Official Metaknight Discussion

[Sosuke]

I didn't know that Yoshi's Island (Pipes) has a set order for it's background.

: j

I've never seen Ankoku use a smiley before.

 

[Zankoku]

Does it not? I mean, I might've missed it I guess. I don't even really remember the background much except for it having those really tall hills and Super Mario World graphics.

 

[adumbrodeus]

He added 2 Diddy mains and 2 Snake mains and 13 MKs.

That's the equivalent of putting Wayne Gracie and 12 college jiujitsu students in a cage and comparing it to the words best kung fu expert and another prize kung fu fighter. When you divide the jiujitsu by 13 and kung fu by 2, you're not accounting for popularity; you're deliberately creating an arbitrary average.

While I understand what you're saying, the fact is that your reasoning is even less valid because it doesn't account for popularity AT ALL. I suggested a to deal with it before, but obviously, nobody listens to me.

 

[Delvro]

Which is why you make statisticians cry, no amount of "it's negligable" EVER makes up for not accounting for popularity in your statistics. Period. Either directly account for it, or your conclusions are bunk unless your conclusions are a meta-conclusion based on post popularity and raw amounts.

Why are you arguing against something that I have never said? Why do you say things like this when I specifically said that popularity obviously DOES has an influence? When did I say not to account for popularity?

What I've been saying this entire time (if you've paid attention) is that because of the method that data was gathered, popularity has a SMALLER THAN EXPECTED effect.

The assumption that many are under is that Metaknight is simply dominating because he is popular. I am arguing that this is completely wrong. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The reason that the effect of popularity is dampened is because OS took samples from the largest tournaments in the nation. The assumption here is that each character makes up a small portion of the total tournament attendance.

For all intents and purposes, doubling the amount of Link mains that attend one of these large national tournaments does absolutely nothing. The reason for this is because Link has never placed in a 150+ tournament. Ever. Doubling the amount of Link mains just means throwing in more fodder for Metaknights to destroy.

Obviously if you add in enough Link mains, like 100, there become so many of them that it's nearly impossible to knock them all out and some will make it to the top 8. But this violates the assumption that each character does not make up a large portion of the entire attendance.

The reason that Metaknight dominates is because he wins the Match-ups. Popularity is a multiplier effect of this. However, players begin playing metaknight (perhaps from another character) because he wins the Match-ups.

Don't insult my intelligence like this. I know how statistics work as I am about to enter graduate school on the subject. Maybe if you would quit assuming things that I don't even believe than these statisticians would quit crying.

 

[Justblaze647]

I say we make Mario circuit legal... what's the worst that could happen?

edit:

but obviously, nobody listens to me.

lol probably because of your inability to see other people's way of thinking.

 

[Zankoku]

If you make Mario Circuit legal you might unintentionally make Mario Kart more popular.

But in all seriousness, I think the stage was banned only to remain consistent with banning stages that involved clear walk-offs (Flat Zone 2, Shadow Moses, Bridge of Eldin). Personally I've not seen the stage to make much of a judgment on just how broken a walk-off might be, especially on a stage that's so small to begin with, but it'll probably be a while before we start votes again.

 

[Eddie G]

~Wrong Discussion To Be Having, People.

 

[TLMSheikant]

So...about mk's ban...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Why are you arguing against something that I have never said? Why do you say things like this when I specifically said that popularity obviously DOES has an influence? When did I say not to account for popularity?

Because the INFORMATION YOU PRESENT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR IT!

What I've been saying this entire time (if you've paid attention) is that because of the method that data was gathered, popularity has a SMALLER THAN EXPECTED effect.

Why?


As I explained before, it measures raw numbers of top level mains in conjunction with character power.


The more mains that a character has, the greater the number of top level players the character will have, therefore increasing their dominance. This would be especially noticable reletive to the metagame as a whole when compared to other characters of similar power in the metagame.

The assumption that many are under is that Metaknight is simply dominating because he is popular. I am arguing that this is completely wrong. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I am making no such assumption, merely that we cannot draw any conclusions about how much better he is.

The reason that the effect of popularity is dampened is because OS took samples from the largest tournaments in the nation. The assumption here is that each character makes up a small portion of the total tournament attendance.

Which is a bad assumption.

For all intents and purposes, doubling the amount of Link mains that attend one of these large national tournaments does absolutely nothing. The reason for this is because Link has never placed in a 150+ tournament. Ever. Doubling the amount of Link mains just means throwing in more fodder for Metaknights to destroy.

I know, but for a character like that, it increases odds substantially, and would eventually show in results.

Obviously if you add in enough Link mains, like 100, there become so many of them that it's nearly impossible to knock them all out and some will make it to the top 8. But this violates the assumption that each character does not make up a large portion of the entire attendance.

Which is a bad assumption.

The reason that Metaknight dominates is because he wins the Match-ups. Popularity is a multiplier effect of this. However, players begin playing metaknight (perhaps from another character) because he wins the Match-ups.

Which is exactly what I'm pointing out, "how much of a multiplier" is the relevant question, otherwise you're just restating the obvious conclusion which everyone had since the beginning.


Well, probably anyway.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I just read the last pages in which people were bringing up AKuma and whining about boss character status, which made me want to punch a hole through a wall.

Well not really but its stupid.

boss character doesn't mean crap.
They are analyzed just like any other character.
My favorite one eyed Samurai lady was a boss character in the first GG game.
She wasn't ban worthy, she sucked!

You know what, let me start that over.

There are times in which characters are banned due to the method required to obtain them, this is also true in the fact that manyof these games have arcade modes.
Those games are typically made so they can be competitively viable.
This inludes games like SF, GG, MvC2 etc etc.

Characters are at times banned, not because they are boss character status, but by the method in which they are available.
For example, Link, Heihachi, and Spawn are all characters available in SC2, the problem was that each of these characters were available only on a specific console. There was no method to cater to all these people who main these characters, it would be ridiculous to try, so those characters were banned.


At this point we would loo at the Guilty Gear games and point at the EX and Gold characters.
They could be unlocked but the thing is that similar to SF, Guilty Gear is a game with competitive viability, and so the creators made arcade mode to pretty much give you everything required.
EX and Gold characters were not available in Arcade mode, there was nothing hidden.


Now le's lo at SF2 Akuma.
WOMG YOU NEED TO PUT AN INPUT TO USE HIM IN ARCADE MODE!
It doesn't change the fact that he was indeed available in Arcade mode.
Even if it did matter, it was the fact that Akuma was BROKEN. He was in every sense of the word BROKEN.
I repeat, he was banned because he was BROKEN.
Not due to boss character status, not due to requiring a cheat code.

Now we come to SF2HDR Akuma.
He was considered broken as well.

Boss character status doesn't mean a ****thing.
They are analyzed just like any other character.

This is the third time I heard a comparison and argument in regards to Boss character status, please Smash Community, use your brains!


*coughs*
Now a the current matter at hand.


@ Ankoku: Weren't the walk off stages banned due to back camping? Considering how int his game defense is so much better, I think its even more reason why they would remain illegal. Even more so with a character like DDD who just chainggrabs you to the end of the stage until you are dead.
(not an issue on the pipes and may mario circuit but you know what I mean).

Personally I say we should all play on Big Blue.
Everyone chooses Sonic, everyone uses bunny hoods, tripping on 80%.
Last person standing wins. =D

 

[Eddie G]

Wow...how conservative can some of you be, honestly? All I see as responses to points/data are just more questions. And when those questions are answered, you ask yet another question that involves hypothetical situations and/or spinning the conversation in circles. Is there any humanly possible way of satisfying your demand for "the perfect answer" that would stop the endless amount of questions that circle back and forth? Dear god.

 

[Nanaki]

I think that's perfectly fine, though. Let's argue ban philosophy. Personally, I've said how I feel about the ban before. I think that because MK requries micromanaging to fit in with our vision of how the game ought to be played, he should be banned, or instead, we should stop trying to microban him and let him reign.

No LGL, no scrooging or planking rules, no IDC ban, nothing. Let him reign or ban him.

I'd like to say that I agree with this post, and haven't seen a very good reply to it yet.

 

[Remzi]

Haven't finished catching up with the reading yet, but if Akuma in HDR is "hidden," then so is ZSS.

 

[Zankoku]

The last person standing would die off the left side.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess Boss Character status refers to the characters that were built to be clearly imbalanced and so amazingly strong that you'd have to play like a CPU programmed to only do a few things in order to lose. You know, like Ivan Ooze, Archetype-EARTH, Karai, Master Hand....

Yeah, people probably won't ban them just because they're boss characters, but it's usually pretty easy to tell how broken they are and the majority of them tend to be hidden boss characters, so...

 

[Meru.]

tripping on 80%.

You can't set tripping. Really, that would be a bit too good.

EDIT: Heh, three users posted at the same minute.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Wow...how conservative can some of you be, honestly? All I see as responses to points/data are just more questions. And when those questions are answered, you ask yet another question that involves hypothetical situations and/or spinning the conversation in circles. Is there any humanly possible way of satisfying your demand for "the perfect answer" that would stop the endless amount of questions that circle back and forth? Dear god.

Cause nobody dealt with my issue from the first ban discussion...

 

[Omni]

If you guys played Mortal Kombat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEK321kf034

Lmao, look at how much one of Smoke's throws do. Hilarious.

 

[Red Arremer]

I'd like to say that I agree with this post, and haven't seen a very good reply to it yet.

Then I will reply to at least a part of it.

The IDC is clearly broken. Saying that putting in a ledge grab rule is in the same league as banning a clearly broken strategy a character can do is utter BS.
In fact, the mere idea of allowing the IDC is silly. In Melee, several techniques for a few characters have been banned, for instance Jigglypuff's Rising Pound or the ICs' freeze glitch. These things would break the game and make those characters broken. However, in order to prevent this, just a simple ban of this technique makes the game not only better, but also unbreaks these characters. The same logic applies to Meta Knight's IDC.

If you proclaim "Ban Meta Knight because he's capable of IDC", you'd also have to be in the favour of a ban for characters like Jigglypuff/ICs in Melee because they are able to do similar techniques.
If you proclaim "Ban Meta Knight or 'let him reign' with all of his techniques, even the clearly broken one", you'd also have to be in favour of allowing Rising Pound, Freeze Glitch, etc. OR banning the characters capable of it in Melee because they are similar techniques.

I'm not saying that we should compare everything to Melee, but in this case, it's quite obvious to see how Melee is a good example.

 

[Tien2500]

Well how about an actual survey conducted at tournaments to determine the effect MK is having on the metagame? Something like...

1. How often do have you attended tournaments over the past 4 months?
[ ] Weekly [ ] Twice a month [ ] Once a month [ ] Less than once a month

2. How often had you attended tournaments over the previous 4 month period?
Same choices.

3. Why do you attend smash tournaments?
[ ] Money [ ] Entertainment [ ] Socialization [ ] blah blah

4. What character(s) do you use most often in tournament play?

__________________ Second most often? _________________

5. How does MK impact your tournament experience?

[ ] Extremely Positive impact [ ] positive impact [ ] No impact [ ] Negative impact [ ] Extremely Neg Impact

6. If MK was banned would you be more likely or less likely to attend tournaments in the future?

[ ] Much more likely [ ] More likely [ ] Equally likely [ ] Less Likely [ ] Much less likely

And so on so forth. Obviously just an example of what a survey might look like. It could give us much needed data on how MK affects tournament attendance and all. It would be pretty easy to conduct via live tournaments, internet, or whatever.

 

[_Keno_]

What really sucks about this is that now that we have a character up for discussion for banning, we can't make a criteria for banning. If we try, the anti-ban will want to make the criteria so that it excludes MK, while the pro-ban will try to make it so that it includes MK. SBR should have made one before Brawl (maybe melee too) came out. Maybe some impartial melee SBR players should make one, everyone else is bias.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What really sucks about this is that now that we have a character up for discussion for banning, we can't make a criteria for banning. If we try, the anti-ban will want to make the criteria so that it excludes MK, while the pro-ban will try to make it so that it includes MK. SBR should have made one before Brawl (maybe melee too) came out. Maybe some impartial melee SBR players should make one, everyone else is bias.

Or we can do what I suggested in the podcast, and base it on information we don't already know.

 

[Nanaki]

If you guys played Mortal Kombat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEK321kf034

Lmao, look at how much one of Smoke's throws do. Hilarious.

The craziest part is that even if he was playable, he'd still not be the best in the game - mostly because he's a ninja and the ninjas in that game suck.

Jax was borked hard in MK2.

Then I will reply to at least a part of it.

The IDC is clearly broken. Saying that putting in a ledge grab rule is in the same league as banning a clearly broken strategy a character can do is utter BS.
In fact, the mere idea of allowing the IDC is silly. In Melee, several techniques for a few characters have been banned, for instance Jigglypuff's Rising Pound or the ICs' freeze glitch. These things would break the game and make those characters broken. However, in order to prevent this, just a simple ban of this technique makes the game not only better, but also unbreaks these characters. The same logic applies to Meta Knight's IDC.

If you proclaim "Ban Meta Knight because he's capable of IDC", you'd also have to be in the favour of a ban for characters like Jigglypuff/ICs in Melee because they are able to do similar techniques.
If you proclaim "Ban Meta Knight or 'let him reign' with all of his techniques, even the clearly broken one", you'd also have to be in favour of allowing Rising Pound, Freeze Glitch, etc. OR banning the characters capable of it in Melee because they are similar techniques.

I'm not saying that we should compare everything to Melee, but in this case, it's quite obvious to see how Melee is a good example.

Using rising pound to STALL is banned, as is the peach bomber stall, etc. They're used to enforce already existing rules. You can rising pound all you want to recover, unless I'm grossly mistaken?

IDC falls under the same category, but there's no rule governing it other than 'don't use it at all'. Using it to gain favorable position is a viable tactic, but the entire move is banned to begin with.

I know, I stands for 'infinite', so call it 'EDC' or whatever. Nobody uses either variation because they dont' want to get DQ'd.

 

[Red Arremer]

Yes, because it's really hard to differentiate between IDC and EDC because you can use both for stalling. And to prevent people stalling with it, it's outright banned. I don't see a problem with it at all.

The difference between the DC-glitches and Planking/Scrooging is that the DC-glitches are easy to ban. Just say "don't use it". It's difficult to ban actual Planking because it's not a glitch that needs an input first. Grabbing the ledge is an inbuilt game mechanic, and it's impossible to say that Meta Knight is not allowed to grab the ledge at all.

 

[_Keno_]

Or we can do what I suggested in the podcast, and base it on information we don't already know.

you have a link to where you said what you suggested?

 

[Nanaki]

Yes, because it's really hard to differentiate between IDC and EDC because you can use both for stalling. And to prevent people stalling with it, it's outright banned. I don't see a problem with it at all.

The difference between the DC-glitches and Planking/Scrooging is that the DC-glitches are easy to ban. Just say "don't use it". It's difficult to ban actual Planking because it's not a glitch that needs an input first. Grabbing the ledge is an inbuilt game mechanic, and it's impossible to say that Meta Knight is not allowed to grab the ledge at all.

But you're admitting the mechanical itself isn't broken if you don't use it for stalling - you're mostly banning it because the rule would be hard to enforce otherwise.

I don't disagree with that reasoning, it's probably the easiest way to deal with the move itself, but saying 'EDC is banned because it's broken' is wrong.

You can limit ledgegrabs to ban planking, but banning planking to begin with is very counter-competitive, imo. You're just turtling the only way this game allows you to.

 

[Red Arremer]

I, personally, am against Ledge Grab Limits, and still would like to have more evidence if Planking is broken or not. I wouldn't know of one single tournament won solely or mainly by planking and scrooging.

While the EDC could be viable as strategy, it would, as said, be very difficult to decide whether it's stalling or "taking an advantageous position". Thus the only way to get around the problem is to ban the technique overall. Putting a board of judges to see whether the DC-use was stalling or not would be even worse, imo.
Also, I'm not saying the EDC is broken, I'm saying the IDC is. There's a small difference.

 

[ShadowLink84]

The last person standing would die off the left side.

Why you literal *****! >=(
ANGRY FACE!

I'm gonna go ahead and guess Boss Character status refers to the characters that were built to be clearly imbalanced and so amazingly strong that you'd have to play like a CPU programmed to only do a few things in order to lose. You know, like Ivan Ooze, Archetype-EARTH, Karai, Master Hand....

Yeah, people probably won't ban them just because they're boss characters, but it's usually pretty easy to tell how broken they are and the majority of them tend to be hidden boss characters, so...

Correct, the problem is that people think, oh its a boss character, it should be banned.
They presume boss character goes hand in hand with broken which it really doesn't.
Look at Order Sol in GG.
He is technically a boss character.
Just like Akuma the CPU boss gets an extremely powerful version of him.
Doesn't mean he was ban worthy though.

You can't set tripping. Really, that would be a bit too good.

EDIT: Heh, three users posted at the same minute.

Oh yes you can.

 

[Nanaki]

I, personally, am against Ledge Grab Limits, and still would like to have more evidence if Planking is broken or not. I wouldn't know of one single tournament won solely or mainly by planking and scrooging.

While the EDC could be viable as strategy, it would, as said, be very difficult to decide whether it's stalling or "taking an advantageous position". Thus the only way to get around the problem is to ban the technique overall. Putting a board of judges to see whether the DC-use was stalling or not would be even worse, imo.
Also, I'm not saying the EDC is broken, I'm saying the IDC is. There's a small difference.

I think we're arguing for the same thing using different words. We tend to do that a lot.

Fine, modify SFP's post that I quoted to not include IDC if IDC can only be counted as stalling. That's my stance.

 

[adumbrodeus]

you have a link to where you said what you suggested?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=135703


Number 12.


Since it's a 2 hour podcast that covers many many points (but is worth listening to) I'll summerize.


Power by character (which is basically averaging character combined with random sampling).


Accurate MU ratios (which requires a project on it's own cause they NEED a mathematical basis of some sort).


There are other additional things, but they stand out the most.


A more complete proposal for a criteria can be found here (best used as a starting point for discussion).

But you're admitting the mechanical itself isn't broken if you don't use it for stalling - you're mostly banning it because the rule would be hard to enforce otherwise.

I don't disagree with that reasoning, it's probably the easiest way to deal with the move itself, but saying 'EDC is banned because it's broken' is wrong.

You can limit ledgegrabs to ban planking, but banning planking to begin with is very counter-competitive, imo. You're just turtling the only way this game allows you to.

Not hard, impossible.

I, personally, am against Ledge Grab Limits, and still would like to have more evidence if Planking is broken or not. I wouldn't know of one single tournament won solely or mainly by planking and scrooging.

While the EDC could be viable as strategy, it would, as said, be very difficult to decide whether it's stalling or "taking an advantageous position". Thus the only way to get around the problem is to ban the technique overall. Putting a board of judges to see whether the DC-use was stalling or not would be even worse, imo.
Also, I'm not saying the EDC is broken, I'm saying the IDC is. There's a small difference.

The really is no difference between the two, you can get the exact same functionality, the only reason the different names developed was because it was thought that the infinite stall was impossible using the technique that EDI used.


But it was false, so they're the same technique.

 

[Delvro]

Because the INFORMATION YOU PRESENT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR IT!

What information am I presenting? I'm describing the peculiarities of OS's data, not presenting new data.

The more mains that a character has, the greater the number of top level players the character will have, therefore increasing their dominance. This would be especially noticable reletive to the metagame as a whole when compared to other characters of similar power in the metagame.

Obviously.

Which is exactly what I'm pointing out, "how much of a multiplier" is the relevant question, otherwise you're just restating the obvious conclusion which everyone had since the beginning.

While it's impossible to know the exact effect of the popularity multiplier, what we DO know is that Metaknight has a decreasing marginal benefit to popularity. That is, for each additional Metaknight we add to the pile, the point value gained from him (on average) decreases as the total number of Metaknights increase. This is due to a peculiarity in his matchups in that his worst matchup is a mirror match, and that as Metaknight becomes more popularity, the frequency of these "bad" matchups increase disproportionately compared to the rest of the cast.

An example:
An 8 person tournament, single elimination. Points are only given to first place, who gets 10 points. 1 MK, 7 other. MK has a 75% chance to win against the 3 others, all other matchups 50% for each player (including mirror matches).

Average points for MK = P(MK wins tournament) * 10 = P(MK wins 3 matches in a row) * 10 = (.75)^3 = 4.2

Now let's say someone switches to MK. So 2 MKs, 6 other.

Average points for MK = P(MK wins tournament) * 10 = 1/7 * P(MK wins when both MK players play in first round) + 2/7 * P(MK wins when MK players are in adjacent brackets) + 4/7 * P(MK wins when MK players are on opposite halves of bracket) = 1/7 *(1 * .75 * .75) + 2/7 *(.75 * (.5625 * 1 + .4375 * .75) * .75) + 4/7 *(.75 * .75 * (.3164 * 1 + .6836 * .75) = .0804 + .1431 + .2665 = 4.9

It's obviously a very simple design but it gets the point across that
%change in popularity > %change in points in top x spots in tournament.

The reason this is the case is because there is an arbitrary cut off point, where if you are below that point, your data is discarded.

 

[•Col•]

I know, I stands for 'infinite', so call it 'EDC' or whatever. Nobody uses either variation because they dont' want to get DQ'd.

Except, well, you know............... M2k..... *cough*

 

[Dark Fawful]

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.

wow idiot. know your facts before posting information. thi is why pro ban fails

judge lost ksizzle's LUCARIO. ksizzle did not win 1 game at all with Meta Knight. biased idiots. without lucario, ksizzle would not have advanced.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

wow idiot. know your facts before posting information. thi is why pro ban fails

judge lost ksizzle's LUCARIO. ksizzle did not win 1 game at all with Meta Knight. biased idiots. without lucario, ksizzle would not have advanced.

Also Logic's Olimar is missing from the list.

 

[Omni]

You'll have to excuse Overswarm, Dark Faw. He tends to be really devious.

The actual list. Nothing changed or manipulated to prove a point!

1: ADHD (Lost to no one)

2: Mew2King (Lost to ADHD twice)

3: Ally (Lost to KSizzle , M2K )

4: KSizzle / (Lost to ADHD , Ally )

5: Shadow_111 (Lost to Mew2King , Ally )

5: Judge (Lost to Shadow , KSizzle )

7: Havok (Lost to ADHD , Ally )

7: Logic (Lost to Ninjalink , Judge )

9: Lee Martin / (Lost to Shadow , Havok )

9: Seibrik (Lost to Ninjalink , Ally )

9. Ninjalink (Lost to Mew2king , Logic )

9. Lain (Lost to Havok , Judge )

Had to add:
1.) ADHD getting 1st.
2.) Logic getting 7th
3.) Ninjalink also getting 9th.
4.) Lain also getting 9th.
5.) Non-MK heads.
6.) Ksizzle's Lucario victory.

and had to remove Ally having a Metaknight head (lol @ desperation)

the only thing im not 100% sure on is who NL used since he's all over the place with his characters. i listed him as Diddy since i saw him go Diddy against M2K but i could be slightly off with specific characters he used to win with

 

[Red Arremer]

Except, well, you know............... M2k..... *cough*

Where did M2K use it? Do you have video proof? I don't remember anyone mentioning ever that M2K used the IDC.

 

[Overswarm]

You'll have to excuse Overswarm, Dark Faw. He tends to be really devious.

The actual list. Nothing changed or manipulated to prove a point!

1: ADHD (Lost to no one)

2: Mew2King (Lost to ADHD twice)

3: Ally (Lost to KSizzle , M2K )

4: KSizzle / (Lost to ADHD , Ally )

5: Shadow_111 (Lost to Mew2King , Ally )

5: Judge (Lost to Shadow , KSizzle )

7: Havok (Lost to ADHD , Ally )

7: Logic (Lost to Ninjalink , Judge )

9: Lee Martin / (Lost to Shadow , Havok )

9: Seibrik (Lost to Ninjalink , Ally )

9. Ninjalink (Lost to Mew2king , Logic )

9. Lain (Lost to Havok , Judge )

Had to add:
1.) ADHD getting 1st.
2.) Logic getting 7th
3.) Ninjalink also getting 9th.
4.) Lain also getting 9th.
5.) Non-MK heads.
6.) Ksizzle's Lucario victory.

and had to remove Ally having a Metaknight head (lol @ desperation)

the only thing im not 100% sure on is who NL used since he's all over the place with his characters. i listed him as Diddy since i saw him go Diddy against M2K but i could be slightly off with specific characters he used to win with

Excellent! :D

So you're saying this is perfectly acceptable?

 

[•Col•]

Where did M2K use it? Do you have video proof? I don't remember anyone mentioning ever that M2K used the IDC.

Well, it was the EDC. The videos have been taken down now... But over the summer, when people saw the videos, they were kinda freaking out and getting PO'ed about it, and then some MK mains were even trying to argue that the EDC was a legitimate technique, lol.

You can read about it here on this page though, Hylian explains it: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262491&page=82

 

[Red Arremer]

Ah.

Wow, he used it once. That means he does it all the time and people look away about him breaking the rules. Clearly.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What information am I presenting? I'm describing the peculiarities of OS's data, not presenting new data.

The fact that it isn't your data doesn't mean

While it's impossible to know the exact effect of the popularity multiplier, what we DO know is that Metaknight has a decreasing marginal benefit to popularity. That is, for each additional Metaknight we add to the pile, the point value gained from him (on average) decreases as the total number of Metaknights increase. This is due to a peculiarity in his matchups in that his worst matchup is a mirror match, and that as Metaknight becomes more popularity, the frequency of these "bad" matchups increase disproportionately compared to the rest of the cast.

That's why we control for variables.

An example:
An 8 person tournament, single elimination. Points are only given to first place, who gets 10 points. 1 MK, 7 other. MK has a 75% chance to win against the 3 others, all other matchups 50% for each player (including mirror matches).

Average points for MK = P(MK wins tournament) * 10 = P(MK wins 3 matches in a row) * 10 = (.75)^3 = 4.2

Now let's say someone switches to MK. So 2 MKs, 6 other.

Average points for MK = P(MK wins tournament) * 10 = 1/7 * P(MK wins when both MK players play in first round) + 2/7 * P(MK wins when MK players are in adjacent brackets) + 4/7 * P(MK wins when MK players are on opposite halves of bracket) = 1/7 *(1 * .75 * .75) + 2/7 *(.75 * (.5625 * 1 + .4375 * .75) * .75) + 4/7 *(.75 * .75 * (.3164 * 1 + .6836 * .75) = .0804 + .1431 + .2665 = 4.9

It's obviously a very simple design but it gets the point across that
%change in popularity > %change in points in top x spots in tournament.

The reason this is the case is because there is an arbitrary cut off point, where if you are below that point, your data is discarded.

Which is why we have something wonderful called random sampling.


Because quite simply, no valid conclusion can be drawn from just that data.

Excellent! :D

So you're saying this is perfectly acceptable?

Yes.

10yes.


Remember, it was only one tournament.

 

[Overswarm]

Ah.

Wow, he used it once. That means he does it all the time and people look away about him breaking the rules. Clearly.

You obviously don't know mew2king.