Official Metaknight Discussion

[Flayl]

But that's the point. You can't.

If Captain Falcon were to occupy the top 10 spots of every tournament for the next two weeks, does this mean that we can directly attribute his tournament placements to the character's spot on the tier list?

If Captain Falcon were to occupy the top 10 (actually top 12) of every tournament for the next two weeks it's because we were playing a different game.

People play to win.

 

[6Mizu]

CUZ BRO i break the law! XD

Mk doesn't need a ban you main rob of course you would say that!

No he does need ban! I not being biased "because I play rob".
Just give 3 really good reasons MK shouldn't be banned.

 

[HeroMystic]

Why do people keep coming up with these ridiculous fallacies?

 

[Zankoku]

And I did, superior popularity. Considering the drastic differences in appearance of the characters in tournaments, very plausible.

Superior popularity didn't accomplish S tier level numbers for Sonic. Nor would it be as heavy a factor at large-scale tournaments, with the obvious exception of every top-level player representing Meta Knight, which in itself can be viewed as problematic.

 

[Flayl]

Not really, statistical validity requires adjustment for proportionality.


And I did, superior popularity. Considering the drastic differences in appearance of the characters in tournaments, very plausible.

No, that's an insufficient response. For example, you would have to say that there are other causes for cardiovascular problems other than smoking. You would have to say those causes outnumber smoking.

It's your duty to say what causes there can be for MK's dominance besides how good he is.

6Mizu: I think I already have told you this countless times before, but it's not up to the defenders of the status quo to prove why things should remain as they are, it's the obligation of those that want change to prove why it's necessary. All anti-ban has to do is succesfully shoot down the pro-ban's arguments, not create their own.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Superior popularity didn't accomplish S tier level numbers for Sonic. Nor would it be as heavy a factor at large-scale tournaments, with the obvious exception of every top-level player representing Meta Knight, which in itself can be viewed as problematic.

I never saw those rather huge amount of sonic player that is so commonly claimed.
Hell we saw far more MK's than Sonic user's after april.

@_@

Link in melee, now THAT was stupid.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Superior popularity didn't accomplish S tier level numbers for Sonic. Nor would it be as heavy a factor at large-scale tournaments, with the obvious exception of every top-level player representing Meta Knight, which in itself can be viewed as problematic.

Plenty of people have argued that it inflated his percentage of the points for sonic.


Furthermore being the best produces more players, most people are of the opinion that there is a greater concentration of top-level players that play MK then any other character, a point I tend to agree with, but lack empirical evidence for.



Not accounting for population size is always fuzzy math and generally results in wrong conclusions. Your rankings track centralization, and cannot draw any legitimate relationship between character power in the metagame and points. Period.

No, that's an insufficient response. For example, you would have to say that there are other causes for cardiovascular problems other than smoking. You would have to say those causes outnumber smoking.

It's your duty to say what causes there can be for MK's dominance besides how good he is.

6Mizu: I think I already have told you this countless times before, but it's not up to the defenders of the status quo to prove why things should remain as they are, it's the obligation of those that want change to prove why it's necessary. All anti-ban has to do is succesfully shoot down the pro-ban's arguments, not create their own.

Statistics, learn them.

The data only proves current centralization.

The fact that MK players take tournaments in much higher rates then other characters proves LITERALLY nothing.

 

[M@v]

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't go Falco vs. them.
lol

Play to win my friend play to win

=)

Which makes me wonder why Im using Falco over MK.

Oh well!

 

[ShadowLink84]

Play to win my friend play to win

=)

Which makes me wonder why Im using Falco over MK.

Oh well!

Same reason I use Sonic.
We suck at following what we preach.
A.k.a hypocrites.

 

[Espy Rose]

Play to win my friend play to win

=)

Which makes me wonder why Im using Falco over MK.

Oh well!

Because you're not playing to win, obviously!.
=D

 

[Flayl]

Statistics, learn them.

The data only proves current centralization.

The fact that MK players take tournaments in much higher rates then other characters proves LITERALLY nothing.

You simply restated what you said to Ankoku and have not in any way answered what causes there could be for MK's dominance besides how good he is.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Because you're not playing to win, obviously!.
=D

71% of the people who placed on the ranking list aren't either, lol.

 

[Espy Rose]

71% of the people who placed on the ranking list aren't either, lol.

That's a made up percentage, and we both know it.
Don't you lie to me, boy.

 

[HeroMystic]

6Mizu: I think I already have told you this countless times before, but it's not up to the defenders of the status quo to prove why things should remain as they are, it's the obligation of those that want change to prove why it's necessary. All anti-ban has to do is succesfully shoot down the pro-ban's arguments, not create their own.

If Anti-ban does nothing but shoot down arguments, but have no strong argument as a foundation of their claims, then how can they have a reason to not ban MK? That's literally just following the "Wait 'n See" trend.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You simply restated what you said to Ankoku and have not in any way answered what causes there could be for MK's dominance besides how good he is.

Popularity.

Which I said from the very beginning.



Not accounting for population will almost always produce results completely unrelated to real life (ex. my cardiovascular disease example) so it worthless to even discuss any form of causal relationship.



It's equivalent to saying "this wall is green, therefore it is made of wood", A does not follow from B in any sense of the word, so discussing why explaining it is irrelevant. There is literally nothing there.



People who act like it proves a relationship (except in terms of current centralization) need to be slapped by a statistics professor ASAP.

If Anti-ban does nothing but shoot down arguments, but have no strong argument as a foundation of their claims, then how can they have a reason to not ban MK? That's literally just following the "Wait 'n See" trend.

Because pro-ban has failed to prove their claims.

Simple.

 

[RDK]

this is a really pointless hypothetical, this will NEVER even come close to happening

If Captain Falcon were to occupy the top 10 (actually top 12) of every tournament for the next two weeks it's because we were playing a different game.

People play to win.

You're missing the point.

The argument I responded to was an absurd one. All I did was take it to its logical extreme.

 

[Omni]

I've got some time today and a few days later this week due to snow.

What are some more questions pro-ban would like to ask and get answered? If they are unanswered ones made from current conversation it's fine if it is a repeat.

 

[RDK]

If Anti-ban does nothing but shoot down arguments, but have no strong argument as a foundation of their claims, then how can they have a reason to not ban MK? That's literally just following the "Wait 'n See" trend.

Do you understand the concept of burden of proof?

You simply restated what you said to Ankoku and have not in any way answered what causes there could be for MK's dominance besides how good he is.

How did you draw that correlation?

What evidence is there to show that MK's dominance is directly caused by how good he is?

 

[Black Marf]

The fact that MK players take tournaments in much higher rates then other characters proves LITERALLY nothing.

Kay. What about Flayl's statistics?

71% of the people who placed on the ranking list aren't either, lol.

More than that. Just because you're playing MK doesn't mean you're playing to win.

 

[Zankoku]

Popularity.

Which I said from the very beginning.

Popularity will inflate numbers, but not outright invalidate them. As you said, my character rankings list system is an effective gauge is centralization. Unless people are completely fine with such a level of centralization over one character (that is, attendance does not decrease significantly over time), it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Pretty much the only issue, actually. Things that are "broken" but cause no adverse effect in attendance aren't a real problem, when it comes to the community.

 

[Flayl]

If Anti-ban does nothing but shoot down arguments, but have no strong argument as a foundation of their claims, then how can they have a reason to not ban MK? That's literally just following the "Wait 'n See" trend.

Their argument is, literally, a lack of arguments. If none of the pro-ban's arguments are valid, anti-ban wins by default.

Adumbrodeus, at this point you're either stalling or simply do not understand your own example. I'm not going to pursue this conversation any longer.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Popularity will inflate numbers, but not outright invalidate them. As you said, my character rankings list system is an effective gauge is centralization. Unless people are completely fine with such a level of centralization over one character (that is, attendance does not decrease significantly over time), it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Pretty much the only issue, actually. Things that are "broken" but cause no adverse effect in attendance aren't a real problem, when it comes to the community.

Statistically speaking, yes it does, no statistically significant correletation between character power in the metagame and points scores.


As far as actual centralization, I disagree, if it's just "more people play this character" then counters will become prevalent and the metagame will correct itself over time.

Adumbrodeus, at this point you're either stalling or simply do not understand your own example. I'm not going to pursue this conversation any longer.

There is no reliable correlation between character power and any measure we have tried to tally this, we can only track current centralization.


Please, learn basic statistics, this has been my critique of ankoku's thread since the beginning and I developed an idea to remedy it, but I lacked the time to work on it.


But overall, I give a curt answer because it's obvious that the people questioning me don't understand statistics unless their concern is elsewhere. This community is not mathematically inclined, and as an engineering major, the last few pages have caused the highest ratio of head-desk post to non of any set of pages on smashboards.

 

[Zankoku]

As far as actual centralization, I disagree, if it's just "more people play this character" then counters will become prevalent and the metagame will correct itself over time.

Okay, I'm going to spell things out for you slowly. This way I'll know that if there was any misunderstanding, I should kick you in the head.

If

TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE

does not decrease

then there is no problem.

If

MORE PEOPLE PLAY THAT CHARACTER

but

TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE STAYS THE SAME

then things are fine.

It clearly suggests that playing Meta Knight is a favorable choice over quitting the game.

However, if

TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE FALLS SIGNIFICANTLY

then there is a problem.

That is when quitting the game is more favorable than playing Meta Knight.

 

[Flayl]

What evidence is there to show that MK's dominance is directly caused by how good he is?

Occam's razor is not proof, is that's what you're getting at. I don't think I can answer this in a way that will completely satisfy you.

I would have to go and list every reason why all other characters aren't popular, beyond being bad, for high level play I think?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Too much talk about diversity.

What about rulesets? Does Planking, Scrooging, and Stalling become lesser with Metaknight banned?

From the testing I've done on Planking, planking can wreck some character, but it' s not to say they don't have options, but none of the options the ones that get wrecked are very good.

MK's planking extends the list further down, from what others helped by posting there is a 3 frame window where MK's planking is vulnerable, but you need an option that has enough range to hit him from an Uair.

OS pointed out that with a PS your options are much larger, even Falco a character who people say gets destroyed by planking can do something about it, he get s free Bair or Dair I believe.

So while other characters planking can hurt some character's MK's list is longer and the ones that can punish it are working much harder to do it.

 

[RDK]

Occam's razor is not proof, is that's what you're getting at. I don't think I can answer this in a way that will completely satisfy you.

I would have to go and list every reason why all other characters aren't popular, beyond being bad, for high level play I think?

That's not really necessary. I agree with you that MK is overpowered, but using his tournament dominance as a foundational reasoning for why is he is overpowered is backwards and wrong.

You may draw a correlation between how well he does in tournaments and how good he is as a character, but you can do no more than point at it and go "Hmm, that's interesting". It suggests that MK may be overpowered; it doesn't prove it.

For that you would need some type of experiment.

Which is why I've suggested pro-ban TO's to run their own little circle of tournaments with MK banned instead of forcing it on the rest of us who don't have a problem with him.

 

[HeroMystic]

Their argument is, literally, a lack of arguments. If none of the pro-ban's arguments are valid, anti-ban wins by default.

I figured this was it. Here's some insight, talking about this from a chat (which is why I asked the question):

[17:57] <@Li> When quite simply, "People hate him enough to leave. And we have ot make rules that specifically target him to make him beatable" should be enough
[17:57] <@Li> There was even a vote to ban ihm or not and banning won, but it still didn't happen
[17:59] <@Marco> banning won but the votes weren't enough
[17:59] <@Marco> it needs 2/3rds
[17:59] <+Spyke> I was about to say, did it need a plurality, majority or super majority.
[18:01] <+Spyke> That's why government works the way I described. You have to prove why something needs to be done; the other side simply has to hold their views because its, well, the norm.
[18:01] <+Spyke> "People are leaving" isn't a good enough reason.
[18:01] <+Spyke> Special rules occur in all games.
[18:01] <@Li> People are leaving + majority dislike it is
[18:02] <@Marco> and I pretty much understand that myself. I was kinda expecting those answers
[18:02] <@Li> because that's highly dangerous to the future of said concept
[18:05] <@Li> The only conter argument that anti-ban has is "He's not ban worthy"
[18:05] <+Spyke> But he's not.
[18:05] <@Li> how can you say that?
[18:05] <@Li> critera can't be set for ban worthy until somethign is banned
[18:05] <@Li> so essesntially the first thing banned is the easiest
[18:05] <@Li> and then rules are set from there
[18:06] <+Spyke> The first thing banned is always the hardest - that's what the slippery slope is.
[18:06] <@Marco> and you guys are talking exactly the same way the forum is. <.<
[18:06] <+Spyke> And its easy to set criteria for a ban. Just noone wants to do it.
[18:06] <@Li> The slipery slope is only a problem if you do not consider the fact of the drastic difference
[18:06] <@Marco> until it's too late actually
[18:06] <+Spyke> "Needs to have one spammable tactic banned from normal play, and have a super majority voting for the ban"
[18:06] <@Li> and you can't fairly set critera -during- the fact
[18:07] <@Li> it'd be biased
[18:07] <+Spyke> What I said isn't biased.
[18:07] <+Spyke> It's not even character specific.
[18:07] <+Spyke> It could apply to stages, or even items if they were allowed.
[18:07] <@Li> I mean setting critera -durinn- an attempted ban
[18:07] <+Spyke> But there is criteria. Marco AND you mentioned it but glossed over it.
[18:07] <+Spyke> It needed a super majority. It only got a majority.

Bolded being the most important part of the quote.

 

[Overswarm]

Adumbrodeus:

I already controlled for popularity by using only the tournaments with the most entrants (150+). The most popular character in Melee was Link; we did not see a majority of Link mains in the top 10. As time goes on, yes, better characters can get better numbers, but this is irrelevant when you are considering the top 8 of a national tournament. The best characters played by the best players get there. It doesn't matter if they are the only ones playing the character or not; there could be 8 MKs or 8,000 MKs and you'd have the same top players there. Popularity isn't a factor because using only the top 8 of a large tournament naturally uses a weighted scale; only the GOOD characters are up there.

If you're saying that MK is just popular BECAUSE he's so good and that's why we see so many, you're claiming there is another problem: that no one else is good.

In addition to this, you need an alternate explanation as to why the results happened the way they did. You can't dismiss a statistical trend spanning about two years, two different entry brackets, and only the highest level of play at the time of each tournament by saying "that character was popular". If the character was merely popular, you'd have to explain why the character was able to do what other characters could not.

 

[Dekar173]

flamer overswarm get on aim (flamer)

 

[Omni]

If you're saying that MK is just popular BECAUSE he's so good and that's why we see so many, you're claiming there is another problem: that no one else is good.

No, he's not.

Just because a character is the best character does not mean the rest of the characters are not good.

What kind of logic is that?

 

[M@v]

inui logic?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I figured this was it. Here's some insight, talking about this from a chat (which is why I asked the question):



Bolded being the most important part of the quote.

I like this post.

That's a made up percentage, and we both know it.
Don't you lie to me, boy.

Shhh, don't tell people that.

People tell me nice stories for a chuckle, Sonic is 50:50 with MK was one of the funniest.

 

[RDK]

inui logic?

Inui's on our side.

Can you get anything right?

 

[Kuraudo]

Inui's on our side.

Can you get anything right?

So? Who gives a ****. lmao

 

[Omni]

Well, Inui officially co-signs all of my post.

Therefore I am always right.

Seriously, tho', are there any questions that are still left unanswered?

 

[HeroMystic]

I like this post.

Too bad you're like the only one who read it.

 

[napZzz]

Well, Inui officially co-signs all of my post.

Therefore I am always right.

Seriously, tho', are there any questions that are still left unanswered?

why isn't mk banned yet.

 

[Kuraudo]

why isn't mk banned yet.

Yet another question that has been answered time and time again, whether one disagrees with it or not.

 

[Omni]

why isn't mk banned yet.

Metaknight hasn't been banned yet because there has not been an overwhelming majority to remove him from the cast. Overwhelming majority = 2/3's.

 

[Tien2500]

Possible reasons MK is the most popular character...

1) People just love the Kirby series... Just not the protagonist... or antagonist...
2) Masks are cool.
3) He kind of reminds you of Batman.
4) Sakurai brainwashed everyone.
5) He's dead sexy.
6) He's shiny. People like shiny things.
7) He's far better than everyone else in the cast.

Those are the only possible reasons I could think of.