Official Metaknight Discussion

[Delvro]

Nearly everyone would see that this argument has been won by pro-ban a long time ago if statistics was a required course in high school... and also maybe a refresher course on the importance of the scientific method... "Ideas are tested by experiment".

After all, Zombie Feynman can't be wrong

I'm just thankful that people like Crow and OS understand the value of large sets of data and overall trends as opposed to random sporadic dudes like ADHD being super hyped. After all, who knows if ADHD can accomplish the same feat twice, and why should it matter even if he does?

 

[adumbrodeus]

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?

The spammable tactic thing has never been part of the criteria and it's meaningless, once something is banned, it's removed from the metagame and is irrelevant from everything.


Anyway, now we're getting somewhere, but we need to define overcentralization, how much of the cast does the character render non-viable, I go with 50%.


Top of the metagame is technical perfection, but top players are the best indicators we have.

Nearly everyone would see that this argument has been won by pro-ban a long time ago if statistics was a required course in high school... and also maybe a refresher course on the importance of the scientific method... "Ideas are tested by experiment".

After all, Zombie Feynman can't be wrong

I'm just thankful that people like Crow and OS understand the value of large sets of data and overall trends as opposed to random sporadic dudes like ADHD being super hyped. After all, who knows if ADHD can accomplish the same feat twice, and why should it matter even if he does?

*sigh*


They're just tallies, people aren't taking into account the differences in populations.


Aka, they phail statistics forever.



edit:

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.

Actually yes, in that area the knife users are more dangerious on average then the gun users, and that says a lot about the knife users and the gun users.


Well, sort of, I doubt that, given the margin of error for such low amounts of crimes that your result is gonna be statistically signifigant.


But yes, you're looking at it the right way, congrats, now time to look at controlling for various factors to explain your realistic results.

 

[Tommy_G]

Ness is 4th from the bottom on the tier list in Smash 64

How many character has MK as their worst matchup?

 

[Turbo Ether]

People have been beating their heads against the MK matchup for 2 years. The only thing they've really accomplished, is wasting the 2 years they've spent on their mains, instead of putting that time into MK.

 

[Nanaki]

Ness is 4th from the bottom on the tier list in Smash 64

How many character has MK as their worst matchup?

He was 3rd until the last list was released, when Fox flew up the charts.

 

[WindMajor]

How many character has MK as their worst matchup?

I wouldn't use that as an argument.

I would use "How many characters does MK counter (possibly soft counter) in the cast?

 

[Overswarm]

It's very comparable, Overswarm.

Think about it. We have one person who uses a specific character with little representation who NEVER loses.

And multiple users of that character who do lose. This points not to character power but player power.

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.

Wat?

This doesn't make it more similar at all.

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.

Are you kidding? "Well, this character now completely dominates the tournament scene to where it is pointless to play other characters other than this character, but it wasn't like that BEFORE so why ban it now? Remember the good old days?"

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.

Except we already were in that position. Snake was used more than MK and MK took his throne in only a few months and dominated ever since. So no, we wouldn't get the same representation. We've been in the same situation before and did not.

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.

Well let's see.... we've got a ton of people maining the character, most of them are new faces that were unrecognizable before they did main MK, and their character is winning.

Well I certainly don't see a correlation.

Also, ankoku's chart naturally accounts for base popularity because you don't get points just for existing.

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.

...if they made the top 8. You forget that Ankoku's chart is weighted. Characters making it higher in bigger tournaments = more points. There could be 500 MKs and 100 Diddy Kongs, but if those 100 Diddy Kongs were getting first all the time and placing at the top of the big tournaments, MK would get owned.

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.

Your argument is seriously "This one time in this one place, this one guy totally beat a good Metaknight. IT COULD HAPPEN TO ANYONE! YOU COULD BE NEXT!"? That's pretty weak, Omni. That's why pro-ban never said "MK wins all the tournaments because of M2K, so MK is auto-banned". It doesn't make any sense to put all your chips on one player and expect an army to follow and replicate their success... especially when it hasn't even happened yet except for Metaknight!

Are you seriously hinging your argument on the possibility of someone else beating a top MK, and therefore everyone else can too?

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.

This is true, but we're not building houses.

You go pick 10 random guys off the street. I'll pick two heavyweight boxers. We'll have them fight a bunch of random people and see who has the better tally at the end. Good luck!

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.

....He did the last time we talked about this. And we didn't. M2K had only lost to Ally ever, and his 2nd loss to Ally was at Genesis if I recall correctly.

The same applies to Ally beating players with Falcon. What are you getting at?

That players can push characters beyond their natural limits based on their own personal skill level.

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.

The point is a player can be better than the character naturally allows. It doesn't matter if they do it with one or a dozen. Thank you for finally admitting the possibility though.

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.

Yes it is.

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

How is that not an isolated incidence?

That's the "recent data that shows growth", by the way.

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).

I laughed out loud and people at work looked at me funny.

If "all pro ban does" is repeatedly bring up new arguments after several isolated incidents.... they aren't isolated incidents. They are a trend.

The temptation to completely shut you down was too much! What can I say?

It obviously wasn't, you banned yourself =P

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.

Er, actually we won 100% of the popular votes. We even won some of the SBR votes, and most of the anti-ban people that are posting are pro-ban now and IMing with "Good luck!" sentiment.

So good luck with that.

And I am a devious opponent, I'll give you that. Umbreon accepted that last time when we were on the podcast and we had to outmanuever one another like we were using pieces on a chess board, it was fun. You're more running in a straight line saying "so what".

I've been throwing my arguments around this entire thread. Either you fail to recognize them as arguments or you've missed them completely.

We shouldn't ban mK because Street Fighter isn't an argument, nor is "so what", nor is "well in my opinion". You're getting closer when you're talking about numbers though, good luck!

I have NEVER said Brawl is not an actual competitive fighting game. What?

I have used Street Fighter as well as other successful competitive fighting games as a comparative icon in terms of finding the relationship between certain metagames. It would be ignorant to ignore the fighting game community and only focus on Brawl when there is plenty of viable information out there that can help determine how to approach Metaknight. The fact that you keep your eyes focused ONLY on Brawl makes me think you're not looking outside the box of what an actual competitive fighting game is and how issues like these have been addressed in a very similar fashion in very similar communities.

We're talking about Brawl, I'm going to focus on Brawl; I don't have to look outside to see what "an actual competitive fighting game is".

I am disappoint in this statement.

What can I say? I only play the games that host tournaments with more than a dozen people on average.

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.

You got plenty o' free time cuz of snow!








Final addition to this post: EVERYONE OBEY AZEN

Azen Zagenite 12:33 pm
(12:33:33 PM): LOL
(12:33:37 PM): terrible
(12:33:45 PM): i dunno why mk not banned yet
RAGNARK1 12:33 pm
(12:33:57 PM): Omni is the biggest anti-ban supporter atm
Azen Zagenite 12:34 pm
(12:34:05 PM): there should at least be a system where each player gets to ban a char or two
Azen Zagenite 12:34 pm
(12:34:12 PM): instead of just stages
RAGNARK1 12:34 pm
(12:34:16 PM): that'db e awesome
(12:34:20 PM): everyone would play like 5 characters
(12:34:20 PM): lol
Azen Zagenite 12:34 pm
(12:34:25 PM): yeah


and

RAGNARK1 12:34 pm
(12:34:48 PM): Did you think MK should be banned?
Azen Zagenite 12:48 pm
(12:48:11 PM): yea. i used to think he was acceptable, but as time went on the answer became obvious
RAGNARK1 12:49 pm
(12:49:14 PM): why's that?
Azen Zagenite 12:50 pm
(12:50:31 PM): worst match up is a mk ditto



Azen saying MK should be banned is obviously a flawless argument that everyone should agree with.

 

[HeroMystic]

Anyway, now we're getting somewhere, but we need to define overcentralization, how much of the cast does the character render non-viable, I go with 50%.

50% is doable, but I think there should be other evidence that suggests overcentralization, because as far as I'm seeing Metaknight doesn't shut down 50% (though he has the advantage), but the fact that other characters shut down those potentially viable characters vs Metaknight, only to be murdered by MK himself raises a red flag for me.

Top of the metagame is technical perfection, but top players are the best indicators we have.

So if I understand correctly, you want a certain number of best players (2-3 players)'s tournament performance added up and averaged out?

 

[solecalibur]

Ness is 4th from the bottom on the tier list in Smash 64

How many character has MK as their worst matchup?

Notice how fox isn't to far behind Pika?
also there wasn't many people playing smash64 competitively or even the fact that Pika cant glide under the stage and stall out time

smash bros 64 is not brawl stop trying

 

[adumbrodeus]

'Also, ankoku's chart naturally accounts for base popularity because you don't get points just for existing.

Except more popular = higher distribution of good players across the board. You CANNOT draw any conclusion without taking into account population, and omni's model wasn't precise because there wasn't random sampling and I'm not sure that it even measures just what we want it to measure.



Also, didn't feel like responding to my post?

50% is doable, but I think there should be other evidence that suggests overcentralization, because as far as I'm seeing Metaknight doesn't shut down 50% (though he has the advantage), but the fact that other characters shut down those potentially viable characters vs Metaknight, only to be murdered by MK himself raises a red flag for me.

Not necessarily, first required piece bit that we NEED is to redo how we understand MUs.

So if I understand correctly, you want a certain number of best players (2-3 players)'s tournament performance added up and averaged out?

Actually finding a certain amount of players as close as we can get to the top of the metagame, randomly sampling them, and averaging them out.

 

[RDK]

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.

Sadly this is false, and I'm not even trying to be funny.

 

[Tommy_G]

I love when people discredit smart players by saying they win because of MK.

Isn't it possible that these players win because they're actually good?

I think people who complain about MK should get better or stop playing.

No one answered my question on how many characters is MK their worst matchup?

If there were 11 pikachu players and 2 fox players, Pikachu would be much higher. Probably more than double what fox is. Besides, that chart is based off matchups, not tournaments. Pikachu goes better than even vs everyone other than himself. It's been debated where fox is maybe even. Pikachu is more unbalanced than MK if you look solely at matchups

 

[Delvro]

Differences in population, while it would be helpful to know, turns out to be misleading because of two reasons. One is the fact that the subset of players that choose to play metaknight is difficult to measure. How many are there? Is the average MK player an accurate sample of the SSBB community at large? I do not think that it is. There is an unknown variable that determines whether a player switches to MK or not and we currently have no clue and no way to measure whether or not this variable has an affect on player skill.

Second, and more importantly, is that OS uses data where all but the top 8 placings in 100+ tournaments are thrown out. At this point, differences in popularity become less important. Let's say you add 20 (skilled) Link mains and 20 (skilled) mario mains to the Pound 4 tournament. Would the top 8 results have changed at all? I very much doubt it.
Add 20 Pit mains? It may change the results very slightly. Perhaps a highly lucky! (and highly skilled, of course, but skill is a variable which should be held constant for these arguments) player breaks top 8.
Add 20 MK mains? This one should be obvious (taking skill out of the equation)

The result is that while popularity DOES have an influence upon character placements, the importance is dampened by the fact that the character is better, plain and simple, and that only a constant sampling from each tournament (8) is drawn from these large samples with varying popularity for each character.

 

[HeroMystic]

Not necessarily, first required piece bit that we NEED is to redo how we understand MUs.

Is this where 'Match-up ratios are bogus' comes up?

In Brawl, a game with very little combos, I personally percieve MU as having three main factors.

-Number of Options per situation.
-Margin of error.
-Character attributes.

Options simply being what valid actions you can perform in any given situation, Margin of Error being how many mistakes a character can make without being put in a disadvantage, and Character attributes should be self-explanatory.

Actually finding a certain amount of players as close as we can get to the top of the metagame, randomly sampling them, and averaging them out.

While humanly possible I don't see how this is conventionally probable. How exactly would we do that without practically handpicking supposed top players for testing?

 

[Delvro]

Also, popularity and tournament usage of a character seems to be extremely difficult to measure. If someone could do so accurately, it would be helpful. However, as I said before, a character having 2x the popularity does not equal 2x the placements in top 8 of large tournaments.

 

[Tommy_G]

The gun and knife example is completely irrelevent. You're only trying to discredit logical information that shows a viable reason why MK is placing so well other than he's broken. There are thousands of exceptions that make that analogy unviable in that situation.

2x the popularity doesn't mean more placings directly; however, 5x the the popularity increases the chances of said character having people use them who are smart players indirectly taking more top placings.

 

[RDK]

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.

So why are people so preoccupied with banning MK instead of training hard enough where you get to the status of statiscial outlier?

If you guys spent as much time playing the game as you do complaining on the forums you wouldn't even have anything to worry about.

Overswarm: I'll take up the rest of the argument for Omni since it's clear he's not going to be here to defend himself.

And multiple users of that character who do lose. This points not to character power but player power.

So help me to understand.

Are you implying that Jiggs has anywhere near the amount of representation in Melee that Metaknight has in Brawl?

I think the point he's trying to make is that there is literally so much sheer representation for MK in tournaments that he is bound to place near the top a good chunk of the time, regardless of how good the actual character is.

You can apply that to every other high-tier character, and for the most part the entire rest of the cast, save for maybe Ganon or CF.

Are you kidding? "Well, this character now completely dominates the tournament scene to where it is pointless to play other characters other than this character, but it wasn't like that BEFORE so why ban it now? Remember the good old days?"

I don't think that's what he's saying. I believe his argument is that Jiggs only started dominating just recently, so it would be foolish to jump up and say that Jiggs needs banning.

Although I'm not exactly sure I support this argument because I don't think it's applicable to Brawl. Melee still has the ability to grow and expand as a game; I don't see Brawl going anywhere significantly in the next few years.

Except we already were in that position. Snake was used more than MK and MK took his throne in only a few months and dominated ever since. So no, we wouldn't get the same representation. We've been in the same situation before and did not.

Hey I got a question for you.

How many top spots were Snake users occupying before the big boom in Metaknight usage?

...if they made the top 8. You forget that Ankoku's chart is weighted. Characters making it higher in bigger tournaments = more points. There could be 500 MKs and 100 Diddy Kongs, but if those 100 Diddy Kongs were getting first all the time and placing at the top of the big tournaments, MK would get owned.

His point is that there are so many MK's being used that not taking numerous top spots would be weird.

This is the crux of the pro-ban argument right here, and it's incredibly hard to argue against because it's an awkward situation. Metaknight is good, there's no doubting that. He is a crust above the rest of the roster. But he's in a weird gray area where he is not overtly and gratuitously bannable, similar to Akuma from SF or Nightmare from SC, and yet he's good enough to be super annoying.

It ultimately comes down to subjective opinion because we're literally in the grayest of areas we could possibly be in. I'm sure Sakurai could not have given us a more difficult decision if he tried.

Your argument is seriously "This one time in this one place, this one guy totally beat a good Metaknight. IT COULD HAPPEN TO ANYONE! YOU COULD BE NEXT!"? That's pretty weak, Omni. That's why pro-ban never said "MK wins all the tournaments because of M2K, so MK is auto-banned". It doesn't make any sense to put all your chips on one player and expect an army to follow and replicate their success... especially when it hasn't even happened yet except for Metaknight!

Are you seriously hinging your argument on the possibility of someone else beating a top MK, and therefore everyone else can too?

I don't even accept this as an argument. This is a competitive fighting game community.

You're essentially saying "Don't strive to be the best!".

This is true, but we're not building houses.

You go pick 10 random guys off the street. I'll pick two heavyweight boxers. We'll have them fight a bunch of random people and see who has the better tally at the end. Good luck!

I have a better idea: let's take 2 top national-level players and tell them to play as a mid-tier character, and then get 10 random n00bs from the bottom of the tournament placement lists and tell them to play as Metaknight, and see who wins.

Good luck!

That players can push characters beyond their natural limits based on their own personal skill level.

Wait, let's see that again, but closer this time:

That players can push characters beyond their natural limits based on their own personal skill level.

Does anybody here see a contradiction with this statement and everything else Overswarm has ever posted in this thread?

If you don't, please shoot yourself and save me the trip to your house.

I laughed out loud and people at work looked at me funny.

If "all pro ban does" is repeatedly bring up new arguments after several isolated incidents.... they aren't isolated incidents. They are a trend.

Just a quick interjection for those watching: how many isolated incidents must be cited before they become a trend?

Er, actually we won 100% of the popular votes. We even won some of the SBR votes, and most of the anti-ban people that are posting are pro-ban now and IMing with "Good luck!" sentiment.

100% of the popular vote? Absolutely not. IIRC the votes were almost always a tad bit on pro-ban's side, but never enough to satisfy the 2/3rds mark.

We shouldn't ban mK because Street Fighter isn't an argument, nor is "so what", nor is "well in my opinion". You're getting closer when you're talking about numbers though, good luck!

Lol, everything that's been posted in this thread, including both your arguments and mine, have been a fancy dressed-up "Well in my opinion.....".

there should at least be a system where each player gets to ban a char or two instead of stages

This actually sounds interesting; I'd support an experimental tourney using these rules.

Experiments? Yes. Banning MK with no experimental data and just waving my fancy opinions around in the air?

 

[Zankoku]

2x the popularity doesn't mean more placings directly; however, 5x the the popularity increases the chances of said character having people use them who are smart players indirectly taking more top placings.

Bear in mind that being established fact that high-level players picking Meta Knight will get top placings, the only things truly stopping this from happening among all high-level players are character loyalty and desire to stand out.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

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'll agree with this. Just in Lucario's case all it does is remove his most common bad MU only for his worse MU's to possibly show up more.

Link loses one 3:7 which is good for him, but he still has three/four other 3:7's to worry about.

For others characters, Peach, TL, etc. MK is their worst MU.

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.

We're all stupid, but I love playing stupid. Lucario, Link and Co. are too much fun. =D

Bear in mind that being established fact that high-level players picking Meta Knight will get top placings, the only things truly stopping this from happening among all high-level players are character loyalty and desire to stand out.

Pretty much this.

If everyone tier whored, most fighting games would get really boring really fast.

 

[Judo777]

Oh so wait now anti ban is using street fighter as an argument? How does that work street fighter clearly had a beatable banned character. Akuma wasn't unbeatable you just had to outplay him and they were freaking right for doing so. The two main reasons he was banned was because he had retardely safe pokes and the ability to kill u if he connected one move. *Glares at MKs disjointed laser priority moveset and uair>tornado kill off the top at almost 0% if not even*

 

[Tien2500]

I love when people discredit smart players by saying they win because of MK.

Isn't it possible that these players win because they're actually good?

Maybe but the level of success MK has had isn't explained by "they're just really good". Are they really that much better than the tons of great players who use other characters? Maybe but its far more likely that MK is the main factor here.

I think people who complain about MK should get better or stop playing.

Again there are many great players who are very dedicated to this game and very few of them beat top MKs on a frequent basis. I'm sure they're trying.

No one answered my question on how many characters is MK their worst matchup?

That isn't really relevant. I play ZSS for instance whose worse matchup is Falco. MK is about 60:40. Chances are though in a major tournament I'll play one or maybe two Falcos. I'll probably play 5 MKs.

Besides if I wind up against a Falco I can pick a character that does well against him. ICs Kirby or whatever. And on my CP, if I choose to go with ZSS, I get to pick RC where I have an advantage. With MK I can't do either of these things.

If there were 11 pikachu players and 2 fox players, Pikachu would be much higher. Probably more than double what fox is. Besides, that chart is based off matchups, not tournaments. Pikachu goes better than even vs everyone other than himself. It's been debated where fox is maybe even. Pikachu is more unbalanced than MK if you look solely at matchups

Smash 64 is a far less competitive game (in terms of number of people) where most characters have 0-death combos on everyone else...

 

[Tommy_G]

Smash 64 is a far less competitive game (in terms of number of people) where most characters have 0-death combos on everyone else...

The level of how competitive it is shouldn't take away from the fact that it's a completely viable competitive fighting game. Pikachu still goes better than even vs everyone in the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnwrkilUumg&feature=related

Lol sounds so familiar
64:Melee::Melee:Brawl

To the "Character with MK's worst matchups" question:
It's definitely relevent. MK doesn't make a lot of character more unviable than other characters already do.

 

[Zankoku]

Akuma wasn't unbeatable

lol.

I hope you mean CPU Akuma, or something.

 

[Nanaki]

So why are people so preoccupied with banning MK instead of training hard enough where you get to the status of statiscial outlier?

If you guys spent as much time playing the game as you do complaining on the forums you wouldn't even have anything to worry about.

The fact that an individual player has to focus entirely on a matchup with one character and train their brains out to overcome the character (unless, of course, they switch to using said character) seems like evidence to support a ban. We're trying to make things fair from an effort/reward standpoint competitively, and having a character that draws that kind of attention is counterproductive, unless everyone just plays as said character.


It's not enough to warrant a ban on its own, but it's highly suspect from a 'fairness' staindpoint. Sure, you could just play MK yourself, but once everyone did we'd be screaming about 'overcentralization'.


If it was characters that were invalidated and required enormous training to overcome a bad matchup, I can understand why we'd just say 'screw it, don't play that character'. That's why I was heavily opposed to (and argued alongside you against) the D3 infinite ban.


On the flip side, if MK's now have to focus heavily on beating Diddy, that seems more like evidence that there's a possibility of a counter, and stymies the whole reasoning to ban MK in the first place. We do need more evidence of this actually being the case, though.

 

[Tommy_G]

The fact that an individual player has to focus entirely on a matchup with one character and train their brains out to overcome the character (unless, of course, they switch to using said character) seems like evidence to support a ban. We're trying to make things fair from an effort/reward standpoint competitively, and having a character that draws that kind of attention is counterproductive, unless everyone just plays as said character.


It's not enough to warrant a ban on its own, but it's highly suspect from a 'fairness' staindpoint. Sure, you could just play MK yourself, but once everyone did we'd be screaming about 'overcentralization'.


If it was characters that were invalidated and required enormous training to overcome a bad matchup, I can understand why we'd just say 'screw it, don't play that character'. That's why I was heavily opposed to (and argued alongside you against) the D3 infinite ban.


On the flip side, if MK's now have to focus heavily on beating Diddy, that seems more like evidence that there's a possibility of a counter, and stymies the whole reasoning to ban MK in the first place. We do need more evidence of this actually being the case, though.

Yes. Being good at outsmarting many players should be extremely easy and you should still get an amazing amount of credit for it.

It all goes back to the concept of "get better."

 

[HeroMystic]

Does anybody here see a contradiction with this statement and everything else Overswarm has ever posted in this thread?

Your Point: Players that train to be the best with one character can break through disadvantages.

OS' Point: Players train themselves to be better than other players and win out of supreme skill.

You cherrypick too much. <.<

 

[Tommy_G]

Your Point: Players that train to be the best with one character can break through disadvantages.

OS' Point: Players train themselves to be better than other players and win out of supreme skill.

You cherrypick too much. <.<

You don't cherry pick enough. XD

Both points apply.
Players that train to be the best with one character can break through disadvantages and be better than others out of supreme skill

 

[HeroMystic]

Yes, they both apply. I'm just saying it's not really something that shuts down his entire argument.

 

[Espy Rose]

Your Point: Players that train to be the best with one character can break through disadvantages.

OS' Point: Players train themselves to be better than other players and win out of supreme skill.

You cherrypick too much. <.<

He loves cherries. Why do you think he posts in red?

 

[Tommy_G]

He loves cherries. Why do you think he posts in red?

I think it's safe to say that all of us love cherries.

The ones on sundaes are pretty good too......

 

[Overswarm]

So why are people so preoccupied with banning MK instead of training hard enough where you get to the status of statiscial outlier?

If you guys spent as much time playing the game as you do complaining on the forums you wouldn't even have anything to worry about.

You've lost all credibility. You think people haven't? People at a skill level that most could only dream of reaching have tried and failed.

 

[etecoon]

it's extremely naive to think that anyone can just train harder and reach the levels that people like ADHD have, natural talent does come into play. a lot of the top players we're talking about that are an exception to the rule were better a year ago than some of us ever will be

which doesn't necessarily imply that MK is a problem either, because likewise, some like M2K and dojo are similarly gifted. it's not just MK that makes them not lose often. but people can't just say anyones inability to win is always laziness, some top players claim to barely play the game at all.

 

[swordgard]

You've lost all credibility. You think people haven't? People at a skill level that most could only dream of reaching have tried and failed.

I guess they suck then, it aint nearly as hard as people make it out to be if you know how to train/take notes.

 

[Espy Rose]

@RDK: That part of your post went unnoticed until I saw OS and etecoon's posts.

People HAVE been trying to get better. It's not as if we all completely stop playing Brawl to argue about something like this.

I recall one of these threads going over how ridiculous the notion "get better" is.
Expecting that, giving the circumstances, is just absurd.

 

[Nanaki]

@RDK: That part of your post went unnoticed until I saw OS and etecoon's posts.

People HAVE been trying to get better. It's not as if we all completely stop playing Brawl to argue about something like this.

I recall one of these threads going over how ridiculous the notion "get better" is.
Expecting that, giving the circumstances, is just absurd.

I like how it was a response to me, and I responded to it, but it went unnoticed until OS said something about it. Anonymity is a pain sometimes.

I remember that thread too. The thing I took away from it was that people like M2K and Ally are just ridiculously good at reading people and reacting efficiently, and dont' put nearly as much time into this game as most people would think.

 

[Eddie G]

Yep, we don't train to get better or to learn the MK matchup as much as possible, and haven't been for at least a year and a half now. Gfto of here with that cocky *** assumption.

@ Swordgard- Alright, then go train, take notes, do whatever it is that you claim to be the proper way of doing things, then go beat M2K/Ally/ADHD in tournament consistently. See if that "isn't too hard" still. Sorry, but bold claims like yours are naive and blindly optimistic without acknowledging the facts.

 

[Ripple]

OS: Garble barble SNarf!

OMNI: Counter barble snarble OS is wrong

OS: BRAH! NO! ERROR! OMNI's wrong

OMNI: >_>

not really taking sides but its really funny

 

[Sorto]

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.

your math actually shows something simple. If peoples objectives were to be murderers then the people with knives are doing a better job at it per person, there are just less of them. The reason why there results are better is unknown. If thats your point then your results still match up with omnis.

 

[Flayl]

I guess the best thing that could happen for the anti-ban is for more Snake/Diddy/Falco/IC players to beat the best MKs, because according to them they just have to step it up.

But just how long are we expected to wait for that to happen?

 

[Overswarm]

your math actually shows something simple. If peoples objectives were to be murderers then the people with knives are doing a better job at it per person, the the people with guns, there are just less of them. If thats your point then your results still match up with omnis.

The entire point was that the math works out because it's a faulty assumption. We know guns are better.

I guess the best thing that could happen for the anti-ban is for more Snake/Diddy/Falco/IC players to beat the best MKs, because according to them they just have to step it up.

But just how long are we expected to wait for that to happen?

Last time they said this MK stepped it up >_>