Official Metaknight Discussion

[Overswarm]

For Omni

Good!

Now we've established that the actual results aren't acceptable to you; you hinge your beliefs of "it's okay" on the outliers present in the belief that either

A) other people can reach their status via skill

or

B) these characters are national contenders above, on, or near Metaknight.



Well, think up more because 1 and 3 are incorrect and 2 is kind of irrelevant.

Looking at 1 and 3, we can say that you're basically saying "these characters are viable", meaning you're focusing on option B listed above. No mention of A yet, so I'll ignore it.

You say they're "proof", but you've yet to back it up.

If you're assuming that these two players winning with their respective characters shows that a victory screen can be shown for non-MK, bravo. I think you're leaning more towards the idea that "these characters can reliably beat Metaknight in such a fashion that they can be chosen as viable characters for the matchup".

1 Meta Knight (179 top8, 126 top4, 72 top2, 75 wins, 452 total) - 4020.7
2 Snake (131 top8, 71 top4, 39 top2, 48 wins, 289 total) - 2024.0

A Rank «Overused» 20.67%
3 Diddy Kong (76 top8, 31 top4, 23 top2, 23 wins, 153 total) - 1325.6

There's the most recent data for these characters. Ouch! Doesn't look good for Diddy and Snake, but there are a lot of regionals in the mix here. MKs 75 wins trumps Snake's 48 and decimates Diddy's 23, but 2nd place doesn't change either! MKs seem to be doing better across the board in tournaments in general, so let's look closer:

That's the results of all tournaments with 100+ players to date. Doesn't look like they're really shining there, either.

MK is clearly doing leagues better than them, so even if MK CAN be realibly beaten by these characters...... it doesn't make them good choices. MK is still the better choice. You can pick MK and ignore the CP system, or pick Snake and Diddy and get destroyed by it. This is just a drop in the bucket, but let's ignore this for now too.

So do Snake and Diddy REALLY do well against MK, or is it just the players?

Ally recently 3-0'd an MK in Canada that got 2nd place... with captain falcon. Swordgard and HolyNightmare were both in attendance if I recall correctly (stop me if I'm wrong) so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Ally is really good. The "outlier" thing exists, believe it or not; if you're just plain good at smash you can beat people even at a disadvantage. This doesn't mean the character is good or has a good matchup; Falcon gets wreeeeecked by MK. Ally is just really good. I've gotten 1st in my pools using random just because I'm better than my opponents. Anyone can attest to this.

Can we simply trust your judgement?



Watch out for poor statements like these indeed! We haven't seen Ice Climbers do well against MK in a long time so I don't even know HOW they got there.

So, no appealing to authority. We're going to have to use data. Watch out Omni, this involves pictures and numbers.

Let's look at Snake first!

Looking at this we see how Snake has done over time at 150+ players events. That means the big important ones!

Snake HAS done fairly well, but as you can see he's not doing nearly as well as MK. Since MK has been doing so well you'd expect to see Snake matching him but this hasn't been the case at all. This means either

A) Snake DOESN'T do that well vs. MK

B) Snake just gets wrecked by other characters consistently and MK doesn't

You can't make a popularity arguement here; Snake is the 2nd most popular character in the game. If you're going to merely say "MK is more popular so he gets more points" in reference to tournaments from the beginning of Brawl to now with 150+ points, you're stretching the argument. When you're arguing it for the 2nd best character in the game, you're just making **** up.

Using your own research, let's see what we've got at the tournaments you selected yourself! I'm not sure how you collected your data since you merely said "nationals" and then listed many tournaments with varying amounts of entrants and OOSers (hell, SNES was pretty much just an EC tournament + Michigan and isn't a national in the slightest), but let's see how many Snakes are busting the top 8!

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9543115&postcount=3570

Let's see... Ally... DSF (secondary Wario, MK).... Ally again and Anti (secondary MK).... Ally.... Ally.... Ally... and then Ally (secondary MK).

Well ****, what makes you think Snake is the right choice against Metaknight?

Out of 6 tournaments:

Number of Snakes: 8
Number of Metaknights: 24

Number of solo Snake mains (players): ZERO [Ally used MK at pound, or else he'd fit in here]
Number of solo Metaknight mains (players): 7 [M2K, Dojo, Judge, Tyrant, Domo, Shadow, Havok]

That's pretty hard to swallow, no?

Maybe if we zoom out and grab more MKs and just put this contest more in Snake's favor?



Well ****. I have here data of the top MKs and who they lost to from October, November, December, and January. That's the 3 months you said were "recent" plus an extra month!

Razer and Ally are the only Snakes to do it! They are the only "multiple" character on here, but I think this would be an argument to say "Snake does best against MK", not "Snake does well".


You're going to need to support this with more data than "But.. but... but Ally!", because we know the following things to be true:

-Ally has been around for quite some time
-No Snake has been able to emulate his progress [while several MKs haev emulated M2k's]
-Ally is really, really good and can beat people with captain falcon that get 2nd at decent tournaments with a strong top 4

This is what you'd call an "outlier". In fact, he's basically the definition of it.

If Snake was viable against MK, people would be busting him out like clockwork. We've seen this occur in melee, and we've seen it in Brawl. When one character rises up, the characters that do best against him also become popular. Snake hasn't done ****.


While I have your attention (I know you don't like to read dem dere wurds much on account of da brain aches): rules specifically made to hinder MK, starting with IDC and ending with rules for planking, scrooging, anti-counterpick rules, the banning of stages deemed "too gay" because of MK, etc., etc., have increased in number has time has gone on.... but MK's rise hasn't decreased. If anything it's gone up. That means they aren't working.




Hey, the monkey!

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Okay, let's calm down. It's not like Diddy has had worse placing at MK-infested nationals than Snake by a long shot and we've already seen that Snake doesn't do the trick, right?

Let's just go on and pretend the world is a better place, shall we?


What does Diddy look like from your data?

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9543115&postcount=3570

Number of Diddys: 5
Number of Metaknights: 24

Number of solo Diddy mains (players): 2 [ninjalink appears once, the rest are all ADHD]
Number of solo Metaknight mains (players): 7 [M2K, Dojo, Judge, Tyrant, Domo, Shadow, Havok]

Sorry, I was just so surprised that someone can use these characters as viable characters to pick up for high level play that I turned into a pumpkin and vomitted. As if anyone that isn't out of their ****ing mind wouldn't pick Metaknight with these numbers. This is a competitive game, yo. o_O

So we've basically got one guy. Uno. Singular! Une. That is less than two. We've got 7 solo MK mains and that's not counting the number of people using MK and another character! This does not look good for the monkey.

What about the research Flayl did about recent tournaments with the top MKs and-

oh. Just ADHD there too.


YOU ONLY HAVE STATISTICAL OUTLIERS.

THIS IS NOT A RUN AROUND OR EVASION OF YOUR ARGUMENTS.

THIS IS ME TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN'T HIDE BEHIND TWO PEOPLE THAT CLEARLY OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THE NORM

They aren't a trend. They're unique.

If we were arguing about bear attacks in the woods and I said "look at how many bear attacks there were! We need to do something about this!" would you SERIOUSLY say "The bears aren't that big of a deal, there are just a lot of them. Plus there's this one guy that kills them with rocks on a consistent basis, and another one kills them with a stick"? You wouldn't because it wouldn't make any **** sense. It'd make sense if OTHER people could do it, but you wouldn't suggest rocks or sticks to people even if they had no other choice. You'd say RUN THE HELL AWAY. Get out of the situation.

In this case, you're saying Snake and Diddy can work well against MK and.... we're not seeing it. We're seeing two PLAYERS do it. This data can not point to this any more clearly. Seriously, it's pretty **** hard. There is no one backing them up and these are the 2nd and 3rd ranked characters in the game. Popularity isn't an issue here. People have picked up Snake in DROVES and we've got nothing. Diddy has been a popular choice for who knows how long and still we have ADHD and ADHD alone.





B) has been disproven for all intents and purposes. While I can never (because it is literally impossible) tell you that the next tournament won't have 8 Snakes in the top 8 or 8 Diddys in the top 8 or anything else, everything we have in the history of Brawl at the highest level of play shows that Snake and Diddy aren't reliable choices.

In other words, you saying Snake or Diddy are good vs. Metaknight is just as silly as me saying Captain Falcon is because Ally won a tournament's grand finals with him. You can't extrapolate data in this fashion and expect your claims to hold any water.

If you want to go collect data, you need to find the highest placing Snake and Diddy mains and look at their results and then think long and hard about whether it is realistic to expect someone to choose Snake or Diddy when comparing their results to that of Metaknight. If you can't realistically expect anyone to pick Snake or Diddy.... argument is done.





I made suer to give very specific data.



Ah, moving outside of the "outlier" range. Technically this is irrelevant since you wouldn't be okay with the results we have if ADHD and Ally weren't there and I've already kinda shown you that you can't look to them to show ANY trend whatsoever....

So unless you're so absent-minded as to think 1st place is the only place that matters and a pair of super players can be used to shield you against what is actually the norm in tournament play, current results, to you, are unacceptable.

If you can look at the information I just showed you and say that SNAKE and DIDDY, not ADHD and Ally, are worthwhile opponents for Metaknight and viable top level contenders, you're a liar or a mule.

Find some data to support your case.



Wow, that's a long list of players!

Wait....

How'd they do at nationals?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9543115#post9543115

Compare the list you have there to the "nationals". This doesn't look pretty for you, and it seems like you've just got some wishful thinking going on here.

Do you really think that playing at a local level can REALLY show you what you're trying to say? It seems like you're not so much saying what HAS happened, but trying to say "look at what COULD happen", and if that's the case your argument can never be sated.

Not every region HAS Metaknights of worth in it. Picking out local tournaments and saying "lol MK didn't win" is silly when we've got this:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=165954

There's your rankings for all tournaments. No cherry picking involved, everything is weighted, and it is consistent and accepted.





This is understandable. If there was a regional with m2K, Judge, Tyrant, Dojo, Shadow, and Havok and no one else good showed up, you can't expect much else other than 6 MKs in the top placements.

However, I've showed you that Ally and ADHD aren't indicative of anything and you've openly stated that without their influence you would not be content with the data.

How can you be okay with the data only when two outliers that show nothing in the way of trends are present, but not when those outliers are absent? It seems incredibly arbitrary; we know that MK can lose games. That's never been an argument. He HAS a defeat screen.

What he DOESN'T have is a character that can consistently beat him. When playing vs. a MK that knows what he's doing, you literally have to outplay the player, and the evidence we have collected shows this. All in all, Metaknight is the best option.... and not by any small margin.



Please add them now.

For those that missed it, like Omni.

 

[Zozefup]

I'm pretty sure banning MK would hurt the community Red Halberd, not save it.

 

[Kewkky]

I'm pretty sure banning MK would hurt the community Red Halberd, not save it.

What makes you think that? I'm pretty sure myself that banning MK will overall better the community more than leaving MK in it. Maybe for you, your views of the game will not be the same, but there's a load of people waiting for the words "Metaknight is officially banned from tournament play!" to be uttered out of the SBR-B.

 

[BSP]

I read all of OS' post, woot.

I'm pretty sure banning MK would hurt the community Red Halberd, not save it..

How so? Look at what Kewkky said.

And OS... ADHD beat all the best MKs you named. Thats nice that there are more MKs than Diddys..

Of course there are more MKs than Diddys, but OS' point is that it's ADHD (and ally, the other 'outlier') beating the MKs. ADHD beating them and others failing to do so only helps OS' point.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm pretty sure banning MK would hurt the community Red Halberd, not save it.

In the short term, perhaps. But looking at the (admittedly theorycrafted) thoughts brought together by high level players, Brawl is an incredibly deep game with a huge number of very viable characters without him, and no true dominant character without him. In the long term, it would be good for the game.

 

[Zozefup]

there's a load of people waiting for the words "Metaknight is officially banned from tournament play!" to be uttered out of the SBR-B.

there's also a load of people ready to quit when MK gets banned. And since MK is the most played character, expect a TON of players a leave.

Plus it will create a huge divide in the community. Many tournament host will still host tournaments where MK is allowed. Pro-bans will boycott them, and anti-bans will boycott their tournaments. It will create a lot of drama and it will split the community in two, and it will fall a part.

 

[BSP]

there's also a load of people ready to quit when MK gets banned. And since MK is the most played character, expect a TON of players a leave. .

Some of this is theory:

Not really. A lot of people use MK just to fare well against himself (he's that much of a step above everyone else). Since MK is the best, it would be very smart to have him as a secondary. If he gets banned, the people that use him for that purpose do not have to use him now, thus the game can focus on other characters as well. The only people that might leave are the serious MK mains (which is disappointing to me. If a ban would truly help the community, I don't think it should cause that much resentment.)

Plus it will create a huge divide in the community. Many tournament host will still host tournaments where MK is allowed. Pro-bans will boycott them, and anti-bans will boycott their tournaments. It will create a lot of drama and it will split the community in two, and it will fall a part.

This is all theory, just saying.

The boycotting idea is really stretched. I highly doubt people will protest to a type of
tournament, even when there are ones to satisfy their wants.

 

[Dark Fawful]

I'm surprised RedHalberd is pro ban but anyways.

As stated a million other times, not everyone will live up to banning mk in their region and guess what? The community will be divided more than it already is because of this. So i agree with people that say banning mk will just hurt the community.

I'm neutral in this but would rather not see the community hurt more than it is.

 

[HeroMystic]

I'm surprised RedHalberd is pro ban but anyways.

He's actually on the "I don't care" side.

 

[Renegade TX2000]

I disagree.............................. alot of ppl won't leave if mk is banned I mean you didn't see me leave nor quit when mk wasn't banned? lol that pretty much answers your question about how things will go

 

[Kewkky]

A lot of people said "we're gonna quit/change mains to MK if he doesn't get banned", and barely anyone did so when MK was left unbanned. What makes you think that when banning MK, people won't do the same thing, Zozefup?

 

[Flayl]

*cough*adhd*cough*

Here you go, missing the point yet again. Diddy is nowhere near the status of a limping horse. People who want to win big tournaments, the ones with a larger pool of top skilled players, are going to pick high tier characters, that was my point. The higher you want to place, the higher up the tier list you should go. ADHD thinks Diddy goes even with MK. ADHD has spent a lot more time on diddy than MK. Would he place better with MK over Diddy? We don't know, but if skill as a player counts for anything I'd be willing to bet yes.

Then WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE RATIOS FROM? It's a simple question.

WHAT RATIOS? I'm saying no character besides MK goes even with him. You don't need to make ratios to say that. You just need to look at results.

Really? Well according to your definition, Brawl is not competitive as it does not give everyone the same tools and does not rely on skill alone.

It DOES give everyone the same tools, are you stupid? Does the character select screen change specifically just for you? Brawl isn't competitive as a fighter if you pick MK, because the only way the opponent can play a matchup that doesn't give MK an advantage (and thus making skill matter less) is to pick MK him/herself.

You either misread my post, or decided to twist what I was saying into something else in order to make me look stupid.

You stated that in order for a match with MK to be a true battle of skill, the other player would have to pick MK as well. This is obviously true. But it is also true for EVERY OTHER CHARACTER IN THE GAME. Like I said, in order for a Ganon, Sheik, ICs, Marth, Snake, Falcon, etc, etc, etc. match to be based on skill alone, the other character must pick the exact same character. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

That's exactly what I interpreted from your post, and IT IS STUPID. The match begins on the character select screen. Each player picks the character they do best with, if you picked an underperforming character it's ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT. IT'S LIKE CHOOSING NOT TO USE A MOVE. There is no choice involved with MK.

What about Ally? He's arguably the best player in the world, iirc he thinks the matchup is MKs favor (I may be wrong), and he obviously wins a lot of money.

Maybe if you read his interview you would know he wants to be the best Snake player. Fortunately for him Snake only has a mild disadvantage against MK, small enough for him to regularly overcome it with skill alone.

 

[•Col•]

there's also a load of people ready to quit when MK gets banned. And since MK is the most played character, expect a TON of players a leave.

Plus it will create a huge divide in the community. Many tournament host will still host tournaments where MK is allowed. Pro-bans will boycott them, and anti-bans will boycott their tournaments. It will create a lot of drama and it will split the community in two, and it will fall a part.

EVERYONE who plays MK won't quit. A large majority play MK because he's the best character, they'll move on to the second best character. The people who truly play MK only because they enjoyed him, well..... Sorry.

And as for creating a huge divide in the community.... Well, uh.... there's already a huge division, if you haven't noticed. XD

 

[fkacyan]

I would like to pose a question to the pro-ban side:

Let us assume we actually end up banning MK (lol). If another character, then, in the non-MK environment, shows a similar level of dominance, do we then:

a) Unban MK
b) Ban the character

?

Also, lol @ only MK mains being unhappy. I main ZSS and would be forced to pick up another character to deal with Falco if MK got banned.

 

[Kuraudo]

I would like to pose a question to the pro-ban side:

Let us assume we actually end up banning MK (lol). If another character, then, in the non-MK environment, shows a similar level of dominance, do we then:

a) Unban MK
b) Ban the character

?

Also, lol @ only MK mains being unhappy. I main ZSS and would be forced to pick up another character to deal with Falco if MK got banned.

As much as I'd like to say I'm Pro-Ban, I decided to try and stay out of this as best as I could. So...on the fence kinda-sorta?

Either way. There will be a clear-cut character that's above the rest in every game. In my opinion, the problem with MK is HOW he dominates (unless this point has been addressed already, I can shut up. lmao)

Unless Snake or Diddy Kong pull off such nightmare-inducing tactics that Meta Knight can that seperates him from everyone in the game, I don't see anyone else getting banned. Theoretically though?

Pretty sure that MK would get unbanned. It's a matter of what type of dominance is in the metagame, rather then just simply put, whose dominating.

Wow I make no sense. sleep now.

 

[Kewkky]

I would like to pose a question to the pro-ban side:

Let us assume we actually end up banning MK (lol). If another character, then, in the non-MK environment, shows a similar level of dominance, do we then:

a) Unban MK
b) Ban the character

?

In my personal opinion... I don't know which to choose. I could go both ways, each decision being dependent on how the community views the character, what things the character does that makes him dominant, etc...

*If another character turned out to be exactly as dominant as MK (no dead-even MUs except against himself, incredibly gay strategies revolving around pseudo-stalling, ATs working better for him than mostly everyone else making him even better everytime a new AT is found, etc at everything else that makes MK hated), I would probably unban MK. Pretty iffy though, because for all we know, that next character could be the last character to be banned before the game reached some stable ground. HOWEVER! If the character was just as dominant as MK BUT didn't share MK's traits (no dead-even MUs except against himself, incredibly gay strategies revolving around pseudo-stalling, ATs working better for him than mostly everyone else making him even better everytime a new AT is found, etc at everything else that makes MK hated), I wouldn't ban him.

*If it would be painfully obvious that everytime we banned a character, a new one would come up exactly as dominant and with the same traits as the one that just got banned (MK being the first of the chain), I would just unban MK. Why keep banning if we're never gonna have a stable game until a lot of the good characters are gone? That's not competition, nor banning for viability, nor anything else people have brought up to be 'reasons for banning'.

Also, lol @ only MK mains being unhappy. I main ZSS and would be forced to pick up another character to deal with Falco if MK got banned.

I think that's how I started maining Kirby... For ZSS's bad MUs, but then realized Kirby had an easier time overall and helped me place better. Then I went back to ZSS for a bit as a better player and enjoyed her more than ever, and now I can't decide which should be my true primary main. They're both just so good IMO.

 

[Overswarm]

Alright, let's do this: Overswarm's Criteria for a Ban.

The beginning of it ^_^

A video game is competitive if there is an audience for it. Generally, the audience who competes enjoys the game and does not consider it bad. If a video game was BAD there generally would be no audience and with no audience there is no competition.

This isn't true. I've played the card game "war" at least a hundred times in my life. My brothers and I used to play it when we were younger to determine who would do a certain chore or get to play the new video game first. War is, without a doubt, random. It's a prolonged coin flip, but it is still a game with rules and an audience.

Merely having an audience does not make a game competitive.

Unless we're using your interpretation of "bad". In this case, 'bad' is going to be whatever GOOD isn't.

I really wish you didn't use the term "bad". It's such a... eh word.

I use the language of the people, sir. "Bad" really does mean "Not Good" and "worse than completely neutral". There is no completely neutral in anything of this nature in reality, so you could technically replace "bad" with "not good", but I think your attempting to simplify things. I felt the rest of my post was pretty clear.

Very, very surprised to see Overswarm using other games to support his points when he's very quick to criticize others for doing the same. Let's not get into that.

I'm sorry? My point here is "look at successful competitive games" and showing that they all share this. I'm not using other games to support my point here like you do with Street Fighter. I'm not saying "ban Metaknight because Starcraft". I'm saying any competitve game that is to be good needs to have no optimum strategy. When it does, it shrinks and dies. Other people have hit on a few examples of games that have had this occur recently, you can look back for those.

Except we didn't.

If Smash is fun for little kids playing with items why were these items removed? There are many players out there who still wonder why items are removed. Then there are more who question why people who consider items.

I'll highlight some of the text to help you out.

"Smash is fun for little kids playing with items just the same as it is fun for grown men to be playing with items. We can wean ourselves towards a game that fits the above criteria more strictly to create a finer tuned game."

In other words, if a game isn't fun, it won't gain an audience. Most competitive smashers didn't come in playing this game competitively. They started off with items, all stages on random, etc., etc., and had a blast doing it. That's one part of it. The other is people have to actually enjoy the game competitively.

Fun is EXTREMELY subjective. It correlates directly with how well the competitive game is, and determining how well a competitive game is directly correlates with its audience. This is why when Brawl was first released there were dozens of Melee players who dropped Brawl because it was not "fun" to their standards. Yet those who stayed more than likely enjoyed Brawl enough to continue playing for these past 2 years.

I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't say fun wasn't subjective. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't important, Omni.

Fun can not measured directly. It is a perception based upon our current audience attendance which could be more or less given several different reasons.

I'm interested where this fun factor will take us in the future.

Fun can be measured directly, actually.

"Are you having fun?" is responded with a yes or a no. 1 and a 0. Binary. That's why when people say "that's gay" out of ignorance they feel justified in asking to ban something simply because they don't like it. D3's infinite, ICs infinite, Luigi's Mansion, Norfair, Planking, Scrooging, Rainbow Cruise, Lylat, we've got hundreds of examples. It's when ignorance is abolished and someone says "this isn't fun" that you have to pay attention.

Street Fighter 4: Evo 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijhUJTZrxLk
Street Fighter 3: Evo 2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeM0rH_4ung
And just for fun a pretty famous local that took place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4G_QnTfBvA

Street Fighter has always had an amazing attendance number. The 2004 Evo was the earliest footage I could find that showed the audience of a Street Fighter tournament while the 2009 Evo footage is the most recent. Needless to say those are not small numbers.

I'm not referring to a series, Omni. Melee has been around for nearly a decade and it's national numbers are huge.... and it is dying. Brawl is flourishing in comparison. We have 40-60 man locals in Ohio on a consistent basis. Our sales numbers are ridiculous and we have a player pool beyond what most games could ever hope for. Street Fighter has EVO, and we have 8 nationals lined up for this summer already... and those 8 nationals are dwarfed by our regional events.

In Japan and Korea, Street Fighter has MORE attendance on a local, regional, and National level than the US. If you combine the entire SF player database around the world and compare it Smash, SF looks like a giant. Their most recent regional as of Feb 11 had 178 players and 58 teams.

We aren't Japan and Korea, Omni. Please don't try to tell us we should like their game because they do; I'm not an Otaku that worships their culture .

Seriously, you don't eve know. Overswarm harps on SF so much yet he knows diddly squat about the community. The top players become national celebrities and star on tv shows and face-off against idols and all these other ridiculous events. I won't say anymore about this subject at the moment.

Okay? If I was in Japan I wouldn't be telling people how popular Halo was... because it isn't. Not in Japan. It doesn't matter that Halo players are shown on ESPN here or that they buy houses with their paychecks or move to australia with their winnings.


I'm not sure why you're even trying to compare Japanese SF to American Smash. Japanese culture fits with the idea of traditional fighters. America's culture does not. Our time for fighters was looooong ago. Now the smash series trumps all the traditional fighters here, and shooters trump smash.

A game being fun to its audience is important.

Oh, it's here again. That was fast. Hm.

Fun is subjective again. Most people who look at Starcraft at the first time won't even know what's happening. It isn't appealing eye from a new player or newcomers perspective. Even as novice, you may look at high levels of play and not even realize what you're looking at.

Whereas hundreds of kids may look at Mario Party or Brawl and instantly their eyes will light up without ever second guessing it's competitiveness.

Simply put, fun to watch =/= good game. It adds to it being more appealing, but it has nothing to do with it being competitive.

Of course it doesn't. o_O

It does ADD to it, though... and it's an important aspect of the game that isn't really something you can ignore. I'm not sure why you're talking about non-SC players viewing starcraft as I specifically said

"The game is fun to watch
This one is tough, but if it isn't fun to watch it leads to a less competitive game. This doens't mean laymans watching, this means players of the game watching."

but whatever.

If people can watch your game and enjoy it, there's more on the line. It can become a spectator sport, it means there is more to winning a match than being the 1 instead of the 2. It fuels the competitive drive.

Yikes.

So if any character fits this criteria:
1.) Negates having a universal optimum strategy
2.) Makes the game unfun
3.) Makes the game unfun to watch

They need to be banned?

...

Am I reading this right? This your criteria? Uhm... alright. I can't argue with you if that's how you feel. Uh... right moving on. I won't even touch this since there's so much odd about it I wouldn't know where to start.

I'm not sure where you got any of this, exactly.

My criteria for a competitive game is thus:

"-variables in play
(i.e., not a "beaten" game within the realm of human activity, like tic tac toe)

-possibilities for consistent victors based on specific actions and thought processes

-possibilities for consistent losers based on specific actions and thought processes
(this is different than the above; a consistent victor but seemingly random losers below him generally cannot be considered competitive due to the "breakaway" factor, since if the losers are random in nature but the victor is not at a competent level of play, you can generally assume that the game is "finished" before it is actually done, which doesn't make for a good competitive game)

-an audience
(a game with 10 people can be competitive. A game with no players cannot. Simple as that.)
"

none of that is there. The rest is merely what I find to be important in a good competitive game. If something makes the game unfun and unfun of the very players to watch even with ignorance of the situation removed, you should consider removing it if the rest of the game is in opposition to that. Why play a boring game when you could play an awesome fun one by just removing one thing?

This isn't black and white, like mentioned earlier; it's grey. Simplifying it and saying "that isn't fun and thus is banned" is an egregious error and shows a lack of understanding.

Nah, yo. The principle is not the same and an obviously exaggerated example does not support your explanation of ease of use. That was a horrible metaphor.

"High skill cap

In other words, you need to practice. You can't come in and just wreck people naturally. While some people cry foul with Brawl, Brawl fits this criteria quite nicely."

Is what I was referring to.

This also wasn't a metaphor. It was an example on its own and showed no comparison to anything.

My example shows someone being able to win with an incredibly simple strategy that he doesn't have to practice for, and one that obviously lowers entertainment both in forms fo play and viewing. It doesn't allow for variables in play, and since the strategy is so simple it doesn't even allow for consistent victors and losers. The only thing that throws a wrench into the plan is the ability to beat the strategy using a character's f-tilt, which makes it a little more fuzzy... but still pretty clear that mr. f-smash is detrimental to the game.

Are you suggesting that Mew2King sits at home and practices f-smashing in place? Just because Metaknight is an easier character to win with does not mean he is easy to win with. Did you catch that? Mew2King pours LITERALLY hundreds to near thousands of hours into Smash. He is the only Metaknight out of a good solid 13 great ones to win a National. His wins aren't gimme's and they aren't easy.

Here's a more important point: Why does ease of use have anything to do with banning a character? In Brawl, DDD is extremely easy to use when compared to say Pikachu. In Melee, Sheik is extremely easy to use when compared to say Fox. How does this configure into warranting a ban? I guess you believe ease of use constitutes the warranting of a ban, but I don't. I think that's silly

I'm not sure where any of this came from. I wasn't talking about smash at all, and my example fit most, if not all, of the criteria listed above to have both a competitive game and a good game (emphasiso n competitive in general). It seems as if you're setting up a straw man, but I honestly think you just didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Interesting post you have here. Did you notice what you did?

You used "isolated incidents" to prove a point that Ally and ADHD lose to non-MK characters from time to time. However, you do not approve of "isolated incidents" where non-MK characters outplace MK's being used as an argument. Really now?

Maybe you should define "isolated incidents" because it seems to have a different definition depending on when it is most useful for you to use it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Outliers, being M2K, Ally, and ADHD respectively when looking at Brawl as a whole, have lost to non-outliers. Ally and ADHD have lost to several, while M2K has not. These isolated incidences show no trends but DO show something we should look at; this is what I told you earlier, and why my data was posted.

Looking at other metaknights and non-metaknights at lower levels of play, we find that the matchups that are considered "bad" DO exist, and these isolated incidences with the outliers now make more sense. We see Ally losing to CO18 and it raises a marker for us to observe; does D3 REALLY counter Snake, or is CO18 just really good? Is the matchup even and they are just evenly skilled?

So we look at other levels of play and find that, yes, in fact, Dedede does do extraordinarily well against Snake.

Further research into other characters has shown that Metaknight mains consistently show up fighting each other, while other character mains consistently are losing to their bad matchups. This is what you'd call proof of smash being a game of hard counters.

So no, I'm not using isolated incidents in the same way you are. You hold up a few isolated incidences and use them as a shield. I'm not nearly as lazy. I find them and then look for statistical trends over the lifetime of Brawl and find consistent, relevant data.

If you'd like to contest my findings, you've got a lot of research to do because the very act of saying "you're wrong" means you have to prove matchups like ICs vs. Falco really isn't in ICs favor by collecting statistical trends at various levels of play..... and you have to do this with multiple matchups.

Regardless, counterpicking can be used in any competitive fighting game but it is not mandatory nor required for it to be competitive. There is no set "system" that Brawl is confined into following except for the system you have painted to be the most appropriate in your own eyes.

I didn't say counterpicking was required. In many, it isn't. In Brawl, it is.

Our game is set up for counterpicks. It is built into it naturally by design of our tournament level system. If you'd like to propose a new tournament system that doesn't use counterpicks, character changes, or anything like that and still is fair, feel free to do it. Most balanced rulesets from a theoretical perspective actually emphasize counterpicking though (things like Iron man matches), so good luck.

As I said, there is no "set" counterpicking system that establishes that every character needs a counter and/or the loser of the match should be able to put themselves in an advantageous position in the next game.

But if it exists and something in the game doesn't fit with it.... that raises a red flag.

See Pikachu. No counters. Best character on every viable stage. Pikachu could not be counterpicked yet he was tournament viable with contenders such as Kirby and Fox trailing behind.

Smash64 had no competitive following worth mentioning, and I didn't play it competitively. Nor did you, or most of the others here. In addition to this, Smash64 wasn't a game of counterpicking but a game of 0-death combos. "Don't get hit" was the name of the game, and simply picking a character that could do just that while making sure they could hit the opponent was your best possible bet. While counters could have existed, the lowest tiered characters could beat the highest with ease with even a minimal difference in skill level.

I disagree.

Snake has ridiculous weight that allows him to live to 200%+, one of the most versatile and useful projectiles in the game, the capability of wracking damage from a distance and up close, and one of the fastest and strongest kill moves in the game.

Diddy's weight is abnormal if you look at his speed and mobility. He is equipped with possibly the best projectiles in the game that allow him to bring ITEMS into play. Think about it. The banana is an ITEM. His bananas drastically change how a player has to play and guarantees lock combos that can lead to deaths just by tripping on a banana.

Ice Climbers can grab you once and you lose a stock.

Falco can chaingrab people off the stage into spikes that set for automatic deaths. His lasers and overb give Falco one of the better and more safer runaway styles in the game.

A broken character is a character that does not fit the standard laws within a game but rather ignores some or all of these laws giving the character a substantial advantage against the remaining characters.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I specifically mentioned how he broke several fundamental aspects of the game and clearly mentioned that things like "recovery" and "IDC" were negligible, and you come back with "Snake is heavy" and "Diddy brings items"? ROB brings items, Peach brings items, Dedede brings items, G&W brings items... these don't break anything in the game at all.

The closest thing you have to a viable argument is Ice Climbers being able to grab you and take a stock, but that's another argument. You'd have to explain the difference between an IC 0-death and all the other characters 0-deaths, and then show why the ICs were in need of a ban.

And, like I said, "When a character breaks one of the fundamental aspects of the game, he should be looked at closely for a ban". This doesn't mean you say "OMG BAN", and it certainly doesn't mean that you ban whatever is the "best whatever". Best projectile, best jump, none of it matters. They're merely red flags that should make you question their validity when they come up in conjunction with other stimuli.

The "laws" that exist in Brawl relate to a character's attributes that include strength, speed, versatility, weight, recovery, range, size, and other unique attributes that only certain characters have such as invincibility frames on attacks, projectiles, and chaingrabbing.

With that said, I see several characters that separately possess specific attributes that create the contenders that they have become. In a realm that allows all of these extremes and special events happening, I do not see Metaknight as out of place.

I don't think you comprehended this part of the post either. >_>

Overswarm also mentioned the IDC which is pretty much allows MK to be invisible and invincible. This isn't new. In Melee, Ice Climbers' freeze glitch is banned. In Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, Viewtiful Joe had a glitch where he could force his momentum to send him forever to the top of the stage where he could not be touched. That, too, was banned. Any glitch that a character has that can prevent gameplay does not contribute to if that character needs banned. A simple ban easily fixes the problem.

...as I stated earlier:

"but IDC can be banned globally and fairly"


Who are you arguing with?

It's similar to if we found a character that could cancel all vertical momentum so they could always stop from dying off the top, or a character that could stop horizontal movement so they could always DI down. This doesn't necessarily remove them from normal gameplay, but it DOES lead them into question. Same with master hand; he just doesn't fit in the game because he can't lose a stock, so you have to ask "should he be here?" and look at it

you just copied what I said o_O

A large majority of players choose Smashville from what I've noticed. That does not mean you have to question if it should exist. If you see one character choosing a stage 100% of the time it means that character can execute its abilities to the fullest on that stage. That doesn't reflect dominance in the least bit.

Well, you're going to need to show some data. From the research we did early on with stage striking, the most popular stage was Delfino.... which was then removed, because we also found it resulted in inconsistent victories. Because it was so dominantly chosen, we knew to look at it because it had such a big effect on the game. After careful research, we found it's unusual methods of getting KOs, (water spikes, stage lifting off, walk-off ledges, wall infinites, d-tilt locks off the side, etc., etc.), while okay, didn't result in consistent victory where it should. In short, we couldn't get a consistent winner and Delfino was clearly a counterpick stage.

If Smashville is used repeatedly and is incredibly dominant, we have to look at that too. Many regions are now wising up because they've found that in many matchups, battlefield and smashville are always the last two. This was a red flag; we then found that many characters actually use these stages as their counterpicks. Having one of your counterpicks guaranteed for the first stage is an unfair advantage, and this has resulted in many regions looking into going back to 7 or 9 starters and away from 5. It is one of the primary reasons that I am using custom stages for my experiment with the midwest circuit, and is why Cataclysm 5 introduces them for the first time to a national.

So, in other words, other people noticed that smashville was common too. Then they realized why, found the problems associated with it, and now we're working on fixing them.

aka best character in the game.

Choosing any character that is not the best character in the game does not equate to losing just as choosing the best character in the game does not guarantee a win. See: ADHD, Ally, M2K or every single instance where a Metaknight loses to a non-MK player.

"The best character in the game" doesn't fit the description I posted at all, in any way shape or form.

Undisputed dominance in conjunction with other criteria can lead to a ban. Undisputed dominance means there is literally no statistical hope for a changing of the guard. This piece in your game is the best, gives you the best chance of winning, and not picking it is anti-competitive in nature, thus inevitably swirling the game down the toilet.

Simply saying "best character" doesn't cut it.

Best characters DO exist in competitive video games. As long as that character fits within the realm of the game when compared to the rest of the cast then it is fine.

Metaknight is not a broken character. He does not possess special abilities that cannot be compared to other character's special abilities in terms of usefulness although he may possess the best of them. Players can abuse Metaknight's light weight (Snake). Players can abuse Metaknight's lack of projectiles to force Metaknight to approach (Snake, Diddy, Falco). Unlike most broken characters he has several weaknesses that can be exploited.

These are not traits of a broken character nor are they traits of a character that need to be banned. The premise of a best character existing is not a reason that constitutes a ban.

[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Who said anything about broken? That's your criteria, not mine. Get your head on straight. I'm not wearing horse blinders and I don't see things in black and white; there is obviously grey area in competitive gaming.

Despite your theoretical argumentation in the last few paragraphs, results show otherwise. I have actual results, Omni. You're just hoping for a change based on a few outliers.... and while I am too, I'm just smart enough to know it isn't coming.

 

[BSP]

I would like to pose a question to the pro-ban side:

Let us assume we actually end up banning MK (lol). If another character, then, in the non-MK environment, shows a similar level of dominance, do we then:.

I highly doubt any character could create such a gap that MK has. The most likely are Snake and Diddy, but it's hard to say if such could happen since we don't have anything to look at. But if MK is banned, more D3 and Luigi will probably emerge. It's hard to say, but it's unlikely that any character will dominate like MK.

Also, lol @ only MK mains being unhappy. I main ZSS and would be forced to pick up another character to deal with Falco if MK got banned.

Well, would the ban make you quit brawl? Because if it did, that would mean you quit because you'd see a bad MU more, which really isn't a great reason. Plus, isn't Falco already around a good deal? He fares ok against MK.

 

[Orion*]

. ADHD thinks Diddy goes even with MK. ADHD has spent a lot more time on diddy than MK. Would he place better with MK over Diddy? We don't know, but if skill as a player counts for anything I'd be willing to bet yes.

LOL. no. theres something called talent, and most people tend to only have it with 1 character. a spare few like lets say atomsk or ninja link can play a lot, but unless your character is already awful (lets say Ganon for the sake of other character mains trying to argue with me that their character will not suck with mk gone ) changing to another main will not make you do better.

i am actually, proof of this to some degree. i mained falco, and after a while got frustrated and went mk. i Immediately placed better. however i could not beat anyone good. i could get past the scrub rounds, thats it. i actually went all mk in tournaments for at least like 6 months probably more, and then i randomly pulled out falco out of boredom.
i ended up beating ninja link game 3 and malcolmm game 2 with him despite not practicing him that tournament. its because i have talent with him, not because hes "better".

 

[iRJi]

I would like to pose a question to the pro-ban side:

Let us assume we actually end up banning MK (lol). If another character, then, in the non-MK environment, shows a similar level of dominance, do we then:

a) Unban MK
b) Ban the character

?

Also, lol @ only MK mains being unhappy. I main ZSS and would be forced to pick up another character to deal with Falco if MK got banned.

Neither... You need a 3rd option which is, "Or does it depend on the character" I am pretty sure that no one here is just banning MK for dominance, or at least I am not anyway. As of right now, MK is the only one that isn't match in terms of character MU/Stage selection. If he was banned, and lets take... Marth as an example, would rise in the list to become as dominate, he wouldn't qualify imo because he actually has characters that counter him. It is like i said, it depends on the situation. If someone was proven to not have a realistic counter, and because of that was dominating the tournament scene, then the unban of MK would be inevitable due to the concept. If the same results happen, why not unban mk. It would be obvious that banning him at that point would only lead to a chain.

Of course, this is my opinion.

 

[iRJi]

I disagree.............................. alot of ppl won't leave if mk is banned I mean you didn't see me leave nor quit when mk wasn't banned? lol that pretty much answers your question about how things will go

This...

This too.

When something like this is brought up, you always need to ask if the vise versa can be said about it. This is why I tend to ignore people when they say "If MK gets banned, ill quit. because of this it will be the result." Realistically, it is not going to happen.

If statements:

Anti ban says eople will quit because MK is banned.

Then/

Pro ban statement says: People will quit if he does not get banned.

Things like this start a loop, and no one actually question these ind of statements but a select few. normally, when you throw an if statement, it can be retaliated by the opposing sides if statement. You ask why? I ask why not?

 

[Overswarm]

I highly doubt any character could create such a gap that MK has. The most likely are Snake and Diddy, but it's hard to say if such could happen since we don't have anything to look at. But if MK is banned, more D3 and Luigi will probably emerge. It's hard to say, but it's unlikely that any character will dominate like MK.

From all the data I've gathered, initial results should show the same spattering of seemingly random characters followed by Snake and Diddy taking the top points spots; they'll basically be sharing what was originally held by Metaknight. You should see a few questionable characters come up that don't seem to make sense in terms of what we see now because of the new "holes" in placements. Nationals will be incredibly interesting, for sure.

It's after the first few months that you'll really start to see incredible change.

 

[ANTi_]

You heard it folks. From the top player who is actually cool. :V M2KFTL

He juss mad cuz M2K timed him out and took $600+ rofl.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Theo, you would actually be less likely to need a secondary to vs. Falco if ICs became more popular. If ICs were more common, Falco would be nigh inviable like DK or something.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Anti Ban is so gay. Pro Ban has better points than Anti Ban.

Ally is the best player on the continent. It's almost ridiculous how much harder he's working in his matches against the top-level MKs. He has way, way more high-level MK experience, than the MKs have high-level Snake experience, and he still barely wins (sometimes he loses, MK wins the matchup).

.......

Yeah.

 

[ANTi_]

I played Anther this past weekend, and he beat me HALF our friendlies. Luckily, Lain was on Anther's side of the bracket, and my side was a lot easier. I beat Lain 6-1, almost every game being last stock except for 2 2 stocks, one on RC I forget the other stage, and him winning a game 1 stock 30% mostly thanks to being CGed every stock. Plenty of other characters can be really good, but few people play them because 1) everyones a baby and wants to use MK cuz smashboards complains about him to the point where everyone thinks its the easy answer 2) they aren't as easy to pick up at a lower level (but this game is easy compared to melee anyway so who cares). ADHD ***** me, NinjaLink has beaten me in 2 sets last year, SK beat me half our friendlies at Evo, DEHF dominates the WC, and Fiction has beaten me in a set. I'm the best MK player and come off of a lot of melee skill. On top of that, I taught Havok, Tyrant, DSF, Dojo, Ksizzle, Inui, Atomsk, Spammer, Judge, and probably other people I'm forgetting a lot about the character, through various ways (tons of friendlies, or long aim convos, showing them stuff in person, or in Judge's case playing him at a lot of tournaments). I teach them all a lot of stuff and in return I learned random things from playing them or talking to them too. The sharing of knowledge is what allowed MK to grow so fast to get to the level he's at now. MKs know a lot more than they would have normally because of this. Combine that with all the other reasons listed above and you will see he's not as dominant as it seems ESPECIALLY when you are using biased tourneys. Because Genesis and Pound4 supports your case, you constantly bring these up. You ignore tourneys like SNES where I was the only MK in the top 8, (maybe Anti got 7th I'm not 100% sure) getting 3-0d by Ally and 3-1d by ADHD, on East Coast no less, the most MK dominated place. You will use biased results and even lie with your results such as displaying Ksizl beating Judge and then put MK next to Ksizls name even though Ksizl lost with MK and then 2-0d Judge with Lucario. On top of that, the last time MK actually won a big tourney is like.. me, and that's only OCCASIONALLY. You use biased numbers and exaggerations and use only tourneys which support your case then display the data in a biased fashion which everyone else will just buy into. The character is not nearly as amazing as your extremely biased results show, especially if you consider everything I said. You should probably start doing commercials because the way the world works everyone will buy into the biased data charts you make and you'll become rich; you seem very good at this.

Nahh daww i didnt enter at SNES.

OH **** ONLY TOP MK WHO WASNT TRAINED UNDER M2K'S WING.

 

[HeroMystic]

How can you read that giant blob of text?

 

[ANTi_]

How can you read that giant blob of text?

Put a ruler under every line...

 

[Nanaki]

Well, would the ban make you quit brawl? Because if it did, that would mean you quit because you'd see a bad MU more, which really isn't a great reason. Plus, isn't Falco already around a good deal? He fares ok against MK.

I'm pretty sure he uses MK as his secondary for Falco. That's what he's getting at.

...right?

 

[Tommy_G]

Overcentralization doesn't make a character the best character in the game.
Everyone playing Ryu in SF4 doesn't make him better than Sagat.
Overcentralization isn't enough to ban a character. If top 10 in a tournament was won completely by C Falcon players, C Falcon would overcentralize the game, but he's not broken.

People think he's broken so they play him; however, they don't win. How are they losing if this character is the ultimate bannable character?

Omni, anti-ban isn't coming up with good arguments because we've already been through this over and over. OS is just going to get MK banned by irritating the hell out of us with biased graphs that don't mean anything. "Fine OS, we'll ban MK if you just shut the hell up already"
-except we're not ever banning MK because he's not broken-

My criteria for broken:
-Has an infinite impenetrable loop or someone who can infinitely stall that cannot be resolved by banning certain maintainable tactics(i.e. ledge grab rule, although it's not that bad, and understage passing limits.) Akuma had an impenetrable loop with air fireballs and supers.

-A character with no weaknesses. MK still has periods in between attacks where he's vulnerable as well as his aerial movement being sub-par and no projectiles to force approaches. MK has weaknesses, plenty of them. There have been a lot of players who have been able to figure out how to minimize these weaknesses simply because there are a lot of them. New people pick him up because these players have already found out how to use MK better while other characters are still learning. MK still has negative frame advantage like all of the rest of the characters if you look at his frame data.

Spacing and Zoning-every character can get through other characters spacing with the right movements and timing. Spacing is just a scare factor and doesn't contribute to a character being broken unless it creates an impenetrable infinite loop.
Every single one of MK advantages in game are simply good enough to make him good, not broken.

M2K was winning with DDD before he went MK. He wins because he's a good, smart player. Same with Ally, ADHD, Azen, DEHF, Anther, and all other top placing players.

The term "outlier" apparently means "he screws up my data so I'm not going to include him"
At my house party, we played a mini tournament and first place was me with falco, second was my friend with Falco, third was my cousin with Snake, and fourth was my sister with Pit. We only had 4 people enter. I consider everyone good who goes to legitimate tournaments as "outliers" Therefore, Falco is the best character in the game and should be banned.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

I Need Line Breaks. Common man pressing the return key is not that hard

 

[Overswarm]

-except we're not ever banning MK because he's not broken-

Do you think broken is the only viable reason for banning anything?

 

[fkacyan]

I'm pretty sure he uses MK as his secondary for Falco. That's what he's getting at.

...right?

Yep.

The issue I'm trying to get at here is that other characters becoming more heavily-used will cause some characters who did decently against MK but more poorly against characters MK countered or did well against will get even worse as a result. More Marths and Falcos will be absolutely terrible for ZSS.

I mean, obviously we're not going this on account of one character (COUGHOSISREALLYONLYTHISBUTTHURTBECAUSEHEISAROBMAINCOUGH), or not do this on account of one characters, but potential side-effects of a ban are always something to think about, and honestly it's one of the things I've seen discussed the least.

 

[Tommy_G]

Do you think broken is the only viable reason for banning anything?

Not broken=beatable=get better.
There are at least 2 other examples that are worse than MK that I can give that aren't banned.

But you probably wouldn't credit it as being relevant.

 

[Overswarm]

Not broken=beatable=get better.

So that's a yes?

"If something isn't broken (i.e., if something is beatable), it shouldn't be banned"?

Please clarify if I'm missing anything else.

 

[BSP]

Tommy_G, we know that MK is not broken, and we've seen that with tourney results, but there are other reasons for warranting a ban on MK.

ninja'd.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I still eagerly await this new AT from OS...

 

[Overswarm]

It looks as if I might not be going to a tournament this weekend, so I'll have time

 

[Tommy_G]

What other reason could a character warrant a ban besides being unbeatable?

Also: The term "outlier" apparently means "he screws up my data so I'm not going to include him"
At my house party, we played a mini tournament and first place was me with falco, second was my friend with Falco, third was my cousin with Snake, and fourth was my sister with Pit. We only had 4 people enter. I consider everyone good who goes to legitimate tournaments as "outliers" Therefore, Falco is the best character in the game and should be banned by overcentralizing the game to 50% of tournament winnings.

 

[fkacyan]

Tommy_G, we know that MK is not broken, and we've seen that with tourney results, but there are other reasons for warranting a ban on MK.

ninja'd.

The issue here is that ban criteria varies from person to person. What warrants a ban is based on an individual's opinion, which is one of the main reasons there is such a huge debate.