Official Metaknight Discussion

[RDK]

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.

Wait, what? Ice Climbers? IC's don't break any of the criteria that is generally accepted by anti-ban (I.E., the one I posted).

So I don't know who thought IC's were ban-worthy; they were wrong if they did. Do you have any quotes of people saying this?

as well as explain why he has to be broken to be banned.

I'm confused. Why else would we ban something?

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.

Crow, the whole ADHD / Ninjalink thing was to show that MK is manageable at high levels of play.

He is.

 

[Overswarm]

Wait, what? Ice Climbers? IC's don't break any of the criteria that is generally accepted by anti-ban (I.E., the one I posted).

So I don't know who thought IC's were ban-worthy; they were wrong if they did. Do you have any quotes of people saying this?

The actual anti-ban criteria they gave.

Crow, the whole ADHD / Ninjalink thing was to show that MK is manageable at high levels of play.

He is.

We have consistent data, not isolated incidents, that show he is not.

I'm confused. Why else would we ban something?

And I think I'm done.

If you won't read posts and remember the most rudimentary basics, don't go into an argument. We've been responding to everything and sticking our neck out by giving all information possible, and you and other anti-ban members have done nothing but turtling your neck in.

 

[RDK]

The actual anti-ban criteria they gave.

I actually don't want to get into an argument with you right now because I'm still responding to your ridiculously long post from a while back.

 

[Crow!]

Oh, by the way RDK, since you challenged me to look for a random thing check this out. I found what you were looking for:

Argument #2: Metaknight does not dominate the metagame.

This comes from the OFFICIAL ANTI-BAN ARGUMENT FROM THE "FOURTH AND FINAL COMMUNITY VOTE ABOUT META KNIGHT."

Link: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=242903

If the whole anti-ban side has conceded on this issue, as you claim your side has, then I think that alone is enough justification to get a new poll up.

 

[RDK]

Oh, by the way RDK, since you challenged me to look for a random thing check this out. I found what you were looking for:



This comes from the OFFICIAL ANTI-BAN ARGUMENT FROM THE "FOURTH AND FINAL COMMUNITY VOTE ABOUT META KNIGHT."

Link: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=242903

If the whole anti-ban side has conceded on this issue, as you claim your side has, then I think that alone is enough justification to get a new poll up.

That thread was made in July of 2009. Metaknight was not dominating tournaments back then like he is now.

Nobody disputes that he dominates tournaments now, and if they do, they're just ignorant of the facts.

 

[Seagull Joe]

1. Ok here is numbers and logic for you. ADHD is the best Diddy.
2. ADHD hands down beats every MK and holds winning record against them all.
3. The common argument is that no MK who has ever played the matchup knows how to play correctly against diddy. NONE.
4. Current match-up ratio for diddy:mk is 45:55.
5. ADHD's results show the match-up in diddys favor or at the very least even. Had ADHD been used as the diddy representative and any Metaknight Player who has faced him been used as the opponent. Even the one who had the best results. Its simple math ADHD VICTORIES: ANY ONE MK PLAYERS VICTORIES.
6. You could easily say the same for M2K verses any Diddy Player that is not ADHD. But again, one person has disproved the results of others. ANd while M2K would have to disclude one diddy to show MKs favorability in the match, ADHD would have to disclude no MKS.
7. People argue that when MKs learn the matchup that diddy will lose. There is no proof to this assumption. It is based on an MK is the best sort of theory, from what I can figure.
8. Why until then, is the match not in diddys favor?

Nairo's record with ADHD is 2-0 in tourney. ADHD hasn't beaten him. You fail at proving a point..........And he doesn't know the match up at all.

 

[Syde7]

That thread was made in July of 2009. Metaknight was not dominating tournaments back then like he is now.

Nobody disputes that he dominates tournaments now, and if they do, they're just ignorant of the facts.

You're missing the point.

To the best of my knowledge, the "does not dominate the metagame" was one of the CRITERIA set. At the time MK did NOT meet that criteria. Now he does.

You said: "No one denies that he dominates tournaments now"... which, is a concession that at least ONE of the criteria/points against the ban have been met/disproven, respectively.

Edit: If those were the assumptions, criteria, points of said side AGAINST the ban, whatever you want to call it THEN, at THAT POINT IN TIME... then you have to stick to your guns. You can't continually keep RAISING THE PROVERBIAL BAR. That is one thing that I give the pro-ban side. They have laid out their arguments/beliefs/whatever, and stuck to the same "version" of it, whereas anti-ban continually modifies theirs to fit the situation.

 

[Overswarm]

Counterpoint #2- Metaknight really IS too good/over centralizing

Metaknight holds roughly 22% of ALL tournament places, the most of any characters. 22/100 doesn't seem like much, but this is a single character taking nearly 1/4th of ALL tournament PLACEMENTS... out of 36 characters.

lolololol

Now it's 29%, and close to 1/3rd of all tournament placements.

lololol

-_-;;

 

[RDK]

You're missing the point.

To the best of my knowledge, the "does not dominate the metagame" was one of the CRITERIA set. At the time MK did NOT meet that criteria. Now he does.

You said: "No one denies that he dominates tournaments now"... which, is a concession that at least ONE of the criteria/points against the ban have been met/disproven, respectively.

No, because I never admitted that "domination of the metagame" was a criteria in the first place. That's a silly criteria that has been broken countless times, not only in competitive fighters in general but in Smash.

Go back and look at the thread. Those headlines aren't criteria; they're statements.

Metaknight has a perfect recovery and an abnormally safe ledge game.

Metaknight has too many safe options.

Metaknight detracts from the metagame.

Lots of characters have good recovery, many safe options, and plenty of things detract from the metagame.

The point of that thread was to compile the arguments from each side, not to create a criteria.

 

[Syde7]

No, because I never admitted that "domination of the metagame" was a criteria in the first place. That's a silly criteria that has been broken countless times, not only in competitive fighters in general but in Smash.

Go back and look at the thread. Those headlines aren't criteria; they're statements.

Argument #2: Metaknight does not dominate the metagame.

One of anti-ban's arguments FOR their position. Argument/Statement, in terms of rhetoric they are one and the same, to the best of my knowledge. A position, that has since been disproven.

Whether or not YOU, SPECIFICALLY, agree that that should have been an argument is largely irrelevant. At that point and time, that was one of the anti-ban's arguments, which was (presumably) pulled from the general anti-ban sentiment at the time. It has since been disproven.



Also, as a side note, not directed at you RDK, but in general:

Argument #5: Metaknight’s extraneous circumstances are already resolved.​

Metaknight has been explored to the point where stalling has been a major issue with the character. However, the two primary methods of stalling already have solutions, and are no longer evidence for a ban. The IDC has already been formally banned and is no longer an issue. Planking is banned in some areas, but this problem is not specific to Metaknight. Even more specifically, the Dojo vs DEHF ruling from Genesis was not a situation with Metaknight, rather just a poor judgment call. Any basis that would further extend past the basic definition of a ban for a more specific criterion has no application to this debate.

I bring this up because anti-ban states that the problem was "resolved". Closed case. A non-issue, which means he shouldn't be banned. The emergence of "scrooging" among other things has resurfaced, PROVING that the issue was NOT RESOLVED, thereby disproving another statement/argument against his ban.

 

[RDK]

One of anti-ban's arguments FOR their position. Argument/Statement, in terms of rhetoric they are one and the same, to the best of my knowledge. A position, that has since been disproven.

Whether or not YOU, SPECIFICALLY, agree that that should have been an argument is largely irrelevant. At that point and time, that was one of the anti-ban's arguments, which was (presumably) pulled from the general anti-ban sentiment at the time. It has since been disproven.

Yes, and it was true and relevant for that time period. Nowhere does it say in that thread under the anti-ban argument that the metagame would not become dominated by MK in the future. The statement was the was not dominating at the time that that particular thread was made.

How can something that was never asserted be "disproven"?

Also, as a side note, not directed at you RDK, but in general:

I bring this up because anti-ban states that the problem was "resolved". Closed case. A non-issue, which means he shouldn't be banned. The emergence of "scrooging" among other things has resurfaced, PROVING that the issue was NOT RESOLVED, thereby disproving another statement/argument against his ban.

Again, the issue was resolved at the time. And personally I think rules banning scrooging and planking are scrubby. Recently Jack Kieser made a thread about upcoming experiments in the community that deal with limiting Metaknight stall tactics, and Thursday I'll be interviewing him on the podcast about that, so there's 2 resources you can access with regard to this argument.

 

[Overswarm]

Argument #1: Metaknight is not broken.

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. Tournament results have disproved Metaknight's invincibility, and he can be beaten in the realm of human ability. Every input in Metaknight's control is known to have a predictable outcome, and every attack is known to have a set of unchanging properties. Metaknight does not have the inherently random nature that items do, and he cannot mimic the random nature of some stages, such as Delfino Plaza.

Not only does D3 and the Ice Climbers bypass hitstun, free movement, and DI in their infinite chaingrabs make this entire thing invalid, but Metaknight DOES ignore game mechanics. He can go invisible and be untouchable for however long he wants; we have to ban it. If the argument is "after banning the things that were ban worthy, MK is no longer banworthy", you could apply that to anything at any point in competitive gameplay... making this argument pointless.

In addition to this, MK being "broken" is not a criteria set by anyone... especially the smash community. If "broken" was what was necessary to ban things, we wouldn't have banned multiple stages, food on low, or dozens of other things. Being broken isn't necessary in the slightest; we've already set this precedent in the past.

Argument #2: Metaknight does not dominate the metagame.

EDIT: See below for results, as the original post was in the SBR.

If you take the time to look at all of these results anyone with good judgment can see that the word “dominant” may need to be reexamined. Mew2King, one of the best Melee players and arguably the best Brawl player easily pours countless hours until the point of obsession attempting to make this “broken” character invincible, and yet Ally has a winning record of 2-1 in regards to out-placing (obtaining 1st place) over Mew2King in this season.

Looks like Omni focusing on isolated incidences isn't new!

MK doesn't just dominate the metagame... he's doing better than he was before by a significant margin.

Research by Flayl:

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

There are a grand total of 6 unique individuals that have overcome the top level MK obstacle on more than one occasion. This means that except for the one-time shots, we have 6 horses you could bet on for the race. Two of them share the same character (Snake), and each other player plays a different character. This is strong evidence showing it is the player and not the character itself is the deciding factor for them.... but can the same be said about the 9 Metaknights?

To make matters worse, not only are MKs losing primarily only to other MKs, the other characters are still dropping sets to other characters. That's ridiculous.

Argument #3: The game is still growing and evolving.

This argument is infinite. A game is never "done". This isn't so much an argument as it is a stalling tactic.

Argument #4: Implying that Metaknight breaks the counterpick system also implies that Brawl is a game based on counterpicking.

The multiple top MKs are losing to the top players of various other characters, and no one is emulating them at all. That means no one else has the "I only lose in dittos and to super top players" badge for their character on AiB.

The other character mains seem to be dropping sets to other characters on a more frequent basis if the data is indicative of a trend; we'd have to see more to be sure, but this is pretty convincing... Ankoku posted a list of some of the top regional players at Pound 4 that made it to bracket and who they beat / lost to.

However, all counter characters (to my current knowledge) highlighted in red. That means if the character is highlighted in red, that means a hard counter took place... a hard counter being a character that undeniably does well and requires the opponent to change their playstyle drastically to even compete. Ignoring soft counters and tier disparities.

Boss
Defeated Hunger
Lost to Seibrik
Lost to Infern

DEHF
Lost to ChuDat
Defeated Mikey Lenetia
Defeated Ling Ling
Defeated Fatal
Lost to lain

Infern
Lost to NEO
Defeated Boss
Lost to Logic

lain
Defeated dmbrandon
Defeated CO18
Lost to Havok
Defeated Hunger
Defeated DEHF
Lost to Judge


It seems to me that having a hard counter is a pretty big deal at the highest level of play.

Except for MK.

In other words, MK breaks the counterpick system based on all evidence we currently have. These are all good players losing to good players so the "player skill" argument might not hold water if other tournaments are researched for players that are non-MK, but Flayl did the research for MK mains and found the exact opposite of what we found looking at non-MK mains.

MK breaks the counterpicking system, and we have data to prove it.



Did I mention that he also doesn't have any bad stages because we banned them all, and the other characters at the top of the tier list have a greater advantage on the starters than MK does? Diddy gets two counterpicks in every set vs. MK and we still are only getting one Diddy that's really wowing anyone.

Argument #5: Metaknight’s extraneous circumstances are already resolved.

Metaknight has been explored to the point where stalling has been a major issue with the character. However, the two primary methods of stalling already have solutions, and are no longer evidence for a ban. The IDC has already been formally banned and is no longer an issue. Planking is banned in some areas, but this problem is not specific to Metaknight. Even more specifically, the Dojo vs DEHF ruling from Genesis was not a situation with Metaknight, rather just a poor judgment call. Any basis that would further extend past the basic definition of a ban for a more specific criterion has no application to this debate.

The IDC has been banned, yes. Planking is banned in some areas, yes, but not by the SBR. However, when it was banned, MK invented scrooging and now we have another hot topic.

Did you know on the smashville platform that MK can jump upwards 4 times and glide farther than Diddy can attack him? All Diddy can do is throw a banana and hope to do 4% if the MK just lets it hit him.

Metaknight has also been the most common "stalling" character in the game... and the only one to show any issues with planking in the tournament scene to date.





So what is anti-ban standing on now?

 

[ShadowLink84]

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

Failtaclar arugment since you just admitted the player was the reason for Jiggly's dominance.

Hbox has been dominating FL with Jiggs.

And you doit here again

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

I dont get it but I will laugh anyway

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 more dominant the first three months I believe

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.

Smash64 is better balanced and every character has good chances against the other

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

Whats the last word?

 

[Seagull Joe]

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.

Mk's matchups that are 70-30 or more in his favor:
D3 even without nado, every low tier (except Ness oddly) from F to E, every mid tier from C to D, Dk with just nado, toon link, ROB, probably Olimar, Pika, and GaW is horrible vs him now.

So from my knowledge his match ups that are at least 65-35 to 55-45 since has has 0 even match ups are Snake, Diddy, Falco, Wario, Ics, Kirby, Marth, Lucario, Zss, Ness, and Pit. Note, these are all still disadvantages match ups with his "worst"(still not even or Snake's favor) being Snake. -_-

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?

Mk's frame data is overly broken. It's like Sheik's frame data except even faster, with the ability to kill, have actual real combos, and have infinite options. Nado, Shuttle loop, and Dsmash is all a Mk needs to win. Ksizzle only nados and Nairs Oos and he gets top 4 or wins regularly.

That thread was made in July of 2009. Metaknight was not dominating tournaments back then like he is now.

Nobody disputes that he dominates tournaments now, and if they do, they're just ignorant of the facts.

SOVAignorant.

 

[Overswarm]

I believe pro-ban just scored a triple kill.

 

[Overswarm]

Yes, and it was true and relevant for that time period. Nowhere does it say in that thread under the anti-ban argument that the metagame would not become dominated by MK in the future. The statement was the was not dominating at the time that that particular thread was made.

How can something that was never asserted be "disproven"?



Again, the issue was resolved at the time. And personally I think rules banning scrooging and planking are scrubby. Recently Jack Kieser made a thread about upcoming experiments in the community that deal with limiting Metaknight stall tactics, and Thursday I'll be interviewing him on the podcast about that, so there's 2 resources you can access with regard to this argument.

Public: "Your weapons testing is maknig us sick! I'm pretty sure it causes cancer!"

Gov: "Studies show that it does not, case closed."

Public: "We all have cancer! We've collected the data and ran the tests and it's definitely caused by your bombs! This isn't even an isolated incident, it is clear cause and effect with obvious trends in other weapon testing zones! You have to pay up now, we've proven your argument wrong!"

Gov: "We said the issue was resolved at the time.. It was true and relevant for that time period. Nowhere did we say in that argument that the public would not get cancer in the future."


I enjoy your nonsensical nature.

 

[RDK]

Not only does D3 and the Ice Climbers bypass hitstun, free movement, and DI in their infinite chaingrabs make this entire thing invalid, but Metaknight DOES ignore game mechanics. He can go invisible and be untouchable for however long he wants; we have to ban it. If the argument is "after banning the things that were ban worthy, MK is no longer banworthy", you could apply that to anything at any point in competitive gameplay... making this argument pointless.

In addition to this, MK being "broken" is not a criteria set by anyone... especially the smash community. If "broken" was what was necessary to ban things, we wouldn't have banned multiple stages, food on low, or dozens of other things. Being broken isn't necessary in the slightest; we've already set this precedent in the past.

I accept the idea that broken hasn't been a precedent for banning in the past. Unfortuantely people like to mold the game however they feel like playing it.

I can only say how I want the game to be played, and that's with as little intervention as possible while still leaving the game competitive and fair to players. I.E., taking broken elements out.

Others may not agree with me.

There are a grand total of 6 unique individuals that have overcome the top level MK obstacle on more than one occasion. This means that except for the one-time shots, we have 6 horses you could bet on for the race. Two of them share the same character (Snake), and each other player plays a different character. This is strong evidence showing it is the player and not the character itself is the deciding factor for them.... but can the same be said about the 9 Metaknights?

To make matters worse, not only are MKs losing primarily only to other MKs, the other characters are still dropping sets to other characters. That's ridiculous.

Isn't this better, though? I'd rather have evidence that it's possible for players to overcome Metaknight than simply just characters.

I.E., if you practice as much as ADHD or Ally, you can handle Metkanight lol.

It seems to me that having a hard counter is a pretty big deal at the highest level of play.

Except for MK.

In other words, MK breaks the counterpick system based on all evidence we currently have. These are all good players losing to good players so the "player skill" argument might not hold water if other tournaments are researched for players that are non-MK, but Flayl did the research for MK mains and found the exact opposite of what we found looking at non-MK mains.

MK breaks the counterpicking system, and we have data to prove it.

I would IMO say that both MK and (arguably) Diddy are even matchups for Metaknight. So yes, it's correct to say that he doesn't have a soft or hard counter, or even any disadvantageous matchups. But he does have even ones.

Also, wasn't it you who advocated the idea that matchup charts and ratios are bogus?

Did I mention that he also doesn't have any bad stages because we banned them all, and the other characters at the top of the tier list have a greater advantage on the starters than MK does? Diddy gets two counterpicks in every set vs. MK and we still are only getting one Diddy that's really wowing anyone.

LOL well maybe we shouldn't have banned those stages then.

I still don't agree with the reasons behind banning certain stages, whatever those reasons may be. AFAIK the SBR hasn't posted anything about them; I'd like to read it if they did.

The IDC has been banned, yes. Planking is banned in some areas, yes, but not by the SBR. However, when it was banned, MK invented scrooging and now we have another hot topic.

Did you know on the smashville platform that MK can jump upwards 4 times and glide farther than Diddy can attack him? All Diddy can do is throw a banana and hope to do 4% if the MK just lets it hit him.

Metaknight has also been the most common "stalling" character in the game... and the only one to show any issues with planking in the tournament scene to date.

Planking and scrooging are obviously large problems. Which is why everyone should support Jack Kieser's community project here:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263414

 

[wakka444]

hahah that book is coming along nicely OS =P

 

[Espy Rose]

LOL well maybe we shouldn't have banned those stages then.

I still don't agree with the reasons behind banning certain stages, whatever those reasons may be. AFAIK the SBR hasn't posted anything about them; I'd like to read it if they did.

What?

Didn't Hylian and a few others link to the stage discussion in the other thread that came prior to this one?

I remember someone giving a link to the stages, and what the stages had to accomplish/fail to accomplish in order to be considered banned, counter pick, or neutral...

Unless I'm missing something here.

 

[ShadowLink84]

forget it, both sides are idiots.

 

[Overswarm]

I accept the idea that broken hasn't been a precedent for banning in the past. Unfortuantely people like to mold the game however they feel like playing it.

I can only say how I want the game to be played, and that's with as little intervention as possible while still leaving the game competitive and fair to players. I.E., taking broken elements out.

Others may not agree with me.

So you're saying "I don't care about the evidence, I just don't want MK banned". Hardly someone that should be debating, because you're not trying to convince anyone. Give me reasoning as to why we should think this way and you have a case.

Isn't this better, though? I'd rather have evidence that it's possible for players to overcome Metaknight than simply just characters.

I.E., if you practice as much as ADHD or Ally, you can handle Metkanight lol.

...No. Actually, it doesn't show that at all. It shows naturally talented players are able to relatively beat Metaknight sometimes. These players were picked out becasue they beat top MK players twice. Dos. Two times only. More than one. I didn't say they dominated MK. They don't. They just beat them twice.

What this DOES show is that you don't have to practice as much as top players. You can just pick up Metaknight and you have a better shot.

I would IMO say that both MK and (arguably) Diddy are even matchups for Metaknight. So yes, it's correct to say that he doesn't have a soft or hard counter, or even any disadvantageous matchups. But he does have even ones.

Also, wasn't it you who advocated the idea that matchup charts and ratios are bogus?

?

I said nothing about matchup charts and ratios being bogus.

As for your opinion, it's factually incorrect given all the data we have ever had.

Only one Diddy player has done anything of note, SNAKE is the only character shown more than once in the group of 6 MK killers (not Diddy), Diddy mains have repeatedly admitted to hiding the matchup and even spreading misinformation so others don't know the matchup, both polls in the MK and Diddy forums have shown that the opinion of the public AND top MK/Diddy mains show that it is either in MK's favor or is an even matchup. The only one to say it is in Diddy's favor is Mew2King who has shown he doesn't know what he's doing, and the only two to claim it is an even matchup have been ADHD and Alpha Zealot. When your prize fighter for your character says "it's even", things aren't looking great.

LOL well maybe we shouldn't have banned those stages then.

I still don't agree with the reasons behind banning certain stages, whatever those reasons may be. AFAIK the SBR hasn't posted anything about them; I'd like to read it if they did.

I posted a pretty long list during the first one, the other people to handle the project have not done so. I disagree with the banning of many stages, but many stages that MK is bad on (Bridge of Eldin, Shadow Moses, etc.) are banned for good reason.

Planking and scrooging are obviously large problems. Which is why everyone should support Jack Kieser's community project here:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263414

[/quote]


You didn't really invalidate anything I said. All you've said are "in my opinion" or "well I personally believe". You haven't supported anti-ban at all...

We're saying "This food is unhealthy"
and you're saying "I don't mind the taste".

Your answers don't really fit in line with the statements and questions being made by the opposing side.

 

[RDK]

What?

Didn't Hylian and a few others link to the stage discussion in the other thread that came prior to this one?

I remember someone giving a link to the stages, and what the stages had to accomplish/fail to accomplish in order to be considered banned, counter pick, or neutral...

Unless I'm missing something here.

Apparently I wasn't there for that. Can you link me to the thread?

 

[Overswarm]

hahah that book is coming along nicely OS =P

I thought about putting it in a binder and mailing it to Mew2King.

What?

Didn't Hylian and a few others link to the stage discussion in the other thread that came prior to this one?

I remember someone giving a link to the stages, and what the stages had to accomplish/fail to accomplish in order to be considered banned, counter pick, or neutral...

Unless I'm missing something here.

Stages become Starter stages when it is agreed by a 2/3 majority in the SBR that each stage is overall a fair stage with only minimal advantages and disadvantages given that has an overall low number of hazards, ineffective hazards, or basic hazards that can be predicted and implemented into a strategy.

Stages become Counterpick stages when it is agreed by a 2/3 majority in the SBR that they are not an overall fair stage in that they give specific advantages and disadvantages to certain types of characters, so much so that it can influence the match directly. Or, that the stage has hazards that disrupt play to such an extent that it cannot be assumed the player can avoid them with minimal effort or the hazards have such incredible damage and knockback that they can directly influence the outcome of a match.

Stages become Banned stages when it is agreed by a 2/3 majority in the SBR that they are not a fair or competitive stage at all, in that certain characters can easily have a near 100% win rate against others at top level play or that a large majority of the cast cannot actively be played on this stage, or that the stage simply requires such a radical change in gameplay that players cannot be reasonably expected to adapt (such as the Cave of Immortality in Hyrule Temple). Hazards can also cause a stage to be banned if they are random in nature and thus directly disrupting gameplay on a consistent basis, or if they are so powerful and/or unavoidable that they directly determine the outcome of a match on a consistent basis.
__________________


I wrote it. I'm not happy with some of the stages being banned, but it's a 2/3rds majority ruling on stage votes.

 

[Seagull Joe]

Planking and scrooging are obviously large problems. Which is why everyone should support Jack Kieser's community project here:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263414

You realize Mk as a whole is the real problem. Rather then add a billion limiting options just because of Mk, why not ban him altogether?

Seems pointless with these thousands upon thousands of "lets limit Mk more" and then "he found a new way to be gayer, so lets just limit him more" and then "he broke that limit in some way, so lets limit him even more differently". There is no end till he is just banned and I don't understand why people don't just realize this.

Mk has 5 jumps, multiple recovery options, ability to plank, no cp stages, his Oos options are far above everyone, nado and shuttle loop are two of the most broken moves in the game and wow Mk is the one with BOTH, he has no bad match ups, his frame data is beyond anyone else's in speed and attack, he is melee combo style and not suited for brawl, he dominates the scene because of this, everyone just switches to him when they see why he is broken, you CANNOT ever edgeguard Mk safely, he can plank, he can scrooge, and he has an invincible attack up b Oos even so he can stop approaches altogether. If he screws up because the other person shields it, then he can glide away and be safe.

What other character in brawl has this much options/priority I ask you? NONE. JUST METAKNIGHT.

 

[RDK]

So you're saying "I don't care about the evidence, I just don't want MK banned". Hardly someone that should be debating, because you're not trying to convince anyone. Give me reasoning as to why we should think this way and you have a case.

You know my reasoning as to why I don't think MK should be banned; I've posted it enough already.

My point was that this entire discussion ultimately comes down to opinion; I.E., whether or not you think MK deserves to be banned. Tournament dominance means nothing if you don't hold the opinion that overwhelming dominance is a property that needs to be taken out of the game.

Which is why this discussion has gone through 4 consecutive polls and countless other threads.

Only one Diddy player has done anything of note, SNAKE is the only character shown more than once in the group of 6 MK killers (not Diddy), Diddy mains have repeatedly admitted to hiding the matchup and even spreading misinformation so others don't know the matchup, both polls in the MK and Diddy forums have shown that the opinion of the public AND top MK/Diddy mains show that it is either in MK's favor or is an even matchup. The only one to say it is in Diddy's favor is Mew2King who has shown he doesn't know what he's doing, and the only two to claim it is an even matchup have been ADHD and Alpha Zealot. When your prize fighter for your character says "it's even", things aren't looking great.

This seems like a contradiction. I don't understand how the top Metaknight in the country "doesn't know what he's doing". He's the one who made it to the grand finals; he obviously knew what he was doing better than any of the other MK's present at the tourney.

Are you talking about him not being aware of the instant-throwing technique?

You didn't really invalidate anything I said. All you've said are "in my opinion" or "well I personally believe". You haven't supported anti-ban at all...

We're saying "This food is unhealthy"
and you're saying "I don't mind the taste".

IMO a more accurate statement would be:

Pro-ban: "This food is unhealthy. We should ban it."

Anti-ban: "I don't accept the healthiness or unhealthiness of the food as a criteria for banning."

 

[HeroMystic]

?

I said nothing about matchup charts and ratios being bogus.

You might wanna clear this up then.

Oh, and pro tip: Matchup ratios are bogus.

Not only are they bogus, but the SBR doesn't even use them anymore. No one good does. Know why? They're arbitrary and don't mean anything.

55:45 in one forum is 60:40 in another, and 60:40 in one forum is 70:30 in another. All you can say is "advantage, disadvantage, neutral, heavy advantage, heavy disadvantage". That's it. You can't compare Diddy vs. MK to Snake vs. Marth. It's apples to oranges.

Unless you meant the match-up ratios on Smashboards are bogus, which is what I thought.

 

[etecoon]

This seems like a contradiction. I don't understand how the top Metaknight in the country "doesn't know what he's doing". He's the one who made it to the grand finals; he obviously knew what he was doing better than any of the other MK's present at the tourney.

Are you talking about him not being aware of the instant-throwing technique?

just because he's the best MK player doesn't mean he knows the matchup well, he clearly doesn't and he himself has said he's bad at it. at best it's an even matchup, diddy doesn't beat MK.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

Thank you for ignoring every relevant argument.

There's plenty of people saying stupid things on both sides, concentrate on the people whose arguments are worthy of legitimate thought.


Again, data is just that, data, with no context it's meaningless. How much is "too much"? We all know Mk wins and I've tried to draw this into a discussion of ban criteria (lord knows I've tried, but nobody seems interested because, that means that we'd need to debate something that we could compromise on and reach OMG! a conclusion instead of continuing this stupid pissing match that is either "you believe MK is banworthy based on the current data or you don't"). That's what we need to do, provide a context for the data, I'd say that probably myself, SL, RDK, probably even Yuna and other similarly hardcore anti-banners would be willing to side with pro-ban if we can as a community develop a standard based on the PtW principals and demonstrate that MK fits this criteria.


But nobody is interested.


People are too concerned with their pissing matches to find a resolution. At the very least let's do it SCOTUS-style.

You didn't really invalidate anything I said. All you've said are "in my opinion" or "well I personally believe". You haven't supported anti-ban at all...

We're saying "This food is unhealthy"
and you're saying "I don't mind the taste".

Your answers don't really fit in line with the statements and questions being made by the opposing side.

IMO a more accurate statement would be:

Actually it's more like, ok, it has a lot of effects, but where do you draw the line between healthy and unhealthy.


I've given a line many times, nobody seems interested in debating that position.

 

[Overswarm]

IMO a more accurate statement would be:

THat would be accurate if that's what you were saying.

This seems like a contradiction. I don't understand how the top Metaknight in the country "doesn't know what he's doing". He's the one who made it to the grand finals; he obviously knew what he was doing better than any of the other MK's present at the tourney.

Are you talking about him not being aware of the instant-throwing technique?

Or any other item-based technique, multiple posts in public and in private about not knowing the Diddy matchup, having poor showings against both my Diddy (don't play Diddy) and Alpha Zealot (not ADHD) despite out skilling us by a significant margin, having to be given lessons by AZ and I in person at Springfield... that sorta thing.

How many Diddy Kongs did he beat to get to ADHD?

You know my reasoning as to why I don't think MK should be banned; I've posted it enough already.

My point was that this entire discussion ultimately comes down to opinion; I.E., whether or not you think MK deserves to be banned. Tournament dominance means nothing if you don't hold the opinion that overwhelming dominance is a property that needs to be taken out of the game.

Which is why this discussion has gone through 4 consecutive polls and countless other threads.

That's the thing... it isn't.

You're approaching this from a "prove it to me" standpoint, and you can't really do that when the sides are split down the middle (pro-ban favor slightly from the public polls, actually).

Instead, both sides need to present their argument and see how they match up. That's how a debate works.

What you have done is nothing but say "nuh uh" or "this isn't important to me". That doesn't make for a conclusive argument at all.

If you want to argue that your philosophy is the best and we should adopt it (and thus not ban MK), then THAT would be actual argument. You would have to convince us as to why we should adopt your philsophy by stating why you have it, waht good it does, etc., etc. Pro-ban has already done so. Go.

 

[Overswarm]

You might wanna clear this up then.



Unless you meant the match-up ratios on Smashboards are bogus, which is what I thought.

Read carefully.

It seems to me that having a hard counter is a pretty big deal at the highest level of play.

Except for MK.

In other words, MK breaks the counterpick system based on all evidence we currently have. These are all good players losing to good players so the "player skill" argument might not hold water if other tournaments are researched for players that are non-MK, but Flayl did the research for MK mains and found the exact opposite of what we found looking at non-MK mains.

MK breaks the counterpicking system, and we have data to prove it.

I would IMO say that both MK and (arguably) Diddy are even matchups for Metaknight. So yes, it's correct to say that he doesn't have a soft or hard counter, or even any disadvantageous matchups. But he does have even ones.

Also, wasn't it you who advocated the idea that matchup charts and ratios are bogus?

Confusing, out of place, and irrelevant statement bolded.

?

I said nothing about matchup charts and ratios being bogus.

 

[Master Raven]

When did MK vs Pika become 7-3 MK's advantage? I've no doubt Pika loses to MK but I've always been under the impression that it was more of a 6-4.

 

[HeroMystic]

Read carefully.





Confusing, out of place, and irrelevant statement bolded.

Ah, the cherrypick situation. Fine with me.

 

[Black Marf]

You realize Mk as a whole is the real problem. Rather then add a billion limiting options just because of Mk, why not ban him altogether?

Because it's not fair to the people who main MK.

If he's not a problem, or if tweaks can be made to the rules so that he is no longer a problem, that is preferable to banning him. Saying to people that have practiced MK "sorry, you can't use him anymore, he's too good", when the problem could be solved by instead banning planking is unfair.

And yes, I read the rest of your post. I'm pointing out why many people would prefer to tweak the rule sets in case MK isn't too good by himself (as in, when he does a straight up fight).

When did MK vs Pika become 7-3 MK's advantage? I've no doubt Pika loses to MK but I've always been under the impression that it was more of a 6-4.

Y'know I've heard the Marth v MK matchup anywhere from 55/45 to 70/30. All I know is that I hate fighting that ******* with a fiery passion, and that's all one needs to know.

Again, data is just that, data, with no context it's meaningless. How much is "too much"?

This issue has been danced around long enough.

Isn't it obvious what "too much" is from what OS posted? Is there any reason that OS needs to be perfectly explicit about his criteria? He's given his data, and it's been pointed out that the top 9 MKs can only be beaten consistently by a select few individuals across multiple characters. The hidden argument behind what has been posted is that it is too much. There is no reason OS should have to state that the data he's bringing up is too much, when it is implicit in his argument that it is too much.

OS keeps bringing up the data he's collected. By repeatedly bringing it up, he's saying it's too much. The discussion should be based around why or why not the data shown is too much. Repeatedly asking for criteria is a stall tactic, because it's already been implicitly given.

 

[Overswarm]

Because it's not fair to the people who main MK.

If he's not a problem, or if tweaks can be made to the rules so that he is no longer a problem, that is preferable to banning him. Saying to people that have practiced MK "sorry, you can't use him anymore, he's too good", when the problem could be solved by instead banning planking is unfair.

And yes, I read the rest of your post. I'm pointing out why many people would prefer to tweak the rule sets in case MK isn't too good by himself (as in, when he does a straight up fight).

Global changes are superior to surgical changes. This is in addition to the fact that IDC, planking, scrooging, and generic stalling rules have been put in place at different tourneys and it's just one more after another.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Isn't it obvious what "too much" is from what OS posted? Is there any reason that OS needs to be perfectly explicit about his criteria? He's given his data, and it's been pointed out that the top 9 MKs can only be beaten consistently by a select few individuals across multiple characters. The hidden argument behind what has been posted is that it is too much. There is no reason OS should have to state that the data he's bringing up is too much, when it is implicit in his argument that it is too much.

OS keeps bringing up the data he's collected. By repeatedly bringing it up, he's saying it's too much. The discussion should be based around why or why not the data shown is too much. Repeatedly asking for criteria is a stall tactic, because it's already been implicitly given.

The point is that nobody agrees that those numbers constitutes "too much" except the existing pro-ban.


Especially when you consider that the data does not control for popularity AT ALL.

 

[Overswarm]

The point is that nobody agrees that those numbers constitutes "too much" except the existing pro-ban.

Actually, some anti-ban have switched over due to his numbers and RDK himself has said it clearly shows that he's dominating. He just says that he doesn't care.

Especially when you consider that the data does not control for popularity AT ALL.

?

It does so naturally. I only used tournaments from 150+ players. I don't care how popular your character is, it has to be **** good to get these numbers... especially in 100-149, 150+, AND 100+ with no variation in data.

 

[-Ran]

Smash would be so much more fun if we had a select few individuals handling rules like this. =/ As I said before, we need a period of actual, true testing of MK being banned since the question about his place in tournaments is still being brought up.

In other news:

Just listen to Overswarm. He's right. We don't need to debate if MK needs to be banned. We need to discuss the terms of a temporary, discovery ban of the character which would take place for either three to six months.

 

[Overswarm]

What do you feel we should look for in a temp ban?

 

[etecoon]

a temp ban would have to be at least 6 months, and honestly I don't think you get a clear picture until you start talking a year. pointless anyway, everyone knows he's the best option for winning, is his own worst matchup, breaks the stage CP system etc., and that no other character does this.

 

[Dark.Pch]

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.

Yea, I was right, you don't know how that match ups works. I have played NL diddy alot. So don't spit lazy stuff as to how a match up goes, I know the match up and my character more than you do. Stick to something you know about for once.