Official Metaknight Discussion

[adumbrodeus]

True as that may be, it's not an issue now and has nothing to do with the metaknight ban, because mk is clearly not broken. No one could seriously make an arguement for that even if we had a set criteria. As I keep saying, anyone who wants to ban mk is going to have to find reasons we should ban things aside from brokenness.

Really?

I'm sure a number would and have, that he has a great enough advantage to be considered "broken" and people simply don't wanna admit it is possible.


Obviously, I won't say that it's true or false, we don't have a criteria, however he certainly presents himself as in a rather similar position to Old Sagat of Super Turbo at his face.

That is not how matchup ratios work.... If two players are playing at equal skill at a high level then the one with the 60/40 advantage should ALWAYS win (and if not always WAY more than 60 percent of the time). Matchups only become unmanageable at a high level when its around 70:30 or worse.

How badly can someone make fun of you when you're beating him? lol

Well, not always, but yea, this is not Street Fighter, MUs degrade at some exponential rate (I'd like to figure that out to standardize it actually, and there's an acceptable range so not all 60-40 MUs are the same). Brawl just isn't balanced enough for SF MU numbers.

 

[Sorto]

That is not how matchup ratios work.... If two players are playing at equal skill at a high level then the one with the 60/40 advantage should ALWAYS win (and if not always WAY more than 60 percent of the time). Matchups only become unmanageable at a high level when its around 70:30 or worse.

How badly can someone make fun of you when you're beating him? lol

let me first say, if the matchup is 60:40, that should then equally display the ratio of results as 60:40, so it shouldnt be way more then 60 percent or the ratio is wrong. Secondly, 55:45 is diddy verses mk, but the top level of skill had adhds diddy, the best diddy, always winning pretty much. but odds say that he is really lucky. Or maybe the odds are wrong. 66:33 and worse removes the question and become theoretically very much unwinnable as one character is twice as good as the other in that match up. Anything under 60:40 can still be salvaged, and changed to an even matchup in the future in m mind, because the bast has shown this to be possible. Thats where my logic comes from.

 

[Magus-Cie]

hey RDK, where is my promised reply? D:<

 

[rathy Aro]

Really?

I'm sure a number would and have, that he has a great enough advantage to be considered "broken" and people simply don't wanna admit it is possible.


Obviously, I won't say that it's true or false, we don't have a criteria, however he certainly presents himself as in a rather similar position to Old Sagat of Super Turbo at his face.

Many criteria have been thrown around. None of the ones that I can recall consider MK broken. Can anyone even name some proban people that aren't scrubs aside from OS. I feel like OS has been alone on this since like the start. lol

let me first say, if the matchup is 60:40, that should then equally display the ratio of results as 60:40, so it shouldnt be way more then 60 percent or the ratio is wrong. Secondly, 55:45 is diddy verses mk, but the top level of skill had adhds diddy, the best diddy, always winning pretty much. but odds say that he is really lucky. Or maybe the odds are wrong. 66:33 and worse removes the question and become theoretically very much unwinnable as one character is twice as good as the other in that match up. Anything under 60:40 can still be salvaged, and changed to an even matchup in the future in m mind, because the bast has shown this to be possible. Thats where my logic comes from.

Its wrong, because it doesn't fit your definition of a ratio? lol Also your reasoning for 3:2 ratio being unwinnable is flawed for a whole bunch of reasons. You're not considering the counter pick system at all. Anyway, the ratios that matchup discussions generally use have their own particular meaning that has nothing to do with the numbers themselves (essentially look at 60:40 more like its a word than a ratio).

lol @ arguing w/ ppl who don't play brawl. and brawl+ doesn't count.

 

[Black Marf]

Criteria 3 needs proof that more characters would see play.

Clarify this.

Every character is seeing play right now. However, I can guarantee to you that a lot more Marths would see play without MK there. A lot of characters in the lower ends of S tier, the A tier, and some of the B tier would become at least a bit more common, if not a lot more.

This should be apparent by simply looking at a matchup chart.

That is not how matchup ratios work.... If two players are playing at equal skill at a high level then the one with the 60/40 advantage should ALWAYS win (and if not always WAY more than 60 percent of the time). Matchups only become unmanageable at a high level when its around 70:30 or worse.

This isn't how skill levels or matches work though.

Technically, players don't have a definitive skill level. They have a skill level over a certain amount of time. No one plays the same all the time. It is very possible that a player who is usually better than another player can get out read and beaten in a set. Matches and players aren't static events.

The matchup ratio isn't a hard chance of winning, it's a numerical comparison of both characters choices in the match.

^^God**** people need to stop throwing the word "scrub" around.

 

[adumbrodeus]

let me first say, if the matchup is 60:40, that should then equally display the ratio of results as 60:40, so it shouldnt be way more then 60 percent or the ratio is wrong. Secondly, 55:45 is diddy verses mk, but the top level of skill had adhds diddy, the best diddy, always winning pretty much. but odds say that he is really lucky. Or maybe the odds are wrong. 66:33 and worse removes the question and become theoretically very much unwinnable as one character is twice as good as the other in that match up. Anything under 60:40 can still be salvaged, and changed to an even matchup in the future in m mind, because the bast has shown this to be possible. Thats where my logic comes from.

Doesn't work, our MUs get too bad too quickly, the current system allows for precision, I think that it's better then arguing over 99.999 to .001 or 99.99999 to .00001.


Frankly our community doesn't have the proper grasp of math to really deal with it that way anyway, people would interpret it as unwinnable even if a tiny gap in skill might make it winnable.


That's really it actually, in smash, skill gaps make a difference much more quickly, so measuring the skill difference required is much more important then measuring the rate assuming both characters are equal (this is of course, skill at the higher things of play, in other words reading and other subtleties, not tech skill).

Many criteria have been thrown around. None of the ones that I can recall consider MK broken. Can anyone even name some proban people that aren't scrubs aside from OS. I feel like OS has been alone on this since like the start. lol

Not necessarily, the criteria I put forth at it's face doesn't, but at the same time I think that MK has significantly better MUs then people actually give him credit for an my blog explains what data would be required, none of which is known.

This should be apparent by simply looking at a matchup chart.

This isn't how skill levels or matches work though.

Technically, players don't have a definitive skill level. They have a skill level over a certain amount of time. No one plays the same all the time. It is very possible that a player who is usually better than another player can get out read and beaten in a set. Matches and players aren't static events.

The matchup ratio isn't a hard chance of winning, it's a numerical comparison of both characters choices in the match.

^^God**** people need to stop throwing the word "scrub" around.

Again, this degrades too quickly for it to be useful in terms of odds, it's better at measuring required skill differences.

 

[Nanaki]

Clarify this.

Every character is seeing play right now. However, I can guarantee to you that a lot more Marths would see play without MK there. A lot of characters in the lower ends of S tier, the A tier, and some of the B tier would become at least a bit more common, if not a lot more.

This should be apparent by simply looking at a matchup chart.

This isn't how skill levels or matches work though.

Technically, players don't have a definitive skill level. They have a skill level over a certain amount of time. No one plays the same all the time. It is very possible that a player who is usually better than another player can get out read and beaten in a set. Matches and players aren't static events.

The matchup ratio isn't a hard chance of winning, it's a numerical comparison of both characters choices in the match.

^^God**** people need to stop throwing the word "scrub" around.

Matchup charts around here are notoriously bad, because matchup numbers are notoriously bad for this game. Sure, we get the obvious ones right (DDD/DK, Pika/Fox, Sheik/Ganon, etc.), but the rest are a total crapshoot. Bad characters' boards inevitably overestimate their characters' chances, while good characters' boards underestimate theirs. It's tricky to get these things close to right in a game as open as ours, and multitudes of players who haven't played a decent opponent of a matchup throwing numbers around never helps.

tl;dr: matchup numbers around here mean zero.

The way you state that matchups work in this game is sound, though. I also agree, 'scrub' is thrown around a ridiculous amount.

All this talk about MK not being 'broken' is totally bat**** crazy. When you have to repeatedly adjust the rules of how the game is played at its most basic level by banning tactics specific to the character, the character is inherently broken. He has broken the game, and you are trying to fix it to include him.

 

[ADHD]

Why does it matter that the best character in the game is dominating tournaments? I thought that is obvious. It's going to change a little bit soon, like melee. We're going to have a little more representation soon as players really get to know the matchup.

Also diddy can't be cg'd by ddd/falco and is totally broken now ^_^

 

[Gnes]

Why does it matter that the best character in the game is dominating tournaments? I thought that is obvious. It's going to change a little bit soon, like melee. We're going to have a little more representation soon as players really get to know the matchup.

Also diddy can't be cg'd by ddd/falco and is totally broken now ^_^

I know what ur talking bout...and stop it

 

[Sorto]

Many criteria have been thrown around. None of the ones that I can recall consider MK broken. Can anyone even name some proban people that aren't scrubs aside from OS. I feel like OS has been alone on this since like the start. lol

Its wrong, because it doesn't fit your definition of a ratio? lol Also your reasoning for 3:2 ratio being unwinnable is flawed for a whole bunch of reasons. You're not considering the counter pick system at all. Anyway, the ratios that matchup discussions generally use have their own particular meaning that has nothing to do with the numbers themselves (essentially look at 60:40 more like its a word than a ratio).

lol @ arguing w/ ppl who don't play brawl. and brawl+ doesn't count.

it is called a MATCHUP RATIO. This would describe the situation i describe. Sure it may be used as words, but the orignal meaning came from the idea of percents and ratios, unintelligent people have just scewed it. If i sold u a magic coin and said its special and has a heads to tails ratio of 70:30, if you flipped it a billion times and it showed up even you would come to me and say what gives this is just a regular quarter. If my answer then is, well 70:30 ratio is just words. Well i suppose me and you might have a bit of a problem. no?

 

[Black Marf]

Why does it matter that the best character in the game is dominating tournaments? I thought that is obvious. It's going to change a little bit soon, like melee. We're going to have a little more representation soon as players really get to know the matchup.

As much as everyone would love for a lot of characters to step up their game, it's worth noting that history favors the pro-ban side. I remember the poll about a year ago, and it seems like more of the pro-ban's predictions have come true than the anti-bans.

Also diddy can't be cg'd by ddd/falco and is totally broken now ^_^

We should just ban his ***.

God****, ban everyone in the S tier but MK.* Then everyone will HAVE to play him to compete, and the game will be 100% skill based!

*Or everyone but D3.

 

[adumbrodeus]

it is called a MATCHUP RATIO. This would describe the situation i describe. Sure it may be used as words, but the orignal meaning came from the idea of percents and ratios, unintelligent people have just scewed it. If i sold u a magic coin and said its special and has a heads to tails ratio of 70:30, if you flipped it a billion times and it showed up even you would come to me and say what gives this is just a regular quarter. If my answer then is, well 70:30 ratio is just words. Well i suppose me and you might have a bit of a problem. no?

Perhaps originally, but terms evolve.


The fact is that basing it on odds in your circumstance sacrifices precision and usefulness to a degree that it becomes irrelevant.

 

[rathy Aro]

it is called a MATCHUP RATIO. This would describe the situation i describe. Sure it may be used as words, but the orignal meaning came from the idea of percents and ratios, unintelligent people have just scewed it. If i sold u a magic coin and said its special and has a heads to tails ratio of 70:30, if you flipped it a billion times and it showed up even you would come to me and say what gives this is just a regular quarter. If my answer then is, well 70:30 ratio is just words. Well i suppose me and you might have a bit of a problem. no?

I don't think it was unintelligent to change the meaning of the ratios, because the way you suggest they should be wouldn't be very useful to us.

@deus: MK may be potentially broken, I can admit that, but in terms of how he is being played right now, he isn't. But it would be incredibly unwise to ban something before there was emprical proof of it being broken. I would think you agree since I recall you having the same stance on planking.

How bout we stop talking about why mk is too good and PLAY the game so we can beat him in tourney? =D Good idea, right?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Clarify this.

Every character is seeing play right now. However, I can guarantee to you that a lot more Marths would see play without MK there. A lot of characters in the lower ends of S tier, the A tier, and some of the B tier would become at least a bit more common, if not a lot more.

This should be apparent by simply looking at a matchup chart.

This isn't how skill levels or matches work though.

Technically, players don't have a definitive skill level. They have a skill level over a certain amount of time. No one plays the same all the time. It is very possible that a player who is usually better than another player can get out read and beaten in a set. Matches and players aren't static events.

The matchup ratio isn't a hard chance of winning, it's a numerical comparison of both characters choices in the match.

^^God**** people need to stop throwing the word "scrub" around.

My problem with this is, Marth shuts a lot of people down, really, really hard. Looking at his matchups, this is a problem. On the other hand, he also has issues like DDD...

 

[Kitamerby]

Then I suppose why should be playing master hand in melee?

Master Hand needs to be banned on the grounds that finishing a game with him causes the game to freeze, which technically means you forfeit the match, which means you'd have to be an idiot to use him in tournament since no matter what you're forfeiting that round. ._.

 

[Omni]

I thought the problem with Master Hand was that he can't lose stocks.

 

[Nanaki]

I thought the problem with playing as Master Hand was that you had to Gameshark him into the game in the first place, when hacking is generally a no-no competitively (besides textures, I guess).

 

[Overswarm]

No, they figured it out. You just hold a series of buttons, it's pretty crazy.

 

[RDK]

I feel like writing criteria, you guys can judge if MK fits it or not I;m just going to state criteria I've used for multiple games. It's pretty much very simular to things Sirlin has said and it's a bunch of points I wholly agree with.

To ban something it has to fit any of these three points.

1. It overcentralizes the game around itself. Centralization would be just be something that needs to be considered in many decisions when playing competitively. The game isn't entirely around it, but to ignore it is silly.

Think of it like top tiers in many games, you have to consider them because they are good, the game will be more focused around them but not to a degree where it is all that matters. overcentralization is the game is nothing but trying to play the said character and it's counters, and when I mean nothing I mean nothing else matters. Skullclamp did this for MTG, TeleDad did this in Yugioh, just for some examples. The percentage of overcentralization to ban the character can be anywhere from 50%-70%, depends on the tolerance of the community, any farther should have action taken immediately to stop it.

2. The character forces unhealthy gameplay. Normally these kinds of characters leads into point number 1, but sometimes there are multiple characters that can do these kinds of tactics. Lets say the game had 7 characters that were viable out of 20 only because all of these characters has infinites that they could do on the whole cast. Now this can create a good metagame, but many people find the gameplay of first hit wins to be rather ridiculous even more so when it cuts down diversity. You can balance these kinds of tactics, like having IC use an infinite but still allowing the entire cast the ability to play around the infinite.

3. The game is astronomically better without the character(s). The game needs to be able to improve greatly from the removal of one character. Will removing it allow many more characters to be more viable? If it does it to a high enough degree than yes. This is done more so to improve diversity to something that may not be broken, but the way it cuts diversity to huge levels may be a good reason for a ban.

I need to improve it, but this is what I think of ban criteria.

Congratulations on scoring an own-goal.

It's easy to fit criteria around MK after the fact. The criteria I posted has been used by the SBR long before the MK problem. I even posted it before there was even a debate on this subject, because DK mains cried about this very same thing when they figured out D3 made him inviable.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I thought the problem with Master Hand was that he can't lose stocks.

I thought the problem with Master Hand was that....he doesnt work on most stages properly.

 

[Overswarm]

Congratulations on scoring an own-goal.

It's easy to fit criteria around MK after the fact. The criteria I posted has been used by the SBR long before the MK problem. I even posted it before there was even a debate on this subject, because DK mains cried about this very same thing when they figured out D3 made him inviable.

Wait, what criteria was this? We haven't released criteria on anything other than stages... so I'm calling bull****.


Also, the person you're quoting is anti-ban.

 

[rathy Aro]

This isn't how skill levels or matches work though.

Technically, players don't have a definitive skill level. They have a skill level over a certain amount of time. No one plays the same all the time. It is very possible that a player who is usually better than another player can get out read and beaten in a set. Matches and players aren't static events.

The matchup ratio isn't a hard chance of winning, it's a numerical comparison of both characters choices in the match.

^^God**** people need to stop throwing the word "scrub" around.

My goodness, this is why I always (well not always) put something in parentheses after I write "always." Because people are way to nit picky. >.> Also I was speaking of theoretical players whose skill doesn't waiver to make a point. Happy? I do very much agree with what you say a ratio is for though.

 

[theCook]

I wonder what Metaknight is hiding behind that mask?

 

[Overswarm]

I wonder what Metaknight is hiding behind that mask?

The void.









Or a blue kirby face.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I wonder what Metaknight is hiding behind that mask?

His ****. Now remember-he's about the same size as kirby, and the mask is pretty smooth to his body.

 

[theCook]

Do you think he's hideously deformed? Like two-face?

 

[adumbrodeus]

@deus: MK may be potentially broken, I can admit that, but in terms of how he is being played right now, he isn't. But it would be incredibly unwise to ban something before there was emprical proof of it being broken. I would think you agree since I recall you having the same stance on planking.

How bout we stop talking about why mk is too good and PLAY the game so we can beat him in tourney? =D Good idea, right?

Which is why I suggested the criteria requires a certain amount of empirical proof behind it, if you check my blog it states exactly the type of proof I suggest.


As far as planking there is neither empirical or theoretical proof that it's broken, my stance is more that it hasn't been proven to be broken at all. Look at the peach boards, they've done the frame data and found ways to punish it, why can't everyone follow that lead?

 

[RDK]

Also, the person you're quoting is anti-ban.

LOL if he is, he does a good job of pretending to be pro-ban.

Magus, sorry, here's my response to your post:

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.

OS posted some sample tournament rankings earlier in the thread. Ultimately this is, as you said, arbitrary, and in the even that some people here still don't know why that's bad, I'll get to that in a moment.

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).

Right. Which is why I'm baffled as to why people are baffled that the best character is doing....the best. Admittedly by a large margin, but still.

I'm wondering if pro-ban has answered for the similarities between MK and O. Sagat yet?

Anyway, on to subjective / whim / whatever-suits-my-fancy arguments by pro-ban.

We can basically dissolve the core pro-ban argument into one of these categories:

1) MK should be banned because I actually perceive him to break the criteria (I.E., has nothing to do with diversity / variance)

2) MK should be banned because I want to see more tournament diversity / variance (other characters should be given a chance; I want to be able to play whatever character I want with disregard to worrying about Metaknight)

3) MK should be banned because he's destroying the Smash scene, and in a few years there will be no one left to play except MK players.

All of these arguments are basically a deviation of "because I said so". They are arbitrary. They are also similar enough to be considered essentially the same argument. "MK is bad because of ________ [insert reason here]". In some way, shape, or form, he needs to go.

But the motivations and reasons why are, essentially, the same. People want to see other characters' metagames developed. But once again, where do we draw the line? If in Melee I had said "We should ban Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth because I want to see other characters' metagames developed", would anyone have taken me seriously?

Is that a fair argument?

The problem is that is exactly what happens; nobody really takes this seriously. So it becomes grouped with various lesser arguments: vague tournament results ("He wins too much!" "He occupies too many top spots!"), pointing out the property gap in between MK and the rest of the cast, bringing up all the game patching we've had to do to make the character more fair (planking, IDC), etc. etc. Until finally we have a giant amalgamation of many small unconvincing arguments.

This is why MK will never be banned. The argument is not cohesive. There is no one thing we can point at and go "Yep, that should be banned. That is definitely broken. That overcentralizes; that breaks competition; that is alien to the competitive nature of the game". There's nothing like that with MK

My 2 cents. Still waiting on OS for the reply to my last post.

 

[Sorto]

I don't think it was unintelligent to change the meaning of the ratios, because the way you suggest they should be wouldn't be very useful to us.

@deus: MK may be potentially broken, I can admit that, but in terms of how he is being played right now, he isn't. But it would be incredibly unwise to ban something before there was emprical proof of it being broken. I would think you agree since I recall you having the same stance on planking.

How bout we stop talking about why mk is too good and PLAY the game so we can beat him in tourney? =D Good idea, right?

Perhaps originally, but terms evolve.


The fact is that basing it on odds in your circumstance sacrifices precision and usefulness to a degree that it becomes irrelevant.

It seems to me, that the both of you do not understand the term RATIO. Hopefully, someone with a math background of at least HS level can come and help me explain this to you as clearly as possible.
1. Ratios are a description of odds. 40-60 is equal to 40%-60% or 4-6 or 2-3. That is all they mean.
2. In smash the odds/matchup ratios are derived from particular character advantages and disadvantages, that if weighed correctly would lead there character's results to mirror those original ratios and odds, as the games played with those particular characters approaches infinity (assuming the metagame and matchup didn't change)
3. The way you think Ratio's work, would actually give us nothing. Numbers with no meaning are qualitative, not quantitative, it becomes useless. If 60:40 doesn't mean 60%-40%, all I am lead to believe is that the matchup is in the 60's advantage because 60 is greater then 40. But I don't know how much greater, because the numbers are not allowed to correlate as a ratio in your description. Example: Q: How big was that building? A: It was 70. Q: 70 meters? Are you sure? N0 no, that can't be right. 70 what? What are your units? 70 compared to what? A: Just 70 in comparison to the empire state building. Like big. You know? Q: Do you mean 70% of the size of the empire state building? A: No I just mean the empire state building is 100 and that other building is 70. You know its smaller then it, but still big. But def not 70% the size. Q: Why didn't you just say 60 or 80 if it just has to be less then 100? A:Because it isn't 60 or 80, its 70.
3. No one will ever reach infinity, but as more matches are played, the characters results at top level should mirror the ratio more closely, as long as the ratio is correct.
4. Any correct ratio, should have its results closely mirror it, as the number of tests approaches infinity (smaller deviation as number of tests increases).
5. Assuming ADHD to be the top Diddy player and having most of his results against all MK players to be in his favor, people should then determine the ratio to be in his characters favor. ADHD's results verses ALL the MKs, shows his character' s win percentage to be over 50%. ADHD's results verses any ONE particular MK also show his character's win percentage to be over 50%. Had the match-up been a true 45:55, the odds of that happening become increasingly low, the more matches played. People just make excuses for some strange reason. But when you look at it simply, it is just math my friend.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Clarify this.

Every character is seeing play right now. However, I can guarantee to you that a lot more Marths would see play without MK there. A lot of characters in the lower ends of S tier, the A tier, and some of the B tier would become at least a bit more common, if not a lot more.

This should be apparent by simply looking at a matchup chart.

If we ban MK, will diversity flourish where many more characters are suddenly more playable? That is the question I'm asking. From what I've seen from the results of MK banned tournaments, I didn't see a huge difference.

Now that could be attributed to the fact MK banned tournaments are a bit rare so those metagames don't flourish, but that's just a theory.

From what the results showed, not much changed.

LOL if he is, he does a good job of pretending to be pro-ban.

I'm anti-ban.

MK doesn't fit any of my criteria points, IMO.

 

[Judo777]

I think its funny how this thread is discussing whether MK should be banned and that we would need definite proof in order to ban him but at the the same time they keep saying statements like "he will never be banned" when they have no definite proof because whether MK is banned or not is really up to the TOs now isnt it?

 

[RDK]

I think its funny how this thread is discussing whether MK should be banned and that we would need definite proof in order to ban him but at the the same time they keep saying statements like "he will never be banned" when they have no definite proof because whether MK is banned or not is really up to the TOs now isnt it?

How many TO's run tournaments where Metaknight is banned?

I'm anti-ban.

MK doesn't fit any of my criteria points, IMO.

My bad. Metaknight breaks your second criteria, which IMO is a little too vague. If it is simply about "forcing unhealthy gameplay", then it's up to each individual exactly what "unhealthy gameplay" is.

In fact:

but many people find the gameplay of first hit wins to be rather ridiculous even more so when it cuts down diversity. You can balance these kinds of tactics, like having IC use an infinite but still allowing the entire cast the ability to play around the infinite.

This sounds almost exactly like our situation. Except instead of being a "first hit win", it's a long, drawn-out, boring match between either MK and another MK, or some other character.

So IMO I wouldn't use that criteria.

 

[GreenFox]

The reason TO's dont ban him is because it'd probally lower attendance but if the SBR banned him it'd influence people to stop playing him including TO's banning him.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Making up matchups based on ONE player's results is a terrible idea.

 

[Overswarm]

The point I'm trying to make is that without a definition of exactly what constitutes ban-worthy, we're making an arbitrary decision.

News flash:

Making arbitrary criteria to meet still makes the decision ultimately arbitrary. It just sounds better.

If a kid is told "clean your room", this is an arbitrary desire from the mother.

If the mother, in advance, says "I'll tell you to clean your room if your room has at least 50% of it's floor space covered by junk", telling the kid to clean his room is still arbitrary. You cannot get around this.

The reason criteria is made for ANYTHING is because you get into a situation and talk through it without criteria, find the solution, and it sets the bar. After YEARS of discussing stages with melee, on Brawl's release I created the standards for starter, counter, and banned stages. You can read them in the SBR official ruleset.

So to fill you in again on how criteria is made: you get a situation, look at its effects, discuss it, come to a conclusion, and then have something in the past to reflect on. This is how criteria is created. We do not create criteria out of the blue based on how we feel.

Hence:

"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.

Dominance is relative because you can't set a pre-existing "dominance condition" without first having experienced it in the game in question. The closest you can do is use other games, and that's seriously flawed.

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?

I'm going to ignore all of this because it is irrelevant. We look at what we have and make our decision off of that. Don't push for arbitrary criteria just to turn this into something black and white. It isn't. It is very, very grey. Most real world decisions are, and the moment you succumb to your desire to simplify it and turn it into black and white you are going down a path that inevitably makes nothing but bad decisions.

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".

Nope! I dun use dat word.

So here is my definition of "breaking competition":

Rigid criteria:

Does the tactic / character over-centralizes? Is the game completely centralized around one tactic or character to the point of absurdity? (The majority of the roster is usually where we draw the line here; in this case 2/3rds).

Is the tactic / character anti-competitive? Is there excessive randomness, lag, or does it take away player control in an unreasonable way?

Does the tactic / character prevent competition? Are there freeze glitches, invisible characters, stall tactics, are characters removed from the field, etc.?


Do you agree with this criteria? If so, do you feel Meta fits this criteria?

If not, what would you change, and why?

You just posted a bunch of loaded criteria that isn't "rigid" at all. Not only that, it doesn't fit our current metagame as described. For one, MK clearly dominates to the point to where 2/3rds of the roster is considered a foolish match against him. Then you've got Peach and Dedede both winning with randomization techniques. Oh, and G&W; in fact, UTD Zac has had over 500 judgements in tourney. I'd say it's helped him. Stall tactics/invisible characters? That's MK all over. Freeze glitches? Ban Diddy Kong.

You're trying to attack this from something of a law standpoint but are going about it in a way that shows you don't understand how to do it. In other words, you've made up your mind and have continued to guess as to how we should do things based off of the little knowledge you have.

The BBR has no set criteria for banning something; we discuss it and merely use our own personal values to come to a conclusion. This is superior to most forms. Some members say things like "anything that removes fundamental game mechanics, like removing DI, should be banned" and wants to ban any and all chain grabs that can't be gotten out of quickly. Others say "bring it on".

To attempt to pigeonhole how people are supposed to think about this is a failing endeavor, and wouldn't even get you a conclusion if you "trapped" somebody. If you said "here's the criteria" and then found that MK met or didn't meet the criteria, other people wouldn't say "Oh, well I guess I'm wrong". They'd say "Your criteria is wrong, I still feel this way".

To reiterate: Don't make arbitrary criteria. Get off the subject, it's the worst idea ever when you're dealing with the first case of its kind in a community. The criteria comes AFTER the ban.

Is that not an acceptable answer now?

Wait, he says.... do I look like a waiter?

No, it is not acceptable. The saying "it could get better" isn't really worthwhile unless you have a trend to back it up.

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.

Normally functioning competitive community with an overly dominant character. You forget that I didn't just say "oh, MK is the best NOW HE IS MY MAIN". I studied MK relentlessly. I invented the character-specific back room with my ROB buddies and we reinvented our character to try to have a chance against Metaknight and nothing worked. I'm not alone in this. We ALL tried, and everyone save for about 7 people have failed... except when they mained MK.

You might want to keep in mind that my data is showing MK at the VERY TOP level of play. It doesn't GET higher than that. This isn't simply "people pick up MK cuz he's good".

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.

When somenoe tells you they hate going to tournaments and always losing to MK and then doesn't show up anymore, you take notice. When someone says "MK is so ****ing gay" and then claims to not enter tournaments anymore and has sporadic appearance at future events, you take notice.

MK may not be THE reason, but he's A reason. On the ROB boards alone I can list off every single original ROB main except for one that has either switched to MK, gone to Brawl+, or quit completely.

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?

Don't assume, it makes me ignore sections of your post.

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?

I used the top 8, the same as Ankoku's chart.

Again, confusion. So it's not about "who got first"? Isn't that the definition of "winning more"?

I'm not sure what you're confused about, but it seems you read isolated segments of post and think of them as blanket statements that cover the past present and future (and maybe even other people's posts). Collect yourself and ask complete questions and don't just quote fragments if you want a clear answer.

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.

And it has. MK has done better.

I want something on Metaknight - some one property, or an amalgam of properties - that I can point at and go, "That should be banned".

Infinite dimensional cape.

To a lesser extent:
-infinite glide
-planking
-scrooging

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?

Top 8 is what I used. I used the very top level of play over the course of every tournament. I first used 150 entrants or more, and then later 100-149 entrants, and then combined them. I found the same trends for MK in all of my studies.

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.

It isn't SBR criteria in any way shape or form.


And tournament results prove a helluva lot. >_>

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?

32 is a full bracket, yes.

As for captain falcon winning, he's ****ing Ally and he won against one guy who has claimed to "not know the matchup". Kind of a silly claim against a Falcon, but whatever.

Ally used Snake throughout the entire tournament, and then used Captain Falcon in the grand finals against the Metaknight's player's Dedede, Diddy Kong, and Metaknight. Hardly an ideal piece of evidence, let alone related to any statistical trends.

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.

Then Ninjalink got creamed by M2K for all eternity afterwards.

Look for trends, not isolated incidents. If we're gonna talk about isolated incidents as if they encompass all of time, I can just talk about how a metaknight has beaten every top player at some point and call it a day. It's irrelevant.

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.

It proves nothing. For one, there are dozens and dozens of variables. Mew2King didn't know how to catch items until I showed him myself last weekend. Z catching? No. A catching? No. Insta-throwing? No. He has repeatedly admitted to not knowing the matchup and has had super close matches with AlphaZealot's Diddy Kong (Who has lost to many a MK, including Z about two weeks ago) and my Diddy (I don't play Diddy) has even done okay against him. In addition to this, the matchup is virtually unknown to top MKs and Diddy mains have admitted to being completely secretive about it.

So while you could volunteer to look like a fool and say "MK is fine, this one Diddy player beat them this one time" or "What's wrong with MK? One Diddy does okay against them" and ignore the variables, be my guest.

But if you want actual data and things that matter? Look for trends. Isolated incidents bring about a hypothesis. You then know your question. If you want to say "MK is manageable at high levels of play" because you've seen ADHD and Ally do well, you want to see if MK really IS mangeable at high levels of play, or if these people are just outliers.

You set up how you're going to collect the data, do so, and make your conclusion.

Also, someone beat you to the punch:

Top MKs: M2K, Tyrant, Dojo, Shadow, Ksizzle, Anti, DSF, Judge, Seibrik


From October 1st to January 31st:

Anti
- 3rd out of 39 at Gauntlet 10-03-09, lost to Ally (Snake) and ADHD (Diddy)
- 3rd out of 53 at DAPHNE I, lost to Ally (Snake) and ADHD (Diddy)
- 4th out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Mew2King (MK) and Meep (IC)
- 1st out of 34 at Bum Presents: The Gamers, 0 sets lost
- 3rd out of 74 at PolyBrawl 11.28, can't find any brackets - outplaced by Ally (Snake) and ADHD (Diddy)

Dojo
- 1st out of 71 at HOBO 19, can't find any brackets
- 1st out of 71 at Phase 2, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 39 at Phase 3, can't find any brackets
- 4th out of 50 at HOBO 21, lost to Hylian (IC/G&W) and Razer (Snake)
- 2nd out of 46 at Final Smash 8, lost to Razer (Snake) twice
- 1st out of 48 at Phase 5, no brackets yet

DSF
- 1st out of 43 at CGC XII, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 49 at CGC @ SFSU 13, 0 sets lost
- 3rd out of 120 at R3, lost to DEHF (Falco) and Tyrant (MK)
- 1st out of 109 (split with Tyrant) at UCSD Winter Game Fest V, can't find any brackets
- 3rd out of 70 at SCSA West Coast Circuit #5, lost to DEHF (Falco) and Tyrant (MK)

Judge
- 2nd out of 61 at Brawl Bootcamp Lvl. 2, lost to Mew2King (MK) twice
- 2nd out of 31 at LoLiS 4, lost to Mew2King (MK) twice
- 2nd out of 30 at Kuntasm, lost to Mew2King (MK) twice
- 1st out of 42 at LoLiS 5, lost to Anther (Pikachu) once
- 5th out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to Shadow (MK) and Ksizzle (Lucario)
- 3rd out 27 at Michigan Ball Z, forfeit (don't know when or why)

Ksizzle
- 7th out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Ally (Snake) and Atomsk (???)
- 2nd out of 60 at Crank That Kosha Boy!, lost to Ally (Snake) twice
- 2nd out of 24 at Daisho's Tournament 11/21/09, can't find any brackets - lost to Cable (DK)
- 4th out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to ADHD (Diddy) and Ally (Snake)

Mew2King
- 1st out of 36 at LoLiS 2, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 61 at Brawl Bootcamp Lvl2, 0 sets lost
- 2nd out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Ally (Snake) twice
- 1st out of 39 at lain's Lollapalooza, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 31 at LoLiS 4, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 30 at Kuntasm, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 89 at Winterfest, 0 sets lost
- 2nd out of 45 at Wiegraf Too Good, lost to ADHD (Diddy) twice
- 1st out of 29 at Wait, AGAIN?!, 0 sets lost
- 2nd out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to ADHD (Diddy) twice
- 1st out of 30 at Delta Upsilon II, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 53 at OC #2: M2k's Monthly Donation Fund, 0 sets lost

Seibrik
- 2nd out of 41 at Gigabits - A Fall Brawl, can't find any brackets - lost to RedHalberd (MK)
- 2nd out of 24 at WATO 8.5, can't find any brackets - lost to RedHalberd (MK/Snake)
- 2nd out of 89 at Winterfest 2009, can't find any brackets - lost to Mew2King (MK)
- 1st out of 28 (split with CO18) at WATO 9, can't find any brackets
- 2nd out of 39 at FIU Brawl Tourney 1/23, lost to Nick Riddle (ZSS) twice

Shadow
- 4th out of 60 at Crank That Kosha Boy!, lost to Meep (IC) and ADHD (Diddy)
- 2nd out of 45 at KTAR, lost 2x to Ally (Snake)
- 2nd out of 25 at Powerplay Gaming Tournament, lost to Atomsk (???) and Ally (Snake)
- 3rd out of 45 at Wiegraf Too Good, lost to ADHD (Diddy) and Mew2King (MK)
- 3rd out of 29 at Paradigm Presents: WAIT, AGAIN?!, can't find any brackets - outplaced by ADHD (Diddy) and Mew2King (MK)
- 5th out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to Mew2King (MK) and Ally (Snake)
- 1st out of 33 (split with DM Brandon) at DNA Gaming USA #2, lost to DM Brandon (MK)?
- 1st out of 34 at Syracuse Smash 2, 0 sets lost

Tyrant
- 3rd out of 43 at CGC XII, lost to DSF (MK) and michealHAZE (Marth)
- 5th out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Ally (Snake) and Meep (IC)
- 2nd out of 120 at R3, lost 2x to DEHF (Falco)
- 1st out of 18 at The BR Act: Program 1, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 109 (split with DSF) at UCSD Winter Game Fest V, can't find any brackets
- 2nd out of 70 at SCSA West Coast Circuit #5, lost to DEHF (Falco) twice

Non-MK players that beat them in more than one instance:
ADHD (Diddy)
Ally (Snake)
Atomsk (???)
DEHF (Falco)
Meep (IC)
Razer (Snake)

Number of top MK players I listed - 9
Number of players that beat them on more than one instance - 6

So, yeah. They're pretty much the definition of outlier and can't be used to justify any new trends.

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.

The point of a competitive game is to do your best when brought to a fair fight. Metaknight makes the game one dimensional, and does not allow for self expression in this fashion. You main Metaknight, be a super hero, or lose.

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.

See above.

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.

Again, they're outliers. If they've taught us anything, it's that by being a ridiculously good player you can come out on top. Hell, ADHD is a recent phenomenon and you don't even have a guarantee that he'll stick around. Ally is the only play to have reached M2K's level and stay there.

To put this in perspective for you:

With how you're talking, I could win a few locals here with captain falcon and you'd assure me that he's top tier when in fact it'd just be that I was better than my opponents.

Victory doesn't change potential, it merely influences our perception. If your perception changes because of an isolated incident, you aren't setting yourself a good foundation. If you see a trend and THEN change your mind, you're on the right track.

So if we don't have a standard, how do we decide what gets done? Take a vote? Might is right?

It's how we've done everything else since... forever. The standards we have since set are used as guidelines. I can argue that "port town aero dive" doesn't fit the "banned" criteria that the SBR has set, but that doesn't mean it won't be removed in the future whether it is true or not.

I would probably agree. But MK dominance isn't forcing players to quit.

I talk to people at tournaments. It really does put a hamper on things.

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.

Hey, guess what?

You're talking to the guy who has spent more time learning the Metaknight matchup with multiple characters than probably anyone else on smashboards. You wanna call someone else lazy, go ahead, but I put full days into this and still do to this day. Whenever someone says "this counters MK", I do my best to learn it. I even tried to see if the yoshi CG to fair spike existed! I've picked up Diddy recently just to see first hand for myself. I test everything and nothing works. I've since picked up MK and have had more success with him vs. MK than anything else.

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.

As stated earlier, setting criteria before you have an experience in which to set the bar is idiotic at best and dangerous at worst. You're saying we should have set an arbitrary criteria before we even knew what we were dealing with? With that attitude, we could already have banned Metaknight, Dedede, and Snake with Diddy on the way out or could have set criteria so strict Metaknight wouldn't even be halfway there.

You need something like this to set the bar. Future smash games will be able to look back at MK and say "this is a similar circumstance in a similar game; how did it compare". We cannot do that, and while this is harder, things aren't simply black and white in the real world. They are grey.

 

[Spelt]

^holy crap long post.
what is scrooging?
-scrub-

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

My bad. Metaknight breaks your second criteria, which IMO is a little too vague. If it is simply about "forcing unhealthy gameplay", then it's up to each individual exactly what "unhealthy gameplay" is.

In fact:



This sounds almost exactly like our situation. Except instead of being a "first hit win", it's a long, drawn-out, boring match between either MK and another MK, or some other character.

So IMO I wouldn't use that criteria.

I guess I didn't word it right.

With the infinite example I was trying to illustrate game that while having a competitive environment that can work, it still forces games to be stupid as hell to play a don't get hit first game.

Stalling in Smash might be a better example of this.

Either way that criteria seems to fit into my other points anyways, just worded better.

 

[Overswarm]

"Scrooging" (I hate that name) is a term AlphaZealot came up with. It implies flying under the stage repeatedly so that the opponent is forced to approach you when you're on smashville's platform. It can also be used in conjunction with planking, but this really isn't scrooging.

It was a ruling adopted by many because they felt that Diddy and ICs shouldn't have to approach MK in this fashion and/or it was unbeatable and/or it was "too gay". There has been no evidence showing that scrooging is "broken" in any way, but this hasn't stopped peopel from banning it just in case.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I thought Scrooging was just going under the stage from one ledge to another over and over to run the clock out.

 

[Espy Rose]

Overswarm, Scrooging is the best term they could've made for the technique.

As for a definition:
In short, scrooging is a cancer.

@Red Ryu: Remember, it's not stalling, it's retreating to a better position.