Official Metaknight Discussion

[Tien2500]

Good post is good.

That is all.

 

[adumbrodeus]

When Brawl started out, everyone went to whoever they felt was gonna be their favorite (or the best) character. While people kept playing, they started to lose to Snake so they used him to win tourneys since he was the best in the game back then. Once MK started beating Snake overall, some Snake mainers (and the people who wanted to main the best character) changed to MK and also started dominating heavily. Skills kept improving from there til this day, MK's still the best in the game, and people who lose vs MK no matter how much time and effort they put into that one single MU compared to every other MU in the game, changed their mains to MK because it was easier than Snake/Diddy/Wario whose MUs aren't as even as MK:MK (50:50).

The more tourneys happened back then, the more MK won, and the more people realized that MK was in a league of his own. Remember MK being in SS Tier due to tourney rep? That was the time people realized MK was way too good compared to all the other characters. As the best MKs lost to Snakes/Diddies/Warios/Falcos, as bored mains quit the game because it was the same old thing (MK beating them even if they put in all their effort), as frustrated mains stopped attending tourneys and as the MK hate grew and grew, some people stopped using MK and moved onto the characters who apparently had "even MUs" with him. Our current top-level-tourney winners in the metagame are a Snake main, a Diddy main, and an MK main. One level below is a noticeable amount of MK mains, with a couple of random joes here and there (Falco, Wario, Snake, Diddy, IC, Marth).

Think about this... A large amount of top-players are using MK. We can say that there's a saturation of MK mains... Why is MK the most saturated character, and why are the other characters not as dominant as MK? In MY opinion, it's because MK is a far larger "tourney-placing modifier" than the 2nd best character. People are calling these mainers "top-players" without keeping in mind that MK might be the reason they're doing so well (which should be obvious, he IS the best in the game)... What if their skills are lower than the other mainers who struggle to maintain their top-player status (should be obvious)? It would then mean that their tourney placings are what they are because of MK, which should be okay if MK had some sort of exploitable weakness that doesn't revolve around theoretical assumptions and can be exploited consistently during a match! Snake has cooldown on some moves and can be gimped, Diddy's bane is for someone who can use items better than him to come around and beat him in both item and non-item usage, Falco suffers from his fastfall and below-average recovery, and so on... If MK had an actually exploitable weakness, would these people actually do this good in tourneys and be considered "top-level players"?

To me, you need the data to build views and arguments. But sometimes the data might eman something, but our eyes might show us something different. Believe it or not, calculators give out faulty info when you try to punch in tougher equations at higher-leveled Math problems, but how can this be if calculators give out calculations and is all about data? Sometimes our own eyes can tell us something's wrong with the picture, even if everything else points to it being perfect.

Calculators don't give out perfect data because of rounding errors, I can explain why at length if you're interested.


Regardless, I understand why you're saying this, the problem is *guestures dramatically* not enough people agree MK is a sufficient problem for the approach you're looking for.


How do you expect to convince somebody that doesn't think that it's a bad thing for MK to get the win ratio he does? You can't just say, "the stuff he does to the community is bad", when nobody agrees what how much is too much.


Which is why we develop criterias and back them up with data. Because sufficient hard data that matches exactly what we decided as a community that we think is banworthy is pretty much irrefutable. There might be a few hold-outs, but that would put the issue pretty much to rest.


But if he doesn't match it, then we could put it to rest from the opposite end.

I have a bit of a problem with this - we can statistically prove that MK is by far the best player in the game, sure. We can get a p<.001 scenario that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he's the best.

...does that matter at all?

People will still say 'yeah, he's the best, but every game has a best'.

The statistics can show he's the best, they can show he's 5 times better than everyone else, but he still won't be 'broken', and therefore still won't meet most people's 'objective criteria' (paradox much?) for a ban.

You can look at his moveset and rant about how his dtilt outranges this, and uair outspeeds that, etc., but will that ever lead to the conclusion that he's 'broken'?

The way these 'criteria' are being brought about makes zero sense to me. We say other communities "Just looked at the character and saw that he was broken", but we can't take a huge pile of tournament data, frame data, matchup discussion, and so on and make any kind of decision?

The problem is, A. it's too ambiguous, and B. people are too committed to one side of the aisle or the other.


That why I propose shifting the question completely, and shifting it to stuff that we don't know yet.


Did you hear the podcast? Because what I suggested was to basically form a committee composed of knowledgable intelligent pro and anti ban members (presumably drawn from the BBR) to deal with this (possibly elected by smashboards in some form) and they would negotiate on a criteria that we could take as a community criteria. From there we could add other stages (I think ratification by 2/3rds of the BBR is at least one necessary step).

Additional points would be to make sure that we can apply it to tactics and stages (or anything else relevant) forcing both ends to moderate.


Thoughts?

 

[Tien2500]

Calculators don't give out perfect data because of rounding errors, I can explain why at length if you're interested.


Regardless, I understand why you're saying this, the problem is *guestures dramatically* not enough people agree MK is a sufficient problem for the approach you're looking for.


How do you expect to convince somebody that doesn't think that it's a bad thing for MK to get the win ratio he does? You can't just say, "the stuff he does to the community is bad", when nobody agrees what how much is too much.


Which is why we develop criterias and back them up with data. Because sufficient hard data that matches exactly what we decided as a community that we think is banworthy is pretty much irrefutable. There might be a few hold-outs, but that would put the issue pretty much to rest.


But if he doesn't match it, then we could put it to rest from the opposite end.





The problem is, A. it's too ambiguous, and B. people are too committed to one side of the aisle or the other.


That why I propose shifting the question completely, and shifting it to stuff that we don't know yet.


Did you hear the podcast? Because what I suggested was to basically form a committee composed of knowledgable intelligent pro and anti ban members (presumably drawn from the BBR) to deal with this (possibly elected by smashboards in some form) and they would negotiate on a criteria that we could take as a community criteria. From there we could add other stages (I think ratification by 2/3rds of the BBR is at least one necessary step).

Additional points would be to make sure that we can apply it to tactics and stages (or anything else relevant) forcing both ends to moderate.


Thoughts?

The problem with criteria is that we're not making a criteria for a hypothetical dominant character that may arise. We're making criteria for a character here. Many in the BBR are already biased so you'll have anti-bans developing a criteria that excludes MK and pro-ban making an agenda that wouldn't.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The problem with criteria is that we're not making a criteria for a hypothetical dominant character that may arise. We're making criteria for a character here. Many in the BBR are already biased so you'll have anti-bans developing a criteria that excludes MK and pro-ban making an agenda that wouldn't.

That's why we base it on data don't we already know, it curbs that bias a great deal.




We'd make it apply to other things (stages, tactics).


You'll notice that the more pro-ban areas tend to have more liberal stagelists and tend to ban DDD's infinite and planking less. At the same time, anti-ban areas tend to have less liberal stagelists and tend to ban "bad tactics" more. This forces both sides to moderate to protect their other views.

 

[Nanaki]

The problem is, A. it's too ambiguous, and B. people are too committed to one side of the aisle or the other.


That why I propose shifting the question completely, and shifting it to stuff that we don't know yet.


Did you hear the podcast? Because what I suggested was to basically form a committee composed of knowledgable intelligent pro and anti ban members (presumably drawn from the BBR) to deal with this (possibly elected by smashboards in some form) and they would negotiate on a criteria that we could take as a community criteria. From there we could add other stages (I think ratification by 2/3rds of the BBR is at least one necessary step).

Additional points would be to make sure that we can apply it to tactics and stages (or anything else relevant) forcing both ends to moderate.


Thoughts?

I did hear the podcast, but to be honest I don't remember it all that well, sorry.

I like your idea, but I thought that was what happened after the last 'MK Ban Vote'. I thought people on both sides came together and talked about it, and came away with reasons he shouldn't be banned. I think OS has posted them several times in this thread. Maybe that wasn't an 'official' enough gathering for it to matter, though. Nonetheless, I know there hasn't been a 2/3 majority vote in the SBR to ban him, so you've got me there -that seems like a logical, necessary step for a SBR ban.

As pretty much this entire conversation has become throwing arbitrary facts around, we might as well make compromises on which arbitrary facts matter and which don't. I agree with you there.

I think you'll have a pretty hard time applying it to tactics, though. Stages yes, they're easy enough to pick apart. Something like planking, though, is such a judgement call that you almost have to just approach it from a 'How hard is this to police?' type standpoint.

tl;dr: good plan, difficult execution.

 

[Chuee]

And why is MK still doing so well? Are the other top players just not good enough to exploit this flaw, or does MK have ways of taking care of this flaw? I've never seen MKs jumping at you from across the stage, they always run and tay on the ground unless a jump is called for, and when they get close enough THEN they jump and attack. Tornado is a very good aerial plus an anti-air attack AND has GREAT aerial mobility.

That might seem like it's a bad weakness when compared to other characters... But when you factor everything else in like dash speed, walk speed, jump speed, acceleration, start-up on all attacks, endlag on all attacks, disjoints, priority, and aerial movement-altering maneuvers (glide, tornado, drill, downB)... His slow horizontal aerial movement isn't as exploitable as the data implies. The only character that I've seen that literally gives MK no choice but to take to the air earlier than he should is Diddy, and it's because his ground game is the best in the game.

MK has a few small weakness', but he doesn't have an ***load of strengths like Snake does. This is why most of his MU's are around 60-40.

 

[Tien2500]

That's why we base it on data don't we already know, it curbs that bias a great deal.




We'd make it apply to other things (stages, tactics).


You'll notice that the more pro-ban areas tend to have more liberal stagelists and tend to ban DDD's infinite and planking less. At the same time, anti-ban areas tend to have less liberal stagelists and tend to ban "bad tactics" more. This forces both sides to moderate to protect their other views.

By data we don't already know what exactly are you looking for? Please dumb it down for me to the basics.

Also I think that stages/tactice need a separate criteria for banning.

MK has a few small weakness', but he doesn't have an ***load of strengths like Snake does. This is why most of his MU's are around 60-40.

He has the best recovery in the game, the best edgeguarding in the game, an incredibly fast moveset, five jumps, disjointed aerials including his down and up A... etc. He has a ton of strengths.

 

[Kewkky]

Calculators don't give out perfect data because of rounding errors, I can explain why at length if you're interested.

Naw, don't worry about it, I understand more or less how and why it happens. I just wanted to find an example to put at the end of my post, and that seemed to be the best one since it shows that data we receive and view isn't always right.

Regardless, I understand why you're saying this, the problem is *guestures dramatically* not enough people agree MK is a sufficient problem for the approach you're looking for.

How do you expect to convince somebody that doesn't think that it's a bad thing for MK to get the win ratio he does? You can't just say, "the stuff he does to the community is bad", when nobody agrees what how much is too much.

I know, and it's hard to convince them too. We can't get any proof at all to back this up so it all ends up being theories. Only thing we can do is hope to change people's minds by finding moments in the game's life that make our theories stronger.

Which is why we develop criterias and back them up with data. Because sufficient hard data that matches exactly what we decided as a community that we think is banworthy is pretty much irrefutable. There might be a few hold-outs, but that would put the issue pretty much to rest.

But if he doesn't match it, then we could put it to rest from the opposite end.

Some argue that it's too late to find a criteria since we already have a problem on our hands and will base our criteria on our standing in this problem, and although I personally would try to be as unbiased as possible, I can't assure anyone that I won't try to fit MK into my own criteria. We CAN still make it, but it would be better to work on it in a place where people can't see it/reply to it until it's finished... I wonder if the SBR-B would be willing to do this, or if they're already working on one.

 

[Turbo Ether]

I like how anti-ban has thrown around the term "lazy". There are character boards with countless pages of discussion, specifically regarding the MK matchup, over the course of two years, and they still haven't cracked the matchup. Are these people lazy? Has the MK board put as much effort into figuring out any specific matchup, as other boards have with the MK matchup? I'm curious.

 

[Omni]

from the BBR. doing a bit of information gathering.

All the Nationals as of 1 year ago (no srsly exactly 1 year ago):

(Feb 2009) Clash of the Titans IV:
1: Mew2King
2: Ally
3: Spammer
4: Dojo
5: NinjaLink
5: Lee
7: ChuDat
7: Judge

Omni's Comments: 6 different characters. M2K takes 1st place with Metaknight. Half of the Top 8 are MK's while there are no repeats with the other characters. You definitely see Metaknight dominating here in numbers and in rank. Note ADHD doesn't even exist at this point.

(April 2009) World HOBO:
1: M2K
2: Dojo
3: DSF
4: Lee Martin
5: Tyrant
5: Co18
7: Domo
7: Melee1

Omni's Comments: What a nightmare! 4 Metaknight mains placing Top 8? 3 other non-MK mains using MK to counterpick or for bad match-ups. The only person who didn't touch MK was CO18's DDD. The only argument anti-ban had for this tournament were the lack of non-MK mains (Anther, Atomsk, ADHD, Ally, Ninjalink, Chu, DEHF, etc.) Regardless, these are the results. Metaknight dominating hardcore.

(May 2009) Apex:
1: Ally
2: M2K
3: Lain
4: Anti
5: kszizzle
5: Atomsk
7: ADHD
7: Anther

Omni's Comments: Ally places over M2K. The Metaknight population drops drastically while newcomers like Anther, Lain, ADHD, and Atomsk break the Top 8 barrier. This happened a month after WHOBO. With the ongoing trend these results did come as a surprise.

(July 2009) Genesis:
1: Ally
2: M2K
3: Tyrant
4: Dojo
5: ADHD
5: DEHF
7: SK92
7: Fiction

Omni's Comments: Ally places over M2K again and overcomes the 3 MK powerhouses who place behind. Note ADHD's progress from 7th to 5th and Ally holding on to his throne. Also, only 5 characters used here.

(August 2009) SNES:
1: ADHD
2: Ally
3: M2K
4: Lain
5: Atomsk
5: Anther
7: PikaPika
7: Reflex

Omni's Comments: ADHD takes the throne over Ally who gets 2nd. M2K drops to 3rd and is the only MK in Top 8. I'm really surprised there aren't more. It's like the exact opposite of WHOBO. Anyway, I'm proud of ADHD's growth.

(January 2010) Pound 4:
1: ADHD
2: M2K
3: Ally
4: ksizzle
5: Shadow
5: Judge
7: Havok
7: Logic

Omni's Comments: ADHD keeps his crown. M2K overtakes Ally. Then 4 more MK mains trail with a lonely Olimar. ksizzle and Shadow are new MK Top 8 entrants. MK dominates this tournament 4th place and below. Top 3 still consist of 3 different characters. Was debating whether to place MK next to his name since his only win with him was 1st Round against Cable. From that point he stayed Snake, however, it doesn't take away from the fact that he did advance with Metaknight.

-------

Overall Comments:
M2K, Ally, and ADHD all share two 1st place national victories with Ally being the most consistent. It has been 9 months since Metaknight has taken 1st at a National. The trends from previous tournaments were not very accurate when presuming the results of the next tournament. It seems that due to under representation of non-MK characters each tournament has a larger number of top MK's always present. However, when the non-MK players are present then the results differ drastically.

Obviously, these results will reflect a different view on the person who's reading them. I see results that tend to fluctuate from absolute MK dominance (WHOBO, Pound 4) to barely no MK dominance at all (SNES, Apex). That fluctuation, imo, represents an absence of stagnation in the metagame.

Personally, I am content with these results.

i have more to add on to this. just doing some research from a national, regional, and local point of view. if u see a mistake in the results, let me know and i'll fix it. also, i'm only using Top 8 because Ankoku's list only has character representation from Top 8. the same will apply to both regionals and locals.

feel free to view this information and interpret it in anyway you'd like. i understand that it may be drastically different depending on who you are so do not think my comments are absolutes that i am drawing an attempting to persuade you to uphold. it is how i view the data

------

@OS: Hopefully the above address points of your question. If not, let me know. I'd also appreciate if you addressed my last post considering I'm completely fine with addressing your points.

@everyone else: expect 2 more lists to be presented from both a regional and local perspective. i have been talking with ankoku about how to avoid cherrypicking so people do not think i am attempting to manipulate the data to push an agenda. therefore, since there is not a set definition for "recent metagame" or "regionals" from "locals" i have decided:

recent metagame = 3 months aka the previous quarter
regionals = tournaments with a "significant" (subjective) amount of OOS's and at least 32 entrants
locals = tournaments that do not fit the description of regionals or locals

thoughts, corrects, comments before i move on?

 

[Justblaze647]

Reflex is my hero

 

[Kewkky]

MK has a few small weakness', but he doesn't have an ***load of strengths like Snake does. This is why most of his MU's are around 60-40.

I'd much rather have 60:40's on the vast majority of the cast than 70:30 on half and 40:60 on the rest. 60:40 might not be as huge an advantage as 70:30, but at least you know there's barely anything to fear in the tourney scene.

Few weaknesses + lots of strengths > more weaknesses + larger amounts of strengths in the "balance" scale.

I like how anti-ban has thrown around the term "lazy". There are character boards with countless pages of discussion, specifically regarding the MK matchup, over the course of two years, and they still haven't cracked the matchup. Are these people lazy? Has the MK board put as much effort into figuring out any specific matchup, as other boards have with the MK matchup? I'm curious.

It's not anti-ban in general, it's just one/two douches who assume the people who complain are all low/mid-level players and want to make the game easier. They refuse to at least understand why we're frustrated at MK, so they just spam. Next time someone says something, I'm gonna report (why haven't I done this yet? ).

 

[Omni]

to: OS
from: Omni with <3

------

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.

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.

Overswarm.

The first post was directed to someone else, but you took a single point from it to ask a question.

The second post was directed toward you but you haven't responded.

Can you address these? I'd like to hear your response on it.

 

[Remzi]

Adumbrodeus:

I believe it was you who proposed that we make a criteria based on information we do not already have. Any suggestions? This is probably the best approach, but I can't think of any set of data we could use that people wouldn't already have at least a very good estimate on.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I like your idea, but I thought that was what happened after the last 'MK Ban Vote'. I thought people on both sides came together and talked about it, and came away with reasons he shouldn't be banned. I think OS has posted them several times in this thread. Maybe that wasn't an 'official' enough gathering for it to matter, though. Nonetheless, I know there hasn't been a 2/3 majority vote in the SBR to ban him, so you've got me there -that seems like a logical, necessary step for a SBR ban.

Well, yea, but that's not what we should be looking for here. A concrete rigid criteria is the intended objective.

As pretty much this entire conversation has become throwing arbitrary facts around, we might as well make compromises on which arbitrary facts matter and which don't. I agree with you there.

Sweet, "which" and "what amount" is what we should be asking ourselves imo.

I think you'll have a pretty hard time applying it to tactics, though. Stages yes, they're easy enough to pick apart. Something like planking, though, is such a judgement call that you almost have to just approach it from a 'How hard is this to police?' type standpoint.

I agree actually, from a pragmatic standpoint, planking if dominant enough, could push MK over the line IMO just on it's merits if it can't be discretely enforcably banned.

By data we don't already know what exactly are you looking for? Please dumb it down for me to the basics.

Also I think that stages/tactice need a separate criteria for banning.

That's what we should be negotiating for, but my top 2 are "mathmatically based MU numbers" (making them immune to personal bias) and statistics showing average performance in the metagame for each character.

Adumbrodeus:

I believe it was you who proposed that we make a criteria based on information we do not already have. Any suggestions? This is probably the best approach, but I can't think of any set of data we could use that people wouldn't already have at least a very good estimate on.

Answered in the response right above this one.

 

[Omni]

also from BBR:
------
for clarification, i believe the MK ban needs to be approached from two perspectives (in order):

1.) character in-game representation. how does he compare with the rest of the cast? what extraordinary abilities exist in the game? what are the attributes of Brawl (weight, power [in terms of damage building], speed, mobility, aerial mobility, priority, etc. and special attributes that can be but not always character specific such as invincibility frame moves, projectiles, chaingrabbing). matchups are also included in this category

2.) character impact on community. tournament results.

the reason i have them in that order is because results without an accurate stance of how that character effects the game is pointless. this is common knowledge and common sense.
-----

would appreciate if everyone commented or gave feedback on what i'm posting so far. thanks!

 

[Nanaki]

It's not anti-ban in general, it's just one/two douches who assume the people who complain are all low/mid-level players and want to make the game easier. They refuse to at least understand why we're frustrated at MK, so they just spam. Next time someone says something, I'm gonna report (why haven't I done this yet? ).

Or you could just get super pissed, quote them, and drop the F bomb 3 times in one post like I did.

Reporting's probably more effective, but I tend to see that as more of a resort for someone posting porn or something really out of line like that.

Honestly though, how can you take a huge population of a gaming community (pretty much everyone but Ally and ADHD) and say 'You suck, you're not trying hard enough"? It's pompous, it's degrading, and it's ridiculous.

Well, yea, but that's not what we should be looking for here. A concrete rigid criteria is the intended objective.

I'm sure they thought their criteria was 'concrete', but whatever. I'm sure there wasn't as much thought behind it as you're proposing.

Sweet, "which" and "what amount" is what we should be asking ourselves imo.

Yep.

I agree actually, from a pragmatic standpoint, planking if dominant enough, could push MK over the line IMO just on it's merits if it can't be discretely enforcably banned.

Yep, it's a weird problem.

That's what we should be negotiating for, but my top 2 are "mathmatically based MU numbers" (making them immune to personal bias) and statistics showing average performance in the metagame for each character.

If you really think matchups can be analyzed mathematically, I'm willing to throw my name in the hat as a tester/analyzer.

 

[Kewkky]

------
for clarification, i believe the MK ban needs to be approached from two perspectives (in order):

1.) character in-game representation. how does he compare with the rest of the cast? what extraordinary abilities exist in the game? what are the attributes of Brawl (weight, power [in terms of damage building], speed, mobility, aerial mobility, priority, etc. and special attributes that can be but not always character specific such as invincibility frame moves, projectiles, chaingrabbing). matchups are also included in this category

2.) character impact on community. tournament results.

the reason i have them in that order is because results without an accurate stance of how that character effects the game is pointless. this is common knowledge and common sense.
-----

I think that this should've been done a while ago. "Character impact on community"... This is why there's always some sort of MK-related debate here and there, why pro-ban is so large. What's making half the community so angry at MK, and way less angry at Snake or the rest of the top tiers? There MUST be something there, since tourney results are fluctuating and all... If MK was as non-dominant as the tourney results show, why so much hate towards him?

 

[solecalibur]

@omni
Like seriously look at all those people playing metaknight congratz two people beat top meta players what about everyone below?
Only time I dont see +3 metas is snes and not 3+ of any other characters .... interesting

 

[Overswarm]

to: OS
from: Omni with <3

------





Overswarm.

The first post was directed to someone else, but you took a single point from it to ask a question.

The second post was directed toward you but you haven't responded.

Can you address these? I'd like to hear your response on it.

@$%^$%

I can't quote your post to quote your old quotes to answer with my own posts you can quote! Now I have to double post!

@OS: Hopefully the above address points of your question. If not, let me know. I'd also appreciate if you addressed my last post considering I'm completely fine with addressing your points.

Next question:

If you removed Ally and ADHD from the equation, would you still be okay? No other changes, just removing them and everyone else moves up to fill the remaining spots. Would you be okay with the results?

 

[etecoon]

@omni
Like seriously look at all those people playing metaknight congratz two people beat top meta players what about everyone below?
Only time I dont see +3 metas is snes and not 3+ of any other characters .... interesting

it's almost like he's the best character in the game or something


also those other tournaments don't count, lets just talk about pound and whobo plz

 

[solecalibur]

it's almost like he's the best character in the game or something


also those other tournaments don't count, lets just talk about pound and whobo plz

I think my point was the abundance of metaknights snake is the 2nd best character or something and yet Ive only seen one national with two snake mainsin the top 7

 

[Omni]

I think that this should've been done a while ago. "Character impact on community"... This is why there's always some sort of MK-related debate here and there, why pro-ban is so large. What's making half the community so angry at MK, and way less angry at Snake or the rest of the top tiers? There MUST be something there, since tourney results are fluctuating and all... If MK was as non-dominant as the tourney results show, why so much hate towards him?

?

The tournament results show that MK is definitely dominant, Kewkky. At least, in my opinion, Metaknight is dominant.

I believe the reason why there is always an issue is because pro-ban will always be allowed to reexamine Metaknight. The community is angry at MK because he is the best character in the game. The hate stems from several possibilities:

1.) That person's character gets dominated by MK.
2.) That person believes MK is unhealthy to the metagame.
3.) That person believes that having more characters as viable would make a better game.
4.) That person doesn't like the fact that there is a clear best character in the game.

There could be more but those are just a few.

However, I don't see this as uncommon or abnormal. Nearly every fighting game community I've been in has had issues or topics where the community was split. It's a controversial topic that can be argued both ways with merit thus it's difficult to pinpoint which direction to move in: a change or the status quo?

That's what I think.

 

[Overswarm]

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.

All data shows otherwise. Please show me your findings showing that other characters, not players, do well against Metaknight. All the data that Crow!, Flayl, and myself have collected have shown that specific players can do well vs. MK but actual characters do not.

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.

People have different viewpoints. What would it take for me to show you that yours was wrong?

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.

You have continuously gone to traditional fighters like Street Fighter as your "base", making comparisons to Akuma, Sagat, Old Sagat, and the like while at the same time telling me "we shouldn't make the game more like melee".

Why should we make it more like Street Fighter

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

Please phrase this in the form of a non-loaded question, or I give you my previous answer.

The community is angry at MK because he is the best character in the game.

Care to back that up? =P

I hate MK because he makes what could be an amazing game into a self-killing mediocre one.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm sure they thought their criteria was 'concrete', but whatever. I'm sure there wasn't as much thought behind it as you're proposing.

By criteria, I mean numbers, the criteria refers to specific numbers that are "too much". Because anything else is open to interpretation.


The criteria was basically (I'm sorry I forget the exact wording, if some SBR member could correct me, I'd be grateful, but this is the gist of it)...


1. So far removed from the game that it detracts from gameplay (think a lot of banned stages, randomness also fits here).

And/or

2. Powerful to the point where it completely dominates the metagame (think stages that are literally auto-win for some characters, like bridge of Eldan for DDD against 90% of the cast).




Now, if those criterias aren't COMPLETELY subject to interpretation, I dunno what is. That makes it non-rigid and pretty difficult to use for situations that aren't clear-cut. This is why some areas have DRASTICALLY different stage-lists then others.

If you really think matchups can be analyzed mathematically, I'm willing to throw my name in the hat as a tester/analyzer.

I wanna get together a project to do it, I started with my "mindgames potential" thread, and I think that could form the base of how we treat this, but there's so many variables to account for, and I need SBR support to make it worthwhile, but it would have to basically account for EVERYTHING (or at least define what is negligible).

 

[6Mizu]

All data shows otherwise. Please show me your findings showing that other characters, not players, do well against Metaknight. All the data that Crow!, Flayl, and myself have collected have shown that specific players can do well vs. MK but actual characters do not.



People have different viewpoints. What would it take for me to show you that yours was wrong?



You have continuously gone to traditional fighters like Street Fighter as your "base", making comparisons to Akuma, Sagat, Old Sagat, and the like while at the same time telling me "we shouldn't make the game more like melee".

Why should we make it more like Street Fighter



Please phrase this in the form of a non-loaded question, or I give you my previous answer.




Care to back that up? =P

I hate MK because he makes what could be an amazing game into a self-killing mediocre one.

OS is ****** this Disscssion!
Also, MK doesn't need ban because "he's broken"......he needs it because "he's dominant".
But, that's a bad reason so I stand by my opinon of MK which:
Quit being

Pu$$ies and learn the MU. He's not broken so stop complaining.

 

[solecalibur]

OS is ****** this Disscssion!
Also, MK doesn't need ban because "he's broken"......he needs it because "he's dominant".
But, that's a bad reason so I stand by my opinon of MK which:
Quit being

Pu$$ies and learn the MU. He's not broken so stop complaining.

Well now that Ive seen a post like this for the 1000th time I think Im gonna go learn the metaknight MU






Oh wait....

 

[6Mizu]

LOL.
Well the only reason you'd see it that many timex if it were true.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

LOL.
Well the only reason you'd see it some many times is if they've learned the MU but it's still severely in MK's advantage.

 

[TLMSheikant]

LOL that's pretty much anti-ban, just a joke. Like kewk said, its kinda insulting that they keep saying probans dont know the matchup. Kewk himself a proban knows the mk matchup inside out and me too. Why am I posting in this thread? *goes back to lurking*

 

[iRJi]

LOL.
Well the only reason you'd see it that many timex if it were true.

False.

We see it so many times because your all dumb.

 

[Overswarm]

False.

We see it so many times because your all dumb.

you're*


also street fighter




as long as we're all posting silly things

 

[swordgard]

False.

We see it so many times because your all dumb.

Stop flaming other people.


Whoever is flaming should just get out of this thread. Whoever also only posts to show their approval of argument A or B should get out too. Unless you have anything relevant to bring, just get out.

 

[Turbo Ether]

But, that's a bad reason so I stand by my opinon of MK which:
Quit being

Pu$$ies and learn the MU.

Lol. Because MKs have obviously put more effort into learning their matchups, than every other character community has on the MK matchup.

 

[Omni]

Next question:

If you removed Ally and ADHD from the equation, would you still be okay? No other changes, just removing them and everyone else moves up to fill the remaining spots. Would you be okay with the results?

Hm. Good question. No, I wouldn't be okay with these specific results.

Ally and ADHD do several things for the community:

1.) They are proof that Snake and Diddy can be great contenders against Metaknight and the rest of the cast.
2.) They give Snake and Diddy player's motivation to reach or even overstep their abilities
3.) They show that they are able to take 1st place in Nationals and be just as tourny viable as Metaknight.

These are the main three I can think off from the top of my head.

If you noticed, the key phrase in my main sentence was specific results.

At a regional/local level, there are several player's outside of ADHD and Ally who consistently take top placements. DEHF's Falco, Mikehaze's Marth, Gnes' Diddy, Razer's Snake, Hunger's Wario, CO18's DDD, Riddle's ZSS (recently), Candy's Snake, Boss' Luigi, Chu's Kirby, Jash's Toon Link, Ninjalink's whatever, Atomsk's whatever, Anti's Snake, Blue Rogue's Wario, Holy Knightmare's ROB, NEO's Marth, Lain's IC's. The player's mentioned are easy contenders from 1st place to 3rd place every regional or local tournament they attend.

From a national/regional/local perspective I would be content with ADHD and Ally being absent. From just a national perspective I would NOT be content.

There are other factors that would play into what my stance on the MK ban would be, but I'm attempting to just answer the question so I'll omit those extra tidbits for now.

 

[iRJi]

Stop flaming other people.


Whoever is flaming should just get out of this thread. Whoever also only posts to show their approval of argument A or B should get out too. Unless you have anything relevant to bring, just get out.

Rawr. Fine, I'll play nice. not like I haven't contributed anything useful. I been doing it since the thread has been unlocked. You just tell that to the other people who keep coming in here and saying dumb things =].

OS: Ty.

 

[Justblaze647]

LOL.
Well the only reason you'd see it some many times is if they've learned the MU but it's still severely in MK's advantage.

This is what you would call a perfect response

 

[Kewkky]

?

The tournament results show that MK is definitely dominant, Kewkky. At least, in my opinion, Metaknight is dominant.

Nonono, you misunderstood me (should've worded better). What I meant when I said "as non-dominant as the results show him" is that he's not shown to be overcentralizing the metagame in some tourneys like some pro-banners like to argue he does (obviously SNES and Apex are the perfect examples). He's dominant, but "not as dominant" as some people imply by looking just at tourney results.

1.) That person's character gets dominated by MK.

Well, yeah, I agree. MK being a disadvantaged MU to the vast majority of the characters PLUS the most common character in the tourney scene should be cause for discontent in the community.

2.) That person believes MK is unhealthy to the metagame.

Everyone has some view to back up this point, but most people are basing it off of OS's gathered data, statistics and arguments... Some people left the game because of MK, and players predict that Brawl will die before Melee does because of MK's advantage on almost everyone and how common he is at tourneys.

3.) That person believes that having more characters as viable would make a better game.

Meh, it's a coin toss at best (which has been a counter-argument in anti-ban's favor, but i agree). I personally think that banning to increase character viability at the highest levels of play is not the way to improve the competitive aspect of our game. The main reason I want MK dealt with is because of how he angers the community, how the community hurts itself by using what they hate the most to try and prove he's detrimental to the metagame. The more people lose what enjoyment they initially found in this game, and the longer Brawl lives, the less people we're going to see until the game dies. It's a blind prediction, but I truly believe that dealing with him will make people's opinion on the game improve and have them enjoy it to its fullest yet again.

4.) That person doesn't like the fact that there is a clear best character in the game.

This is a very crappy reason, but I have to agree some people dislike the idea of a "best character" in Brawl.

However, I don't see this as uncommon or abnormal. Nearly every fighting game community I've been in has had issues or topics where the community was split. It's a controversial topic that can be argued both ways with merit thus it's difficult to pinpoint which direction to move in: a change or the status quo?

It is difficult indeed, we have two outcomes: a longer lifespan and attraction of old and newer players, or a clampdown of the metagame which will end up in the game dying earlier. High risk:high reward, but eventually we're going to have to settle for one of these two options, or the 3rd option which has been brought up on a serious note recently: a temp ban to see how the game resumes after a ban is implemented, completely experimental.

I'd be in for a change, it's nothing that can be undone and it's new, innovative. It has the fresh feeling of a new metagame, we no longer have to worry about a character with an advantage on the vast majority of the cast, which is magnified on the field. Brawl's numerical ratios aren't really the best ratios around, and we have lots of numbers we don't use meaning that we CAN and SHOULD round them up to get a better view of MK and the rest of the characters... But that's just my opinion.

 

[6Mizu]

LOL.
Well the only reason you'd see it some many times is if they've learned the MU but it's still severely in MK's advantage.

Lol. Because MKs have obviously put more effort into learning their matchups, than every other character community has on the MK matchup.

LOL!
Yea, I guess.

Well, If not that than the fact that even if he has lots of representation....he doesn't alway end up wining every tourney. He is defeatable. (maybe not with every chracter).

 

[demonictoonlink]

I know this seems dumb at this point, but if MK is even banned, I'll lead the Snake ban movement.

I know they're not the same, but if MK is banned while Snake is still in I think a lot of us will rage pretty hard :/