Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Seriously your logic....
If the top 10 in a tournament was completely Falcon mains it would be a good indication that Falcon was broken or close to it...
Nobody has claimed that MK cannot be beaten. They claim that the advantage gained by playing MK is great enough to damage the metagame.
If you think OS' data is wrong or biased point out where.
So as long as MK has some amount of lag between his attacks he's not bannable? MK has no problems forcing approaches or with his air game.
Again this is just saying that he can be beaten which we all know.
Actually yes that is essentially what an outlier is. In ANY serious statistical analysis if someone is more than three standard deviations (I think) from the norm you throw out their data. This is the way stats are done. If you're measuring the IQ score of 20 different people and you have someone with an IQ of 250 you throw them out of the data. If someone has an IQ of 20 you throw them out two. Otherwise your data is skewed and wrong.
I don't think you understand what you are saying here. In this case you ARE an outlier. You are significantly better than everyone else so winning the tournament is a result of how good YOU are. Not how good FALCO is. Falco is not broken, you are. Overswarm is making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. That Ally, M2K, and ADHD are winning because they far surpass normal players, not because of their characters.
We've already been through these arguments and we've already countered these arguments, but for some reason, they keep coming up.
"An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs."
Explain why the following are banned:
I'm not sure exactly what your example shows, but yes, outliers screw up data when you add them to the mix.
Also, this isn't true. I've proven Ally and ADHD are, in fact, outliers... on several occasions. Here's the most recent:
Yes. Official ban criteria will be difficult to create.
You may be right, but we won't know until some action is taken. We know some characters will be used more with MK's absence, but like you said, I haven't seen much talk about the effect on other characters either. It probably should be discussed some more. It might boil down to "x characters becoming more viable is worth y characters becoming a little less".
The term outlier is not subjective. It is a well defined term in statistics when someone is three deviations outside the norm. Falco is not an outlier. You are an outlier because you are presumably 3 standard deviations of smash skill away from your opponents.
One key difference here is that in Pokemon you choose a team of six pokemon whereas in Brawl you pick one character.
Thoughts in bold.
36% for Meta Knight?
Meh, overcentralizing is defined by each person's view of what it takes for the game to be unhealthy, so instead of trying to define the word, OS let numbers do the defining. There's still debate here and there because some people don't agree that the data shows any overcentralization and that the dominance of MK is just an illusion set forth by our need to do better in tourneys... But that's both stupid and wrong. People who say that aren't taken seriously, which is why I'm guessing Tommy wasn't getting any responses until now.
See, the difference between Pokemon and other competitive games where we choose characters... Is that in other games we choose 1/2 characters regularly for a single tourney, whereas in Pokemon you choose no more/less than 6. It's obvious garchomp would be used, everyone could make room for him in their parties. In Brawl, splitting time between two characters splits your total efficiency when you really need to use one of your two characters to their fullest degree (ie. a bad MU for both of your mains, or against an amazing player).
3 standard deviations away is 99.7%.
And that's where your eyes should tell you more than the data. Obviously if MK was dominating 65%/99.7% he would be dealt with immediately, the WHOLE community would be complaining! So, for a game with around 39 characters, having someone with 36% character usage is pretty hardcore... A look at the community from an unbiased global perspective back at the last MK Ban poll shows that a bit over half the community wanted MK gone, be it any type of skill-leveled players from top to bottom, whereas less than half the community wanted MK to stay, being aall types of skill levels from top to bottom.
We're not measuring how good MK is.
Pikachu dominated a good +50% of Smash 64, a game with 12 characters; however Isai and SuperBoomfan are arguably at the top of the metagame by playing whoever the hell he wants and Captain Falcon respectively.
My counterarguement here always remains the same.
But none of these things are broken.
So you're saying a "status quo" can exist effectively in a ruleset, and that we can (or should?) keep rules in place even if they're outdated simply because they've been there?
I believe this is an assertion; do you have any data to back this up? From what I've seen, there are multiple high level players doing amazing things with their characters.... but don't have an army behind them. I'm wondering why M2K, who can't teach anything to anyone (trust me, I know; he teaches about as well as a basset hound sings), has an army of MKs when no other character does. I mean Snake has had DSF and Razer and Ally and Anti.... lots of Snakes have been good and have had videos posted online. Lots of communities helped out. Hell, I helped progress the ROB metagame and we DID see more ROBs because of my efforts and teachings... but they all disappeared pretty quickly because of the character's lack of options.
The example was merely to show a difference in skill level; it had nothing to do with MK, but rather the players. "Wolverine" was ADHD, Ally, and M2K. The karate black belt was the standard "top player".
I am pretty good.
Well you say Garchomp is >MK in terms of brokenness but what are you basing that on? Garchomp only makes up about 7% of pokemon usage.
Taking a realistic look at exactly what will happen post-ban based on matchups and current player ratios is something that, hands down, has to be done if a ban is to occur. Part of doing analysis for these types of things is forward modeling, after all.
Another difference between Garchomp's "brokenness" and what people hate about MK is that Pokemon is a turn-based game, and Smash isn't. Garchomp was fast and too powerful, he would almost always have his turn first, and with his attack power KO any opponent with relative ease... THAT is broken in the world of Pokemon, where one death usually deals with one-hit kills and/or critical hits... In Brawl, we don't have this. We play the game, go into a match, and time everything from start to the finish. MK is leagues ahead of everyone below him (besides the only 2 other characters, and they're still disadvantaged) in everything that makes Brawl what it is. MK isn't broken in the sense that he isn't a fast character that can kill you in one hit in a turn-based game.
And we have. We've said a numberof times that the metagame without MK will have some characters do better, some do worse, and others pretty much unaffected due to lack of representation either way. What is now a very dim triangle top tier (MK, Snake and Diddy) will spread out into a larger top tier, with changes at the top more than the bottom... But models aren't always right, we can't completely predict the next event in a series if the data is as arbitrary as a competitive game's, especially one like Smash which is constantly changing. What statistician could've foreseen HDL's Link coming out of nowhere and slapping all players in the face? Who could've guessed Armada would've created such ruckus back at Genesis before it even happened?
A hell of a lot more pokemon... But there's a specific number of pokemon people would even think about using in tourneys. Would you go into a match with a team that revolved around a Farfetch'd? No, because that pokemon is complete garbage in every sense of the word when compared to the overused ones...
I predict that Ally will be unstoppable, should MK be banned.
No offense man but this argument is completely and utterly ridiculous. Pokemon is not a balanced game, is not a fighting game, is not a one on one game. Basing the criteria of what should or should not warrant a ban on a turn based, team RPG is a really silly notion.
In reality, we are basically going in circles with this.This thread gives me Déjà-vu's... I keep seeing things that were already posted and they seem to be exactly the same, same with the responses.
Brawl is even less balanced than Pokemon. This proves nothing.
19.
MK 4020.7 28.8
Snake 2024 14.5
Diddy 1325.6 9.5
Marth 877.9 6.3
Falco 686 4.9
IC 624.5 4.4
Wario 609.6 4.3
Dedede 472.4 3.4
Olimar 358.6 2.6
Lucario 350.4 2.620, actually, when you're considering borderline... which you are in your pokemon count.
OK, let's do some quick math... If you want to truly compare MK's dominance with Garchomp's dominance, so be it.
39 divided by a possible 3 characters any one player can use in a given best of 3 set.
All right, Pika is the clear best.
Slight mistake o your part here. Its understandable.
