering you'd have to add that difference three times to make Diddy even with Metaknight.
Now if the results were more like
Metaknight - 4k points
Snake -3.7k points
Diddy - 3.5 k points
Marth - 3.3 k points
Falco - 3.0 k points
Then you could say "okay, yeah, MK is obviously better than most but you can see these other characters are having a ton of success too".
Not so much the case with the real rankings.... and these are weighted rankings, meaning popularity isn't as big an issue as some believe it is.
In other words, you're guessing.... like when people guessed Snake was the MK counter because Ally existed.
This is all fine and good; I've said the same thing about stages (most of them banned, oddly enough). The problem is that with stages, people are okay with seeing one guy win by drastic measures on a repeated basis. Seeing another person beat him once isn't a big deal to them; the standard is the stage bringing about a victory for the CPer. For characters, it seems to be the opposite.
Waiting will only make it harder to remove Metaknight. We don't have isolated incidences in terms of Metaknight dominance... we have a statistical trend with no sign of slowing down or stopping. In fact, the trend seems to show an increase in Metaknight placements as time goes on.
The graph you posted concerning tournament attendance was bogus, as pointed out by several people on several occasions.
I don't dispute the overuse of MK in tournaments because it's obviously there; anyone with eyes can see that.
The graph isn't bogus, actually. Some regions started posting less tournaments over time (mostly WC, cuz now they're all AiB people for some reason), but after the numbers were divided by region... there is an actual decline. I haven't posted any other info because we're still looking into it. Hopefully the decline isn't nearly as bad as shown; whether it is or not, I'm starting a project in the SBR atm to help TOs increase their tournament attendance.
I'd also like to note I said nothing about the tournament attendance chart in the part you quoted
As for "overuse of MK in tournaments" I say "what". I didn't say anything about overuse of MK in tournaments in any of my charts; MK was winning more. You couldn't peg MK down only to certain players in any set of data because it was multiple people getting the same results (good results, too); the same could not be said of other characters as time went on. MAYBE Snake in the beginning, but no one else (although Falco did have one shining moment in a tournament with no MKs showing up).
Tournaments with more attendants have people travelling to get there and you have diversified competition. If an MK gets first in a 10 man tournament, big whoop. If an MK gets first in a 50 man tournament, you raise an eyebrow. If an MK gets first in a 500 man tournament, you flip your lid and talk about how awesome that guy is.
It can also be noted that MK is the most successful character in the game; if a region doesn't use him very often, it most certainly isn't because all the MKs were just beasted by superior MK knowledge. It's more likely they just weren't good with MK.
While the entrants listed there weren't noobs, they weren't powerhouses either.
Not according to about half the posts in this thread or the entire anti-ban argument last time we did this. Talking about "who got first" is a recent trend.
We can see exactly how good MK is. The only thing left was to see what that entailed... and now we know, and it ain't pretty.
Fact is, other characters aren't dominant and MK isn't the most played at random. MK became the most played because he's the best. More importantly, I specifically went out of my way to remove any white noise from the data by only using the top 8 from tournaments with 150+ entrants (and later 100-149 entrants) so that simply having more people play MK would be irrelevant.
Fact of the matter is, MK isn't just overplayed. He does better than anyone else by a significant margin, and from everything we've seen it has been at all levels of play.
What?
This doesn't "fly in the face of my theory" at all. This was a single, one-time tournament that Omni posted at random because for some reason he thought Ally, one of the best Brawlers the world had seen and definitely in the top 3, was able to win a local grand finals with captain falcon.... and this proves MK shouldn't be banned? I don't think so.
Like stated earlier, Ally is an obvious outlier. In addition to this, there were still 3 MKs in the top 5, and had Ally not attended the 1st place would be... MK. >_>
My whole point in talking about anything in relation to his tournaments was to mention how silly he was being, as his entire post was worthless as far as collecting data or proving a point. His argument was the equivalent of saying "Well this one time" and following it up with something that helped his argument.
Granted, with a large number of games and a few studies showing community response to overpowering characters in relation to how much dominance those characters showed you could come up with a standard, but I don't think we can or would do that.
But... I never said you should put one thing over another.
I think the criteria couldn't be created to just make a decision, but criteria could made to say "if something reaches this point, it is a problem and needs to be researched". I would personally use Metaknight as the bar.
The first character I played in this game was ROB. I fell in love.
I practiced every day I could for at least 3 hours, playing wifi, college roomates, other smashers, my girlfriend, CPUs, whatever I could. When I was at work, I'd look up everything I could on every character.
I won multiple events, at one point winning over 10 in a row, and made enough money to live off of. I quit my job so I could focus on my student teaching in my final semester of college, and was left to play more Brawl when I wasn't focusing on my studies... and I made more than I did at my real job.
I realized faster than my opponents did that ROB was bad, and was actively looking for a secondary or new main. DSF visited the midwest and played friendlies, MK vs. my ROB, easily winning. I picked up MK and beat him, and then we proceeded to trade games back and forth.
MK was insanely easy to play, much better than any character we'd seen, and had no known counters. I figured he'd have a counter sooner or later, but the most popular character at the time was Snake; I mained ROB and owned Snakes. DSF was THE snake at the time, and we were going even in ROB vs. Snake matches even with his ROB experience.
However, MK wasn't really that fun. But money was good.
So.....
I stopped practicing. I still trained others, still played friendlies from time to time after tournaments, but actively practicing? No, that ended a long time ago. I still kept making bank as time went on and I owe it all to Metaknight. He required no practice, I never go into a matchup knowing I am at a disadvantage, and once I learn a matchup or a player I have the options to win.
No, I could not.
"Dominance" is not a number; it is relative to other viable characters. Ankoku's current chart widens the gap a bit, with MK at around 4020 points and Snake around 2024 points and Diddy at 1325.
Metaknight is in his own tier. For some reason Snake is in the same tier as him, having 700 more points than Diddy, but Metaknight is clearly a step beyond Snake. Falco, the lowest of A rank, is at 658 points (that's about 700 below Diddy), meaning if you compared Snake and Falco's points, Diddy is in the direct center.
The top 5 characters are Metaknight, Snake, Diddy, Marth, and Falco, in that order. Metaknight has 4020 points. The remaining four combined have a point total of 4913.5. That's almost 900 points difference, which isn't much considering you'd have to add that difference three times to make Diddy even with Metaknight.
Now if the results were more like
Metaknight - 4k points
Snake -3.7k points
Diddy - 3.5 k points
Marth - 3.3 k points
Falco - 3.0 k points
Then you could say "okay, yeah, MK is obviously better than most but you can see these other characters are having a ton of success too".
Not so much the case with the real rankings.... and these are weighted rankings, meaning popularity isn't as big an issue as some believe it is.
Er... define broken? I didn't use the word. I also don't think my argument had anything to do with "lol look at how many MK mains there are" but rather "hey look, there's a lot of MK mains AND they're placing well".
This is a single player, and doesn't really mean anything. This is as silly as if we had said "mew2king wins everything he goes to, and thus MK needs to be banned". It's fragile evidence at best. Hell, it's worse in your case. You've got Diddy mains claiming it is in MK's favor save for two notable Diddy mains, Alpha Zealot and ADHD, who claim it is even and yet only ONE Diddy main is even doing anything amazing. This isn't evidence at all. It's an outlier, not a trend.
In other words, you're guessing.... like when people guessed Snake was the MK counter because Ally existed.
I'd normally agree, but this is what was said last time.... and what will be said again. This isn't something we'll ever get conclusive info on unless something insanely drastic happens. The last time we discussed this we got the same statement: just wait.
This is all fine and good; I've said the same thing about stages (most of them banned, oddly enough). The problem is that with stages, people are okay with seeing one guy win by drastic measures on a repeated basis. Seeing another person beat him once isn't a big deal to them; the standard is the stage bringing about a victory for the CPer. For characters, it seems to be the opposite.
Waiting will only make it harder to remove Metaknight. We don't have isolated incidences in terms of Metaknight dominance... we have a statistical trend with no sign of slowing down or stopping. In fact, the trend seems to show an increase in Metaknight placements as time goes on.
That's what people have been doing, and it's contributed to the MK hatred.
My strategy against mew2king is called "poison his drink". I'll make a thread about it someday.
The graph you posted concerning tournament attendance was bogus, as pointed out by several people on several occasions.
I don't dispute the overuse of MK in tournaments because it's obviously there; anyone with eyes can see that.
The graph isn't bogus, actually. Some regions started posting less tournaments over time (mostly WC, cuz now they're all AiB people for some reason), but after the numbers were divided by region... there is an actual decline. I haven't posted any other info because we're still looking into it. Hopefully the decline isn't nearly as bad as shown; whether it is or not, I'm starting a project in the SBR atm to help TOs increase their tournament attendance.
I'd also like to note I said nothing about the tournament attendance chart in the part you quoted
As for "overuse of MK in tournaments" I say "what". I didn't say anything about overuse of MK in tournaments in any of my charts; MK was winning more. You couldn't peg MK down only to certain players in any set of data because it was multiple people getting the same results (good results, too); the same could not be said of other characters as time went on. MAYBE Snake in the beginning, but no one else (although Falco did have one shining moment in a tournament with no MKs showing up).
Tournaments with very small entrants are considered "locals". Locals aren't really that great at judging national trends; Boss could get 1st at MD/VA 1,000 times but he's still not gonna win a national.
Tournaments with more attendants have people travelling to get there and you have diversified competition. If an MK gets first in a 10 man tournament, big whoop. If an MK gets first in a 50 man tournament, you raise an eyebrow. If an MK gets first in a 500 man tournament, you flip your lid and talk about how awesome that guy is.
It can also be noted that MK is the most successful character in the game; if a region doesn't use him very often, it most certainly isn't because all the MKs were just beasted by superior MK knowledge. It's more likely they just weren't good with MK.
While the entrants listed there weren't noobs, they weren't powerhouses either.
Not according to about half the posts in this thread or the entire anti-ban argument last time we did this. Talking about "who got first" is a recent trend.
No; I'm interested in Brawl. I've seen enough data for those tournaments to satisfy my appetite, and the fact there are little to no records for many of the tournaments they had makes them more or less useless for discussion.
On its own, maybe not... but this isn't exactly someone saying "huh, sure is a lot of MKs". This is years of actively searching for a counter with MK being the target. We had Snake there first and it was what, three months before we had a list of counter characters and snake fell off his throne?
We can see exactly how good MK is. The only thing left was to see what that entailed... and now we know, and it ain't pretty.
The problem is, your argument is a "what if" scenario, which is only slightly stronger than Omni's "so what" argument.
Fact is, other characters aren't dominant and MK isn't the most played at random. MK became the most played because he's the best. More importantly, I specifically went out of my way to remove any white noise from the data by only using the top 8 from tournaments with 150+ entrants (and later 100-149 entrants) so that simply having more people play MK would be irrelevant.
Fact of the matter is, MK isn't just overplayed. He does better than anyone else by a significant margin, and from everything we've seen it has been at all levels of play.
What?
This doesn't "fly in the face of my theory" at all. This was a single, one-time tournament that Omni posted at random because for some reason he thought Ally, one of the best Brawlers the world had seen and definitely in the top 3, was able to win a local grand finals with captain falcon.... and this proves MK shouldn't be banned? I don't think so.
Like stated earlier, Ally is an obvious outlier. In addition to this, there were still 3 MKs in the top 5, and had Ally not attended the 1st place would be... MK. >_>
My whole point in talking about anything in relation to his tournaments was to mention how silly he was being, as his entire post was worthless as far as collecting data or proving a point. His argument was the equivalent of saying "Well this one time" and following it up with something that helped his argument.
We did. They came true. Go read the old Pro-ban argument. Listen to the podcast. I sound like a ****ing prophet.
This is a variable that is dependent on the number of viable characters in the game and, all in all, is a judgement call. To assign an arbitrary number to it and expect others to rally behind that number is a bit silly.
Granted, with a large number of games and a few studies showing community response to overpowering characters in relation to how much dominance those characters showed you could come up with a standard, but I don't think we can or would do that.
Again, see above. If I could say "this number" and point to it and other people would agree, the argument would be over. For some, the number has been reached. For others, it hasn't.
No one said it should, but all in all if you don't have a healthy game you have a dying game, and a dying game will be a dead game. If someone from the future came and nabbed me, took me to the future, and showed me standard brawl tournaments with 3,000 entrants every weekend with $2 entry with all stages and all items on very high across the USA with multiple sponsors and we still had consistent winners, the moment I came back I would rally for that game standard.
But... I never said you should put one thing over another.
For a character, or for things in general?
I think the criteria couldn't be created to just make a decision, but criteria could made to say "if something reaches this point, it is a problem and needs to be researched". I would personally use Metaknight as the bar.
I normally just post a long list of pictures of me looking at money here, but I'll give you a text response.
The first character I played in this game was ROB. I fell in love.
I practiced every day I could for at least 3 hours, playing wifi, college roomates, other smashers, my girlfriend, CPUs, whatever I could. When I was at work, I'd look up everything I could on every character.
I won multiple events, at one point winning over 10 in a row, and made enough money to live off of. I quit my job so I could focus on my student teaching in my final semester of college, and was left to play more Brawl when I wasn't focusing on my studies... and I made more than I did at my real job.
I realized faster than my opponents did that ROB was bad, and was actively looking for a secondary or new main. DSF visited the midwest and played friendlies, MK vs. my ROB, easily winning. I picked up MK and beat him, and then we proceeded to trade games back and forth.
MK was insanely easy to play, much better than any character we'd seen, and had no known counters. I figured he'd have a counter sooner or later, but the most popular character at the time was Snake; I mained ROB and owned Snakes. DSF was THE snake at the time, and we were going even in ROB vs. Snake matches even with his ROB experience.
However, MK wasn't really that fun. But money was good.
So.....
I stopped practicing. I still trained others, still played friendlies from time to time after tournaments, but actively practicing? No, that ended a long time ago. I still kept making bank as time went on and I owe it all to Metaknight. He required no practice, I never go into a matchup knowing I am at a disadvantage, and once I learn a matchup or a player I have the options to win.
Oops, I'm assuming that got buried in posts or I just didn't catch it. I'll answer it with Overswarm's.
Judo777
Smash Master
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,627
Sorry for attempting to make a correlation with a great game. I'd like brawl to be a great game...what was i thinking....
I'll post in white this time.
What if the points were distributed like this:
Metaknight - 3900
Snake - 2500
Diddy - 1900
Marth - 900
Falco - 658
Is this acceptable? Does this still fall under "dominance"?
What if I shaved a little bit more off of MK and distributed it to other characters? Then would it be acceptable?
I'm trying to get pro-ban to build a foundation for their reasoning as to why Metaknight needs to be banned. Saying "he dominates" and "he places significantly better than any other character" is not enough. What is significant?
At what point does something become significant? At what point does it stop?
So here is my definition of "breaking competition":
If not, what would you change, and why?
You asked me to define broken, so I did in the above section.
Again, I fail to see how this is anything but a normally functioning competitive community.
I always thought it was a combination of placement and usage. Can you explain exactly what you think "winning more" is? Top 5? Top 10?
Just look at ISP.
[/jabatjackkieser]
I want something on Metaknight - some one property, or an amalgam of properties - that I can point at and go, "That should be banned".
Normally I would say that tournament results don't prove anything. When deciding tiers, tournament results are not the only factors used. In fact, if I had my way their influence would be minimized.
There is no arguing that MK is a cut above the rest of the cast. However whether or not he is ban-worthy is, at this point, simply a judgment call, and anti-ban and pro-ban just disagree.
I'll wait to see how you respond to the SBR criteria I posted earlier.
You don't have to accept that as evidence for anything. However you do cite Ally as an outlier. Earlier you talked about ADHD as one too. I remember Ninjalink being able to cream M2K with at at least one tournament.
Why are these "isolated incidents" not considered in the grand scheme of things? If anything it proves that MK is manageable in top-level play.
This is what I don't understand about the pro-ban position. You are indisputably endorsing lowering the competitive bar. The whole point of this game is to raise it.
You can believe that MK takes the idea of skill and makes a mockery of it. But that doesn't change the fact that he is the best competitive option; in many cases, he ensures victory. As a competitive player, you must agree that the option that ensures victory is the best choice. When money is on the line, and you choose otherwise, you are not fit to win, and you will most likely lose.
However if ADHD and Ally have taught us anything, it's that MK is manageable. Mew2king isn't even winning at Melee anymore, so it's not like he's overreaching. AFAIK he's full Brawl now. At his best, in the finals of a national tournament, he lost to ADHD, someone who mains a character 2695 points behind M2K's main.
People act like MK - a video game character - is singlehandedly destroying Brawl as we know it. No he's not. People are just lazy, and if they aren't lazy and do decide to pick up MK, they get bored, which is understandable because MK vs. MK every other match is ****ing boring.
The point I'm trying to make is that without a definition of exactly what constitutes ban-worthy, we're making an arbitrary decision.
What if the points were distributed like this:
Metaknight - 3900
Snake - 2500
Diddy - 1900
Marth - 900
Falco - 658
Is this acceptable? Does this still fall under "dominance"?
What if I shaved a little bit more off of MK and distributed it to other characters? Then would it be acceptable?
I'm trying to get pro-ban to build a foundation for their reasoning as to why Metaknight needs to be banned. Saying "he dominates" and "he places significantly better than any other character" is not enough. What is significant?
At what point does something become significant? At what point does it stop?
Sorry, I was almost positive you responded to someone's post about whether or not you thought he was broken, so I went back and searched for it and this came up:
I apparently read that as "definitely broken".
So here is my definition of "breaking competition":
Do you agree with this criteria? If so, do you feel Meta fits this criteria?
If not, what would you change, and why?
I guess I'm still confused as to what exactly you see as the problem is with Metaknight. Until then I don't know how to answer this.
You asked me to define broken, so I did in the above section.
Is that not an acceptable answer now?
This phenomenon is just players realizing that Metaknight gives them the best chance of winning the game. You yourself said it: you play MK to win money. No sane competitive player would do otherwise.
Again, I fail to see how this is anything but a normally functioning competitive community.
I hate MK too. I just don't think he should be banned.
Even if the graph isn't bogus, correlation does not prove causation. The decline in attendance could be attributed to a number of other factors. I know you've been making oodles of cash with your Metaknighting around tournaments but surely even you've noticed we're in a bit of an economic slump. It costs money to travel.
True, but you did mention the pretty graphs you posted, so I jumped on it.I'd also like to note I said nothing about the tournament attendance chart in the part you quoted
By "winning more" I'm assuming you mean winning first place. So we could have an instance of MK taking the top spot at [insert arbitrarily large number here] tournaments, and virtually no other spots, and this would be counted as evidence for his dominance?
I always thought it was a combination of placement and usage. Can you explain exactly what you think "winning more" is? Top 5? Top 10?
Which is why I said the emphasis should be on which players attended rather than the size of the tournament. It's possible to have fairly large n00b tournaments.
Just look at ISP.
[/jabatjackkieser]
Again, confusion. So it's not about "who got first"? Isn't that the definition of "winning more"?
My problem with this is, yes, we know exactly how good MK is.....relative to the rest of the roster. Which is malleable; it's not objective. It can change.
I want something on Metaknight - some one property, or an amalgam of properties - that I can point at and go, "That should be banned".
Okay, so let me get this straight. The benchmark for "doing better" is roughly the top 8-10 spots, and from out of those spots the average amount of MK's in any given sample of statistically significant tournaments comes the evidence for his over-dominance?
Normally I would say that tournament results don't prove anything. When deciding tiers, tournament results are not the only factors used. In fact, if I had my way their influence would be minimized.
There is no arguing that MK is a cut above the rest of the cast. However whether or not he is ban-worthy is, at this point, simply a judgment call, and anti-ban and pro-ban just disagree.
I'll wait to see how you respond to the SBR criteria I posted earlier.
Lol I still think the fact that CF took first place.....over several MK's speaks for itself. There were 27 entrants; I think your cutoff point was like, what, 32?
You don't have to accept that as evidence for anything. However you do cite Ally as an outlier. Earlier you talked about ADHD as one too. I remember Ninjalink being able to cream M2K with at at least one tournament.
Why are these "isolated incidents" not considered in the grand scheme of things? If anything it proves that MK is manageable in top-level play.
This is what I don't understand about the pro-ban position. You are indisputably endorsing lowering the competitive bar. The whole point of this game is to raise it.
You can believe that MK takes the idea of skill and makes a mockery of it. But that doesn't change the fact that he is the best competitive option; in many cases, he ensures victory. As a competitive player, you must agree that the option that ensures victory is the best choice. When money is on the line, and you choose otherwise, you are not fit to win, and you will most likely lose.
However if ADHD and Ally have taught us anything, it's that MK is manageable. Mew2king isn't even winning at Melee anymore, so it's not like he's overreaching. AFAIK he's full Brawl now. At his best, in the finals of a national tournament, he lost to ADHD, someone who mains a character 2695 points behind M2K's main.
So if we don't have a standard, how do we decide what gets done? Take a vote? Might is right?
I would probably agree. But MK dominance isn't forcing players to quit.
People act like MK - a video game character - is singlehandedly destroying Brawl as we know it. No he's not. People are just lazy, and if they aren't lazy and do decide to pick up MK, they get bored, which is understandable because MK vs. MK every other match is ****ing boring.
This is acceptable, except, again, this is the first time this has ever happened. We should have already had a bar. Doing it now, without good reason, is arbitrary.
Sonic's bad. He's just not held down by his more difficult match ups, Meta Knight being the only exception.
Anywhatsits, this isn't the place to discuss it.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
See, that's what I've been advocating for a while, here's the hitch though, we don't have a criteria.
The thing is, we have data showing that metaknight is dominant (I've suggested methods of proving he causes dominance, but that's a separate issues) but how much of any one thing makes MK banworthy?
On one hand, we have people who believe that regardless of dominance, he should never be banned. On the other hand, we have people who believe that the fact that he's banworthy is self-evident. Most people's beliefs are somewhere in the middle, but before we can establish a conclusion scientifically we need to establish what result of the data would mean what.
There is another option, the "legal option", treat this like a case and create a criteria as a result of this. The problem with this is that unfortunately, people will adjust their position based on their preconceptions, the people deciding it I mean.
Having the criteria set in stone before avoids that messiness.
A criteria for what? Ban-worthiness? That would suggest we have set reasons for why we should ban a character.... and we don't. The only reason that everyone agrees with across the board is that a broken character (a character that overcentralizes the metagame) should be banned and at this point no one who knows what they're talknig about really thinks MK is "broken". People have a different, problem with him from what I hear. They want to ban mk on his "gayness". O.o I think we need to define gayness (which I could do, but don't care to) and then convince everyone else that "gayness" is bad for the competive community (not the metagame, because I feel that's a lost cause).
A universal ban on mk would be stupid.... The occasional mk banned tourney for FUN would be cool. If a ban actually happens, I hope a lot of TOs main him. =D
A universal ban on mk would be stupid.... The occasional mk banned tourney for FUN would be cool. If a ban actually happens, I hope a lot of TOs main him. =D
Ganonsburg
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,083
Wait, your first two sentences are basically saying this:
"We shouldn't create criteria for ban-worthiness because we don't have any criteria."
Which is illogical. And then you say we need to define gayness? Couldn't I just say that we shouldn't define gayness because we don't have a definition for gayness?
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Replace "idiot" with "jerk" and you've described my strategy for the past few years.
Eddie G
Smash Hero
Screw the rules, I have Metaknight!
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Then I suppose why should be playing master hand in melee?
I'm sorry, but if a character is "broken" there has to be some sort of reasoning to it, characters don't have the attribute "broken", they have a set of attributes that work together to identify them, and it's comparative to the metagame.
Criteria is to keep the community consistent so bans don't become a popularity contest and we only ban legitimately broken things while at the same time, not banning things that aren't broken.
shadowdsfire
Smash Apprentice
Mk is not too good for the game, it's just all the other character that are weak and make this game less competitive...
So I think we should ban all character but no MK xD
So I think we should ban all character but no MK xD
Sorto
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 409
i suppose you feel you avoided my question by just answering with pretty much a question, so let me resubmit my question and hopefully you can give me a real answer. I asked before if you felt mk was broken. That has nothing to do with my definition, as it is YOUR feeling. So i will rephrase. According to your definition of broken, which you must have, even if it is outlandish or on the reverse, easy to fulfill, do you believe that metaknight is broken?
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
LOL ^^^
Ban everyone else! Best. Idea. Yet.
Ban everyone else! Best. Idea. Yet.
TP
Smash Master
I'm reposting this from one of the earlier MK threads, slightly edited, since I didn't get a response last time.
Why is it this hard to define criteria for a ban? Do our criteria need to get approved by a ****ing panel of fighting game experts or something? This is our game. We can do whatever the hell we want with it. As soon as we went from time matches to stock matches, we proved that. We are a community of a couple thousand people who all play the same game competitively. Our "ban criteria" should be "if banning X overall benefits the community more than it hurts, then ban X." I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.
Why is it this hard to define criteria for a ban? Do our criteria need to get approved by a ****ing panel of fighting game experts or something? This is our game. We can do whatever the hell we want with it. As soon as we went from time matches to stock matches, we proved that. We are a community of a couple thousand people who all play the same game competitively. Our "ban criteria" should be "if banning X overall benefits the community more than it hurts, then ban X." I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.
GunmasterLombardi
Smash Champion
Probably 'cause pro-ban'll make criteria that fits MK exactly and anti-ban'll make criteria that's impossible for any character to match.
Ganonsburg
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,083
Sorry, I didn't mean to call you an idiot or anything. I was just pointing out that what you said was somewhat circular.
Just a quick question. Would dividing the number of tournament points received by the number of results create some sort of concentration? Like, average amount of points earned at at tourney? Which would give much heavier weight to larger tournies while at the same time accounting for number of results received. And that could lead to clearer conclusions on concentration.
Just a guess. Someone who knows what they're doing better than I do correct me if I'm wrong.
Just a guess. Someone who knows what they're doing better than I do correct me if I'm wrong.
ADHD
Smash Hero
You're all steuupid and this is why he should not be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SpLUq8Gg8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SpLUq8Gg8E
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Ankoku did this with his character rankings thread.
I was only concerned with the top 8 of any tournament and only used tournaments with 150 or more players, so I didn't need to have the points weighted in any fashion. Having 150 at a tournament means people traveled, so it's not like the 150 man tournament means less than the 160. The same cannot be said when comparing point totals for a 30 man tournament and a 150 man tournament.
Kaffei
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 7,048
Looks like a nice stalling tactic =D
ADHD
Smash Hero
LMAO! Ban him!
- Status