HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Official Metaknight Discussion
- Thread starter Hylian
- Start date
- Status
So lemme get this straight. This is your criteria:
Do you realize how many characters are fair game under the above criteria?
Also, what is a super-majority?
So if, way back when, during the whole DK / D3 infinite war, the DK mains actually managed to get D3's inf. banned, and while they were still in the majority, we took a vote, then you would be of the opinion that it would be okay to ban D3 as a character?
Do you realize how many characters are fair game under the above criteria?
Also, what is a super-majority?
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Sorry I don't have cliff notes for you.
We answered most of the stuff you've brought up already, and it wasn't brought up until you came back >_>
You picked the first three tournaments you could find on the most recent weekend.
For those of you unaware of what a line graph is, the left side is the beginning and the right is the end. You can compare the progress of a variable over a course of time and look for trends and patterns. It hardly "doesn't take into consideration growth". It's actually a time table of the growth that has occurred, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
If you want to talk about only the recent metagame, MK actually has a bigger gap than before. Ankoku's chart is weighted and shows only recent tournaments and shows MK with a 2,000 point gap between him and Snake, and you don't get that just by having mediocre MK mains.
How is this relevant? Straw man arguments are a little cliché, but this takes the cake.
"This one Jigglypuff players win everything, has hasn't lost a national in 2 years"
!=
"There are nine Metaknight mains with no consistent losses to any specific character, and only lose against certain players from a group of 6 players that each play different characters"
They aren't even really comparable.
Now if you had a whole crew of Jigglypuff mains consistently getting into the top 8 and only being beaten by a small handful of players with no character consistency, now THEN you'd have an argument. Seriously, Melee would ban Jigglypuff in a heartbeat if they had the same results with Jiggs that we do with MK.
Two, actually.
And again, you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not pointing at M2K and saying "look how good he is", I'm pointing at Metaknight. You're not pointing at Diddy, you're pointing at ADHD... because Diddy doesn't have the data to back him up. MK does.
Errr... no. The 6 non-MK players don't beat them consistently. These are players that have merely beaten them on more than one occasion, so... winning twice is the big deal. Six is a pretty low number with the bar set that low, don't you think?
?
"The absolute fact" is that he's doing better. Every data set anyone has ever put together has proven this without any room for error.
Pro-ban had an MK main named Mew2King winning everything for a long, long time and we still didn't say "M2K beats everyone else, MK is broken" because it's such a shallow argument.
Omni, when Isai was beasting people with Link in Smash 64 it didn't mean that Link was high tier. It meant that Isai was **** good.
Isai is what we call an "outlier", and someone we can't look to for any sort of guidance for the Smash 64 metagame because he's leagues beyond what you can normally expect. When you looked at other players in Smash 64, you found Pikachu, Kirby, and Ness to very much be the top 3.
Now looking at Brawl, we can see Ally beasting someone with Captain Falcon and know to still say "Falcon sucks". Scattered isolated incidences don't prove anything, and one individual being able to do something proves even less.
However, if Ally picked up captain falcon and won a lot and then other people started doing the same and over time we saw a trend.... then yes. You'd have an argument for captain falcon being better than how we currently perceive.
What you're doing with ADHD is the same thing a falcon main does with Ally. You blow up a few small, isolated incidences given to you by a really good player and then ignore all evidence to the contrary. You used to tell me that it didn't matter if M2K won every event because there weren't a bunch of MKs filling up the nationals ALL the time (only some of them)... and now you've flipped it around and are ignoring having even more MKs in the top 8 simply because ADHD got first at Pound?
None of the MKs are beaten consistently.
flayl said:
Just don't go to smashboards, yo. That's what I do when I don't want to deal with something o_O. Don't gotta ban yourself. That's silly.
You are obligated to argue against the opposing side if you don't want MK banned, yes.
The data is what you asked for last time. In fact, I gathered exactly what was asked of me by pro-ban last time both in the podcast debate, the back room debate, and the publicly posted arguments.
So what are your arguments now? All I've seen from you is "that's not banworthy" and your only listed criteria for something being banworthy is "broken", but this doesn't fit with the smash community standards at all.
For one, Brawl is an actual competitive fighting game. I can see how you might not think it is, but really, it is.
Second, Street Fighter isn't successful. Brawl and Melee are successful. Street Fighter is an afterthought compared to our numbers. Gran Calc from MLG crunched the numbers, I've crunched the numbers, AZ's crunched the numbers... we blow them out of the water. The only thing they have on us, literally the only thing, is that they have a giant event every year that brings more total players together in one place.
Instead, we have eight nationals lined up for a few hundred.
If we did that, MK would be banned. They banned Akuma twice now, and it wasn't because he was winning everything... it was the equivalent of us banning MK because he can plank.
Who is everyone? I'm still trying to beat Metaknight in any way I can.
?
You're saying we should all emulate the 6 phenomenal players rather than emulate the 9 MK mains? I disagree, and so does the competitive community. You pick up MK, and you win. MK isn't an issue anymore once you pick up MK (well, he is because he's the guy I generally fight in the final rounds), and no other character really is either.
You've yet to actually give your own view on the statistics.
Order of arguments with Omni:
Me: Ban MK because (list of argument in pro-ban post)
Omni: Do not ban MK because (list of arguments in anti-ban post)
Official Smashboards vote
Everything OS predicted came true
MKs dominance increases
Criteria set by AZ met
Me: Okay, this time I have all the data you asked for last time
Omni: But is that really banworthy? I mean, the game doesn't crash when you pick MK.
Me: *suicide*
Let's put our personas in two hypothetical situations:
The first is MK suddenly is countered. Diddy finds out he can easily infinite MK back and forth with a simple set up from a nana lock. Snake finds out he can grab release to dair to nair to grab release to u-tilt. Kirby finds a glitch that only works on MK and he can swallow cide MK through any stage for an instant kill. It gets ridiculous for MK and he drops like 6 spots on the tier list.
Do you think I'd want to still ban Metaknight?
The second is that MK is doing leagues better than anyone else, so much so that the only players that can beat him can be named off the top of your head and there is no sign of a character that works other than MK himself. The number and success of MK mains increases over time instead of decreasing, the community is full of hatred for him, and the character routinely finds ways to win that are infuritating and "uncompetitive" to many. Now add that he's winning nationals consistently like he was before.
Do you still want MK unbanned?
Relevant data:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9412725&postcount=1
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9422069#post9422069
(Flayl) http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9450501&postcount=1352
(Flayl) http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9450685&postcount=1354
(Ankoku) http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9454853&postcount=180
(OS commentary on Flayl) http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9455101&postcount=182
Response to anti-ban's previous (now defunct) arguments:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9467804#post9467804
I take issue with this:
Banning MK is lowering the competitive bar. It's equivalent to stooping down and saying to people "It's okay that you suck! Here, let's ban this character over here so you can play with your favorite character over there that usually gets destroyed".
ADHD beating Mew2King at Pound is proof that it's humanly possible to do. The matchup is manageable. If it's manageable and humanly possible, you can do it. And if it's competition that you're here for, then you'll do whatever it takes to get to that level.
Yes, that is what we're saying. The point of a competitive game is to practice your hardest and actually compete against other players who practice their hardest. You should want to emulate top players.
Banning MK is lowering the competitive bar. It's equivalent to stooping down and saying to people "It's okay that you suck! Here, let's ban this character over here so you can play with your favorite character over there that usually gets destroyed".
I think the fact that people like ADHD exists means something. You may disagree.
ADHD beating Mew2King at Pound is proof that it's humanly possible to do. The matchup is manageable. If it's manageable and humanly possible, you can do it. And if it's competition that you're here for, then you'll do whatever it takes to get to that level.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Using the street fighter card Omni likes: So why wouldn't SF players just allow Akuma?
?
It doesn't take anyone beating M2K to show it is humanly possible. We all know it is. That never was an argument. You can see a victory screen with MK being a loser.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Terrible criteria. 66% and something that has to be/could be banned on its own... DDD, Sheik, ZSS, Ice Climbers, etc.
Still a good criteria. I think this is a fair definition for broken. Someone from Anti-ban? If necessary, we can raise the number from half to closer to 2/3rds or something like that; I realize it is a little low. If we can agree on a ban criteria, then we can finally make some **** progress in this discussion by checking who would be usable without MK, who is unusable without MK (these unviable characters will then be completely ignored for purposes of "viable cast"), who is unusable only when MK is around, etc.
Examples:
-Peach is potentially viable when MK is not there, but inviable while he is there. 1/1.
-Snake is viable when MK is not there, but also viable when MK is in the picture. 1/2.
-Diddy is viable when MK is not there, but also viable when MK is in the picture. 1/3.
-ROB is potentially viable when MK is not there, but inviable while he is there. 2/4.
-Ganondorf is inviable whether of not MK is there. 2/4 still, because Ganon doesn't matter.
-Marth is not viable while MK is there, but viable when he isn't. 3/5. (I could be wrong)
-Olimar is not viable while MK is there, but viable when he isn't. 4/6
-Captain Falcon is not viable at all. 4/6.
Etc.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
How the **** is it terrible criteria? It's what we've been doing the WHOLE TIME!
Stages, Items, "Overcentralizing tactics" have all fell into this.
And 66% of Smashboards aren't total *******.
Crow!
Smash Lord
I really want to see those arguments, but the forum won't let me. Someone please help require accountability by making that information available in some way.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
It being a glitch and enough, on its own, to make virtually every matchup 90/10 in MK's favor (hell, if this was melee, enough to make virtually ever matchup in PICHU's favor), means that a fair banning scenario must follow that rule.
It also doesn't really base on solid facts, but instead on people's preferences. >.> And yes, they are. Trust me.
New page... Anyone from Anti-ban, please state your feelings on this: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9476066&postcount=2128
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Copy pasta.
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.
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.
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?flayl's data said:
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.
This argument is infinite. A game is never "done". This isn't so much an argument as it is a stalling tactic.
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.
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?
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Did you just ignore my entire post?
Fun fact: We did 2/3rd majority vote the first time the metaknight ban discussion came up.
Look at this, and tell me that it's terrible criteria. If it's terrible, then we need to unban everything.
Sorto
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 409
The 40 percent still represents the pros that do well and are the top level with these mks. 40 percent of the top level is non-mk and people like to consider that an outlier. Everyone knows mk is the best character. But those numbers clearly show he is not overwhelming
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
While it might seem Omni and I view each other as rubber-helmeted ducks pecking at each other on a volcano, we both know the other has intellect.
The long and short of everything Omni has said isn't that my argument is wrong or even that my data is being interpreted incorrectly; it's more of a "so what?" argument. Both RDK and Omni have criteria for banning that isn't shared by other competitive games and is nigh unattainable, so you can't really do much about it. While the majority of people see a steady increase in MK usage and some pretty phenomenal numbers as something to take notice of, from RDK and Omni's viewpoint they don't understand why it matters if when character is leagues above the rest because that isn't an issue.
You're trying to limit numbers by grouping every character in the game against one, and Metaknight still has a majority. That's overwhelming.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
The first three times IIRC. >.> AFAIK, we require a different tactic for something totally random and something that effects every character than for characters.
EDIT: Whoops, shoulda quoted.
EDIT: Whoops, shoulda quoted.
Nanaki
Smash Lord
Yeah, but those were criteria that applied then. We need to fit new criteria that we make up now, and do it with evidence that we gather over the next few months.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
But when we meet that criteria, we'll have to meet the NEW criteria that was made in the meantime and -Yeah, but those were criteria that applied then. We need to fit new criteria that we make up now, and do it with evidence that we gather over the next few months.
Wait a minute.
Seagull Joe
Smash Legend
Cast viability in alphabetical order with Mk being banned:
DM=Doesn't matter, still unviable
V=Viable
WV=Was always viable
MV=Much more viable
Bowser- DM
Captain Falcon- DM
Dedede- MV
Diddy- WV
Dk- V
Falco- WV
Fox- V
Game and Watch- MV
Ganon- DM
Jigglypuff- DM
Ics- WV
Ike- V
Kirby- MV
Link- Possibly V
Lucario- MV
Lucas- DM
Luigi- MV
Mario- DM
Marth- WV
Metaknight- Duh.
Ness- Possibly V
Olimar- V
Pikachu- V
Pit- MV
Peach- MV
Pokemond trainer- V
Rob- MV
Samus- DM
Sheik- V
Snake- WV
Sonic- Possibly V
Toon Link- MV
Wario- WV
Wolf- MV
Yoshi- DM
Zelda- DM
Zss- MV
Nanaki
Smash Lord
Keep following that line of thought, and you end up like that picture.
When you make a criteria (after a vote that was a majority, though not a super majority, against you), and have that criteria met, how can you claim to have a leg to stand on?
Every game has a 'best' character, but that doesn't mean that the 'best' character should be given a free pass to dominate the game to the point where it's very nearly 'play this character or lose'. MK's not quite there yet, but he's getting dangerously close.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Clarify.
-How is a stage "Totally random"? (Lets ban Pictochat already.)
-How does banning a stage not "effect every character"? (The lack of counterpick stages dramatically decreases viability)
-How does Metaknight not "effect every character"?
-How should personal preference not be a factor in criteria? People are the main component of this game. Without people, you have no game.
-How is this a terrible criteria?
Crow!
Smash Lord
Okay. I'm just thinking aloud here (and by aloud I mean by typing. And then going ahead and posting it online. Okay, so I'm weird).
For reference: the argument numbers below refer to them as quoted by OS. I think this is the same numbering as was used in the previous MK banning poll.
Arguments 2, 4, and 5 are thoroughly, factually debunked, as summarized by OS above, though OS's most recent post doesn't present the best iteration of the arguments against each of them. Number 2 is especially conspicuous; anti-ban seems to be proud of their capitulation on that issue and they remind people of it at every opportunity. Weird.
Arguments 2, 4, and 5 were the easiest to kill because they were at least partially objective. After this we get to subjective territory, which is really annoying to work with.
Argument 3 does seem to be a part of what anti-ban is still clinging to. But after more than a year of metagame development since the last time this has been tackled, the continued dominance (and the dominance by increasingly greater degrees) of the same character, claiming that the game's final state doesn't involve MK dominance is VERY unlikely. If MK's dominance were in the procecss of coming down, maybe. Heck, if it had leveled off, this argument would at least have SOME hope of eventually overcoming it. But as it is, no.
When an argument can appeal to "we don't have data which is from infinitely far in the future," this uniformly positive second derivative on winning is the best support for the pro-ban side on this issue which is physically possible.
Argument 1 gives a criteria for "brokenness" which basically couldn't apply pretty much ever, but I suppose it would be unfair to spend too much time bashing anti-ban for an obviously stupid definition someone gave in the past. Adopting this sort of definition of brokenness would be fatal to the anti-ban side because at that point "brokenness" becomes obviously not necessary to justify a ban, thus removing argument 1 altogether.
Unfortunately, anti-ban's new position on argument 1 seems to be, effectively: since the definition of brokenness is itself subjective, we cannot agree on one, and until we agree on one, we cannot judge whether or not MK is broken. So we can never judge that MK is broken.
Anti-bans reading the previous statement: please correct it if I'm misrepresenting it.
This complaint can legitimately be turned around. Since the definition of brokenness is itself subjective, we cannot judge if brokenness is even relevant to whether or not a character should be banned until a definition of brokenness is agreed upon.
In other words, argument 1 is irrelevant; whether or not MK is broken, given a (sane) definition of brokenness, just happens to be a function of the same set of variables which define ban-worthiness.
Ooh, functions. I want to play with that idea some more. Let's call a character's ability to kill his opponents before his opponents do the same to him X, and his ability to win without actually killing his opponents Y, and everything else that's relevant let's cram into Z.
F(X,Y,Z) is the brokenness function. We don't know what it looks like exactly, but it's some step function like thing where if X, Y, and Z are big enough it's a large number but otherwise it's zero.
G(X,Y,Z) is the bannable function. It has a much stronger dependence on Z than does F, but aside from that we don't exactly know what it is.
Suppose we are given X, Y, and Z, but not F and are told to evaluate G. Does the fact that we didn't get F matter in the slightest? No.
Hmm, that didn't QUITE do what I wanted it to do. It established that "brokenness" is not a necessary condition, which DOES kill argument 1, but it still leaves the form of G unknown. BUT anti-ban has already given a bunch of things it thinks ARE relevant for G: arguments 2, 3, 4, and 5. And those are all shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be above the threshold for banning.
For reference: the argument numbers below refer to them as quoted by OS. I think this is the same numbering as was used in the previous MK banning poll.
Arguments 2, 4, and 5 are thoroughly, factually debunked, as summarized by OS above, though OS's most recent post doesn't present the best iteration of the arguments against each of them. Number 2 is especially conspicuous; anti-ban seems to be proud of their capitulation on that issue and they remind people of it at every opportunity. Weird.
Arguments 2, 4, and 5 were the easiest to kill because they were at least partially objective. After this we get to subjective territory, which is really annoying to work with.
Argument 3 does seem to be a part of what anti-ban is still clinging to. But after more than a year of metagame development since the last time this has been tackled, the continued dominance (and the dominance by increasingly greater degrees) of the same character, claiming that the game's final state doesn't involve MK dominance is VERY unlikely. If MK's dominance were in the procecss of coming down, maybe. Heck, if it had leveled off, this argument would at least have SOME hope of eventually overcoming it. But as it is, no.
When an argument can appeal to "we don't have data which is from infinitely far in the future," this uniformly positive second derivative on winning is the best support for the pro-ban side on this issue which is physically possible.
Argument 1 gives a criteria for "brokenness" which basically couldn't apply pretty much ever, but I suppose it would be unfair to spend too much time bashing anti-ban for an obviously stupid definition someone gave in the past. Adopting this sort of definition of brokenness would be fatal to the anti-ban side because at that point "brokenness" becomes obviously not necessary to justify a ban, thus removing argument 1 altogether.
Unfortunately, anti-ban's new position on argument 1 seems to be, effectively: since the definition of brokenness is itself subjective, we cannot agree on one, and until we agree on one, we cannot judge whether or not MK is broken. So we can never judge that MK is broken.
Anti-bans reading the previous statement: please correct it if I'm misrepresenting it.
This complaint can legitimately be turned around. Since the definition of brokenness is itself subjective, we cannot judge if brokenness is even relevant to whether or not a character should be banned until a definition of brokenness is agreed upon.
In other words, argument 1 is irrelevant; whether or not MK is broken, given a (sane) definition of brokenness, just happens to be a function of the same set of variables which define ban-worthiness.
Ooh, functions. I want to play with that idea some more. Let's call a character's ability to kill his opponents before his opponents do the same to him X, and his ability to win without actually killing his opponents Y, and everything else that's relevant let's cram into Z.
F(X,Y,Z) is the brokenness function. We don't know what it looks like exactly, but it's some step function like thing where if X, Y, and Z are big enough it's a large number but otherwise it's zero.
G(X,Y,Z) is the bannable function. It has a much stronger dependence on Z than does F, but aside from that we don't exactly know what it is.
Suppose we are given X, Y, and Z, but not F and are told to evaluate G. Does the fact that we didn't get F matter in the slightest? No.
Hmm, that didn't QUITE do what I wanted it to do. It established that "brokenness" is not a necessary condition, which DOES kill argument 1, but it still leaves the form of G unknown. BUT anti-ban has already given a bunch of things it thinks ARE relevant for G: arguments 2, 3, 4, and 5. And those are all shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be above the threshold for banning.
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
While there is a bunch around here I disagree with I'm just going to deal with the bolded that I main.
Lucario was already viable. MK isn't even on of his worst MUs. Ksizzle even said DDD and others are worse for Lucario than MK is.
Banning MK doesn't remove Falco, DDD, or Fox for Link. One of which is a worse MU than MK, Falco. This doesn't fix his getting 4:6'd by more than half the cast problem either.
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
From the info he gave to help the Lucario's who were halving trouble in the MU, he pretty much gave the info to show MK doesn't **** Lucario any worse than a 4:6 that could potentially be better.
phi1ny3 (12:58:33 PM): Sooo, want me to start the questions?
KelvinTooGood (12:58:37 PM): sure
phi1ny3 (12:58:43 PM): These are from SWF mind you
phi1ny3 (12:58:47 PM): So
KelvinTooGood (12:58:53 PM): okie doke
phi1ny3 (12:58:56 PM): What do you think is a good mentality when going against MK as lucario?
KelvinTooGood (1:00:31 PM): Go into the match fairly confident since its not so much of a **** matchup for MK and most Mk's don't know the matchup at all. You should also go in trying to prove something like Lucario can definately take MK without a big problem unlike some people may think. Just go in confident and prove people wrong.
phi1ny3 (1:01:41 PM): As Lucario, which stages do you CP MK? Which ones do you ban?
phi1ny3 (1:01:56 PM): Or I should say, which ones do you recommend?
KelvinTooGood (1:05:10 PM): If they dont ban FD, jump on that immediately. Alot of people dont know this but obviously one of lucarios best stages is yoshis. DO NOT GO HERE VS MK. hes better than you here in this particular matchup. you'll be decimated. back on topic, good counterpicks are FD, pkmn1 and smashville. counterpicks lucario should avoid are rainbow pretty much. id say brinstar too cuz its gay and im sure you dont want luck absed factors happening in the match like getting gayed by the acid and stuff but lucario can abuse the stage as well. I would personally counter fd and ban brinstar
KelvinTooGood is away (1:06:19 PM)
home. cleaning room then interview at 4. NO ONE IM ME AFTER 4. PLEASE.
KelvinTooGood (1:06:49 PM): im still here lol i just put away so no one else bothers
phi1ny3 (1:07:02 PM): What can we do about MK's ground game? All of his tilts come out fast than ours and our option to outrange it, Fsmash, can be punished with a power shield to dash grab.
phi1ny3 (1:07:24 PM): I really want you to answer the last comment because I think I know what the answer is to it
phi1ny3 (1:07:33 PM): And I'm sure you do too
KelvinTooGood (1:07:38 PM): the thing with that is
KelvinTooGood (1:07:43 PM): it should not be a problem at all
KelvinTooGood (1:07:47 PM): and the reason for that is
KelvinTooGood (1:07:53 PM): you decide when the f smash releases
phi1ny3 (1:07:59 PM): Yup
KelvinTooGood (1:08:24 PM): and if they dont power shield , you can re pivot f smash or retreat and camp or something
KelvinTooGood (1:08:28 PM): but about mk's ground game
KelvinTooGood (1:08:43 PM): the moves lucario players should fear the most are f tilt, and grabs
KelvinTooGood (1:09:48 PM): shielding the f tilt is really your only option here. if youre quick enough, get a throw in after that f tilt combo and remember his habits youve experienced so far. thats why i do.
KelvinTooGood (1:10:03 PM): a very good mindgame azen kinda discovered is this
KelvinTooGood (1:10:21 PM): most mk players aporach by dashing and immediately shielding in front of you while ur charging your AS
KelvinTooGood (1:10:37 PM): when this happens, cancel the AS and dash grab. it works every time XD
KelvinTooGood (1:10:43 PM): if they start catching on mix it up
phi1ny3 (1:11:21 PM): Man I should've interviewed you first lol, Azen has a tendency to be "vague"
KelvinTooGood (1:12:01 PM): to deal with mk's grabs : if he down throws, DI diagonal down and away and air dodge. this way they cant follow up and you can even have the first move as if he tries to dash grab you, you can jab combo him or grand him first, etc
KelvinTooGood (1:12:05 PM): there are many options
KelvinTooGood (1:12:30 PM): just be careful about f tilt and grabs at low percent, d smash at high
phi1ny3 (1:12:38 PM): "grand him first"?
KelvinTooGood (1:12:47 PM): grab*
KelvinTooGood (1:12:49 PM): my bad lol
KelvinTooGood (1:13:07 PM): grounded up b. watch out for that too. thats punishable tho
KelvinTooGood (1:13:17 PM): if u shield
phi1ny3 (1:13:23 PM): What are the best ways to deal with SL?
phi1ny3 (1:13:34 PM): Like in the air as well?
KelvinTooGood (1:15:18 PM): ok. everyone needs to pay attention when i say this. if you have a jump left and are returning back to the stage, when you use it, air dodge at the exact same time. they can very quicly aerial up b and gimp you. ive done it alot to many lucario players and i made zucco drop that dumb habit. if you get punished like that, coming back to the stage will be tough depending on the MK player
phi1ny3 (1:16:16 PM): Wait what habit is incorrect?
KelvinTooGood (1:17:22 PM): i palyed zucco in tourney and just about half of the kills were aeriel up b gimps. i read him through the match and saw that whenever hed have one jump when returning to the stage at mid level, hed use it without air dodging
KelvinTooGood (1:17:33 PM): so i would surprise up b with mk and gimp him
KelvinTooGood (1:17:49 PM): i mean its not necessarily a bad habit
phi1ny3 (1:17:51 PM): Oh
KelvinTooGood (1:17:52 PM): cuz everyone does it
KelvinTooGood (1:17:58 PM): but if you start getting punished
KelvinTooGood (1:18:01 PM): change it up immediately
phi1ny3 (1:18:10 PM): Yeah I learned that from Havok
KelvinTooGood (1:18:17 PM): haha
KelvinTooGood (1:18:59 PM): grounded up b isnt that difficult to beat. most mk players try it after u get to 130 and above. if you block the up b, up air them if they are above 50 imo. the reason i say this is because if you up air them when theyr at 0 percent of something, they wont have knockback and they can dair you, so what would be the point in that?
KelvinTooGood (1:19:15 PM): obviosuly this depends on your percent as well lol
KelvinTooGood (1:19:26 PM): but i learned this vs m2k.
phi1ny3 (1:19:48 PM): Can dair be used well v. SL?
KelvinTooGood (1:21:18 PM): do you mean when he ground up b's you?
KelvinTooGood (1:22:33 PM): if yes then yea if you jump high and do it. yea itll work. but i would just fair to fair
KelvinTooGood (1:22:38 PM): or fair to dair
KelvinTooGood (1:22:52 PM): depending on lucarios percent.
phi1ny3 (1:23:06 PM): when do you think you should be using fsmash to be more successful with it?
KelvinTooGood (1:24:20 PM): when both you and the MK are after 70 percent. people should also get into the habit of using pivot f smash. it gives u way more space that even sometimes if they powwer shield and try to grabd u they wont reach and u can punish the grab animation
KelvinTooGood (1:24:35 PM): also use f smash if their shield is low, it scares the hell out of them
KelvinTooGood (1:24:45 PM): like throw a fully chard aura spehre and f smash
KelvinTooGood (1:24:47 PM): be creative
phi1ny3 (1:25:57 PM): Oh, you mean that strutter step where you move your footing a little before releasing?
KelvinTooGood (1:26:20 PM): yes. just tap back on the analog stick and f smash the opposite way and its amazing lol
phi1ny3 (1:26:26 PM): Yeah I agree
phi1ny3 (1:27:02 PM): It helps space it even more since 90% of the time if they haven't moved into the hitbox they do it anyways
KelvinTooGood (1:27:15 PM): exactly
phi1ny3 (1:27:34 PM): Anywho, should fsmash be used against MK when he's landing?
KelvinTooGood (1:28:20 PM): thats situational. if the mk is on the ledge and youve noticed that the way they get on stage is jump and air dodge to the stage, then yea charge an f smash on them
KelvinTooGood (1:28:48 PM): if the mk has no jumps and is about to land on the stage that can work too. tho aura spehre is a better choice
KelvinTooGood (1:29:20 PM): depending on ur accuracy, it can punish landing just as well without having to be so close
phi1ny3 (1:30:41 PM): What do you do against MK dair camping?
KelvinTooGood (1:31:54 PM): when a mk dair camps, that most likely means they dont know the matchup and are scared. when i play an mk with lucario, thats the number one thing i want them to start doing. dair camping does not work on lucario. you can easily powershield to fair, nair, up air, etc
KelvinTooGood (1:32:18 PM): you have many options to shut that down. an mk on the ground is way dangerous than an mk above you while your on the ground
phi1ny3 (1:32:36 PM): This is what I've been thinking
KelvinTooGood (1:33:20 PM): m2k doesnt know the matchup lol everytime we have played he dair camps me and i always get a free fair to fair or other combos. he wins becasue hes a smart player and can disect my habits easily
phi1ny3 (1:33:28 PM): I couldn't explain it at the time because it sounded silly, but it just doesn't seem to good
KelvinTooGood (1:34:19 PM): it really isnt. mk f tilting for a minute is way more dangerous and bad for lucario then an mk dair camping for several minutes
KelvinTooGood (1:34:42 PM): dair camping to tornado would be there choice for damage. if your ever caught in tornado, mash the jump button to jump out
phi1ny3 (1:34:50 PM): Ooh, here's a good one
phi1ny3 (1:34:52 PM): How do you recover and get back in one piece? Do you like to recover high or low against MK? Do you prefer to save their jump at all costs, and what do you usually get punished for doing while trying to recover off the map?
KelvinTooGood (1:38:47 PM): whenever i would get launched off screen id immediately use my jump to DI. i learned that this is not a smart choice from Pierce after he yelled at me lol. save that jump because vs MK, your dam well going to need it. the way i recover depends where the mk is at. if hes in front of my face not doing anything, that means hes wating for me to air dodge and then hell punish. when that happens ill attack with fair or something and up b to the stage quickly. if theyr above me that is very very bad. you can try and up b but a good mk wont let you get back so dont ever put yourself in that position. Dair and nair are the moves youre gonna dread alot when your off stage. if your not so low, dont be afraid to throw an up air or fair to get them out of you face. recovery is one of the main reasons people probly see this bad for lucario but just be smart with it. alot of lucarios like zucco and junebug are learning how to recover better
phi1ny3 (1:40:16 PM): Would Aura sphere in any way help?
KelvinTooGood (1:41:56 PM): yes it CAN but it may do more harm then good. it kind of pushes u back a bit so if they air dodge, you just put urself in a bad position since u dropped lower and got pushed back a bit. the mk will then use that to its advantage. obviously you can be sneaky with the aura sphere but i dont recommend it. it can still be good tho
phi1ny3 (1:42:27 PM): What should a Lucario look for in an MK's pattern? What will a metaknight do if the tables get turned and he's losing?
KelvinTooGood (1:44:39 PM): the dair camp patterns. read them in case they throw a tornado in the mix. they usually have it on a set pattern like 3 dairs to nado. so get ready in to jump high and air dodge or something. when an MK i losing expect the MK to shield way more than usual, especially if lucario is at high percent too. take advantage of this with pivot f smashes, aura spheres and grabs.
KelvinTooGood (1:44:55 PM): also this isnt related to the question but i hope most lucarios are now
KelvinTooGood (1:45:05 PM): finishing the jab combo or doing jab jab to grabs
KelvinTooGood (1:45:17 PM): its amazing vs mk and most of the cast
phi1ny3 (1:45:25 PM): Yeah nobody does jab jab -> FP anymore lol
KelvinTooGood (1:45:29 PM): dont use jab jab side b vs mk or youll regret it
KelvinTooGood (1:45:34 PM): yea its not good
phi1ny3 (1:45:45 PM): Although wouldn't jab1 -> grab work well too?
KelvinTooGood (1:45:58 PM): yes but then 2nd jab adds damage!! lol
phi1ny3 (1:46:16 PM): whats the safest way to score a kill?
KelvinTooGood (1:48:38 PM): pivot f smash and aura sphere. dont approach mk to try and kill him. let him come to you. be completely safe and dont try any risky or flshy stuff otherwise mk will get the upper hand without breaking a sweat. dont spam dair over their shield or something if u think its sfae. itdefinately not. if you want to do something along those lines, do 1 dair and if you can do 2 more dairs, their probly gonna expect it. so fast fall after the first dair and grab. mindgammeeessss
KelvinTooGood (1:48:39 PM): lol
KelvinTooGood (1:49:24 PM): also, jab jab to pivot f smash = ****. i closed sets with anther and snakeee for example doing that
KelvinTooGood (1:50:06 PM): it kinda works because they like to spam spot dodge while u jab them. mk might spot dodge, d smash or up b so beware
phi1ny3 (1:51:21 PM): How would you best go about camping MK? Like how would you use AS/BAS and aerials?
KelvinTooGood (1:51:52 PM): like a nice strat to get the kill later on in the match is. jab jab then roll away and see how they react after the second jab. if they spot dodge, test it again later. if they react the same way, just finish the jab combo next time and when u need and can get the kill, jab jab to f smash and hooray lol. remember, if you always read a bad habit from then, save to punish it in the end and refrain from doing it immediately
KelvinTooGood (1:53:38 PM): the camping strat i formulated for myself is aura shenanigans. when i take the first stock (i usually do or hope i do lol) i change my style completely up into only doing lagless moves. like fair, aura spehre, grabs, jab combo, and others
KelvinTooGood (1:53:46 PM): everytime you land one of these lagless moves
KelvinTooGood (1:53:52 PM): run away and charge ur aura spehre
KelvinTooGood (1:54:21 PM): dont try and continue the combo. trust me. youll see that in no time theyll be at kill percent becuz of the aura boost you have
KelvinTooGood (1:54:38 PM): then after they get to 100 u can use f smash and dair and stuff but dont get too risky
KelvinTooGood (1:54:57 PM): just hit and run situation. abuse ur characters best ability
phi1ny3 (1:55:38 PM): This is gold
KelvinTooGood (1:56:22 PM): haha. all lucario players need to do is use their head better and instead of there being a shortege of lucario players, theyll be feared all waround the country. no offense to anyone of course
KelvinTooGood (1:56:44 PM): around*
phi1ny3 (1:56:47 PM): lol
phi1ny3 (1:56:54 PM): In terms of map control, what parts of the map do you like to push MK's into regarding spacing and platforms?
KelvinTooGood (1:58:19 PM): I like pushing MK into then edge of the stage so i have filed control and mass room for camping while hes on the edge struggling the overthrow my camping strategy. if mk is on a platform above you, its also bad for him too. hell probly try to drop down and dair or nado. shield and grabd and throw them away and camp more
KelvinTooGood (1:58:38 PM): mk being above while im on stage or away is perfect for lucario imo
phi1ny3 (2:01:11 PM): Oh yeah, so I think that wraps it up for actual "questions". Any advice you want to leave, or closing remarks?
KelvinTooGood (2:04:03 PM): anyone who says lucarios isnt viable is dead wrong. he definately has the tools to win a national. bad matchups are being overcome alot now by good lucario players. zucco beat atomsks ddd( which he has like top 3 in nation) in tourney a month ago which in my opinion is sooooooooooooooooooo bad. and it makes me happy that hes showing us that lucario can do it. i main MK so i dont show much of lucario but when i do im sure i dont disappoint.
im planning on hoping to face chu dat at pound 4 since he beat zucco at the last tourney. i know it that lucario wins imo and im planning on showing it since i saw both players do alot of dumb things and i wanna see how i do
KelvinTooGood (2:04:31 PM): anyways, Lucario is being used more and more in tourney and can definately do great things. everyone keep it up.
KelvinTooGood (2:04:44 PM): also, shoutout to miranda cosgrove
phi1ny3 (2:05:38 PM): lol
I'd agree with him on that in any case, I think MK vs lucario is only slightly in MK's favor. lucario's nature as a character makes him a difficult character to have a blow out MU vs, I don't think he's that horrible vs snake or DDD either. I'm just saying that his primary character is MK, most MK mains aren't going to tell you "yeah MK is <insert otherwise viable character here>'s worst MU".
I forgive you.
Eh, by questions I meant questions that the pro-ban may have. Unfortunately, not everyone is keeping up with the thread so we've got repeat offenders on both sides of the spectrum.
Yeah. The full weekends' results were a mix of MK winning and not winning as well as smaller regional tournaments. The mixture of MK dominance and lack thereof was pretty evenly spread.
Think about it, Overswarm.
Mew2King is no doubt on a whole different level than the rest of the MK's. He is an "outlier" as you would say. However, the 2,000 point gap represents:
1.) Metaknight is the best character in the game.
2.) Metaknight is the most overused character in the game (thus being the most popular).
First you have M2K who contributes the most into MK's points. Following M2K is the MK Army who will be the highest in population based on said reasons. Even if the army were full of mediocre MK's, the point system would still be in Metaknight's favor simply because the sheer AMOUNT of MK's compared to the fact that Snake, Diddy, IC's, Falco, and Wario etc. have hardly ANY representation.
Let's look at this from a statistical point of view. I'll get a more detailed result later, but here is the basic concept of it:
Metaknight: Mew2King, Tyrant, Havok, DSF, Lee Martin, Dojo, Shadow, Seibrik, Judge, Anti, Ksizzle. 11 MK's Roughly Sharing: 4020
Snake: Ally, Ultimate Razer. 3 Snake's Roughly Sharing 2024
Diddy: ADHD, Gnes. 2 Diddy's Roughly Sharing: 1325
Falco: DEHF, SK92 2 Falco's Roughly Sharing: 686
Marth: MikeHaze and NEO. 2 Marth's Roughly Sharing: 877
Wario: Fiction, Malcom. 2 Wario's Roughly Sharing: 609
Ice Climbers: Lain and Meep. 2 Ice Climbers Roughly Sharing: 609.6
I took the best of the best from each character based on how well they do. That means each character and their armies are those who consistently take Top 3 and have done so enough to heavily effect their character's point system. These are essentially the pro's.
Let's ASSUME that the points are spread evenly at this point. This isn't true since M2K and Ally could be a character of their own but for the sake of the concept we're going to assume it is even:
Metaknight Average: 365 points
Snake Average: 1012 points
Diddy Average: 662 points
Falco Average: 343 points
Marth Average: 448 points
Wario Average: 304 points
IC's Average: 304 points
Suddenly, the 2000 point lead makes sense. The overwhelming representation of Metaknight means that even if the MK's are not grabbing 1st place consecutively, the sheer number of MK's who are placing Top 3 and Top 5 are putting a huge dent in MK's numbers. MK's overusage and popularity has a HUGE effect on how many points that character will earn. A funny conclusion is that if you remove the "outliers" or the best from each character class and their contribution, Metaknight's average drops even more.
I'm getting Ankoku to help me with a much more detailed result of character representation based on rankings and contribution from said players.
I'm going to stop here and finish addressing the rest of your points in another post.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
You're missing the point of the issue people are taking with this.
The criteria you're putting forth doesn't really define any thing as banworthy, it just states a certain amount of community preference required for something.
2/3s majority should be a given, but what we need is a principal under which people should agree that something is banworthy, like the one I suggested, otherwise it comes down to personal preference yet again and the discussion is never resolved.
That's the reason why setting the criteria after the fact doesn't work either, they'll never be a resolution, and whichever side is winning will set a criteria that benefits them.
Of course there will be elements of this anyway, but that's why I've suggested using data that we don't already have such as average placements at the top of the metagame.
Kuraudo
4Aerith
I think you missed a Snake, OS. Ally, Ultimate Razer, and...?
It's very comparable, Overswarm.
Think about it. We have one person who uses a specific character with little representation who NEVER loses.
In Brawl, we have a few people with a specific character with high representation who still lose (some more consistently than others). To make it even more similar.
We have one person who uses a specific character who loses (sometimes badly) to two players.
The argument with Jiggs is silly. You would ban Jigglypuff because after 5-6 years into the game Jigglypuff started taking top places? The character is completely viable and does not suddenly "break" but rather grows. Whether they grow to the top of the metagame or not is a different story. Does the same apply for Brawl? If the representation of Snake or Diddy skyrocketed because of popularity would we start questioning Snake or Diddy's ban? Some would, but that isn't a good reason to start questioning a ban.
Again, you're pointing at MK and the 11 people who represent him. I'm pointing at Diddy and the one person who represents him. I explained in the earlier post that MK is winning the numbers race because of overusage. The same would go for any other character if that popualarity was transferred over.
With that said, that point system does not accurately represent how good/bad MK is since the amount of player's using a character does not = how skilled the actual character is.
For example, if every MK main dropped MK and switched to Snake regardless of how they performed Snake's numbers would see a huge spike upwards. The same goes for any other character.
No.
Considering that those 6 non-MK players are the only representation of their own characters, I do not find that number to be pretty low. I actually find it to be pretty HIGH. We have potentially Falco, Snake, Diddy, and Ice Climbers (4 characters) being able to contend and beat Metaknight. That, in my opinion, is good and doesn't take into consideration players like Riddle's ZSS who in the current metagame can still outplace pro MK's.
He does better because the amount of representation he contains added to how great of a character he is. If you have 10 men working on one job, I assure you they will outperform 2 men working on the same job in another area.
With as much representation as MK gets he BETTER be doing better because then the numbers wouldn't make sense.
It's also a false argument because uh... M2K doesn't beat everyone? Trust me. You would throw this argument around like cake if it were the truth.
The same applies to Ally beating players with Falcon. What are you getting at?
Isai was an outlier because he used EVERY character better than everyone else. The same does not apply for the outliers you name here in Brawl. These guys are only the best at their own character. You cannot compare the two.
Of course scattered isolated incidences don't prove anything.
Metaknight losing or not being dominant is not a scattered isolated incidence even though it SHOULD be.
So you're essentially disproving me of mentioning "isolated incidents" by taking an isolated incident (Pound 4) and using this as your argument.
Do you not realize that that's all pro-ban does? Every new argument is sparked by some isolated incident like WHOBO where MK does extremely well.
You and I are the same. Don't attempt to isolate yourself from your own speculations (oh u c wat i did der).
The temptation to completely shut you down was too much! What can I say?
Not really. Essentially, what it comes down to is you persuading enough people that you are right and that anti-ban is wrong so that you can grab the majority vote. The status quo cannot and will not change unless a majority decision has been made.
You'd think after 3, 4, 5 attempts of trying to ban MK you'd at least succeed in a temporary ban. Is it because the entire community is dumb and wrong? No. Is it because you're dumb and wrong? No. It's simply the fact that enough people are content with the status quo and how the game has shaped that they enough people do not share your views. There's nothing wrong with that and I find no fault in your attempts to continue to share your views unless you're being devious with your methods.
I've been throwing my arguments around this entire thread. Either you fail to recognize them as arguments or you've missed them completely.
I have NEVER said Brawl is not an actual competitive fighting game. What?
I am disappoint in this statement.
-----
Gotta' stop again. Gotta catch a shuttle and head home. This seriously has to be the last time I respond to your posts. ****s too long and soaks up way too much of my time.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Now that I don't feel irritable since I got something to eat:
"Needs to have one spammable tactic banned from normal play, and have a super majority voting for the ban"
Since this is Brawl and people like things to be obvious, lets change that to "Needs to be guilty of overcentralization, and have a super majority voting for ban."
Also, we've been using the basis of this since like, ever. Even for when the first time this came up. You're essentially saying we need to make an entirely new criteria for everything.
It does not only have Super Majority as criteria.
"Needs to have one spammable tactic banned from normal play, and have a super majority voting for the ban"
Since this is Brawl and people like things to be obvious, lets change that to "Needs to be guilty of overcentralization, and have a super majority voting for ban."
Also, we've been using the basis of this since like, ever. Even for when the first time this came up. You're essentially saying we need to make an entirely new criteria for everything.
What will stand as "The top of the metagame"? National Tournaments?
iRJi
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,423
He mains MK because he's not dumb lol. Lucari ois perfectly viable, and I am not just saying that because he is my main character either. Ksizzle wants money, and in order to do that he needs to do it with a character that has a easier chance of pulling a top result. Lucario may be perfectly viable, but he will still not be able to do it as easily as MK can, for obvious reasons.
Anyway, Back to the important things. I posted this a while back when the MK thread was made for banning him. I thought I had a good explanation for his ban worthyness.
Another one here
If there is another post that I made with the same thing, sorry. the School computer is refreshing over and over again, and its not working well.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
There were 500 killings with guns in Acme, Ohio in the past year. There were 80 stabbings in Acme, Ohio in the past year.
There were 250 gun users and 20 knife users.
Guns- 2
Knives- 4
KNIVES ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN GUNS
I AM USING MATH
You can't just divide the number of points someone gets by the number of "top users" set at an arbitrary cutoff point. It doesn't make any sense.
If you're trying to say "Metaknight only does as well as he does because more people play him", you are officially off your rocker.
Crow!
Smash Lord
@ Omni:
Hey, an attempt at statistics. Props for that.
Understand I'm trying to help here - I approve of the direction you're taking. The things below are the concerns that right now are holding it back, and now that you've taken the first step I trust you'll try to develop this properly now.
I understand this is still a work in progress and you're going to get more stuff from Ankoku's lists. Specifically, what you need to do is objectify the "number of mains" associated with each character for your averaging. The preliminary work you've shown here, you're still (guess what) cherrypicking - you hand select the number of "mains" to associate with each character.
Particularly conspicuous is that you say "3 Snake's" but only divide by 2, suggesting that at some point you removed a Snake from your consideration (one might suspect that was so you'd get Snake's "average" as a 4 digit value). You pick two more MKs than have been accepted in the common discussion but neglect AZ.. the list of nitpicks that can be made of this (or any) selection of the "players that matter" basically doesn't end until you find a way to objectify it.
There's also two issues of relevance to address.
1. I'm not right now sold that it's helpful to cut off all people who main a particular character who don't place at least X well on a consistent basis in order to identify the average effectiveness of a character. I mean, this is more or less the scheme I'd use to try to IDENTIFY outliers - given some alleged average for "serious" MK mains, I take this average and see if any MK mains got like 2x or more than that amount of points and say "these people are abnormal". (Technically speaking, you'd want to go two standard deviations from the mean.. but I won't get into the details of obtaining that unless you ask for it.) For all the other characters you can't quite do that because of your N=2 you selected for each of them, but the point remains that not counting any Snake other than the top two is like an active refusal to account for popularity.. which
2. I'm not right now sold that the average per player actually matters. To illustrate, suppose there were a hundred Snake mains that each got close to your minimum cutoff for skill level to be considered (whatever that is, even setting it to "has placed at least once" has the same issue) drove up Snake's total points that way. The average you report is now either going to be a really big number, if you cut off these lesser players, or you would get what is literally the lowest possible value the method could report for a character if you leave them in. So.. the "average" is then really measuring the cutoff itself more so than it's measuring something about the character.
Heck, the central point here is you're trying to gauge popularity of characters at competitive levels. What about just count the number of unique players of each character who have placed and leave it at that? When your point is the N values, reporting Score / N is a bit odd.
Another possibility: make a graph for each character: sort each character's mains by performance, and plot their performance by rank number within their main.
Actually I like this idea a lot. It would clearly demonstrate the skill level distribution of each character, which seems to be the purest form of the idea you're trying to discuss. Ask me if you're not clear what I mean by this.
Hey, an attempt at statistics. Props for that.
Understand I'm trying to help here - I approve of the direction you're taking. The things below are the concerns that right now are holding it back, and now that you've taken the first step I trust you'll try to develop this properly now.
I understand this is still a work in progress and you're going to get more stuff from Ankoku's lists. Specifically, what you need to do is objectify the "number of mains" associated with each character for your averaging. The preliminary work you've shown here, you're still (guess what) cherrypicking - you hand select the number of "mains" to associate with each character.
Particularly conspicuous is that you say "3 Snake's" but only divide by 2, suggesting that at some point you removed a Snake from your consideration (one might suspect that was so you'd get Snake's "average" as a 4 digit value). You pick two more MKs than have been accepted in the common discussion but neglect AZ.. the list of nitpicks that can be made of this (or any) selection of the "players that matter" basically doesn't end until you find a way to objectify it.
There's also two issues of relevance to address.
1. I'm not right now sold that it's helpful to cut off all people who main a particular character who don't place at least X well on a consistent basis in order to identify the average effectiveness of a character. I mean, this is more or less the scheme I'd use to try to IDENTIFY outliers - given some alleged average for "serious" MK mains, I take this average and see if any MK mains got like 2x or more than that amount of points and say "these people are abnormal". (Technically speaking, you'd want to go two standard deviations from the mean.. but I won't get into the details of obtaining that unless you ask for it.) For all the other characters you can't quite do that because of your N=2 you selected for each of them, but the point remains that not counting any Snake other than the top two is like an active refusal to account for popularity.. which
2. I'm not right now sold that the average per player actually matters. To illustrate, suppose there were a hundred Snake mains that each got close to your minimum cutoff for skill level to be considered (whatever that is, even setting it to "has placed at least once" has the same issue) drove up Snake's total points that way. The average you report is now either going to be a really big number, if you cut off these lesser players, or you would get what is literally the lowest possible value the method could report for a character if you leave them in. So.. the "average" is then really measuring the cutoff itself more so than it's measuring something about the character.
Heck, the central point here is you're trying to gauge popularity of characters at competitive levels. What about just count the number of unique players of each character who have placed and leave it at that? When your point is the N values, reporting Score / N is a bit odd.
Another possibility: make a graph for each character: sort each character's mains by performance, and plot their performance by rank number within their main.
Actually I like this idea a lot. It would clearly demonstrate the skill level distribution of each character, which seems to be the purest form of the idea you're trying to discuss. Ask me if you're not clear what I mean by this.
Nanaki
Smash Lord
All you've shown is that top players overwhelmingly choose MK because he's the best, and that Diddy/Snake have a couple of studs that are outperforming everyone else.
Those couple of studs are the 'outliers' that are continually being preached about.
You've just shown that they are, in fact, outliers.
- Status