Official Metaknight Discussion

[Justblaze647]

That podcast was epic...

Very very long, but epic

 

[Zankoku]

You guys haven't talked about anything proper for the past 20 posts. I'm closing this.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So can we debate this more instead of spam? Or did Ankoku not lock it?

 

[phi1ny3]

He locked it, but it sounds like we get a second chance.

Personally, I'm all for a probationary temp ban. It will settle the questions by comparing the "control" (w/ MK results) to the altered non-MK results. It'll put to rest all the theoretical claims made by both sides imo.

 

[Overswarm]

Question, phi1ny3:

What should we look for in a temp ban?

 

[OverLade]

Character diversity in viability in regions where it usually isn't there? Differences in players who normally use MK's placings?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

IMO any "temp ban" should be the same length of time that Meta Knight has been legal, otherwise it won't give us the same amount of data.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Temp ban is, IMO, really unrealistic to execute. Who's gonna do it where the really good MKs are? Do you predict AN going along with it? I don't. >.>

 

[Ganonsburg]

I don't think I'd call myself proban or antiban, because neither side is fully convincing.

That said, I don't see how we can accurately analyze anything statistically about whether MK hurts the community without a good set of data with him and a good set of data without him. But before we run around temporarily banning MK to gather data, we should have a set method of gathering and interpreting the data.

I mean, no point in banning someone if you're not going to use that experience to develop a conclusion, right?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Temp ban is, IMO, really unrealistic to execute. Who's gonna do it where the really good MKs are? Do you predict AN going along with it? I don't. >.>

AN wouldn't go along with it even if it was BBR-supported. MK is worth too much money.

You know, a lot of problems this community has would be solved if we didn't play for money.

 

[phi1ny3]

If what anti-ban say is true, I'd think they wouldn't have much to fear from the data gained, since SBR I'm sure will probably lean towards giving the reigns back to MK unless they've seen significant results from the experiment to say otherwise. The problem is that I see what anti-ban has to say, and I see them looking for a "modeled" view of what's bannable. The problem with pro-ban is, some results can be attributed to other factors (like the decline of tournament attendance), which can be both solved with this experiment. Too bad this sounds unlikely, but I really think it's a strong compromise that'll generate data we need to make a logical decision.

to condense this, if we are to believe that anti-ban has enough ground to say that it won't change the game's balance significantly without him, they should be pretty confident that things will go back to the way they were once the given experiment is done, as SBR has been pretty clear that it leans more towards a view of change only being necessary for a clear and present problem.

Edit: headache johns, this isn't making as much sense conceptually as I thought.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't think I'd call myself proban or antiban, because neither side is fully convincing.

That said, I don't see how we can accurately analyze anything statistically about whether MK hurts the community without a good set of data with him and a good set of data without him. But before we run around temporarily banning MK to gather data, we should have a set method of gathering and interpreting the data.

I mean, no point in banning someone if you're not going to use that experience to develop a conclusion, right?

This I fully agree with. We should find a way to deal with any applicable data before we softban. And we should try to convince as many major MK mains to go along with it.

AN wouldn't go along with it even if it was BBR-supported. MK is worth too much money.

You know, a lot of problems this community has would be solved if we didn't play for money.

This... Makes things harder.

 

[Overswarm]

IMO any "temp ban" should be the same length of time that Meta Knight has been legal, otherwise it won't give us the same amount of data.

It doesn't necessarily have to be.

Since there are many variables that have continued to grow (such as other character's metagames and our knowledge of stages) we can expect accelerated growth relative to the amount of mains we currently have.

If we have 3 Peach mains and expect Peach to be more viable as a secondary, we won't see 30 Peach mains but we might see a small handful of Peach secondaries to fight other characters, should Peach have a good matchup.

If we have 3 Luigi mains and expect Luigi to be more viable a secondary, we won't see 30 Luigi mains but should see a concentrated increase in Luigi secondaries from interested parties as Luigi is a hard counter to Diddy Kong and Diddy Kong is currently a popular choice at high level play.

We can make predictions pretty easily, and 6 months is a pretty good timeframe for collecting data.

 

[Flayl]

AN wouldn't go along with it even if it was BBR-supported. MK is worth too much money.

You know, a lot of problems this community has would be solved if we didn't play for money.

The problems would still be there, it's just nobody would have a reason to abuse them unless they like playing "gay". It would be like pretending Brawl isn't a bad game

Spoiler

oh snap

.

 

[iRJi]

Looks like we have been given another chance. Let's be reasonable this time about the overall thread =].

It doesn't necessarily have to be.

Since there are many variables that have continued to grow (such as other character's metagames and our knowledge of stages) we can expect accelerated growth relative to the amount of mains we currently have.

If we have 3 Peach mains and expect Peach to be more viable as a secondary, we won't see 30 Peach mains but we might see a small handful of Peach secondaries to fight other characters, should Peach have a good matchup.

If we have 3 Luigi mains and expect Luigi to be more viable a secondary, we won't see 30 Luigi mains but should see a concentrated increase in Luigi secondaries from interested parties as Luigi is a hard counter to Diddy Kong and Diddy Kong is currently a popular choice at high level play.

We can make predictions pretty easily, and 6 months is a pretty good timeframe for collecting data.

If what anti-ban say is true, I'd think they wouldn't have much to fear from the data gained, since SBR I'm sure will probably lean towards giving the reigns back to MK unless they've seen significant results from the experiment to say otherwise. The problem is that I see what anti-ban has to say, and I see them looking for a "modeled" view of what's bannable. The problem with pro-ban is, some results can be attributed to other factors (like the decline of tournament attendance), which can be both solved with this experiment. Too bad this sounds unlikely, but I really think it's a strong compromise that'll generate data we need to make a logical decision.

to condense this, if we are to believe that anti-ban has enough ground to say that it won't change the game's balance significantly without him, they should be pretty confident that things will go back to the way they were once the given experiment is done, as SBR has been pretty clear that it leans more towards a view of change only being necessary for a clear and present problem.

Edit: headache johns, this isn't making as much sense conceptually as I thought.

This, infact, all of this. I was actually talking to phil about the temp. ban option over aim Last night, and agree 100% with this. This option has been brought up my numerous people, including me, numerous times, and it has been looked over time and time again without any good reason. I think the fear of the result that it may bring is the main reason why it was over looked time and time again. I said in the lat thread "No real conclusions can be produced unless actions are taken" Meaning, talking about statistics are a very good way of going about what is happening (at first), but the only real way to test what kind of effect it will have is to take the action of actually deploying the option of a ban. With the temp ban, we can accumulate accurate data and even better, reasonable options. I think 6 months is also a good amount of time for a temp ban because of the amount of play that occurs within 6 months. Average tourneys are placed on Saturdays, 4 Saturdays a month, so 24 attempts in a competitive scene where results can be pulled by over a decent margin of time. It gets even better with the amount of attendance that occurs at a tourney on average (24+). Variables of course will be added because the scene's are different depending on the area, and coast you live in. I think this option is the most efficient way to test the effects of what will happen. Of course, the only problem lies with getting majority of people to agree.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Two problems with a temp ban.

1. Everyone needs to go along with it. Some people are going to be adamant about not doing this continuing to allow MK. This may not be a problem if enough results are collected but it is still worth noting.

2. Some people might not unban him despite the results. I've only seen one community that undid a ban, the process was very difficult and many people refused to go along with it. It took a while to finally convince the community that the character wasn't ban-worthy. Plus it was completely unfair to the people that were forced to change from a character that wasn't ban-worthy in the long run.

 

[Overswarm]

What community?



If we do a temp-ban and then everyone says "Whoa, don't go back", isn't that a clue?

 

[fkacyan]

What community?



If we do a temp-ban and then everyone says "Whoa, don't go back", isn't that a clue?

Popular opinion isn't any indication of whether or not the metagame is any better.

 

[iRJi]

Two problems with a temp ban.

1. Everyone needs to go along with it. Some people are going to be adamant about not doing this continuing to allow MK. This may not be a problem if enough results are collected but it is still worth noting.

2. Some people might not unban him despite the results. I've only seen one community that undid a ban, the process was very difficult and many people refused to go along with it. It took a while to finally convince the community that the character wasn't ban-worthy. Plus it was completely unfair to the people that were forced to change from a character that wasn't ban-worthy in the long run.

Point one is what I pointed out

Point 2 I am going to bump it. I can say the same about the vise versa on terms of"is it fair to not give the character a proper trial, and force the players who want him tested to just go along with it?" All and all I am not just trying to take into consideration on how one can feel about it, but trying to find an effective solution that will provide the best results. The people who disagree with this need to have better reasoning other then "It's not fair"

 

[iRJi]

Popular opinion isn't any indication of whether or not the metagame is any better.

How is it not? The meta game is based off of popular opinion. That's saying I have 98% of the people who play this game saying that they find it more effective to have metaknight gone after the results of testing, but it is nulled because it's not a fact...

I am sorry, some of what you said above can be true, but overall i don't see it. I can understand if they results from it are near even, but that wasn't brought up when you posted that so... ya.

Edit: Rawr, Sorry for the Double post.

Edit 2:

What community?



If we do a temp-ban and then everyone says "Whoa, don't go back", isn't that a clue?

This^^^

 

[Overswarm]

Popular opinion isn't any indication of whether or not the metagame is any better.

It does indicate overall health, and depending on the people that say so it may very well be an indication of the metagame being better.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Two problems with a temp ban.

1. Everyone needs to go along with it. Some people are going to be adamant about not doing this continuing to allow MK. This may not be a problem if enough results are collected but it is still worth noting.

2. Some people might not unban him despite the results. I've only seen one community that undid a ban, the process was very difficult and many people refused to go along with it. It took a while to finally convince the community that the character wasn't ban-worthy. Plus it was completely unfair to the people that were forced to change from a character that wasn't ban-worthy in the long run.

Which is why we need to be able to hold statistical evidence up and be able to say "Yes, he is banworthy, keep the ban," or "No, he is not banworthy, bring him back." It's why we would need to have a plan in place before banning him, so that we don't accidentally ban him thinking we can un-ban him, and then not be able to do it.

 

[iRJi]

Which is why we need to be able to hold statistical evidence up and be able to say "Yes, he is banworthy, keep the ban," or "No, he is not banworthy, bring him back." It's why we would need to have a plan in place before banning him, so that we don't accidentally ban him thinking we can un-ban him, and then not be able to do it.

Agreed. Of course we would need to sort out all the possibilities before hand and have a written out plan of what needs to happen at what time so their is no "Chaos" involved.

Edit: i would go along the lines of each month we do a general poll of what the population thinks of the current metagame at the moment. From doing that, we can watch how the data forms and changes overtime, while keeping it accurate. it's just one Idea though. Their could be other possibilities that can get it done more effectively if given time to accumulate options.

 

[UltiMario]

It does indicate overall health, and depending on the people that say so it may very well be an indication of the metagame being better.

There will be the players that just like having one less hard matchup to deal with. They won't want Meta Knight back regardless if it made the metagame absolutely perfect or sent it into a death spiral.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

What community?

The Naruto community in one of the older games banned four characters, eventually they figured out that three of the characters weren't banworthy and only one of them was truly banworthy.

If we do a temp-ban and then everyone says "Whoa, don't go back", isn't that a clue?

If we were wrong and say go back, we just screwed over a bunch of people playing a fair character for 6 months.

I say if we do a temp ban give people the option of playing MK allowed tournaments.

Point one is what I pointed out

Point 2 I am going to bump it. I can say the same about the vise versa on terms of"is it fair to not give the character a proper trial, and force the players who want him tested to just go along with it?" All and all I am not just trying to take into consideration on how one can feel about it, but trying to find an effective solution that will provide the best results. The people who disagree with this need to have better reasoning other then "It's not fair"

The thing is, the not fair argument is legitimate when it comes to character selection. If the option was proven to be fair then they all got kicked in the nuts for six months.

Innocent before proven guilty.

I think testing is the correct method to prove viability, but I don't think forcing everyone to go along for the ride when we don't know the outcome is a bad idea. We should let people have the option of MK banned or MK allowed tournaments.

There will be the players that just like having one less hard matchup to deal with. They won't want Meta Knight back regardless if it made the metagame absolutely perfect or sent it into a death spiral.

^This as well.

 

[iRJi]

The Naruto community in one of the older games banned four characters, eventually they figured out that three of the characters weren't banworthy and only one of them was truly banworthy.



If we were wrong and say go back, we just screwed over a bunch of people playing a fair character for 6 months.

I say if we do a temp ban give people the option of playing MK allowed tournaments.



The thing is, the not fair argument is legitimate when it comes to character selection. If the option was proven to be fair then they all got kicked in the nuts for six months.

Innocent before proven guilty.

I think testing is the correct method to prove viability, but I don't think forcing everyone to go along for the ride when we don't know the outcome is a bad idea. We should let people have the option of MK banned or MK allowed tournaments.



^This as well.

That leads to skewed results though. Dominate MK area's would lean to not bother to test it, and because of that the results would drastically vary. Also if people were given the option to do either/or, the people who want Mk playable would just wait out the tourney that does not have him allowed, since they know another one with him allowed would appear eventually. This issue comes down to attendance, and because of this the results will also be skewed.

 

[Overswarm]

There will be the players that just like having one less hard matchup to deal with. They won't want Meta Knight back regardless if it made the metagame absolutely perfect or sent it into a death spiral.

If this were the case, it would be pretty obvious.

 

[Dabuz]

i know this idea has already been mentioned, but why not replace low tier side tournaments with no MK side tournaments temporarily?

it would be an easy, efficient, non-biased way towards testing what the difference is without MK without actually taking a hammer to MK main mains and their tiny balls by telling them they can't use thier mains (sorry low tiers, but only like 1 good person per state mains a low tier anyway )

 

[Katana_koden]

I posted in another thread somewhere that meta should get a temp ban, because too many people play with him. I thought the theory of banning him will make other people play with another character and find things that the old mainers couldn't.
Some boards still have incomplete frame data till this day. Could the same few find everything that is known about meta knight if not played so often?

Apparently This is starting to happen regardless. More people began playing with diddy kong, and immediately started finding new things. Hence increasing his meta game.

Meta doesn't need a ban, we just need to increase the meta game of other characters.
but how to change this without continuing to ban others.

 

[rathy Aro]

I was thinking that same thing before, but that'd be a gay side event. Pretty much every other side event would be more fun. =/ I think people should just try a few mk-banned tournies as the main event for tournies that aren't going to be that serious. There's really nothing to lose if you make it clear you're just trying it out.

 

[Ganonsburg]

If we were wrong and say go back, we just screwed over a bunch of people playing a fair character for 6 months.

I say if we do a temp ban give people the option of playing MK allowed tournaments.

But what if you're wrong, and MK isn't fair? Then we've screwed over more of the community (36 characters vs 1 character) for...2 years? So that's 36 characters for 2 years vs 1 character for 6 months. It only sounds reasonable (and scientifically sound) to have a temporary ban to gather data. I know I sound pro-ban here, but the logic you used here is really crappy.

Of course, only after there's a reasonable plan.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm officially pushing the thread's purpose towards one goal, cuz that's what I do.


For the next however many pages it takes, our goal is to collect all the pros and cons of a temporary ban and, using the information we already have and a bit of thought, what we would look for if we took up a 6 month ban... as well as what a 6 month ban would entail.



Obviously, not everyone would do it, but we don't need everyone. Just a lot.

 

[iRJi]

I'm officially pushing the thread's purpose towards one goal, cuz that's what I do.


For the next however many pages it takes, our goal is to collect all the pros and cons of a temporary ban and, using the information we already have and a bit of thought, what we would look for if we took up a 6 month ban... as well as what a 6 month ban would entail.



Obviously, not everyone would do it, but we don't need everyone. Just a lot.

Agreed. I'm on board =]

 

[Dabuz]

a temp ban isn't fair though, especially because despite being only temporary ban i can guarantee he would not be unbanned because of how many MK mains would just quit and regardless of data people have an almost infinite amount of problems bringing back things once banned (looks at stages)

 

[iRJi]

a temp ban isn't fair though, especially because despite being only temporary ban i can guarantee he would not be unbanned because of how many MK mains would just quit and regardless of data people have an almost infinite amount of problems bringing back things once banned (looks at stages)

Ill just post this, to save time.

Point 2 I am going to bump it. I can say the same about the vise versa on terms of"is it fair to not give the character a proper trial, and force the players who want him tested to just go along with it?" All and all I am not just trying to take into consideration on how one can feel about it, but trying to find an effective solution that will provide the best results. The people who disagree with this need to have better reasoning other then "It's not fair"

 

[zeldspazz]

I liked the idea of giving players a window of time to learn a new character before the temp. ban.

 

[ph00tbag]

AN wouldn't go along with it even if it was BBR-supported. MK is worth too much money.

I think they'd find that if the rest of the country ceased to allow MK at their locals, fewer OOSers would head to AN tourneys (why would they go to a tourney that allows a character they have no experience against, especially a character as good as MK?), causing the tournaments to be worth less to the the in-region attendees. Similarly, AN Metaknights wouldn't head to other tourneys because they wouldn't be able to play their main.

Ultimately, Brawl turnouts would suffer. Then again, turnouts are still suffering.

 

[etecoon]

I think they'd find that if the rest of the country ceased to allow MK at their locals, fewer OOSers would head to AN tourneys (why would they go to a tourney that allows a character they have no experience against, especially a character as good as MK?), causing the tournaments to be worth less to the the in-region attendees. Similarly, AN Metaknights wouldn't head to other tourneys because they wouldn't be able to play their main.

Ultimately, Brawl turnouts would suffer. Then again, turnouts are still suffering.

this. I think other area's may ignore a ban too, I don't see how it could work, all it can do is divide the community and hasten the death of this game

 

[shadowdsfire]

Ban MK or this discussion will be there forever -_-

 

[o-Serin-o]

Ban MK or this discussion will be there forever -_-

QFS (quoted for stupidity)

I'm on board for a temp ban for the aforementioned points.