Proving Whether or Not MK is bannable with Data: A community to do list

[Mortimer]

Matchup ratios do not work that way. 90-10 does not mean that the disadvantaged player / character will win 10% of the time, or 1 out of 10 times, or however you want to put it. It literally means that every single match he is disadvantaged 90 to 10. Each match is reset; it doesn't carry over to the next match.

Could you clarify your definition? You've explained a couple things that matchup ratios do not do, but you haven't specifically said how they're applied.

To summarize:

Matchup ratios aren't an exact win chance.
Matchup ratios are reset for each match. (Do you mean every round? Every stock? Nevermind, checked another thread. Match is referring to a single round won.)
Matchup ratios refer to character advantage/disadvantages. (But they aren't an exact win chance. How is this measurement applied?)

 

[BanjoKazooiePro]

Wow, this argument has been going on forever. Seriously, is this ban or not really that hard to decide on? Why should he be banned? Please, give me good reasons as to why he should be banned when Snake is basically even with him. He can be beaten, just because you don't like something about the game doesn't mean it should be banned.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I expect better from anti-ban, but oh well. Pro-ban hasn't brought up anything new in the last million years, so here goes.

Matchup ratios do not work that way. 90-10 does not mean that the disadvantaged player / character will win 10% of the time, or 1 out of 10 times, or however you want to put it. It literally means that every single match he is disadvantaged 90 to 10. Each match is reset; it doesn't carry over to the next match.

And before salaboB bites my head off for misrepresenting his position, note that I'm responding to Shadowlinnk. I only quoted your post because it was relevant to the topic at hand.

My mistake, I mixed up my words a bit and it came out wrong.

 

[Crizthakidd]

no need to ban MK.

just pick shiek ftilit and footstool till at 75

 

[salaboB]

no need to ban MK.

just pick shiek ftilit and footstool till at 75

Wait for this to be proven or you'll just look silly for believing it.

 

[clowsui]

no need to ban MK.

just pick shiek ftilit and footstool till at 75

ban FD

you've officially won against sheik

 

[Cook Kirby]

Wow, this argument has been going on forever. Seriously, is this ban or not really that hard to decide on? Why should he be banned? Please, give me good reasons as to why he should be banned when Snake is basically even with him. He can be beaten, just because you don't like something about the game doesn't mean it should be banned.

Well said. Very well said.

 

[1048576]

See we have this thing called READING.
I have mentioned MULTIPLE times that the DEGREE to how strong a character is what ALSO matters along with the number of advantages.
A character that has 521:49 is not ban worthy because the degree to which he beats everyone is very small and is within reasonable difficulty.

If Auuma goes 9-1 against everyone he is ban worthy.
because its no longer reasonably difficult for the opposing player to beat Akuma.
if i have to repeat my statement for a THIRD time, I am going to be rather upset with you.

Stop trying to twist my argument to fit your terrible ban criteria.
Who are you thinkaman?

Are you just drawing an arbitrary line for when you think a matchup is winnable enough for your tastes and expecting everyone else to agree with you. You say the line is 80-20; what if someone else says 70-30. Why not use something not completely arbitrary, like idk, advantage; yes or no.

For the last time, why would some people not use the 51-49 guy in a tournament?

****ing hypocrite

 

[adumbrodeus]

Are you just drawing an arbitrary line for when you think a matchup is winnable enough for your tastes and expecting everyone else to agree with you. You say the line is 80-20; what if someone else says 70-30. Why not use something not completely arbitrary, like idk, advantage; yes or no.

For the last time, why would some people not use the 51-49 guy in a tournament?

****ing hypocrite

Understand, that was more of an approximation, but we need to do is understand what different levels of countering does to viability and debate what the tolerance should be. 80-20 is more of a standard, because at that point it's pretty well accepted that if the character that does that is pretty common in tournaments, the character has basically no chance to win, but refinements in that number is definitely possible.

That's why a project like this is a meta-project.

 

[Tristan_win]

You guys should all be like me and wait a week before start calling meta knight counter. Give the testers at least 24 hours before even speaking about a counter.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Are you just drawing an arbitrary line for when you think a matchup is winnable enough for your tastes and expecting everyone else to agree with you.?

Is it me or are you dancing around the issue?
You asked the difference between the two and I explained it to you.
Matches thata re 7-3 or 8-2 are far more extreme than 51-49.
Hence why I say the DEGREE is important.

You say the line is 80-20; what if someone else says 70-30. Why not use something not completely arbitrary, like idk, advantage; yes or no.

The numbers of 7-3 and 8-2 are approximations.
They are generally considered heavily disadvantaged/advantaged matchups because of the amount of skill required in order to win.

Yes they are arbitrary, however, these numbers are generally accepted due to the amount of knowledge and experience that encompass many competitive scenes.

Hence why 7-3/8-2 matchups are generally considered enough to render a character unviable.

For the last time, why would some people not use the 51-49 guy in a tournament?

For the last time READ MY POSTS.
Do you, or do you not understand by what I am saying by referencing by degrees?
Am I speaking freudian, or are you too blinded by your own opinion as to not see what is in front of you?

How can you not understand what I am implying when I have mentioned it REPEATEDLY.

Its 51-49.
It is extremely winnable.
What reason do you have not to go with the slightly disadvantaged character?
The matchup still falls down to skill.
You can choose the disadvantaged character and still win due to your skill.

There is a choice, you are not forced to pick the advantaged character or lose.
MK does not force you to pick him or lose.
What part about my statements is too freudian to understand?
Hell the reason I refrain from making walls of text is to avoid this kind of idiotic argument!

****ing hypocrite

Hypocrite: A person who does not practice what he preaches.
I doubt you are using it correctly let alone even looking beyond your obviously flawed argument.

 

[1048576]

You're obviously not reading. You're telling me I'm not reading. Trolling hypocrite.

Obviously it is you who is dancing around the issue. Suppose I say 70-30 is "unwinnable" (even though it's not)? Suppose I say 90-10 is unwinnable (again, even though it's not.) Why is the magical line drawn at 80-20? There's no reason. You just picked a number and said 'this sounds good, I guess.' You'll never agree toa ban with vague criterial like that, even if we had a matchup ratio for every character. I could just be the 90-10 guy and cause a ruckus.

Can we both agree that everything except 100-0 is winnable? Understanding that premise is crucial to understanding the logic I'm using for my conclusion.

Since 99-1 is winnable, but you say 99-1 is banworthy, the criteria for banworthy cannot be that character having unwinnable matchups. The matchups must be sufficiently difficult to win. How difficult? You plucked a random number out of the sky. I say that the matchups must be sufficiently difficult for the Nash equilibrium strategy to be for everyone to pick that character. This is overcentralization, and it has been a valid ban criteria in pretty much every competitive game ever.

There is no reason for you to pick the 49 character, when you would have a better chance of winning the tournament with the 51 character. I assume you disagree, but you haven't provided an argument why you would want to screw yourself like this.

Again, hopefully for the last time, you can choose a 10-90 disadvantaged character "and still win due to your skill." Even if MK had all 99-1s, you wouldn't be forced to pick him or lose. You still would pick him, though, because you don't want to have to be more skilled than your opponent.

 

[RDK]

You're obviously not reading. You're telling me I'm not reading. Trolling hypocrite.

Obviously it is you who is dancing around the issue. Suppose I say 70-30 is "unwinnable" (even though it's not)? Suppose I say 90-10 is unwinnable (again, even though it's not.) Why is the magical line drawn at 80-20? There's no reason. You just picked a number and said 'this sounds good, I guess.' You'll never agree toa ban with vague criterial like that, even if we had a matchup ratio for every character. I could just be the 90-10 guy and cause a ruckus.

Can we both agree that everything except 100-0 is winnable? Understanding that premise is crucial to understanding the logic I'm using for my conclusion.

Since 99-1 is winnable, but you say 99-1 is banworthy, the criteria for banworthy cannot be that character having unwinnable matchups. The matchups must be sufficiently difficult to win. How difficult? You plucked a random number out of the sky. I say that the matchups must be sufficiently difficult for the Nash equilibrium strategy to be for everyone to pick that character. This is overcentralization, and it has been a valid ban criteria in pretty much every competitive game ever.

There is no reason for you to pick the 49 character, when you would have a better chance of winning the tournament with the 51 character. I assume you disagree, but you haven't provided an argument why you would want to screw yourself like this.

Again, hopefully for the last time, you can choose a 10-90 disadvantaged character "and still win due to your skill." Even if MK had all 99-1s, you wouldn't be forced to pick him or lose. You still would pick him, though, because you don't want to have to be more skilled than your opponent.

You're absolutely ******** for several reasons, but I'll just tell you one and then let you revise your argument.

When dealing with matchup ratios and whatnot, we assume the highest level of metagame possible. This means that things like a 90-10 matchup are theoretically unwinnable if both players are playing at the top of the metagame.

That being said, a 100-0 matchup doesn't exist, for reasons I've stated a million times, but I guess I'll state them again just for kicks. A 100-0 matchup would mean that the advantaged player would win at the very start of the match, with no input from either player.

It's really not that hard people, it's just common sense.

 

[ShadowLink84]

*looks at 104's post then facedesks*

Screw it I am done dealing with him. RDK you can tear him to pieces I am not going to waste my time anymore.

 

[Xebenkeck]

I think it is important to note that Mk doesn't make 50% of the cast useless, in a indirect way he somewhat balances the game because if he was banned the character that would make **** near 50% of the cast unviable is Marth, MK keeps him in check at the very least.

 

[RDK]

*looks at 104's post then facedesks*

Screw it I am done dealing with him. RDK you can tear him to pieces I am not going to waste my time anymore.

It doesn't really matter; I know he's a troll anyway. I just like arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[1048576]

You're absolutely ******** for several reasons, but I'll just tell you one and then let you revise your argument.

When dealing with matchup ratios and whatnot, we assume the highest level of metagame possible. This means that things like a 90-10 matchup are theoretically unwinnable if both players are playing at the top of the metagame.

That being said, a 100-0 matchup doesn't exist, for reasons I've stated a million times, but I guess I'll state them again just for kicks. A 100-0 matchup would mean that the advantaged player would win at the very start of the match, with no input from either player.

It's really not that hard people, it's just common sense.

You shouldn't flame. It's not really conducive to debate. I'm capable of admitting I'm wrong and I'm capable of following a premise to its conclusion, but so far I haven't seen any logic that would change my mind.

I think a 100-0 matchup is theoretically possible, assuming both players are capable of basic, pre-memorized button inputs. For example, suppose a character can jump in the air and shoot fireballs, but there's a glitch that makes it so he doesn't have to come down after jumping. Suppose several characters cannot reach him after he jumps, because they cannot jump as high. If a player jumps as soon as the match starts and initiates said glitch, that player will win eventually every time after a fireball connects against certain characters. Fair enough?

IMO, a 100-0 matchup is when you can perform a strategy that guarantees a win regardless of your opponent's actions. An "uncounterable" tactic, if you will.

I think a 90-10 matchup just means you have to outread/predict your opponent 91% of the time to win as the 10 guy. You obviously disagree. What do you think is the working definition for 90-10?

Even if I'm at the "top" of the metagame, it's possible for me to lose 100 straight games of rock/paper/scissors/gun to you, where gun beats everything except scissors.

 

[Cirno]

I think a 100-0 matchup is theoretically possible, assuming both players are capable of basic, pre-memorized button inputs. For example, suppose a character can jump in the air and shoot fireballs, but there's a glitch that makes it so he doesn't have to come down after jumping. Suppose several characters cannot reach him after he jumps, because they cannot jump as high. If a player jumps as soon as the match starts and initiates said glitch, that player will win eventually every time after a fireball connects against certain characters. Fair enough?

What's stopping the other player from avoiding said fireballs?

What's guarantee that the player performing the glitch doesn't mess up and get hit?

Not to mention under our current ruleset that would count as stalling.

Again the only way a 100-0 is possible, is if input is not required for a win.

IMO, a 100-0 matchup is when you can perform a strategy that guarantees a win regardless of your opponent's actions. An "uncounterable" tactic, if you will.

If it requires your input as well then it's not a 100-0.

Humans can make mistakes, tactics can be overcome, strategies can be beaten.

I think a 90-10 matchup just means you have to outread/predict your opponent 91% of the time to win as the 10 guy. You obviously disagree. What do you think is the working definition for 90-10?

I personally feel the MU numbers represent how close to their most effective/established style a character can play to.

Peach vs MK on RC is a nightmare. Probably 70:30. Instead of turnip camping and dair combos, I mainly aim for clock wins when I play that match up.

Falco vs ICs? Also hell. No Chain grabs or nair approachs for me. I barely even laser to dash attack. It's mainly alot of phantasm running away and trying to force them to chase me in the air for bair assualts.

I even took the DDD challenge playing DK against a DDD who I taught to infinite.90-10 I believe.( He usually plays Marth, just wanted to see if it wasn't banned could ANYONE pick up DDD and win against great DK players, and my DK is average at best.) Had to go to RC. Had to stay in the air about 90% of the time. Had to Down b to stay at poke distance and force dair attempts. Side-B'd any whiffed grabs and 9 punched my way to victory.

That's why I also think 60-40's are extremely winnable, since the difference from the original playstyle isn't so far off.

Even if I'm at the "top" of the metagame, it's possible for me to lose 100 straight games of rock/paper/scissors/gun to you, where gun beats everything except scissors.

Yes it is possible. I don't see how this relates to what we're discussing though.
=/


Guessing game =/= Fighting Game


Oh, and the why pick the 49 guy when you can grab the 51 guy question?

Because we are humans. We have preferences and favorites.
Even in competition we may not take the best option in the game and instead take the best option for us as long as we feel the difficulty is reasonable.

I recall someone saying how they couldn't play MK because they hate the way he handles. They prefered big hits and traps so Ike, Snake and DK were their guys.

Gimpyfish is an incredible Melee Bowser player. Why? Bowser is a horrible character for competitive play. Many people think that if he played a higher tiered character he'd be phenomenal. but he likes Boozer.

As the players of these competitive games, as long as we are given the choice of picking between a healthy amount of viable tourney characters, the metagame we are building is fine.

We pick the 49 guy because we want to.

If we didn't every game would degrade into a 1 character tourney scene. Why not choose a character regarded as the best? As Ally (most recently) has shown, even a great character's worst MU/counter can be overcome with enough skill( and that's saying alot considering that specific match had Lain behind the wheel of his bad MU).


nomnomnomnomnom

 

[1048576]

We can assume basic tech skill. Assume jumping and the glitch can both be done by holding one button. Shooting a fireball can be done with one button and its trajectory can be aimed. I assume no seriously competitive player is going to mess up basic tech skill.

If a person doesn't press b instead of A, certain tactics cannot be beaten. At the peak of the metagame, correct button presses to within a certain timing, reflex, and speed threshhold can be assumed, no? If not, then I agree with you, but I'd still pick the character where I control whether or not I win.

Well, the DK/D3 matchup doesn't really take any options away from DK. It just gives them to D3. DK just has to predict that grab perfectly, whereas the D3 can make tons of mistakes before he loses a stock.

The last sentence was me anticipating the counter argument that my matchup definition is wrong because at the peak of the meta, nobody gets read that much more often than anybody else, so certain non 100-0 matchups are unwinnable.

As for your 51-49 argument, I can apply that same logic to 99-1 matchup based on your intentional use of the vague word 'reasonable.'

Suppose I don't like the way the 99 guy 'handles.' I'm prolly going to lose most tourneys unless I'm playing way better than all my opponents. Same with the MK guy, albeit to a significantly lesser degree, assuming MK has all favorabe matchups.

That gimpy would be better with marth or something kind of proves my point that characters with disadvantageous matchups wouldn't be played by tourneygoers seeking to win.

Of course, but the problem is when the good players all flock to the 51 guy, as logic dictates they would.

Your last (three line) paragraph is completely false. Suppose there are several top characters with each character having at least one disadvantageous matchup. The resolution would be a metagame with an ever-shifting dominant character and a lot of people using more than one character in tournaments.

Just because M2K could beat me with his Link doesn't mean he wouldn't use his MK.

 

[RDK]

We can assume basic tech skill. Assume jumping and the glitch can both be done by holding one button. Shooting a fireball can be done with one button and its trajectory can be aimed. I assume no seriously competitive player is going to mess up basic tech skill.

Let's assume all characters in Brawl have perfectly even matchups. Problem solved!

Stop assuming ridiculous things. There is nothing in the game that's even remotely comparable to the fireball glitch you're making up. Why is it relevant?

If a person doesn't press b instead of A, certain tactics cannot be beaten. At the peak of the metagame, correct button presses to within a certain timing, reflex, and speed threshhold can be assumed, no? If not, then I agree with you, but I'd still pick the character where I control whether or not I win.

Too bad there's not anything close to being that broken in Brawl.

The last sentence was me anticipating the counter argument that my matchup definition is wrong because at the peak of the meta, nobody gets read that much more often than anybody else, so certain non 100-0 matchups are unwinnable.

We've already explained to you why a 100-0 matchup is virtually unwinnable. Not theoretically unwinnable, but virtually unwinnable. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this.

100-0 is quite literally what we use to describe a matchup that is impossible to win for the disadantaged party. It's the end of the spectrum; there's nothing beyond it. Why you continue to conflate the 100-0 matchup with actual, tangible matchups is a mystery to me.

As for your 51-49 argument, I can apply that same logic to 99-1 matchup based on your intentional use of the vague word 'reasonable.'

Are you saying that you consider 99-01 to be a reasonable matchup compared to 51-49? Answer the question.

Suppose I don't like the way the 99 guy 'handles.' I'm prolly going to lose most tourneys unless I'm playing way better than all my opponents. Same with the MK guy, albeit to a significantly lesser degree, assuming MK has all favorabe matchups.

"All favorable matchups" is a completely different bird from "all virtually unwinnable matchups".

That gimpy would be better with marth or something kind of proves my point that characters with disadvantageous matchups wouldn't be played by tourneygoers seeking to win.

And there's a problem with this....how? Are you suggesting that there shouldn't be tiers, advantages, disadvantages, unique attributes, and varying properties to characters? Would you like it if the tournament standard would be just one character?

Of course, but the problem is when the good players all flock to the 51 guy, as logic dictates they would.

I still don't see a problem. It's called playing intelligently. The point of the game is to maximize your chances of winning.

Your last (three line) paragraph is completely false. Suppose there are several top characters with each character having at least one disadvantageous matchup. The resolution would be a metagame with an ever-shifting dominant character and a lot of people using more than one character in tournaments.

Hey, what do you know! You've just described Brawl! Virtually all of the top characters have at least one disadvantageous matchup (MK / Snake is slightly disadvantageous for MK). You never specified just how disadvantageous the single matchup needs to be, so you illustrated our current situation quite nicely.

You even got the part right about people using more than one character in tournaments. Are you actually trying to say that people use nobody but Meta Knight?.

 

[ShadowLink84]

He feels that overcentralization by population>Overcentralization by nature.

 

[RDK]

Overcentralization by popularity only makes a difference if what is being overcentralized around is actually broken, or changes the metagame in a signifcant way.

Overcentralizing the game around Captain Falcon is entirely different than overcentralizing the game around MK because he's leaps and bounds ahead of the cast. Which he's not, but many of the probies think he is.

It's odd that they can't even come to a consensus on their side about something as basic as exactly what constitutes overcentralization. They say Meta Knight does it, but they can't agree on why, how, or in what fashion.

 

[PottyJokes]

Best in West coast - DSF - Snake main
Best in Texas - UltimateRazer - Snake main
Best in Canada Ally - Snake main
Best in EC - M2k metaknight main

Ban Mk plz

 

[xDD-Master]

Best in West coast - DSF - Snake main
Best in Texas - UltimateRazer - Snake main
Best in Canada Ally - Snake main
Best in EC - M2k metaknight main

I think you dont know japan, do you ?

 

[Darxmarth23]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=232375?

 

[1048576]

Going paragraph by paragraph again:

The point of that ridiculous fireball example is to provide an example of a 100-0 matchup. If I'm not mistaken, and I may very well be, Akuma can do something like that against several characters. I agree that brawl has no 100-0 matchups.

Again, we can assume basic tech skill (like the ability to shorthop with bowser on command) at high levels of play. This allows for tangible 100-0 matchups.

Yes, 99-1 is reasonable compared to 51-49. The both have to play better than the opponent to win. It's not unwinnable. It's just a matter of degree.

Stop using vague terms. Define virtually unwinnable.

The problem with everyone flocking to the 51 guy is that it overcentralizes the meta. You must mean something else, but I don't see what your referencing.

The matchup of MK vs Snake is debatable. It really doesn't matter for this argument. All I'm trying to argue is that if MK has at least a 51-49 advantage on everybody, he should be banned for overcentralizing the meta.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Overcentralization by popularity only makes a difference if what is being overcentralized around is actually broken, or changes the metagame in a signifcant way.

Overcentralizing the game around Captain Falcon is entirely different than overcentralizing the game around MK because he's leaps and bounds ahead of the cast. Which he's not, but many of the probies think he is.

It's odd that they can't even come to a consensus on their side about something as basic as exactly what constitutes overcentralization. They say Meta Knight does it, but they can't agree on why, how, or in what fashion.

I believe that over centralization by nature causes the popularity.
Simply because it is the case where the character is broken and so everyone goes for the character in order to stand a chance at winning.

One causing the other.
In the case of overcentralization of popularity, it can be due to simply the character being liked, or because the character is broken.

If over centralization is to be brought up, I do think we also have to clarify on whether the nature of the character is causing the increase in popularity, or the character is popular simply due to other reasons that are not impacting upon the metagame in a detrimental fashion.

*looks at 104's post*

*shakes head*
You sure you wanna deal with that RDK?

 

[1048576]

I think either way that character is bad for the meta, but lets be clear. In a competitive environment where players are trying to win, overcentralization will be caused by a stable matchup equalibrium which results in a 1-character metagame. In other words, we won't see a tournament full of Jigglypuffs because her bow kicks ***.

 

[Master Raven]

Best in West coast - DSF - Snake/MK/etc. main
Best in Texas - Dojo - Meta Knight main
Best in Canada Ally - Snake main
Best in EC - M2k metaknight main

Ban Mk plz

Fixed it for you. I'm slightly anti-ban atm btw.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I think either way that character is bad for the meta, but lets be clear. In a competitive environment where players are trying to win, overcentralization will be caused by a stable matchup equilibrium which results in a 1-character metagame. In other words, we won't see a tournament full of Jigglypuffs because her bow kicks ***.

RDK isn't here yet so I'll respond.

For on the difference between the characters are the difference in degrees.

A character that does 99-1 to every other character is ban worthy because f the fact that you end up with a situation of, play this character or lose.

Yes you have a very, very, very small chance of winning but it requires that your opponent make many, many, many large errors.
This is something that does not happen at high level of play.

On the other hand, a character who goes 51-49 is not causing damage to the metagame because of the fact that the degree to which he harms the metagame is very small.
Yes the has an advantage over everyone, this is not enough justification for a ban.

Simply having an advantage over every character is not enough because of the fact that the advantage is extremely small.
In the case of 51-49, you have an extremely reasonable chance of winning with the character with a disadvantage.

The character who goes 51-49 is incapable of over centralizing the metagame because the other characters are still viable.

The character who goes 9-1 with everyone is capable of causing overcentralizing because there is no reasonable chance of winning.

It isn't only about having a certain chance of winning, it is also about the degree to which you can win.
Even if the character went 7-3 against every character, it would mean the character would be banned because from the amount of data provided to us from many. many years of gaming, we know that a 7-3 matchup does not provide a reasonable chance of winning.

You argument is hinged on the argument that a character is ban worthy if they simply have an advantage over everyone.
We know from many years of gaming that this is wrong.

Degree as well as the number of advantages constitutes the over centralizing, not just the fact that they have a very minor advantage over everyone.

 

[Overclassed]

Why this won't work:

1. A "better" matchup model does not make a "good" matchup model. And good luck accounting for mind games. It's not as though you could take the mean of every human error in every match and call it a day. Some errors are far more devestating than others ( a ff fair instead of a dair versus fox side-b off the stage) and you just cant account for random accidents.

2. Your criteria for nonviable is an 80-20 matchup based on this new 'model'. There is no way the community as a whole would ever agree to that. Some favor 100 - 0 as nonviable. Some say 70 - 30. And why 51% of the cast? In this situation, a game could consist of...

Character A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J

A has 80:20 matchups on B,C,D,E (40%), 70:30 matchups on F,G,H,I,J, and a 50/50 matchup with himself.

He isn't banworthy then?

3. Empirical matchups are worthless unless skill is a factor. If I take Ganon to a bunch of low-level tourneys and beat out 6 metaknights on my way to claiming victory, that does not mean Ganon is in any way shape or form a good pick against MK. It just means I managed to be better.

 

[demonictoonlink]

This just turned into another "Should Meta be banned" thread...
We don't need two...

 

[ShadowLink84]

This just turned into another "Should Meta be banned" thread...
We don't need two...

Hardly, the discussion is concerning the criteria for a ban, not how MK fits it.

 

[Ax00x0]

The matchup of MK vs Snake is debatable. It really doesn't matter for this argument. All I'm trying to argue is that if MK has at least a 51-49 advantage on everybody, he should be banned for overcentralizing the meta.

This. He also has 28% of tournament penetration/wins, or, you know, more than ONE-FOURTH OF ALL OTHER CHARACTERS. That IS overcentralizing right there, and the metagame completely revolves around trying to beat him.

But for the purpose of this topic, I would like to point out that something should change-a characters banworthyness or not, abilities, or state of play Should NOT just be based on "high-level" play. This is the biggest flaw I see in arguments that is used by everyone. You CANNOT rely on "high-level play" results alone, because NO ONE, except Ally, M2K, etc. are considered to be that status. Basing the entire metagame off of the top .11% of all the players is foolhardy at best. It's also hypocritical-Ironically, one of the reasons IC's infinite to death grabs aren't banned is because they are "hard to perform"-funny, because at High-level play, they are guarenteed and beyond broken. This focus on what 2-3 playrs can do with a character has got to stop, as NO ONE ELSE is or even WILL be that good. A broaded outlook on character play needs to be considered.

For example, the anti-MK banner have been jerking each other off over the Ally win over M2K, despite the fact that Ally has been beaten MANY times before by M2K, and despite the fact that it's nearly a 50-50 matchup, and despite the fact that because it is high level play, this means it's extremely unlikely to be repeated. See how that works?

 

[ShadowLink84]

This. He also has 28% of tournament penetration/wins, or, you know, more than ONE-FOURTH OF ALL OTHER CHARACTERS. That IS overcentralizing right there, and the metagame completely revolves around trying to beat him.

Wong.
Over centralizing would mean that MK is causing the entire game to revolve around him.
In every game the best character will ALWAYS have the most results in comparison to the rest of the cast.
Look at every game including Guilty Gear.
The best are expected to win. By your logic, we should ban the best characters because they always have the most results.




Thats terrible, let alone 104's logic is terribly flawed in that it completely disregards the degrees of the advantage and infavor of simply having one periopd.

stuff

You are right, we should completely take into account low level play where the potential of the character isn't being used to its fullest.
We should use lower levels of play where strategies that can easily be countered or simply do not work, are being used in excess or where the opponent is not exploiting weaknesses, errors and everuthing else to te fullest.

That is the flaw in your argument.
You are preferring low level of play which does not use the character to the fullest over that of high level play.

By your logic, we would have to ban tons of things that give low level players trouble.

 

[swordgard]

This. He also has 28% of tournament penetration/wins, or, you know, more than ONE-FOURTH OF ALL OTHER CHARACTERS. That IS overcentralizing right there, and the metagame completely revolves around trying to beat him.

But for the purpose of this topic, I would like to point out that something should change-a characters banworthyness or not, abilities, or state of play Should NOT just be based on "high-level" play. This is the biggest flaw I see in arguments that is used by everyone. You CANNOT rely on "high-level play" results alone, because NO ONE, except Ally, M2K, etc. are considered to be that status. Basing the entire metagame off of the top .11% of all the players is foolhardy at best. It's also hypocritical-Ironically, one of the reasons IC's infinite to death grabs aren't banned is because they are "hard to perform"-funny, because at High-level play, they are guarenteed and beyond broken. This focus on what 2-3 playrs can do with a character has got to stop, as NO ONE ELSE is or even WILL be that good. A broaded outlook on character play needs to be considered.

For example, the anti-MK banner have been jerking each other off over the Ally win over M2K, despite the fact that Ally has been beaten MANY times before by M2K, and despite the fact that it's nearly a 50-50 matchup, and despite the fact that because it is high level play, this means it's extremely unlikely to be repeated. See how that works?

You sir are the epitome of scrubbyness. There is no problem if a character dominates 99.9% of the lower end of the spectrum while top 10 consists of every other characters. I dont want to have to ban a character cause noobs cant deal with them, that would be ********. Making the game easier isnt a valid ban criteria.

In other words, get some skills and stop whining if a char overcentralizes the low part of metagame, only top matters.

 

[Mr.-0]

I agree. Overcentralizing is having the whole game revolve completely around him. IF you look at it percent wise also, 28% out of 100% isn't really a ton. Sure, it's over a quarter, but like ninjalink says, the best character is expected to have a higher percantage than the others. And not all of his matchups are extremely in his favor, and more and more of them are becoming worse for him ( take the wario matchup, which is now considered 50-50. ) If you look at it like this, than theres not really a reason to ban him. Not everybody uses him, the game doesn't revolve around him, he's beatable ( and easier than most think, thank you ally for showing us that ) his matchups are becoming in worse favore for him, he's not broken, the only real reason you have toi ban him is that he's the best but noi matter what game you have, there will always bea a best. ( Not starcraft though. )

 

[ShadowLink84]

I agree. Overcentralizing is having the whole game revolve completely around him. IF you look at it percent wise also, 28% out of 100% isn't really a ton. Sure, it's over a quarter, but like Shadowlink says, the best character is expected to have a higher percantage than the others. And not all of his matchups are extremely in his favor, and more and more of them are becoming worse for him ( take the wario matchup, which is now considered 50-50. ) If you look at it like this, than theres not really a reason to ban him. Not everybody uses him, the game doesn't revolve around him, he's beatable ( and easier than most think, thank you ally for showing us that ) his matchups are becoming in worse favore for him, he's not broken, the only real reason you have toi ban him is that he's the best but noi matter what game you have, there will always bea a best. ( Not starcraft though. )

I fixed it for you. <_<

 

[Mr.-0]

Thank you. I didn't see that... but yeah, like you say, he's just bettrer than the other characters. Why do people think that that's a reason to ban? The whole metagame doesn't require you to beat him ( as someone said ) and your just advised to learn the matchup cause MK players are common ( which they should be, like I said he's the presumed best character) but then, high tier characters are common too. There's no real reason to ban him, it's just learning how to effectively deal with the many MK's ouyt there is difficult ( but then, so is snake and the rest of the high tiers. )

 

[Overclassed]

I guess my detestation of the concept goes in one ear and out the other, huh?


Shoot.