Official Metaknight Discussion

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If you just run up and shield where his dropping u-air hitbox will be, you either get a powershield or you don't. IF you don't, roll backwards and let your shield recharge. If you do, run off and bair/dair/whatever.

It's a flawless strategy; there is no risk. The issue with it is that it is inconsistent and at lower % the hit won't kill or stage spike the MK (meaning he could turn it around on you), not that you have to be super psychic.

The bolded is my main issue with it, but it does work.

 

[Gnes]

Also there is unknown factors to everyone else. Like Razer having arguably the best practice on a constant bases (Gnes) while dojo had nothing at all for many months, thus resulting in never playing the game. Yes Razer is an amazing player and is constantly getting better (which i am happy about) but i also think the other has something to do with it as well.

I agree with what u said, but honestly me and razer only practiced like once every 2/3 weeks because im usually really busy doing other stuff. And when we did it was usually nothing but snake/diddy practice and we just helped each other with basic stuff. His improvement in sets with dojo is honestly just because he's getting smarter and he's figured out dojo's current playstyle against snake.

 

[theCook]

Just out of curiosity; Does this mean that THIS is being ignored as the "fourth and final" vote?

Or is the BBR just toying with people's emotions? :]

 

[rathy Aro]

I'm glad to see the MK debate is being re-opened, especially after the Pound 4 placings, but I have very much restrained opptimisn. Every vote, the public has favored him gone. Last time, so did the SBR...not the majority required to pass the act, byt a majority none the less. The pro-ban's writen argument was near flawless, citing how overcentralization is ruining the game and has completely evaporated the scene in entire areas/states, the list of MK's OP frame data, how he breaks the game's counter system, both stage and character wise (is broken) and how he's surpressing the desire to explore the rest of the cast's potential, and is almost a requiremnt if one wishes to do well at a major tournament. Oh, and MK takes a huge % of all tournament winnings totalled and averaged thus far.

The anti-ban's side argument could be be summed up as "nuh-uh", and provided virtually no evidence. I questioned many people who voted anti-ban on how they could do so when the pro-ban's written arguement was clearly better-surprisenly, many agreed, but said they voted against it anyways for X reason, and 100% of the time the reason was unrelated to the current debate, or completely stupid.

It takes a lot to ban a character, but what else is needed? The proof and arguemnts have been provided countless times. Another Pound where 8 of the top 10 has Mk at their disposal? More matches won due to time-outs/airstalling, not actual skill? I mean, I was flabbergasted at how easily players were DQ'D for being tardy, yet airstalling, something almostly completely unique to MK, went unpunished. Why hasn't this been enforced better, like planking? Why has 1 character caused 2 major rule changes not simply been banned, instead of just making up new rules to govern his alien nature?

As it stands, MK, the SBR, and the referee system is broken. There's hope though-these are (or rather, SHOULD be) easy fixes. The community simply needs to use logic to see past this injustice. Something radical has to be done at some form. AT LEAST, a "trial period" ban should be put on him, perhaps 6 months? If areas who have been ravaged by Mk overuse rebuild, and we start seeing more diverse tourney outcomes, I think that should be evidence enough that life would be beter without him. A test period is the least we owe this high strung debate.

This is the funniest **** I've ever read. XD
Maybe my memory has been a bit blurred, but anti-ban was pretty much the only side there was left. lol The last mk discussion ended in anti-ban basically bashing pro-ban even though there was really no one left to bash and thus it got closed.

 

[adumbrodeus]

how much better do you believe adhd to be then every other player. And i know az does very well against mks and is a decently big diddy player. The issue is, diddy is also not as popular as mk and his metagame is rather new, since the original leading force behind it, ninjalink abadonned it early on. Adhd is proof of what diddy can do. It is programmed into the game, and with human reaction time and brain and hand functions it is all possible. I have nothing against future bans of mk. But atm, i believe do it when the proof is staggering, when it really is play mk or get lost. Adhd and ally are still reasonably proof at the moment. The proof of possibility.

Again, the possibility is that a Diddy player can beat a top MK player and I think everyone knew that.

 

[Dark.Pch]

Besides Peach and meta, who else Beats Diddy? Luigi?

 

[etecoon]

snake beats diddy, probably worse than MK does. dunno much about luigi

 

[Omni]

Lol, Peach does not beat Diddy.

 

[Crow!]

This is the funniest **** I've ever read. XD
Maybe my memory has been a bit blurred, but anti-ban was pretty much the only side there was left. lol The last mk discussion ended in anti-ban basically bashing pro-ban even though there was really no one left to bash and thus it got closed.

Guess what? Presenting real arguments takes a LOT more effort than saying "nuh-uh." Heck, right here in this thread we've had the anti-ban side directly saying that they're TOO LAZY to get their act together and even TRY to argue properly.
(One example: Omni, in the middle of me crushing him for essentially admitting he has no interest in real logic here http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263165&page=87)

When you completely decimate your opposition and yet you get no credit for it essentially because there are enough people covering their ears going "LALALALALALA I can't hear you!", eventually you have to ask yourself if it's worth your time and effort to put together EVEN MORE studies and analyses which conclusively prove your point. From the best I can tell, waiting for this to happen is the ENITRE plan of the anti-ban side, because they evidently CAN'T truly defeat pro-ban with real data pulled from the real world.

After all this time, if it were possible, don't you think at least one person on the anti-ban side would have bothered with a proper study of the same level of statistical significance as Overswarm's? Oh, that's right. Flayl already did. AND WHEN HE DID, THE DATA MADE HIM CHANGE HIS MIND AND GO PRO-BAN.


@theCook: the SBR made a stupid decision last time by calling the most recent MK-banning poll the "final" one. They now have their backs to the wall and would hurt their credibility by opening another poll and so they have shut their doors to collecting that sort of data. Me, I think they should just bite the bullet and admit that they really do need to keep that sort of data coming.

(Even stupider, they decided that a majority of their own votes in favor of a ban was not sufficient for a ban. WTF? Are they waiting for a larger percentage of SBR to go pro-ban than there are people who play MK in the SBR? Because that would be a pretty dumb criteria that obviously is never going to be met.)

Seriously though, what percentage of active SBR members play MK?

 

[Omni]

Crow.

I have more important things to do then sit here and argue about MK. I'll come in here and give my input from time to time, but I don't have the time nor do I really care to put that much time into the MK debate. I've done it before; I'm not doing it again everytime someone farts and coughs "ban mk". Lol @ you crushing me. Today isn't April Fools.

I don't owe nothing to you or anyone so get that straight, Crow. My presence here is optional and purely for my own entertainment. Overswarm is on a mission; don't expect someone from anti-ban to simply match his intensity just because he finally has intensity.

You're also saying a lot of very silly things. Especially in that post.

 

[Nanaki]

(Even stupider, they decided that a majority of their own votes in favor of a ban was not sufficient for a ban. WTF? Are they waiting for a larger percentage of SBR to go pro-ban than there are people who play MK in the SBR? Because that's a pretty dumb criteria that obviously is never going to be met.)

Seriously though, what percentage of active SBR members play MK?

lol 'stupider'

Anyway, this is a good point. I know quite a few of them aren't actually active MK players, especially those who are the most communicative with the rest of the community (Samuraipanda, Overswarm, Hylian as examples). Some aren't especially active players at all, and others don't play MK and are anti-ban (there seems to be a surprisingly large number of these). I would guess that 1/3 or less are active MK players, though I have no proof at all to back that up.

Is there a SBR member who can answer this question?

 

[Overswarm]

I dunno Omni, you seemed to put up a pretty big fight until I responded, posted even more data, Flayl posted data, Crow ruined your rudimentary grasp of how to collect, use, and interpret data.... and you've only come back from time to time to say "nuh uh" and "I'm too lazy to post" and (my personal favorite) "it's too long to read".

Seems more like giving up.

 

[Dark.Pch]

Lol, Peach does not beat Diddy.

Know about characters and then match ups before saying stuff like this. Not just "lolololol, Peach can't kill, crappy air dodge, etc. and thats why she loses" Like come on, it's 2010 dude, and people still on this nonsense?

Anyway, I like to see the top of each character that beats Diddy play ADHD. If they alltake ADHD out, then it can prove something. As to all these metas losing to diddy. Wether diddy is actually better than these meta players, or as I been saying, Metas can't fight diddy.

Also to show, that M2K just knows all his options with Meta. And by OS post, this dude does not know the basics of te game. he just focus on what meta can do. but not really abusing the game. Just meta. And him being the best in the game.........nuff said.

 

[M@v]

Lol, Peach does not beat Diddy.

It might be evenish.




Don't forget about Falco. He beats diddy.(At least I feel he does)

 

[Delvro]

Guess what? Presenting real arguments takes a LOT more effort than saying "nuh-uh." Heck, right here in this thread we've had the anti-ban side directly saying that they're TOO LAZY to get their act together and even TRY to argue properly.
(One example: Omni, in the middle of me crushing him for essentially admitting he has no interest in real logic here http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263165&page=87)

When you completely decimate your opposition and yet you get no credit for it essentially because there are enough people covering their ears going "LALALALALALA I can't hear you!", eventually you have to ask yourself if it's worth your time and effort to put together EVEN MORE studies and analyses which conclusively prove your point. From the best I can tell, waiting for this to happen is the ENITRE plan of the anti-ban side, because they evidently CAN'T truly defeat pro-ban with real data pulled from the real world.

After all this time, if it were possible, don't you think at least one person on the anti-ban side would have bothered with a proper study of the same level of statistical significance as Overswarm's? Oh, that's right. Flayl already did. AND WHEN HE DID, THE DATA MADE HIM CHANGE HIS MIND AND GO PRO-BAN.


@theCook: the SBR made a stupid decision last time by calling the most recent MK-banning poll the "final" one. They now have their backs to the wall and would hurt their credibility by opening another poll and so they have shut their doors to collecting that sort of data. Me, I think they should just bite the bullet and admit that they really do need to keep that sort of data coming.

(Even stupider, they decided that a majority of their own votes in favor of a ban was not sufficient for a ban. WTF? Are they waiting for a larger percentage of SBR to go pro-ban than there are people who play MK in the SBR? Because that would be a pretty dumb criteria that obviously is never going to be met.)

Seriously though, what percentage of active SBR members play MK?

Crow is completely right. I'm quoting this in hopes that it receives as much attention as possible. After hearing that some of you guys refuse to ban metaknight unless metaknight has a 100% win rate, I've given up on the whole thing. It's depressing, it's stupid, and it sucks.

 

[Crow!]

Crow.

I have more important things to do then sit here and argue about MK. I'll come in here and give my input from time to time, but I don't have the time nor do I really care to put that much time into the MK debate. I've done it before; I'm not doing it again everytime someone farts and coughs "ban mk". Lol @ you crushing me. Today isn't April Fools.

I encourage people to read the exchange between Omni and I (starts on page 86) and make up their own minds as to whether my claiming I "crushed" Omni was misleading.
(I especially suggest this to anyone remotely interested in philosophy, science, or better yet the philosophy of science.)

Edit: Oh, I forgot most people are lazy. Here's a link to page 86: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263165&page=86

don't expect someone from anti-ban to simply match his intensity just because he finally has intensity.

I don't give a darn how passionate anyone is. I expect the anti-ban "argument" to be thrown out the window unless someone from anti-ban matches Overswarm's factual correctness. For now, there are real facts readily available which favor of one side but no such thing for the other... until that is remedied, pro-ban wins.

So far anti-ban's only attempt to do that (that I'm aware of, anyway) backfired horribly.

 

[Overswarm]

and one of them resulted in a switching of sides ^_^

 

[adumbrodeus]

Guess what? Presenting real arguments takes a LOT more effort than saying "nuh-uh." Heck, right here in this thread we've had the anti-ban side directly saying that they're TOO LAZY to get their act together and even TRY to argue properly.
(One example: Omni, in the middle of me crushing him for essentially admitting he has no interest in real logic here http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263165&page=87)

When you completely decimate your opposition and yet you get no credit for it essentially because there are enough people covering their ears going "LALALALALALA I can't hear you!", eventually you have to ask yourself if it's worth your time and effort to put together EVEN MORE studies and analyses which conclusively prove your point. From the best I can tell, waiting for this to happen is the ENITRE plan of the anti-ban side, because they evidently CAN'T truly defeat pro-ban with real data pulled from the real world.

After all this time, if it were possible, don't you think at least one person on the anti-ban side would have bothered with a proper study of the same level of statistical significance as Overswarm's? Oh, that's right. Flayl already did. AND WHEN HE DID, THE DATA MADE HIM CHANGE HIS MIND AND GO PRO-BAN.


@theCook: the SBR made a stupid decision last time by calling the most recent MK-banning poll the "final" one. They now have their backs to the wall and would hurt their credibility by opening another poll and so they have shut their doors to collecting that sort of data. Me, I think they should just bite the bullet and admit that they really do need to keep that sort of data coming.

(Even stupider, they decided that a majority of their own votes in favor of a ban was not sufficient for a ban. WTF? Are they waiting for a larger percentage of SBR to go pro-ban than there are people who play MK in the SBR? Because that would be a pretty dumb criteria that obviously is never going to be met.)

Seriously though, what percentage of active SBR members play MK?

As I stated before, lack of criteria, and that's always been my issue.


The fact is quite simply, that facts in the aether are irrelevant without something to match it to.


What is broken? That's the real question.



Keep in mind my sympathies are pro-ban, but until proof positive that he fits a reasonable criteria for ban, then I will not support.

I don't give a darn how passionate anyone is. I expect the anti-ban "argument" to be thrown out the window unless someone from anti-ban matches Overswarm's factual correctness. For now, there are real facts readily available which in favor of one side but no such thing for the other... until that is remedied, pro-ban wins.

So far anti-ban's only attempt to do that (that I'm aware of, anyway) backfired horribly.

Does it assist pro-ban's point? If "broken" is a 100% win rate it assists anti-ban's point. If "broken" is 70-30s 50% of the MUs or more it's meaningless.


The information is just that, information. With no context it does not point to any conclusion at all. The facts have no context therefore the only reason they are PERCEIVED as favoring one side is people's biases.

 

[Overswarm]

As I stated before, lack of criteria, and that's always been my issue.


The fact is quite simply, that facts in the aether are irrelevant without something to match it to.


What is broken? That's the real question.



Keep in mind my sympathies are pro-ban, but until proof positive that he fits a reasonable criteria for ban, then I will not support.

Criteria is not made before an example is shown; a real world action sets a precedent from which similar events follow.

Metaknight is setting the bar.

 

[RDK]

The problem is there's no proof that they are equivalent in skill level.


Furthermore, the assumption is not "m2k skill level", it's top of the metagame technically speaking. M2k does not seem to be at the top of the metagame is if he just learned z grabbing...

Strange how he managed to beat everyone up until that point, and he even came close enough to beating ADHD to raise eyebrows. I'd say he's definitely at the top of the metagame.

In fact, he's so good, he didn't even need to use that technique to square up with the top Diddy in the world.

 

[Eddie G]

Crow.

I have more important things to do then sit here and argue about MK. I'll come in here and give my input from time to time, but I don't have the time nor do I really care to put that much time into the MK debate. I've done it before; I'm not doing it again everytime someone farts and coughs "ban mk". Lol @ you crushing me. Today isn't April Fools.

I don't owe nothing to you or anyone so get that straight, Crow. My presence here is optional and purely for my own entertainment. Overswarm is on a mission; don't expect someone from anti-ban to simply match his intensity just because he finally has intensity.

You're also saying a lot of very silly things. Especially in that post.

Then don't bother posting, Omni.

If you're visiting the thread for your own entertainment that's one thing; but when you come in, refute peoples' points and cherry pick their posts, then refuse to back up your claims because..."you're too lazy"?

Yeah...clearly.
Stop wasting peoples' time, please. I'd imagine a mod would know better but perhaps I'm giving too much credit too soon?

If you're going to present an argument, then actually present it.

 

[Ripple]

why does MK have to go 100-0 (not really but you know what I mean)with the entire cast to be be broken to some people?

why can't he go 70-30 with 2/3 of the cast and still be broken?

 

[RDK]

I encourage people to read the exchange between Omni and I (starts on page 86) and make up their own minds as to whether my claiming I "crushed" Omni was misleading.
(I especially suggest this to anyone remotely interested in philosophy, science, or better yet the philosophy of science.)

Edit: Oh, I forgot most people are lazy. Here's a link to page 86: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263165&page=86



I don't give a darn how passionate anyone is. I expect the anti-ban "argument" to be thrown out the window unless someone from anti-ban matches Overswarm's factual correctness. For now, there are real facts readily available which favor of one side but no such thing for the other... until that is remedied, pro-ban wins.

So far anti-ban's only attempt to do that (that I'm aware of, anyway) backfired horribly.

No, no, no, wrong, wrong wrong. Wrong.

The idea that "evidence is evidence" is straight up, 100% pure tard. It's how you interpret the evidence that counts.

That's why Overswarm can post fancy graphs until he's blue in the face. He does a great job of showing how tier-wh0rish the Smash community is, but he fails to show how - or more importantly why - MK is broken.

I'm waiting for someone to come up with pro-ban criteria.

OS says that MK is setting the bar. Okay then. Post some criteria that he fits!

What properties of Metaknight are ban-worthy, and how can we apply the new criteria to future situations?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Criteria is not made before an example is shown; a real world action sets a precedent from which similar events follow.

Metaknight is setting the bar.

That's stupid, because people set criteria based on how they want events to turn out, not based on their ideals.


At this point, we can still base criteria on information that we don't know, and that would allow us to pre-empt the problem.



Basically, that's the legal approach, the problem is in this case it's totally arbitrary instead of grounded in some legal document, whoever has more people will win, and the fall-out of a criteria designed to ban or not ban which either will cause this problem next time again (next game or if another character is banworthy this game which is doubtful) assuming that MK is banworthy or will make way too much banworthy.


Even if you're using MK to set the bar, a criteria should come out of that discussion, think how SCOTUS handles this sort of thing.

Strange how he managed to beat everyone up until that point, and he even came close enough to beating ADHD to raise eyebrows. I'd say he's definitely at the top of the metagame.

In fact, he's so good, he didn't even need to use that technique to square up with the top Diddy in the world.

There's enough of a gap in mental skills for him to be better then everyone else in spite of the fact that he's not at the top of the metagame.


Top of the metagame is based on technical perfection, somebody can be at the top of the metagame without really being a good player or not at the top of the metagame while being amazing.

Strange how he managed to beat everyone up until that point, and he even came close enough to beating ADHD to raise eyebrows. I'd say he's definitely at the top of the metagame.

In fact, he's so good, he didn't even need to use that technique to square up with the top Diddy in the world.

There's enough of a gap in mental skills for him to be better then everyone else in spite of the fact that he's not at the top of the metagame.


Top of the metagame is based on technical perfection, somebody can be at the top of the metagame without really being a good player or not at the top of the metagame while being amazing.

 

[boss8]

why so serious?? its just a tiny bat...

 

[RDK]

why does MK have to go 100-0 (not really but you know what I mean)with the entire cast to be be broken to some people?

why can't he go 70-30 with 2/3 of the cast and still be broken?

I'm not sure who said that a character has to go 99-1 with the entire cast to be broken, but whoever it was is an idiot.

When we talk about overcentralization in terms of character dominance, we usually mean hard-countering a majority of the cast. This would mean going 70-30 with 2/3rds of the cast, yes.

 

[Tommy_G]

People are overcentralizing on MK because he already has a strong base to him. They don't need to think their own way out of situations because it is already shown in their experience watching him in tournaments and in videos.

There are a lot of characters with MK potential. We just haven't seen it yet because not as many people play MK. Overcentralization is not a reason to ban a character. If everyone played Ganondorf just because they all wanted to, the game would be overcentralized to Ganon. It doesn't make Ganon a broken or even a good character.

The reason to ban a character would be if they are deemed unbeatable through unpenetrable loops. (i.e. Akuma's air fireball)

Snake, Diddy, Wario, Falco, and even D3 also goes 70-30 to a good majority of the cast. It's how top tiers work in smash.

 

[Eddie G]

I'm waiting for someone to come up with pro-ban criteria.

Someone? Who? I'd wager an accusation of bias from anti-ban (or most participants in the discussion for that matter) toward anyone who supports pro-ban if they happen to be the one/s who step up and propose a set criteria. The same goes for the opposite. Where would that get us, honestly?

OS says that MK is setting the bar. Okay then. Post some criteria that he fits!

Read above. What kind of round-about brick wall are you asking us to slam ourselves into? How can we post set criteria if there is no set criteria. The only things that can be presented at this point are cold, hard, numerical statistics and that's exactly what has been done multiple times. Expecting us to believe that the idea of "how people interpret data" holds as much weight as the data itself is rather naive. Facts are facts. Numbers are numbers. There's no getting around it.

What properties of Metaknight are ban-worthy, and how can we apply the new criteria to future situations?[/COLOR]

Sounds like more of a "let's take our sweet *** time" proposal to me. It's not difficult to see that opinions of what "properties" of MK are ban-worthy would obviously differ.

...Any way you look at it, whether it's deciding ban-criteria, judging ban-worthy qualities of the character, how data is interpreted, etc.; there will always be more arguments that will just send everyone for a fruitless roundabout of a ride and will ultimately land everyone back to square one. Conservatism as related to this topic has really become a bother, especially with conclusive data staring everyone in the face.

 

[Tommy_G]

Conservatism as related to this topic has really become a bother, especially with conclusive data staring everyone in the face.

Pound 4 grand finals ended up being a Jigglypuff ditto. Ban Jigglypuff? The data is right there.

 

[Eddie G]

Pound 4 ended up being a Jigglypuff ditto. Ban Jigglypuff? The data is right there.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Jiggs has been dominating a game over the course of about two years on a widespread scale and has data to prove it. Oh, wait...

 

[Tommy_G]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Jiggs has been dominating a game over the course of about two years on a widespread scale and have data to prove it. Oh, wait...

It might not have been 2 years, but ever since Mango came into the scene with Jiggs, he hasn't lost.

Hbox has been dominating FL with Jiggs.

People complained about MK the first few months. It's been a few months for Jiggs, so let's start now.

Snake was higher than MK at the beginning of the game at one point. It hasn't been 2 years of MK dominance yet.

Pikachu has been proven to destroy every other character in Smash 64 for a good almost 10 years now, yet he isn't banned. In fact, the top few players don't even main Pikachu.

Edit: You can get the last word in. I'm done with this argument/debate/whateverwecallit. I'm getting hungry too.

 

[RDK]

Someone? Who? I'd wager an accusation of bias from anti-ban (or most participants in the discussion for that matter) toward anyone who supports pro-ban if they happen to be the one/s who step up and propose a set criteria. The same goes for the opposite. Where would that get us, honestly?

It would allow pro-ban to step up and actually formulate a cohesive statement on why the data is meaningful to their position instead of just posting meaningless data a la Overswarm.

Read above. What kind of round-about brick wall are you asking us to slam ourselves into? How can we post set criteria if there is no set criteria. The only things that can be presented at this point are cold, hard, numerical statistics and that's exactly what has been done multiple times. Expecting us to believe that the idea of "how people interpret data" holds as much weight as the data itself is rather naive. Facts are facts. Numbers are numbers. There's no getting around it.

No, no, no. I just explained what's wrong with the view that "evidence is evidence"!

Let's look at the definition of evidence for a minute:

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Also:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Notice: "something that furnishes proof" so as to "ascertain the truth of a matter". Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Pro-ban is advocating the change, therefore the burden of proof is on you. So far you've done a good job of compiling massive amounts of data. You have yet to come up with a body of reasoning to explain this data.

You have evidence but no theory.

Sounds like more of a "let's take our sweet *** time" proposal to me. It's not difficult to see that opinions of what "properties" of MK are ban-worthy would obviously differ.

Exactly; which is why this has dissolved into a giant pissing match. You either think he's broken or you don't.

...Any way you look at it, whether it's deciding ban-criteria, judging ban-worthy qualities of the character, how data is interpreted, etc.; there will always be more arguments that will just send everyone for a fruitless roundabout of a ride and will ultimately land everyone back to square one. Conservatism as related to this topic has really become a bother, especially with conclusive data staring everyone in the face.

Data conclusive of what?

This is what I'm trying to get pro-ban to understand. Come up with a specific statement, criteria, anything.

 

[Omni]

Then don't bother posting, Omni.

If you're visiting the thread for your own entertainment that's one thing; but when you come in, refute peoples' points and cherry pick their posts, then refuse to back up your claims because..."you're too lazy"?

Yeah...clearly.
Stop wasting peoples' time, please. I'd imagine a mod would know better but perhaps I'm giving too much credit too soon?

If you're going to present an argument, then actually present it.

Drama-queen, much?

I've come into the thread when I had free time and allowed people to ask me questions in which I answered. I simply come in, give my viewpoint, refute points that aren't over 1000 words long, and go on about my business.

No one's time is being wasted, and your insult attempt is cute.

I have presented arguments. If you don't like them or disagree with them, that's on you. Again, I don't have time to respond to the countless arguments, rebuttals, repeat statements, repeat concepts, etc.

 

[Crow!]

Pound 4 grand finals ended up being a Jigglypuff ditto. Ban Jigglypuff? The data is right there.

The argument quoted above is "Look at this incorrectly formed argument I made up. Since the logical form of this argument is wrong, the sort of conclusion that I designed it to reach must itself be wrong."

Specifically, the fallacy deliberately used here was cherrypicking (look it up). Which is hilarious, because it's the kind of argument anti-ban has been hinging on, individual points of data and stories which, on their own, in the absence of any other data, might suggest MK shouldn't be banned.

So far, every time the data available has been collected averaged in any statistically responsible manner (as by OS, Ankoku, Flayl), i.e. when the hypothetical cherrypicking lambasted above has been avoided, MK's irregularity, and his unhealthiness to the smash environment, has been plain to see.

 

[Omni]

Know about characters and then match ups before saying stuff like this. Not just "lolololol, Peach can't kill, crappy air dodge, etc. and thats why she loses" Like come on, it's 2010 dude, and people still on this nonsense?

Are you assuming I'm not aware of the match-up?

I'll state it again: Peach does not beat Diddy. At best for Peach, it's an even match-up, but it's probably slightly tipped in Diddy's favor.

 

[Overswarm]

That's stupid, because people set criteria based on how they want events to turn out, not based on their ideals.

Oh, my bad. It'd be much better to just set criteria and pretend MK doesn't exist?




MK is a problem. If you don't think he is, you're not paying attention to community reaction. Hell, even anti-ban people hate him. The only ones not saying "Wait, what?" at every collection of data posted to answer an anti-ban question are people like Omni that don't CARE if one character beats everyone else.

Knowing that MK is a problem allows us to see WHY he is a problem. The last time we argued about this we had two full reports from both sides and a lot of questions from anti-ban that pro-ban couldn't answer because they were all about the future; people claimed outliers were indicative of trends, or that MK's dominance was going down. Time has past and MK's usage AND success has gone up. Flayl's data shows that, yes, it is the player and not the character doing the work; the only character from Flayl's list that has two players is Snake (Razer and Ally).

My charts (all of 'em) show that Metaknight is the only character with consistent dominance. Snake is in 2nd place and is largely outshined by MK and isn't nearly as consistent. Other top characters have had a few moments to shine, but even then are still outshined by MK.

In short.... there is no evidence showing that MK will do worse, and in fact evidence shows that he'd do better. More interestingly, any character other than MK doing better has shown to do worse when another character does better. When Falco stepped up, everyone but MK went down. When Diddy stepped up, everyone but MK went down.


The reason MK is a problem is because peoples ideals are already being hit hard by MK. You cannot create criteria without an example.... and the funny thing is, other banned characters had even less information than MK did. Compared to the data we have on MK, other banned characters were banned on a guess.

Seriously, the asking of criteria so you can feel better is getting old. Any criteria created would be arbitrary in nature.

Also:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9392419&postcount=851


I addressed this like 40 different times. ><

We also have ban criteria set:

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it
is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

A- Everything we have banned in Super Smash Brothers history has met both of these
criteria, and
B – Besides Metaknight, there is nothing we have yet to ban that satisfied both of these
criteria.

This is a retroactive ban criteria. It was created by looking at what we HAVE banned in the past. Items, stages, techniques, etc.

For those that want to ban MK because he's "broken", you'd have to define broken. Most anti-ban people define broken as thus:

"Functional definition for "broken": Character somehow ignores game mechanics, cannot
be beaten, or has some random uncontrollable effect. Metaknight does not bend the rules
of smash to bypass hit stun, DI, KOs, free movement, or other concepts familiar to smash
game play."

If this is the case, Metaknight should be broken if he has IDC, but we banned that already so we're good to go in that area.

Unfortunately, their "broken" criteria allows the banning of Ice Climbers and was created not by precedent in the smash community, but by precedent in other games. Oh well.


So how you define "broken" is really up to you. Something doesn't have to be broken to be banned though; if this was the case we wouldn't have banned items but instead turned them to "low" and only added "food" and other small items.

gah, me again

AZ had rigid criteria for Genesis; it was achieved at Pound. Others have rigid criteria that it doesn't matter if MK takes every spot in a tournament as long as it isn't #1.

Setting arbitrary rigid criteria is a losing strategy.

If you set the criteria too low, things get banned earlier. If you set it too high (often the case), nothing gets banned.

What's worse is that when the SBR selected criteria for banning, everyone's criteria either fit or didn't fit Metaknight at the time it was made... for their respective side. If we did it again, we would have the same issue.

All you need is motive and data, and then its a discussion that has to take place. Setting arbitrary criteria that can't move is a recipe for failure.

If you can somehow quantify how many Metaknights are needed to create a problem you could theoretically do it, but this is unlikely. This even less likely when matchup ratios are in themselves inherently biased.

I have sveral of these posts ><


The traditional response to the above would be "But your wording is so vaaaaaague". Yes, it is.

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it
is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.


What is "different"?! What is "decreasing the quality" mean?!

Use your brain, it isn't rocket science. We haven't had a single thing banned that didn't fit those criteria. The reason why is because we ban what we want.

For some reason, Metaknight needed a league of statistical data from the anti-ban last time that we couldn't get... now we do and it is ignored.



To put a final nail in the coffin:

Pro-ban has already met the criteria they have personally set. If they haven't, the person wouldn't be pro-ban.

Anti-ban has not had Metaknight reach their criteria, or they are incorrect about their perception of the known data.

If they're merely incorrect, that can be fixed easily by correcting them.

But what is anti-ban's criteria?

Since the beginning, anti-ban has raised questions that have since been answered only to lead to anti-ban backing up and dismissing answers. Anti-ban is now in a corner, because we've solved every avenue we've been given save for the ridiculous (like "This character must win 100% of the time" or "If someone else wins with non-MK, it means MK isn't broken").

So it is Anti-ban's responsibility to post their own personal criteria for banning MK so we can meet that criteria. Pro-ban posting thier criteria can do nothing since it has already been met.

 

[Eddie G]

It might not have been 2 years, but ever since Mango came into the scene with Jiggs, he hasn't lost.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Jiggs has been dominating a game over the course of about two years on a widespread scale and has data to prove it. Oh, wait...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hbox has been dominating FL with Jiggs.

That's nice, pull up some numbers.

People complained about MK the first few months. It's been a few months for Jiggs, so let's start now.

Witty, but irrelevant. It's obvious that Melee has a healthy balance between its top characters. There has been no other notable form of (almost) widespread dominance aside from the Ken/M2K/Azen Marth period. Needless to say, they weren't your average players.

Snake was higher than MK at the beginning of the game at one point. It hasn't been 2 years of MK dominance yet.

Ahem...

about two years

Pikachu has been proven to destroy every other character in Smash 64 for a good almost 10 years now, yet he isn't banned. In fact, the top few players don't even main Pikachu.

What scene is there to even make a vote on a game with what...12 characters (I think)? Is it even comparable to this situation, and how? And again...you made a claim, show some numbers if you don't mind.

 

[RDK]

The argument quoted above is "Look at this incorrectly formed argument I made up. Since the logical form of this argument is wrong, the sort of conclusion that I designed it to reach must itself be wrong."

Specifically, the fallacy deliberately used here was cherrypicking (look it up). Which is hilarious, because it's the kind of argument stuff anti-ban's arguments have been hinging on, individual points of data and stories which, on their own, in the absence of any other data, might suggest MK shouldn't be banned.

So far, every time the data available has been collected averaged in any statistically responsible manner (as by OS, Ankoku, Flayl), i.e. when the hypothetical cherrypicking lambasted above has been avoided, MK's irregularity, and his unhealthiness to the smash environment, has been plain to see.

It's amazing how consistently wrong you are.

I challenge you do find one anti-ban quote stating that MK does not dominate the tournament scene.

Nobody said he doesn't dominate, which is what the data shows. Anti-ban knows he's not broken, which is what we've been arguing for, what, three or four poll threads now?

 

[Overswarm]

Snake was higher than MK at the beginning of the game at one point. It hasn't been 2 years of MK dominance yet.

Snake was higher than MK (who was in 2nd place) for two months on Ankoku's chart (the only data source we have). Since then MK has been pulling away...

Nobody said he doesn't dominate, which is what the data shows. Anti-ban knows he's not broken, which is what we've been arguing for, what, three or four poll threads now?

anti-ban's definition for "broken" during the last discussion would have banned Ice Climbers, so I think you need to define that for us... as well as explain why he has to be broken to be banned.

 

[Crow!]

It's amazing how consistently wrong you are.

I challenge you do find one anti-ban quote stating that MK does not dominate the tournament scene.

Nobody said he doesn't dominate, which is what the data shows. Anti-ban knows he's not broken, which is what we've been arguing for, what, three or four poll threads now?

Oh, brilliant. You challenge me to prove something which you insinuate I say rather than what I did say, WHILE QUOTING ME SAYING THE THING THAT I ACTUALLY DID SAY.

I said cherrypicking was the thing that "anti-ban's arguments have been hinging on, individual points of data and stories which, on their own, in the absence of any other data, might suggest MK shouldn't be banned. " For that, there are plenty of examples I can point to.

I'll chose my favorite, which starts on page 84, where the whole anti-ban crowd starts.. dare I say fapping? about the results of a subset of the tournaments from one particular weekend.