Official Metaknight Discussion

[MetalMusicMan]

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.

We have not seen that-- MK, Ice Climbers, DeDeDe, and Falco can be stopped / avoided. SF2 Akuma cannot.

I'm not going to do original research on a topic that has already had it done thousands of times previously. If you want the facts, ask anyone on Shoryuken to present them to you, or look there for yourself.

It has already been proven and accepted by every pro SF player.

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"?

"Bad" characters are also targeted to be buffed when sequels come out. Should we institute rules to give them advantages in the present game because they "will be buffed in the sequel"?


No. The only way to play the game is in its present state.


This is the reasoning for not banning the "better characters". You should understand that better than anyone, as the self-described "poster boy Originalist".

You are arguing against your own theory if you sincerely believe the above quote.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

Why is it logical?

Here's the crux of the matter really, some people have better work ethics, some people have more effective training regimes, some people are simply better at realizing what they need to work on in order to improve in the long term, some people have better mindsets.


Sure, if we held all those things as equal, natural skill would trump all, but the reality is, these things are rarely if ever even approximately equal. It's especially important to realize that you cannot know what your real level of natural talent is until you've trained it as much as possible. It's also impossible to know if the metagame is gonna shift towards where your natural talent.


So yes, all else equal, natural talent wins out, but all else is not equal.

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

I'm not talking about your personal numbers, I'm talking about the conversation we had on the podcast, where you refused compromise.

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

Then why in God's name would you say that people are applying criteria inconsistently, people who consider theorycraft important and relie primarily on it drawing conclusions based on theorycraft, and as far as we know, MK doesn't have the theorycraft dominance.

 

[Delvro]

There are no results necessary-- you can look at the game data / friendly matches and it is blatant.

I think you're missing the point here. The point is that Anti-ban has asked for all this data showing MK's "dominance", and yet the same people can sit here and say "yeah, Akuma's broken. We DON'T EVEN NEED DATA OR EVIDENCE TO BAN HIM"

How can you not see the non-sequitur in this?

I could say the same thing about Metaknight -- and I truly believe this -- that you can look at Brawl (friendly and tournament matches) and MK's dominance is truly blatant.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm not talking about your personal numbers, I'm talking about the conversation we had on the podcast, where you refused compromise.

I don't really recall anything you said, so you'll have to fill me in. You talked a lot about Iran >_>

Then why in God's name would you say that people are applying criteria inconsistently, people who consider theorycraft important and relie primarily on it drawing conclusions based on theorycraft...

I ignore this as much as I ignored people that said "MK can win just by grabbing the edge" or "MK can just up+b out of shield everything in the game" or "MK can just spam tornado to win". I prefer to see results, not theory.

 

[RDK]

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?

No, I'm saying that banning Metaknight because some people aren't good enough to deal with him is anti-competitive, and it's effectively turning the game into a communist pre-school, "everyone's equal" version of Mario Party.

Everyone's not equal. Get over it. In the real world, people kill other people to advance in life. Many don't succeed. It happens in business, in sports; in literally every field you will encounter.

Taking away MK will not make you a better player. It will take away from the skill that other people have accrued simply because your whining is loud enough.

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.

When did I ever say that?

All I'm saying is that it's wrong to try and make negative changes to the game to service low-level players.

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:



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.

Competition is never a level playing field. This is simple common sense.

But when we do attempt to level the playing field, we attempt to level it for players (swimmers), not suit brands (characters). Those swimmers still had the choice of wearing the better suit. Banning it is ludicrous.

As a swimmer, you pick the best option available.

Once again, it seems some of you don't have a problem with MK per se, you have a problem with the concept of a best character - something that is present in literally every fighting game. Ever.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I think you're missing the point here. The point is that Anti-ban has asked for all this data showing MK's "dominance", and yet the same people can sit here and say "yeah, Akuma's broken. We DON'T EVEN NEED DATA OR EVIDENCE TO BAN HIM"

How can you not see the non-sequitur in this?

I could say the same thing about Metaknight -- and I truly believe this -- that you can look at Brawl (friendly and tournament matches) and MK's dominance is truly blatant.

Oh yes of course, that would definitely be a non-sequitur, assuming it was all that I said.

However, you missed the rest of my post(s) on that subject, so that quote is a bit out of context.

There was testing done by pros, it was conclusive. It just didn't need years of debate because the evidence was conclusive and universally agreed upon.

 

[etecoon]

I ignore this as much as I ignored people that said "MK can win just by grabbing the edge"

haven't you said this in regards to the MK/falco MU in order to disregard how well some falco's have done with it? falco only succeeds because of an artificial boost from the rules because planking is totally legit mirite?

 

[RDK]

I don't really recall anything you said, so you'll have to fill me in. You talked a lot about Iran >_>

Lol he's got a point Adum, you did talk about Iran.

Jus' sayin'.

 

[Omni]

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

The same applies with DDD and Ice Climbers. Banning a character because he opens up the doors for lesser characters does not address if that character is banworthy based on his own skill.

Considering that Metaknight has characters that do really well against him (whether's it's even or slightly in his favor) there are several contenders.

What then happens is that we disagree with how many contenders there needs to be. Or we disagree with how many characters need to be viable. All of these points are just preferences of shaping the game into a metagame we see as fit. You and OS may be more comfortable with a game that sacrifices its best character for more character playability. Other people may be more comfortable with only a few characters truly being viable but making sure a ban isn't implemented in an attempt to cater to a different metagame.

So your argument is not a statistical point for why MK needs to be banned. It is a point made on your perception of how the metagame should be rather than what it is. What something should be is completely subjective making the argument itself subjective although what it claims is a fact.

 

[RDK]

I think you're missing the point here. The point is that Anti-ban has asked for all this data showing MK's "dominance", and yet the same people can sit here and say "yeah, Akuma's broken. We DON'T EVEN NEED DATA OR EVIDENCE TO BAN HIM"

How can you not see the non-sequitur in this?

I could say the same thing about Metaknight -- and I truly believe this -- that you can look at Brawl (friendly and tournament matches) and MK's dominance is truly blatant.

Umm, nobody is saying that the Akuma decision was okay. How many times do I have to say that?

And you say you can look at friendlies and low-level play and see MK's dominance. Not only is that wrong, it's double-wrong. Friendlies and low-level play don't have any relationship to tournament and top-level play. Remember when everyone thought Roy was the best in Melee because he had TEH PHIRE!

Furthermore, does MK dominate in the same way Akuma does? Have you ever seen an Akuma match?

 

[Overswarm]

The same applies with DDD and Ice Climbers. Banning a character because he opens up the doors for lesser characters does not address if that character is banworthy based on his own skill.

Please show me the data that proves this, because last I checked you can main DK and pull out Falco against D3s and do just fine.

 

[RDK]

Please show me the data that proves this, because last I checked you can main DK and pull out Falco against D3s and do just fine.

Using DK at all in a tournament setting is foolish. Even assuming that you win with him the first match, you'll get counterpicked with D3.

Then I suppose you could pull out Falco, but why would you go into a set knowing that you're going to automatically lose the second match?

 

[Nanaki]

Once again, it seems some of you don't have a problem with MK per se, you have a problem with the concept of a best character - something that is present in literally every fighting game. Ever.

I have zero problem with there being a 'best character'. I honestly think anyone who has a problem with that is being pretty delusional.

There's always a 'best character', but just how far ahead of everyone else do they have to be to warrant a ban? Jin in Tekken 4 wasn't apparently broken enough for their community, despite incredible tourney results and the fact that he was easily the best on paper. Same with T6 Bob. Akuma in HD Remix, however, apparently crosses the line. Once again, the big issue is 'how broken is broken'?

...And the circle continues.

 

[etecoon]

Please show me the data that proves this, because last I checked you can main DK and pull out Falco against D3s and do just fine.

this only shows that meta knight doesn't fit your preconceived notion that you should be able to CP someone to a hard counter near free victory(although I don't think falco beats D3 *that* badly), I don't see the problem with that. numerous characters have good enough MU's with him where they should win if they are better players, why is something more than that necessary?

 

[Omni]

Overswarm, do you ban a character because they are dominant or because they are broken?

If it's because they are dominant, then your perspective dominance and what should and should not be allowed will be severely different from many people. Also, dominance does not necessarily equal ban worthy. Proving dominance only shows your dislike in it; not how it constitutes a ban. The numbers and data show what you perceive to be as dominance.

If it's because they are broken, you cannot prove that point by focusing on tournament results. As I said before, tournament results and data on MK only show how the best character in the game and most popular used character has successfully done what is expected.

 

[RDK]

Both dominance and brokenness are totally subjective anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

It comes down to what you believe should constitute a ban.

 

[Omni]

Please show me the data that proves this.

Lol, you are failing to see everyone's main point and quarrel with you. You're like a computer that can only draw conclusions if they are given numbers and statistics. However, the conclusion you are drawing is COMPLETELY subjective in manner.

Don't worry. Just keep making more graphs and charts. That'll make your argument stronger!

I'm gonna' go eat. I'm starvin'.

 

[Mew2King]

People say MK main won't go if you give them a choice, BS, if you give enough incentive for them to go, prize money or something, then they will go. M2K even said he would go to them, he's just change mains.

no I wouldn't, where did I say that? There's no reason I should have to be set back 2 years behind the character I put all my time into when no other player of any other character (the characters WINNING big tourneys, like top 2 always being jiggs in melee or adhd dominating pound and snes) has to. That is extremely unfair

 

[Delvro]

And you say you can look at friendlies and low-level play and see MK's dominance. Not only is that wrong, it's double-wrong. Friendlies and low-level play don't have any relationship to tournament and top-level play. Remember when everyone thought Roy was the best in Melee because he had TEH PHIRE!

I was saying that for the sake of comparison. You say that looking at friendlies and random matches is a terrible way to judge whether a character should be banned. But, from what I understand, that's exactly what they did for Akuma! I'm not saying that they shouldn't have banned Akuma, but the agreement seems to be that "it's obvious that he's broken and doesn't need testing"....

What gives?

Where's the conclusive tournament evidence showing the need to ban Akuma? If we actually had it, how would it compare to Metaknight? Maybe, just maybe, if Akuma WASN'T banned, there's be a high level tournament where a "hero" came out (like a street fighter version of Ally) and beat Akuma? Using anti-ban logic, if that happens he shouldn't be banned!

I'm not saying it's likely to happen, I'm just saying we don't know, because he got banned! Before he even had a large amount of conclusive data! Which we DO happen to have for Metaknight!

!!!!!

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think you're missing the point here. The point is that Anti-ban has asked for all this data showing MK's "dominance", and yet the same people can sit here and say "yeah, Akuma's broken. We DON'T EVEN NEED DATA OR EVIDENCE TO BAN HIM"

How can you not see the non-sequitur in this?

I could say the same thing about Metaknight -- and I truly believe this -- that you can look at Brawl (friendly and tournament matches) and MK's dominance is truly blatant.

The point is that there is in fact plenty of data for Akuma, it's just match-up data (which, by the way, is much easier to be sure of them smash match-up data) as opposed to tournament results.

Lol he's got a point Adum, you did talk about Iran.

Jus' sayin'.

I don't really recall anything you said, so you'll have to fill me in. You talked a lot about Iran >_>

You me a break guys...

That was a throw-away sentence illustrating how words mean different things to different people and the only way to make sure everything means the same thing to everyone is define rigid criteria.


I illustrated this by explaining that democracy means different things to say, Iran and the United States, which is why Iran claims that it's a democracy and the US claims that it isn't.


I use metaphors, so sue me.



Edit:

OS, the point is, I was explaining the process by which we could get a criteria, and when I said "compromise", you said, "how could we give this criteria to TOs if we don't know this is the absolute best we could do".


That's what I'm talking about in refusal to compromise, compromise moves the discussion forward.

I ignore this as much as I ignored people that said "MK can win just by grabbing the edge" or "MK can just up+b out of shield everything in the game" or "MK can just spam tornado to win". I prefer to see results, not theory.

Theory with frame data and hitbox data explaining how one blocked air fireball with automatically win you the game, I'm sorry but that's more then enough to push 99% of Match-ups to literal 100-0s.


Results has it's place, but sometimes theory is more then sufficient to illustrate a point, especially when theory illustrates that you can accomplish the same effect as something else that was already proven broken.

 

[RDK]

I was saying that for the sake of comparison. You say that looking at friendlies and random matches is a terrible way to judge whether a character should be banned. But, from what I understand, that's exactly what they did for Akuma! I'm not saying that they shouldn't have banned Akuma, but the agreement seems to be that "it's obvious that he's broken and doesn't need testing"....

What gives?

Where's the conclusive tournament evidence showing the need to ban Akuma? If we actually had it, how would it compare to Metaknight? Maybe, just maybe, if Akuma WASN'T banned, there's be a high level tournament where a "hero" came out (like a street fighter version of Ally) and beat Akuma? Using anti-ban logic, if that happens he shouldn't be banned!

I'm not saying it's likely to happen, I'm just saying we don't know, because he got banned! Before he even had a large amount of conclusive data! Which we DO happen to have for Metaknight!

!!!!!

Why are you asking me about the Akuma ban? Seriously?

Did you not read the first part of my post?

 

[Overswarm]

Using DK at all in a tournament setting is foolish. Even assuming that you win with him the first match, you'll get counterpicked with D3.

Then I suppose you could pull out Falco, but why would you go into a set knowing that you're going to automatically lose the second match?

If you don't play D3, you can't throw out D3. It really isn't that simple.

this only shows that meta knight doesn't fit your preconceived notion that you should be able to CP someone to a hard counter near free victory(although I don't think falco beats D3 *that* badly), I don't see the problem with that. numerous characters have good enough MU's with him where they should win if they are better players, why is something more than that necessary?

Do you honestly believe this is true?


Let's take a walk to Pound 4.


2: Mew2King (Lost to ADHD, ADHD)

3: Ally (/) (Lost to KSizzle , M2K )

4: KSizzle (/Lucario) (Lost to ADHD, Ally)

5: Shadow_111 () (Lost to Mew2King , Ally)

5: Judge () (Lost to Shadow , KSizzle )

7: Havok () (Lost to ADHD, Ally)
9: Lee Martin (Lucario/) (Lost to Shadow , Havok )

9: Seibrik () (Lost to Ninjalink, Ally)




Of all the top Metakngihts, the only one to not be knocked out by one of the three best players in the game that are leagues beyond the rest (one of them maining MK) AND not be knocked out by a Metaknight was Seibrik losing to Ninjalink and he still had one of his losses from Ally.

Look at the other top players and they're dropping sets to MK and hard counters like clockwork.

If your character doesn't have a counter or even matchups, your character exists outside of Brawl's counterpick system.

 

[Overswarm]

Lol, you are failing to see everyone's main point and quarrel with you. You're like a computer that can only draw conclusions if they are given numbers and statistics. However, the conclusion you are drawing is COMPLETELY subjective in manner.

Don't worry. Just keep making more graphs and charts. That'll make your argument stronger!

The last time we argued, you said I was just exaggerating thnigs because I wasn't giving any hard, clear cut data. Now I am, and you say the data doesn't matter.

You have no room to stand on.


I'll ask you again:

What is your criteria for a ban? Just lay it out, because last time you did and we've met it... but now you're eerily silent. I think you're just avoiding it so you can't be proven wrong since you're not taking a stand.

 

[Chuee]

Yeah, good job OS.
Leaving out the character icon for Lucario.
EDIT: CP System doesn't exist.

 

[Omni]

I was saying that for the sake of comparison. You say that looking at friendlies and random matches is a terrible way to judge whether a character should be banned. But, from what I understand, that's exactly what they did for Akuma! I'm not saying that they shouldn't have banned Akuma, but the agreement seems to be that "it's obvious that he's broken and doesn't need testing"....

What gives?

Where's the conclusive tournament evidence showing the need to ban Akuma? If we actually had it, how would it compare to Metaknight? Maybe, just maybe, if Akuma WASN'T banned, there's be a high level tournament where a "hero" came out (like a street fighter version of Ally) and beat Akuma? Using anti-ban logic, if that happens he shouldn't be banned!

I'm not saying it's likely to happen, I'm just saying we don't know, because he got banned! Before he even had a large amount of conclusive data! Which we DO happen to have for Metaknight!

!!!!!

Delvro, where is the conclusive tournament evidence that shows why Rumble Falls or w/e that G&W stage is should not be banned?

What we're trying to address is that Akuma being broken was just as understood as realizing that one of those Brawl stages were not tournament viable.

The reason why we have statistics for Metaknight and the reason why Metaknight is not banned is because he is not a clearly broken. It isn't understood by the majority of the community as it was in SFII.

 

[Delvro]

Why are you asking me about the Akuma ban? Seriously?

Did you not read the first part of my post?

Yah, I read it. I don't mean to address you directly, sorry about that.

But the fact remains that it happened. And there are a lot of irregularities between the logic behind this ban and the reluctance to ban MK.

 

[adumbrodeus]

no I wouldn't, where did I say that? There's no reason I should have to be set back 2 years behind the character I put all my time into when no other player of any other character (the characters WINNING big tourneys, like top 2 always being jiggs in melee or adhd dominating pound and snes) has to. That is extremely unfair

I'm sorry M2k, but if your character is banworthy, it may be unfair, but the reality is that we simply can't just ignore the fact that a banworthy character is in the game in order to protect it's mains.


Overall healthy of the community>being nice to MK mains.

Yah, I read it. I don't mean to address you directly, sorry about that.

But the fact remains that it happened. And there are a lot of irregularities between the logic behind this ban and the reluctance to ban MK.

Does MK have the acknowledged MU dominance that Super Turbo Akuma has?


SRK depends more on theoretical modeling then we do, how is that inconsistent if MK doesn't have the MU dominance that Akuma does?

 

[etecoon]

that particular bracket worked out that way, you're the one who's been saying that there have to be trends, consistency. so where are the MK's consistently taking down ADHD and DEHF? ally barely lost to any of them until he started using MK a lot himself. yes, I believe that vs diddy and falco the better player tends to win. lucario, sheik, fox, wario, ice climbers, ZSS, maybe snake and a few others are also close to that status IMO, only losing to him by a slight margin

and I do think he should be banned because having even matchups isn't enough when he's obviously a much easier option and there's no point maining these characters that go even with him when you could just main him instead and not have to worry about any bad MU's period. he's clearly overcentralizing the game and it only gets worse as time goes on, but I do think he has even matchups.

 

[TLMSheikant]

If you don't play D3, you can't throw out D3. It really isn't that simple.




Do you honestly believe this is true?


Let's take a walk to Pound 4.


2: Mew2King (Lost to ADHD, ADHD)

3: Ally (/) (Lost to KSizzle , M2K )

4: KSizzle (/Lucario) (Lost to ADHD, Ally)

5: Shadow_111 () (Lost to Mew2King , Ally)

5: Judge () (Lost to Shadow , KSizzle )

7: Havok () (Lost to ADHD, Ally)
9: Lee Martin (Lucario/) (Lost to Shadow , Havok )

9: Seibrik () (Lost to Ninjalink, Ally)




Of all the top Metakngihts, the only one to not be knocked out by one of the three best players in the game that are leagues beyond the rest (one of them maining MK) AND not be knocked out by a Metaknight was Seibrik losing to Ninjalink and he still had one of his losses from Ally.

Look at the other top players and they're dropping sets to MK and hard counters like clockwork.

If your character doesn't have a counter or even matchups, your character exists outside of Brawl's counterpick system.

That's a whole lot of meta.

 

[Omni]

If your character doesn't have a counter or even matchups, your character exists outside of Brawl's counterpick system.

Huh? What Brawl counterpick system? Since when was it mandatory for every character to have a counter? I didn't see that in the instruction booklet.

The last time we argued, you said I was just exaggerating thnigs because I wasn't giving any hard, clear cut data. Now I am, and you say the data doesn't matter.

Quote me. I find this extremely hard to believe.

I never said the data doesn't matter. I said the data is not clear cut evidence of a subjective solution. Additionally, I said that you harp too much on data and not enough on character comparison. I've told you my interpretation of your data; you don't agree with it.

I'll ask you again:

What is your criteria for a ban? Just lay it out, because last time you did and we've met it... but now you're eerily silent. I think you're just avoiding it so you can't be proven wrong since you're not taking a stand.

Huh @ being eerily silent. I've been one of the most talkative anti-ban people around.

I am not going back to explain my criteria AGAIN. I have done it SEVERAL times in this thread and SEVERAL times in the BBR.

How about you stop looking at only what you want to see? I've noticed you have the tendency to only argue portions of people's posts and ignore other extremely good points against your case.

 

[Delvro]

Delvro, where is the conclusive tournament evidence that shows why Rumble Falls or w/e that G&W stage is should not be banned?

What we're trying to address is that Akuma being broken was just as understood as realizing that one of those Brawl stages were not tournament viable.

I don't know of any conclusive tournament evidence. That's my point, though.

Sure, there are theoretical advantages that we can GUESS would make characters broken. Sometimes it may *seem* obvious. But until someone abuses it in tournament, we can't be sure.

I'm trying to get people to quit making decisions based merely on their own personal judgments. Doing so biases the decision based on who is making the observations.

anti-ban doesn't want to ban MK because he doesn't *seem* broken. But we do have data on MK, unlike all these other things we've banned right off the bat. And the data not only shows that MK is on top, it shows that he's on top by a ridiculous margin.

Now why is that? Some have argued that it's merely because MK is popular. Well that makes a difference, but not as much as you'd think. I already gave my popularity speech a long time ago, but it boils down to it doesn't matter how popular or unpopular a character is if they always lose. Same if they always win. (that's just a summary, popularity DOES have an influece, it's just that the influence is small)

 

[CRASHiC]

I'm sorry M2k, but if your character is banworthy, it may be unfair, but the reality is that we simply can't just ignore the fact that a banworthy character is in the game in order to protect it's mains.


Overall healthy of the community>being nice to MK mains.

Unless the MK mains ARE the community.


Nah just kidding.

But in response to what Mew2King said, I can say the same for those who main new charecters in fighting updates Mew2King. Its not fair to them, here they have a game where the majority of the people are only having to make slight adjustments to their playstyles, and yet people who main a new character are (in the case of SF4 since its so close to SF:turbo) years behind their competition. It took a while for Viper players to get to where they are now, and with good reason. Viper is a solid character but an unusual one in a game full of straightforward charecter design that remains mostly unchanged in the jump from SF2:T to SF4. Sagat still plays like Sagat. Lariat is still Lariat. So its not unreasonable for players to have to catch up a few years with the metagame, though it is unfair.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I don't know of any conclusive tournament evidence. That's my point, though.

Sure, there are theoretical advantages that we can GUESS would make characters broken. Sometimes it may *seem* obvious. But until someone abuses it in tournament, we can't be sure.

I'm trying to get people to quit making decisions based merely on their own personal judgments. Doing so biases the decision based on who is making the observations.

anti-ban doesn't want to ban MK because he doesn't *seem* broken. But we do have data on MK, unlike all these other things we've banned right off the bat. And the data not only shows that MK is on top, it shows that he's on top by a ridiculous margin.

Now why is that? Some have argued that it's merely because MK is popular. Well that makes a difference, but not as much as you'd think. I already gave my popularity speech a long time ago, but it boils down to it doesn't matter how popular or unpopular a character is if they always lose. Same if they always win. (that's just a summary, popularity DOES have an influece, it's just that the influence is small)

Character use =/= bannability, though.

There are plenty of times when the most "overpowered" character is not the most widely used or is not widely used at all. IE Sagat in SF4.


Whether someone is used a lot or not doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not he is bannable.

 

[CRASHiC]

Wha? Sagat is NO WHERE as used as Metaknight. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Overswarm]

Delvro, where is the conclusive tournament evidence that shows why Rumble Falls or w/e that G&W stage is should not be banned?

In the midwest, we found that both stages had near randomized wins; even though I wasn't dropping a single game to most people, in games on FlatZone I could drop games as fast as anyone. It was literally random, and skill level had not nearly as much of a difference. Rumble Falls wasn't nearly as bad and needs further testing.

 

[iRJi]

lol @ M2k.

I can say the same thing vise versa. Would it be fair for other people to drop their mains for MK, after working on their character for 2 years?

 

[Palpi]

I should scrooge people with pit.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Wha? Sagat is NO WHERE as used as Metaknight. Where did you get that idea?

You misread my post. That was exactly my point.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

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"

"I don't care what scientists in thems fancy coats with labs say, I gots my bible and I know what daddy told me."

 

[Delvro]

Character use =/= bannability, though.

There are plenty of times when the most "overpowered" character is not the most widely used or is not widely used at all. IE Sagat in SF4.


Whether someone is used a lot or not doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not he is bannable.

Yea, I was saying that popularity doesn't have as much of an effect as many people think it does. So, if an equal percentage of equally skilled players played each character, the tournament results list would not look much different than the way it does now (although, of course, it would look slightly different)