ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
I read it and I agreed with it which is why i didnt say anything.
-
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!
Proving Whether or Not MK is bannable with Data: A community to do list
- Thread starter adumbrodeus
- Start date
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
Thanks for clearing that up, SL
Beren Zaiga
Smash Ace
Two words defeat the whole "There is no reason to pick the 49 character", and "why you would want to screw yourself" lines.
Its called...
Personal Preference
*Boom!*
That was that entire statement going up in flames.
Have a nice day.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
No problem =)
The funny thing is that this is exactly the same situation we were in when people ran around screaming their heads off about how good Snake was at the very beginning. MK is no different; even some of his matchups are evening out. Snake arguably goes even with him, maybe even a bit better, and like someone mentioned before Wario has a neutral matchup with him.
Overclassed
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 246
@ Ally vs M2K
This match as an argument against banning is as unfounded as the argument that HOBO was proof he should be banned.
@ SL
Ah. I guess I just get antsy when my posts go uncommented. I'm probably too mindful of the '45' under my join date.
@ Swordguard
Actually, there would be a problem if a character dominated 99.9% of play. What you're suggesting is that it would be a-OK for Pikachu to win every match up until the final match of a tourney, where he meets another Pikachu and they both switch up characters just for the hell of it (or they don't, since it may not be the .1%')
This match as an argument against banning is as unfounded as the argument that HOBO was proof he should be banned.
@ SL
Ah. I guess I just get antsy when my posts go uncommented. I'm probably too mindful of the '45' under my join date.
@ Swordguard
Actually, there would be a problem if a character dominated 99.9% of play. What you're suggesting is that it would be a-OK for Pikachu to win every match up until the final match of a tourney, where he meets another Pikachu and they both switch up characters just for the hell of it (or they don't, since it may not be the .1%')
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
I want a cool style of typing...For now on, I am underlined man!!!
Ally didn't go to Whobo, right?
Ally didn't go to Whobo, right?
It's not objective, definitive proof, but if we are to take M2K's word for it that both were actually playing their best, then that means that Snake is able to beat MK at the highest level of the metagame. Many probies whine about how he has no disadvantageous matchups; Ally beating M2K indicates that if Snake doesn't have a slight advantage (which I and several others think he does), he at least goes even with him.
Not to mention Wario.
Wow, somebody who actually understands this. This exactly what I have been trying to get accross, I tend to just get called a 'noob' or 'not truly competetive' though.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Mecakoto
Smash Journeyman
You see, when you beat someone because you did something unexpected with Yoshi and destroyed them, they will either shut up or shout Johns to the sky. Yoshi isn't at viable as some other characters, but who cares?
If you and a character don't click, you aren't going to win. It is the main reason I don't play MK. He just doesn't work with me. Anyone who calls me an idiot because of this will get to taste what my signature says. Thus, the quoted post's quote.
Beren Zaiga
Smash Ace
Does beating a Falco on the first match with no prior knowledge of their play style count as something surprising?
I was using Bowser by the way, though I think the win was mostly luck. Falco's attacks come out too fast for me and I end up almost panicking (My face IRL doesn't show it though).
Mecakoto
Smash Journeyman
To be honest, I'd have to see the Falco at the time when you played them, and you for that matter, too.
1048576
Smash Master
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,417
I'd pick the 1-99 guy for the same reason. It wouldn't work out so well in a tournament setting. Eventually the people who want to win would beat me unless I was distinctly better then them.
Duh?
Picking a 1-99 instead of going for an even slightly easier matchup--you know, one that's actually winnable--just means that you are either willfully stupid, or your knowledge of character matchups is in the negatives. That, or you're just not playing to win.
Personal preference is allowable (to an extent) when you're playing to win, but only up to a certain point. There's a line when practicality should override personal preference, and going 1-99 just based on personal preference is strictly ********.
This guys gets it.
My friend plays the best Bowser in the UK and he wins the majority of his matches against players who should have the advantage, he has beaten some very high level Falcos. People underestimate the importance of matchup experience against unique character choices, they just assume that they are at enough of an advantage to negate matchup experience but this is rarely the case. One of the biggest advantages one has as an unusual character is character shock, its very unlikely your opponant has much experience against your character and knows how to take advantage of you, but you have probably fought their character countless times and know the matchup well.
What you are not seeing is that 'winning' is subjective. To most people who will choose the character that gives them the biggest chance of victory in the match, winning is just that, defeating the opponant by any means nessesary.
For me though, and I'm sure many people who play a character through preference, a win is only truly a win if they are successful with the character of their personal preference. Sure, I could choose MetaKnight and have a dramtically increased chance of winning, but for me personally it would be pretty meaningless to win with MK.
The satisfaction of victory is far more forfilling when it is against the odds, the feeling of defeating a Snake, MK, Falco or ay other high tier character with someone like Yoshi could never be matched when playing as a high tier character.
Aw, adumbrodeus, this is just cruel. You know they'll never be able to do this (because the truth is that MK isn't as good as many delusional pro-banners seem to believe he is)!
Overclassed
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 246
No. Winning is not subjective. You either win, or you lose.
Having fun is subjective. You may not have fun winning with MK, but if you lose tourney after tourney with Yoshi and choose not to try a 'better' character simply because you like Yoshi more, you're doing it because you find it more fun to be him.
And that isn't an issue. Play for your own reasons- just don't disillusion yourself with the idea that playing with preference is in any way shape or form playing to win.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
*looks at his green text, then sees your green name* Oy, Yuna, hand your name's color over. I need it to match my text.
Ok first, try reading the rest of my post.
Also, if I wasn't playing to win then I wouldn't be trying to KO the other player...
As long as you are trying to win the match, by definition you are playing to win.
Overclassed
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 246
Only if you're trying your hardest to win the match.
You can still be trying to win and playing to learn. Or playing for fun.
Nice try though.
Also, I did read the rest of your post, but it all seemed to sum up nicely into that one sentence, so I quoted it.
Overclassed
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 246
You try as hard as you can with the character you have.
It would be like participating in a sword fight with a pocket knife, so to speak. Sure, you might manage a stab here and there, but overall, if you want to be seen as a threat, you'll pick up the bigger sword.
Then why choose MK over Ike? I mean, Ike CLEARLY has the bigger sword.
And knives are faster... What's the use in having range, if your opponent can stab you 3+ times while you try and stab/slash at him twice? It takes 5 stabs then just running away and letting him bleed to death in order to win (ie. planking)...
[/troll]
If character preference takes precedence over common sense and strategy, then you are not playing to win; you are playing to play a specific character, and winning becomes secondary.
I guess Brawl is just one of those games where winning is secondary to anything else, since we have less MK mains than any other character. Having everyone play to win, by your definition, would mean everyone taking the best options and exploiting them. Two MKs fighting in BF, FD and SV would mean it's playing to win, right? Then again, playing a game with just one option is not a good way of passing the time... What are you trying to do, force overcentralization on just one option?
I'd rather win as Kirby, ZSS and Snake. They "click" for me. I'm sure that if I mained MK I'd do a lot better, but I wouldn't be able to do the many stunts I can pull off with kirby (inhaling someone offstage and spitting them into the horizontal blast zone is one of many), ZSS (downB spikes near 0% always make me smile), and Snake (cooking grenades, then grenade dropping them near the ledge to shut up campers... Or utilting opponents then throwing the cooked grenades upwards, exploding and killing my opponents off the top).
If it meant using the character I felt most confident with, I'd choose the 49-51 over the 51-49 every time I had the option to choose, if and only if I felt more confident with the 49-51. After all, a margin so low could only mean "the most skilled wins", right? ...Now, 1-99 is just a ridiculous argument. No one should even consider using the 1-99, it's obvious you have to be 100 times better than your opponent in order to win.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
No because the game wouldn't be play MK or lose.
THat would be overcentralization due to popularity which just isn't valid.
oh wait I am going off on another tangent.
MK is the most polpular character of them all.
While MK certainly is not more popular than every character combined, he is certainly more popular than any singular character.
Unless I am mistake in which case feel free to correct me.
IN anycase we are all scrubs.
You guys aren't very good at reading posts, are you? Let me quote myself for posterity:
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Well, the objective is an inherently good model, so that point is moot.
Since match-ups are at the top of the metagame, random accidents are irrelevent, "error" is in terms of being tricked.
Please note that I accounted for that in my criteria, a discussion of what is nonviable in terms of match-up level (granted, it was implicit, especially since I never had 80-20 as the starting value). I'm moving towards a gradational scale based on character concentration in the metagame.
Which is why it only functions as a check instead of the measure itself, the theory is enough games will occur to deal with such irregularities. Again, check out the methodology.
Meh. All this theory really doesn't get anywhere. The best "evidence" would be if we had a sizable amount of MK-less tourneys (perhaps as a side event at bigger tournaments) and saw if lower tier characters did indeed place better.
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
This might as well be closed as the actual thread was ended
Why exactly was the thread closed? I'm fully aware they weren't making any progress in any way but it still seems like people on the board should be able to talk about whatever they want pointless as it may be. Closing topics like that has a creepy Big Brother vibe to it. You will discuss what we want you to discuss.
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
It was closed due to excessive flaming
They closed the topic because there was nothing to talk about. Everyone who posted there wanted it closed, since the same things were said over and over again, except different wordings were used ever time... So it was a postcount+1 kind of thread.
I never said I was talking about metagame overcentralization, I meant exactly what you said: overcentralization by popularity.
(Snake and Dedede aren't far behind, but that's besides the point) I meant "MK vs The rest". Right now he isn't really overcentralizing popularity, nor the metagame. He's a fine character, with one big difference between the rest of the cast: he's better overall.
Scrubs who will grow into gigantic bushes that bloom flowers of proness...?
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
Kinda like this one...
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Oh okay then we agree woohooI never said I was talking about metagame overcentralization, I meant exactly what you said: overcentralization by popularity.
Even if he did overcentralize due topopularity it wouldn't matter really
Scrubs who use the lesser character of course =)
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
So...Have we reached a conclusion?
Shark Week
Smash Apprentice
i'm pretty sure this criteria is irrelevant. i'll cite an example from street fighter:
in super street fighter 2 turbo (st), a character named cammy is the worst character in the game. she has difficult inputs, unsafe attacks, and has difficulty with projectiles, among other problems. in this game there is also a character named e. honda. with out getting into too many specifics (too many terms would need defining), e. honda completely destroys anyone that doesn't have a projectile, such as cammy. this match up is borderline unwinnable, short of the honda handing over a win; cammy just doesn't have a chance. this match up is about 9-1 in favor of honda.
and then of course, there's akuma, probably the most famous "broken character" in all of fighting game history. akuma has fireball traps that force a character to just sit and take chip damage (as their best option), he has an invulnerable teleport with no start up and no recovery, he cannot be dizzied, and that's not even the half of it. akuma was intended to be the best character in the game and it shows. needless to say, essentially 9-1 with the entire cast.
akuma, being as powerful as he is, destroys cammy as much as he destroys anyone else. he makes her, like the rest of the cast, completely nonviable. however, honda does this exact same thing (and to others, remember?). using your criteria akuma would have stayed legal; hell, for that matter, i'm not even sure he was the only 9-1 for "50%+1" of the cast. but the fact that he was the answer for everything was what got him banned.
now, obviously mk is not 9-1 with every character, but that is a separate point to the one i am addressing: a character does not need to be the only thing holding another character back, nor does a character need to be the worst thing holding another character back, as demonstrated by st akuma, the most broken character ever, ever.
The biggest problem with collecting Data is that, although it may seem neutral, people can view it subjectively. A good example of this is the WHOBO results.
For just about any tournament results out there, I can pick a side and point out subjective things and make the results less neutral. If I want to, I can take a look at a tournament that literally has 8 MK's in the top 8, and I can either argue that those players were the best players who attended the tournament, hence they got the top spots, or I can say those players got the spots because of how strong MK is as a character.
Either point of view can be seen as correct, depending on how you view the Data, since even with guidelines I can point out things like "Oh well other characters besides MK were not fully represented by their top players, therefore these results are invalid or tainted" or "MK's completely dominated the tournament with all of the best players of other characters attending, therefore proving his need to be removed from competitive play".
If a National sized tournament had EVERY spot filled by a MK main, I could reasonably argue that those results just prove who were the better players, since everyone had a level playing field, or I could argue that popularity/over centralization due to popularity is not a reason a character should be banned.
If a National Sized tournament had NO spots filled by MK mains, I could reasonably argue that MK was not truly represented at that tournament or that the unpopularity/lack of popularity of a character does not prove that they should remain in competitive play/that unpopularity doesn't affect the actual properties of the character.
For just about any tournament results out there, I can pick a side and point out subjective things and make the results less neutral. If I want to, I can take a look at a tournament that literally has 8 MK's in the top 8, and I can either argue that those players were the best players who attended the tournament, hence they got the top spots, or I can say those players got the spots because of how strong MK is as a character.
Either point of view can be seen as correct, depending on how you view the Data, since even with guidelines I can point out things like "Oh well other characters besides MK were not fully represented by their top players, therefore these results are invalid or tainted" or "MK's completely dominated the tournament with all of the best players of other characters attending, therefore proving his need to be removed from competitive play".
If a National sized tournament had EVERY spot filled by a MK main, I could reasonably argue that those results just prove who were the better players, since everyone had a level playing field, or I could argue that popularity/over centralization due to popularity is not a reason a character should be banned.
If a National Sized tournament had NO spots filled by MK mains, I could reasonably argue that MK was not truly represented at that tournament or that the unpopularity/lack of popularity of a character does not prove that they should remain in competitive play/that unpopularity doesn't affect the actual properties of the character.