Official Metaknight Discussion

[Overswarm]

Akuma didn't need statistics to be banned because he was a cheat code character. There was no logical reason for him to be legal to begin with.

Would you keep a code that enabled you to play as Master Hand in Smash legal? No, that would be ridiculous. This is what Akuma is. He is Master Hand.

No, he is not.

A character simply being a "boss character" shouldn't matter.

I'm not really following the logic of anti-ban if this is the case.

*OS posts data showing clear dominance*

Anti-ban: A character being overly dominant isn't a big deal, just play MK!

Anti-ban: MK is nothing like Akuma, Akuma was waaaaaaaay too good / a boss character / acted outside of the game's normal rules

How can these two statements be made?

MK has the IDC, couldn't they have banned his aerial fireball?
Why does something as arbitrary as being a boss character matter? Is it because they're too good? Because Metaknight's results have shown that he is definitely a step ahead of everyone in the game.

 

[Raziek]

Way to loophole out of it.

You can say "I want to be in the NFL" and try for one day and then whine when you don't make it in.

If you're an aspiring quarterback and go "I want to be as successful as Peyton Manning on day" and study film all day and better yourself, everyday, you very may well be on that path.

Stop trying to find the loophole out of it. Anyone can be a pro gamer if they want to and approach it the right way.

No.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE BIOLOGICAL PRE-DETERMINANTS. This kind of attitude is bred by the "You can be anything you want to when you grow up." bull**** that they feed kids in schools. They tell everyone they can become President, it's simply not true.

Everyone has their own amount of innate talent for things. Because this amount varies, it is logically impossible to become the best by training. Why? Because if someone else has more talent then you, and you both train as hard as possible (the same amount), they're still better. We'll spell it out in Math:

Player A has a natural talent/skill of say, 8.
Player B has a natural talent/skill of 6.

8 + Training = A Number.
6 + Training = Smaller number.

If you weight training for both players equally, no matter HOW you decide to balance skill vs. training, Player A will ALWAYS be better because of that little tiny bit extra natural talent.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

No, he is not.

Yes, he is. You had to put in a cheat code to us Akuma in SF2. He was a cheat code character.

In HD Remix he is still hidden, but selectable by pressing "Up" over E.Honda's name--they removed the cheat code because they thought that they "rebalanced him" ...as was stated previously, they failed.

A character simply being a "boss character" shouldn't matter.

So you would legalize Master Hand in Smash?

 

[_Keno_]

lol Jamo, responding to your pre edit vids.

That was an awful awful peach. Suicided 4 or 5 times between the two sets you posted. Not to mention airdodging so much (peach's airdodge is useless). She momentum canceled with air dodges and didn't know how to DI. I really don't understand why it was posted. Maybe thats why you edited it. ahaha

 

[Overswarm]

You had to put in a cheat code to us Akuma in SF2. He was a cheat code character.





So you would legalize Master Hand in Smash?

If he didn't crash the game when he won and you could actually take away stocks, yes. Why wouldn't you?

We had to unlock the majority of characters in smash in a variety of ways, are you saying they shouldn't be legal either?

 

[iRJi]

I totally agree-- I had this same argument with Samurai Panda in another thread. (here and here)

We didn't do anything special to "make our own game". People try to give themselves too much credit with "making their own game" out of Smash. This community did nothing of the sort, we picked a few basic rules and made them standard. Nothing more.


I'm also pretty sure that everyone who makes these statements, including OS, has no refute for the simple facts that I stated in my previous post. Everyone spouts all of this MK = Akuma nonsense and then never acknowledges the facts of the matter.

Step 1) Try to compare MK to Akuma

Step 2) Ignore the blatant and obvious differences between the two

Step 3) Point out Akuma was broken

Step 4) Point out that Akuma was banned

Step 5) Declare that MK should be banned because he's "no different than Akuma"

Step 6) Discredit the SF community because they "broke their own rules"

Step 7) Declare the Smash community as "superior because they made their own rules instead of breaking the few that they had"​

The above argument is so flawed, it isn't even funny. ...yet I see it get made over and over again.

I'm pretty sure that those who make it have little to no knowledge of the SF community or the games / characters in it; it would seem that the comparison was just a bandwagon of misinformation that everyone jumped on.

No, it was actually understood by an extremely large amount of the community that Akuma was broken. Unlike Metaknight, the community was not split about Akuma not fitting in the game. It was generally understood by pros and casual players alike. Sometimes it doesn't require months and months of tournament results and data to distinguish if a character fits with the rest of the cast.

Metaknight has the best recovery and can beat a lot of characters with tornado. He has a lot more arsenal then that, but couple that with the fact that his weakness his is weight, weak aerial mobility, lack of projectiles, and lack of chaingrabs. Then add the fact that there are characters who possess traits such as killing at 0% from a grab, ridiculous projectiles, ridiculous weight, etc. and you suddenly realize that MK is not the only one playing a different game.

Smash was not that hard to make competitive. Remove items, add a timer, set a stock limit, and choose some neutral stages and you've got the competitive game we all know and love. The only hard part was coming to an agreement with all of these concepts WHICH wasn't that difficult since Smash's tournament viable settings resembled every other fighting game minus stage selection.

I think the comparison of SF Akuma and MK need to stop, even if it is just the comparison on how the community came to how to ban it. It really is irrelevant. It is 2 completely different games, and brawl compared to SF has a plethora of more variables. It is only natural to have a huge amount of a split emotion about MK. This kind of situation has never actually came up ever in a type of game like this.

 

[Raziek]

So you would legalize Master Hand in Smash?

If you eliminate the legal restraints of having to modify a Wii to access him, the moral objection to allowing hacked characters, and if he fit in terms of game balance (He could actually be knocked back, attacks were balanced, etc), there would be no reason not to allow it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, he is not.

A character simply being a "boss character" shouldn't matter.

I'm not really following the logic of anti-ban if this is the case.

*OS posts data showing clear dominance*

Anti-ban: A character being overly dominant isn't a big deal, just play MK!

Anti-ban: MK is nothing like Akuma, Akuma was waaaaaaaay too good / a boss character / acted outside of the game's normal rules

How can these two statements be made?

MK has the IDC, couldn't they have banned his aerial fireball?
Why does something as arbitrary as being a boss character matter? Is it because they're too good? Because Metaknight's results have shown that he is definitely a step ahead of everyone in the game.

Anti-ban's logic is, "you haven't proven that MK has sufficient power in the metagame to merit a ban", and since you refuse to work on setting a criteria which relies on numbers and data, we are left with how much being too much as a completely subjective thing.


So, as of right now we can pick anywhere between Akuma's super turbo dominance and MK's proven dominance, and say "this is the line" and they'll be no hypocrisy.


Why? Criteria hasn't been standardized, so you can't say that any individual criteria is wrong, unless you're deriving directly from some alternative source (such as Sirlin).


And don't give me BS about us having a criteria, it's subjective as hell and you know it. Everyone on this thread has a different opinion about what the criteria means.



As I said before, what we're dealing with is a broken base, and the only way to prevent this from getting more out of hand is develop a criteria that relies on numbers and *gasp* compromise.

No.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE BIOLOGICAL PRE-DETERMINANTS. This kind of attitude is bred by the "You can be anything you want to when you grow up." bull**** that they feed kids in schools. They tell everyone they can become President, it's simply not true.

Everyone has their own amount of innate talent for things. Because this amount varies, it is logically impossible to become the best by training. Why? Because if someone else has more talent then you, and you both train as hard as possible (the same amount), they're still better. We'll spell it out in Math:

Player A has a natural talent/skill of say, 8.
Player B has a natural talent/skill of 6.

8 + Training = A Number.
6 + Training = Smaller number.

If you weight training for both players equally, no matter HOW you decide to balance skill vs. training, Player A will ALWAYS be better because of that little tiny bit extra natural talent.

I think what he's getting at is that if you work hard enough and with sufficient motivation and innovation, it's possible to be better then somebody with more innate talent by virtue of having a great deal more hard work.


Don't forget that people also have useful innate talents in a variety of different areas, it's certainly possible for people to have non-obvious talents that mean more in the grand scheme of things.

 

[fkacyan]

Because Metaknight's results have shown that he is definitely a step ahead of everyone in the game.

By domination, what do you mean?

Do you mean he wins every tourney? What size tourneys are included? What placements are you counting up to?

Anybody could easily pull up data that selectively supports their point. The issue here is that there is plenty of data that rejects your null hypothesis; specifically, the biggest, highest-level tourneys Brawl has had for the most part don't show MK getting better than third the second Ally and ADHD entered and took the scene seriously.

Also, stop comparing Akuma to MK. Akuma literally won every single matchup hands down with that one, base, not-a-glitch-discovered-well-after-the-game's-release move. MK does not dominate the game nearly to the same degree Akuma ever did.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

If he didn't crash the game when he won and you could actually take away stocks, yes. Why wouldn't you?

We had to unlock the majority of characters in smash in a variety of ways, are you saying they shouldn't be legal either?

Again, unlocking characters is not the same as a cheat code character. This should be self evident. You are in denial if you think otherwise. More below.

If you eliminate the legal restraints of having to modify a Wii to access him, the moral objection to allowing hacked characters, and if he fit in terms of game balance (He could actually be knocked back, attacks were balanced, etc), there would be no reason not to allow it.

Exactly, you'd have to balance him.



That's the whole point. Akuma in SF2 was how Master Hand would be if he was legal EXACTLY THE WAY HE IS, with no attempts to balance him.

He was a cheat code with no way of being beaten by anyone in the cast.




It seems obvious that a lot of you weren't even aware that he was a cheat code, and now you're just trying to make it look like you "knew that all along and would have still made him legal".

It seems like a futile attempt to continue your own argumentative stance on this, despite being proven as not knowledgable on the subject.

 

[Omni]

No, he is not.

A character simply being a "boss character" shouldn't matter.

I'm not really following the logic of anti-ban if this is the case.

*OS posts data showing clear dominance*

Anti-ban: A character being overly dominant isn't a big deal, just play MK!

Anti-ban: MK is nothing like Akuma, Akuma was waaaaaaaay too good / a boss character / acted outside of the game's normal rules

How can these two statements be made?

MK has the IDC, couldn't they have banned his aerial fireball?
Why does something as arbitrary as being a boss character matter? Is it because they're too good? Because Metaknight's results have shown that he is definitely a step ahead of everyone in the game.

You're reaching at this point, OS.

Akuma was not simply a "boss character". He was overpowered in terms of character ability with the rest of the cast and an overwhelming majority of the pro and casual players understood this to be true. It wasn't as something as unclear as Metaknight and that is why the community does not have an overwhelming majority view on his existence.

OS, what you post is tournament results of character usage. What you've showed us is that a large amount of people use the best character in the game and achieve success on a higher rate than any other character in the game. This is the statistical FACT and DATA that can not be refuted. However, you have not touched on the issue of whether or not Metaknight actually fits within the game when compared to the rest of the game.

Akuma is extremely different from Metaknight and your ignorance of the subject is shining brightly.

MK's results have shown that he has a step ahead of everyone in the game, but the same results that you love to call "isolated incidents" occur yet you don't hold them for a grain of salt. If Akuma was not banned in SF2 he would be guaranteed 1st place in any tournament that allowed him access hands down.

 

[Nanaki]

If he didn't crash the game when he won and you could actually take away stocks, yes. Why wouldn't you?

We had to unlock the majority of characters in smash in a variety of ways, are you saying they shouldn't be legal either?

Ban Captain Falcon, Falco, Ganondorf, Jiggs, Lucario, Luigi, Marth, G&W, Ness, ROB, Snake, Sonic, Toon Link, and Wolf!

But seriously, this comparison to Master Hand is really, really dumb.

At least Akuma functions in the same system as the rest of the characters. He's just got one really, really ridiculous move.

 

[Raziek]

Exactly, you'd have to balance him.



That's the whole point. Akuma in SF2 was how Master Hand would be if he was legal EXACTLY THE WAY HE IS, with no attempts to balance him.

He was a cheat code with no way of being beaten by anyone in the cast.




It seems obvious that a lot of you weren't even aware that he was a cheat code, and now you're just trying to make it look like you "knew that all along and would have still made him legal".

It seems like a futile attempt to continue your own argumentative stance on this, despite being proven as not knowledgable on the subject.

Hold on now, I didn't say we would manually balance him. I was referring to a situation where he was balanced by default (a hypothetical), and the only issue is that he is a "Cheat character".

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Hold on now, I didn't say we would manually balance him. I was referring to a situation where he was balanced by default (a hypothetical), and the only issue is that he is a "Cheat character".

Right, you would assume that he was somehow balanced by default. Neither Akuma nor Master Hand are, however.

So your hypothetical situation applies to nothing in this conversation or in reality.

 

[iRJi]

I think the comparison of SF Akuma and MK need to stop, even if it is just the comparison on how the community came to how to ban it. It really is irrelevant. It is 2 completely different games, and brawl compared to SF has a plethora of more variables. It is only natural to have a huge amount of a split emotion about MK. This kind of situation has never actually came up ever in a type of game like this.

I think the comparison of SF Akuma and MK need to stop, even if it is just the comparison on how the community came to how to ban it. It really is irrelevant. It is 2 completely different games, and brawl compared to SF has a plethora of more variables. It is only natural to have a huge amount of a split emotion about MK. This kind of situation has never actually came up ever in a type of game like this.

I think the comparison of SF Akuma and MK need to stop, even if it is just the comparison on how the community came to how to ban it. It really is irrelevant. It is 2 completely different games, and brawl compared to SF has a plethora of more variables. It is only natural to have a huge amount of a split emotion about MK. This kind of situation has never actually came up ever in a type of game like this.

I would reiderate this one more time, but ya. GM's would prob infract me. Listen to this ^^^^^

It is by far still truthful, and all of the SF **** needs to stop >_>.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ban Captain Falcon, Falco, Ganondorf, Jiggs, Lucario, Luigi, Marth, G&W, Ness, ROB, Snake, Sonic, Toon Link, and Wolf!

But seriously, this comparison to Master Hand is really, really dumb.

At least Akuma functions in the same system as the rest of the characters. He's just got one really, really ridiculous move.

No he doesn't have just one... He has several, and all part of his natural moveset.


Basically, banning his broken moves would be equivalent to banning Marth's fair, dancing blade, dtilt, and up-b, you've just reached a point where you've gutted the character so much with surgical changes that he's pretty much banned anyway, that and it's so easy to miss an input that it's not fair to the players.


If you have to do that to make a character reasonable to the rest of the cast, then he's banworthy.



Pro-ban, I suggest you talk about planking.

 

[Omni]

I think the comparison of SF Akuma and MK need to stop, even if it is just the comparison on how the community came to how to ban it. It really is irrelevant. It is 2 completely different games, and brawl compared to SF has a plethora of more variables. It is only natural to have a huge amount of a split emotion about MK. This kind of situation has never actually came up ever in a type of game like this.

Why?

Because it doesn't help pro-ban's case in the least bit?

 

[Raziek]

I think what he's getting at is that if you work hard enough and with sufficient motivation and innovation, it's possible to be better then somebody with more innate talent by virtue of having a great deal more hard work.


Don't forget that people also have useful innate talents in a variety of different areas, it's certainly possible for people to have non-obvious talents that mean more in the grand scheme of things.

I'm aware that's a distinct possibility. However, if we allow the less skilled player to train, then the more skilled player must be allowed to train an equal amount.

It's quite possible that someone could train to be better than M2K for a period of time. However, if M2K were surpassed by someone, it's only logical that he would train to surpass them. At this point, once their training levels are once again equal, skill will take over again.

To further re-iterate. I understand the intent of what Jem is saying, but if everyone puts in the same effort (which they should and would), it's just impossible to become better (permanently) than someone who has more natural skill.

 

[Raziek]

Right, you would assume that he was somehow balanced by default. Neither Akuma nor Master Hand are, however.

So your hypothetical situation applies to nothing in this conversation or in reality.

Unless I'm mistaken, you said this:

Akuma didn't need statistics to be banned because he was a cheat code character. There was no logical reason for him to be legal to begin with.

On this basis, your hypothetical situation was presented. Your sole quibble in your presented situation is that he was a cheat code character. So we responded as such. Balance was not an issue in your hypothetical, so we added the logical pre-condition in our argument that he would in fact be balanced to start with. Obviously, if he was unbalanced, he would not be allowed.

We replied to your situation, and you then added balance in following our response. Seems to me, it is an issue with your situation, not our response.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I think our issue is that of semantics, I assumed it was implied that as a cheat code character, he was intended to be broken and was as such.

I just assumed that I didn't need to explain that he was broken because it is a widely known fact. I didn't present a hypothetical, I presented the fact.

You assumed he was just a cheat and not broken, and gave me a situation different than what I presented.





...and now we are arguing about nothing, detracting from my original statement, which no one has successfully refuted... not surprising, since it is irrefutable fact that everyone except those in this community seem to understand.

 

[_Keno_]

Why?

Because it doesn't help pro-ban's case in the least bit?

they are both fighting games, but they are very, very different. Brawl has recovery, edgeguarding, and abstract stages (compared to other fighters). Metaknight is the best at the first 2, and is amazing on most stages.

 

[Raziek]

I think our issue is that of semantics, I assumed it was implied that as a cheat code character, he was intended to be broken and was as such.

I just assumed that I didn't need to explain that he was broken because it is a widely known fact. I didn't present a hypothetical, I presented the fact.

You assumed he was just a cheat and not broken, and gave me a situation different than what I presented.

I apologize in this case for the misunderstanding then. Yes, I agree that he would be banned because he's broken. However, can we both agree that if he were balanced, he would not be banned just because he's a cheat character?

If we can, then we're good to go.

 

[Overswarm]

since you refuse to work on setting a criteria which relies on numbers and data, we are left with how much being too much as a completely subjective thing.

Actually, my numbers have been long met and don't really matter at this point.

Omni, what are yours? I've asked multiple times, but you've evaded each time... what trends do we need to see? What % of dominance? Give me something concrete.

Akuma was not simply a "boss character". He was overpowered in terms of character ability with the rest of the cast and an overwhelming majority of the pro and casual players understood this to be true. It wasn't as something as unclear as Metaknight and that is why the community does not have an overwhelming majority view on his existence.

Excellent, we're making progress!

So you're saying if Metaknight's ability exceeds the rest of the cast than he should be banned? You're not arguing for the banning of Akuma's air fireball, after all.

OS, what you post is tournament results of character usage. What you've showed us is that a large amount of people use the best character in the game and achieve success on a higher rate than any other character in the game. This is the statistical FACT and DATA that can not be refuted. However, you have not touched on the issue of whether or not Metaknight actually fits within the game when compared to the rest of the game.

This is irrelevant.

Akuma is extremely different from Metaknight and your ignorance of the subject is shining brightly.

Not particularly from what I've seen. All I've seen from you is "Dude, he's TOTALLY broken. We just didn't have any proof but we could SEE it man". Last time anyone said this from pro-ban's side you said we needed to come up with data showing he was that good, and now we did and you're ignoring the numbers.

MK's results have shown that he has a step ahead of everyone in the game, but the same results that you love to call "isolated incidents" occur yet you don't hold them for a grain of salt. If Akuma was not banned in SF2 he would be guaranteed 1st place in any tournament that allowed him access hands down.

Excellent!

And these "isolated incidents".... are just that. I'll notice them when they happen on a consistent basis and I can't fit them in a jar. Your "hero" moments have to be a trend, not a one-time or one-player thing that just MIGHT show a trend later.

Also, prove that Akuma would be guaranteed 1st place in HD Remix. I don't take theory craft as truth.

 

[iRJi]

Why?

Because it doesn't help pro-ban's case in the least bit?

No, because they are not comparable.

Even with the event's of SF community, can you honestly say that SF is even on the same relation as brawl? Like i said:

I think the comparison of SF Akuma and MK need to stop, even if it is just the comparison on how the community came to how to ban it. It really is irrelevant.

It is 2 completely different games, and brawl compared to SF has a plethora of more variables.

It is only natural to have a huge amount of a split emotion about MK. This kind of situation has never actually came up ever in a type of game like this.

You can't compare the communities because the variables of brawl:SF are to great. You can't come on to the conclusion on how things are suppose to be handle by comparing the 2 communities because they are in fact too different to compare it too. What can warren a ban for any fighting game other then brawl can and most likely will vary from brawl because the game is in fact too different compared to any fighting game. Stages, Characters, Physics, and of course, community. I don't nit pick situations like so, so saying that I am only saying this because it doesn't help my side does not compute. I simply just state it how it is, and I keep my options open for possible persuasion.

Edit: I do, however, hate debating since it realistic does not give solid information. You know this, I stated it a few times. The only way to understand if he is hurting the game or not is to actually put him in a situation where you can test both sides. It's my philosophy, and a good one at that.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I apologize in this case for the misunderstanding then. Yes, I agree that he would be banned because he's broken. However, can we both agree that if he were balanced, he would not be banned just because he's a cheat character?

If we can, then we're good to go.

If he were balanced, but merely "hidden" as you describe, yes he would be legal. That was the plan with SF2 HD Remix, they just failed to execute it.

So we're good then

 

[RDK]

STUFF

Kewky, you're not understanding.

There was nothing wrong with the way I understood your post; the problem was with the way you worded it.

In no way was any of that solid, specific, or strict. All A-moves in the game fell under one of your criterions.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Not particularly from what I've seen. All I've seen from you is "Dude, he's TOTALLY broken. We just didn't have any proof but we could SEE it man". Last time anyone said this from pro-ban's side you said we needed to come up with data showing he was that good, and now we did and you're ignoring the numbers.

...and you're ignoring my posts, which makes me sad.

They completely break every argument that you have ever made or could ever make on "Akuma = MK".

 

[RDK]

MORE STUFF

If he would have made his post more specific in the first place, you wouldn't have needed to clarify for him.

You're wrong. He posted something non-specific and I listed several outrageous things that would have been banned under his criteria. You're arguing that he didn't write what he wrote, and I clearly showed that he did.

 

[Omni]

they are both fighting games, but they are very, very different. Brawl has recovery, edgeguarding, and abstract stages (compared to other fighters). Metaknight is the best at the first 2, and is amazing on most stages.

Sorry, I had to debate whether or not I should respond to this since there doesn't seem to be any kind of substance supporting it.

The main difference between Brawl and other 2D fighting games are that stocks(rounds) can be removed by forcing a player off the stage. Other than that, both games share the same common traits. Grabs, special moves, priority, footsies, stun, lag, etc. They are not so far different that the two things can not be comparable.

We aren't even comparing the technical aspects of the game with each other. We're addressing the approach to a ban and how the community was affected and/or not affected.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not compare other fighting games since it would be both advantageous and informative.

 

[RDK]

I don't understand where people come from with this "You can do anything if you try hard enough" business.

It makes no difference how hard someone trains, if you are not born with the physical potential of Usain Bolt, you will NEVER RUN AS FAST AS HIM, EVER.

Right, so let's lower the standard in a way that makes Usain Bolt's natural ability absolutely meaningless!

 

[Overswarm]

...and you're ignoring my posts, which makes me sad.

They completely break every argument that you have made on "Akuma = MK".

Show me tournament results of his dominance. I don't take your word on it.


See, since you guys are saying "Akuma should be banned", you're giving me a lot of information.

-Cheat code characters are banned (WTF?)
-we don't need a character to be winning tournaments or even have a history of dominance to be banned
-surgical changes (such as banning planking, IDC, or akuma's air fireball) aren't options
-We can "just see" that a character is ban worthy
-If we have a majority of pro and casual players wanting a character banned, the character can be banned



Now I want to see Akuma's results so I can compare him to MKs.

The main difference between Brawl and other 2D fighting games are that stocks(rounds) can be removed by forcing a player off the stage. Other than that, both games share the same common traits. Grabs, special moves, priority, footsies, stun, lag, etc. They are not so far different that the two things can not be comparable.

We can be dealt an infinite amount of damage without dying, our rounds are nearly 8x as long as theirs, we have "recovery" (a foreign concept to 2D fighters) and "edgeguarding" which make comparing basic attributes that you find common a joke.

If Snake was in SF2, he would make Akuma look like a joke.

 

[Jem.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PFpOboFEwE

One of the two vids that Jem put.

LOOOOOOOL tooled.

I had this thread and the MK video thread open and accidently posted it here, so I edited my post. Didn't realize people were on this early.

 

[Nitrix]

No.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE BIOLOGICAL PRE-DETERMINANTS. This kind of attitude is bred by the "You can be anything you want to when you grow up." bull**** that they feed kids in schools. They tell everyone they can become President, it's simply not true.

Everyone has their own amount of innate talent for things. Because this amount varies, it is logically impossible to become the best by training. Why? Because if someone else has more talent then you, and you both train as hard as possible (the same amount), they're still better. We'll spell it out in Math:

Player A has a natural talent/skill of say, 8.
Player B has a natural talent/skill of 6.

If you weight training for both players equally, no matter HOW you decide to balance skill vs. training, Player A will ALWAYS be better because of that little tiny bit extra natural talent.

I would disagree. Although you are right in stating that some people may have greater natural talent than others, you do assume they both train the same amount. In that case yes, the naturally talented one would be better. However the assumption is that they both practice the same amount. Thus although Player A in your example may have an advantage, player B can offset it just by working harder.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Show me tournament results of his dominance. I don't take your word on it.


See, since you guys are saying "Akuma should be banned", you're giving me a lot of information.

-Cheat code characters are banned (WTF?)
-we don't need a character to be winning tournaments or even have a history of dominance to be banned
-surgical changes (such as banning planking, IDC, or akuma's air fireball) aren't options
-We can "just see" that a character is ban worthy
-If we have a majority of pro and casual players wanting a character banned, the character can be banned



Now I want to see Akuma's results so I can compare him to MKs.

There are no results necessary-- you can look at the game data / friendly matches and it is blatant. He had multiple ways to completely lock down an oponent so that they literally could not do anything, and these were not advanced techniques. They were just basic parts of his normal move set.

He also inherently stunned people many, many times faster than anyone else, and he was nearly possible to be stunned himself





There would be no tournament data necessary to ban Master Hand in his present state. Your demand for it is illogical.



You can compare MK to Sagat in SF4. You can compare SF2 Akuma to Master Hand in any Smash. You cannot compare SF2 Akuma to any "normal" character.

 

[CRASHiC]

Akuma in HD isn't hidden, he's on the screen.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Akuma in HD isn't hidden, he's on the screen.

He's "hidden" above E.Honda's character icon. You just press Up to select him. He is visible on the menu screen, though.

 

[Overswarm]

There are no results necessary-- you can look at the game data / friendly matches and it is blatant. He had multiple ways to completely lock down an oponent so that they literally could not do anything, and these were not advanced techniques. They were just basic parts of his normal move set.

If I do recall, we've seen the same with Metaknight, Ice Climbers, Dedede, and Falco.

Show me tournament data, I care not for your opinions on balance or anyone elses. Give me results.

There would be no tournament data necessary to ban Master Hand in his present state. Your demand for it is illogical.

That's because you can't take a Master Hand stock and he crashes the game upon victory. If these two elements were removed, I would allow him until he showed he needed to be removed.

You can compare MK to Sagat in SF4. You can compare SF2 Akuma to Master Hand in any Smash. You cannot compare SF2 Akuma to any "normal" character.

If Omni can compare Street Fighter to Brawl because "they both have moves and techniques", I can compare Metaknight to Akuma because "They're both better than everyone else in the game".


The arguments about other fighters are pretty ridiculous anyway. Omni's statement of "it's okay to have a dominant character" is flat out false.

Every dominant character in every fighter has been a target in sequels; they always try to balance the game properly by nerfing them or buffing others or adding new game elements. They don't just say "it's okay" because it isn't.

Sagat is being nerfed, Akuma was attempted to be nerfed, V-13 killed Blaz Blue, what do you get by saying that the negative effect these characters have had on their communities is "okay"?

I would disagree. Although you are right in stating that some people may have greater natural talent than others, you do assume they both train the same amount. In that case yes, the naturally talented one would be better. However the assumption is that they both practice the same amount. Thus although Player A in your example may have an advantage, player B can offset it just by working harder.

Practice beats talent when talent doesn't practice. -Kyle "Elamite Warrior" Elam

 

[RDK]

See, since you guys are saying "Akuma should be banned", you're giving me a lot of information.

-Cheat code characters are banned (WTF?)

Anyone who says that whether or not a character being a boss character or having to be unlocked via cheat codes has any bearing on whether or not said character should be banned is simply wrong.

-we don't need a character to be winning tournaments or even have a history of dominance to be banned

Again, I don't agree. What the SF community did was pre-emptive, and I don't think we should do the same thing. However, dominance and tournament results aren't everything either.

A character must be shown to be ban-worthy both in a top-level tournament setting and on paper. If you just give tournament results, then all we have is fluid data that's highly susceptible to way too many variables to be reliable. Placement has no causative relationship with character power.

On the other hand, if all we have are strats, we won't know if there is some realistic way of dealing with the character in top-level play that we haven't come across yet just by looking at the character on paper.

-surgical changes (such as banning planking, IDC, or akuma's air fireball) aren't options

Do you honestly believe that taking IDC away from MK is equivalent to taking the fireball away from Akuma?

-We can "just see" that a character is ban worthy

I don't know what this means.

-If we have a majority of pro and casual players wanting a character banned, the character can be banned

Isn't this how business is always conducted in Smash? Ultimately TO's and players decide whether a character is banned, not the SBR.

 

[Omni]

Omni, what are yours? I've asked multiple times, but you've evaded each time... what trends do we need to see? What % of dominance? Give me something concrete.

Concrete? Again, you're approaching the game from a data/tournament result perspective. My largest issue has been Metaknight's existence within the metagame without hampering results. Does he fit the game? You have cleverly or lazily ignored SEVERAL points from SEVERAL people that point out flaws in how your data does not draw concrete facts about future trends.

How about you give us something concrete?

Excellent, we're making progress!

So you're saying if Metaknight's ability exceeds the rest of the cast than he should be banned? You're not arguing for the banning of Akuma's air fireball, after all.

I've been saying this since Day 1. Did you read my post in the One-Post Thread? It's based on if MK's ability FAR exceeds and/or does not fit in comparison to the rest of the cast.

I haven't been arguing about the banning of Akuma's air fireball at all. Lmao. What are you reading? We've been arguing about the banning of AKUMA.

This is irrelevant.

"OS, what you post is tournament results of character usage. What you've showed us is that a large amount of people use the best character in the game and achieve success on a higher rate than any other character in the game. This is the statistical FACT and DATA that can not be refuted. However, you have not touched on the issue of whether or not Metaknight actually fits within the game when compared to the rest of the game."

This ISN'T irrelevant. If Metaknight fits within the game as the best character then the statistics and data about Metaknight having the best tournament results has very little bearing. These results become expected and logical based on MK's credentials.

Not particularly from what I've seen. All I've seen from you is "Dude, he's TOTALLY broken. We just didn't have any proof but we could SEE it man". Last time anyone said this from pro-ban's side you said we needed to come up with data showing he was that good, and now we did and you're ignoring the numbers.

Numbers, numbers, numbers.

Overswarm, stop harping on data and statistics. Did you have numbers and data when you set the stock to 5? Was it not apparent that having certain RIDICULOUS stages on the stage list was an obvious choice? If you need data and statistics to make any point then I fear what you make up in knowledge you lack in logic.

Excellent!

And these "isolated incidents".... are just that. I'll notice them when they happen on a consistent basis and I can't fit them in a jar. Your "hero" moments have to be a trend, not a one-time or one-player thing that just MIGHT show a trend later.

Also, prove that Akuma would be guaranteed 1st place in HD Remix. I don't take theory craft as truth.

Boom, here we go.

You'll notice them when they happen on a consistent basis. Your view of consistent is very different from my view of consistent. You want to see MK losing on a normal and common basis but that ISN'T going to happen. The "hero" moments needs to only happen often enough to show that there are still players out there breaking the barrier. You're looking for a trend to show that MK will lose on a more consistent basis, but I'm arguing that his current dominance is FINE.

I'm not going to answer the Akuma question. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Lol, have you even played Street Fighter or attended a Street Fighter tournament?

You funny.

 

[Raziek]

Right, so let's lower the standard in a way that makes Usain Bolt's natural ability absolutely meaningless!

Are you suggesting that banning Meta-Knight is akin to say, sticking Usain with a pair of shoes that make him (and by consequence, everyone else) slower?

The way I'm hearing you, you believe that Meta-Knight is the best way for people to flesh out their natural skill, which is why we have the issue of over-centralization.

One of pro-ban's big arguments is that character viability would increase if Meta Knight were to be banned.

In the case of my Usain hypothetical, this would be akin to there being a pair of shoes that adds 1.5 m/s to his running speed, and several other pairs that range in the .9-1.1 m/s second range. Obviously, nobody is going to use the other shoes instead, so we have over-centralization.

This can be applied directly to the data Over-swarm has provided regarding character diversity. In his chart, we see MK has 30% dominance (approximately, I'm going by memory), while most other viable top-tiers are in the 7-9% range. This is why over-centralization is one of the arguments to ban him, so we can enjoy a more diverse, healthy meta-game.

Now that I think about it, there's a real-life example that I can use to back this up. In competitive swimming, there is one type of full body swim-suit that EVERYONE used (Meta-Knight), because of how hydro-dynamic (Strong) it was, and it provided a significant advantage over all other kinds of swimsuits. (characters)

This swimsuit was banned as a result of general distaste, (Particularily Michael Phelps' outcry, which could, in terms of cross-comparison, be likened to Sirlin's suggestion to ban Akuma) and the significant advantages it provided over everything else.

Here's a quote from Double Olympic Gold Medalist Rebecca Adlington that goes along with this:

"I think it's a shame to be honest," the 20-year-old Adlington told BBC Sport. "Swimming always used to be a level playing field.

"I can remember watching when they were just in trunks and 100% textile suits, whereas now it's very, very different.

"The technology has just taken off in the last year, it's come from nowhere. We need to go back to putting rules in place, just to make it a fair playing field for everyone."

This turned into a bigger wall of text than intended, by the parallels are pretty clear here. Sometimes, when things provide too much of an advantage, they have to be banned.