Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***

[IC3R]

The lack of Kirby in those results makes me

 

[Lord Viper]

The lack of Kirby in those results makes me

☆ Tell me about it, only one Kirby on CoT4, we need more Kirby mains to rep the tier list. D= ☆

 

[Suspect]

☆ Tell me about it, only one Kirby on CoT4, we need more Kirby mains to rep the tier list. D= ☆

im trying to travel more

 

[thrillagorilla]

HOBO 11:

1.MK= 16
2.Lucario= 1
3.Wario= 2
4.Snake= 5
5.Peach= 2
6.G&W= 2
7.PT= 2
8.Pit= 3
9.Sonic= 1
10.DDD= 1
11.Wolf= 3
12.Diddy= 3
13.TL= 1
14.Samus= 1
15.ROB= 1
16.Olimar= 1
17.Pika= 1
18.Yoghi= 2
19.Ike= 1
20.Marth= 4
21.Mario= 1
22.ZSS= 1
23.Falco= 5
24.Fox= 3
25.Link= 1
26.Lucas= 1
27.ganon= 1
MK has 24% of the tourney's character choices.


CoT4:

1)MK= 6
2)Snake= 1
3)Wario= 1
4)Diddy= 1
5)Lucario= 2
6)Kirby= 1
7)DDD= 2
8)G&W= 2
9)Bowser= 1
10)IC= 1
11)Marth= 1
12)TL= 1
13)Pika= 1
MK has 28.5% of the only characters that are shown, which ae like 13 players out of 60+-... So we can't use CoT:4 as a reference, since it doesn't have ALL of the character choices of the players, or at the very least 3/4 of the players.


WHOBO:

1)MK= 14
2)Snake= 3
3)Wario= 4
4)Lucario= 2
5)DDD= 3
6)IC= 3
7)Marth= 8
8)G&W= 4
9)Olimar= 3
10)Diddy= 4
11)TL= 3
12)Peach= 1
13)Sonic= 2
14)Yoshi= 1
15)Fox= 2
16)Pika= 2
17)Wolf= 1
18)Samus= 1
19)DK= 1
20)Ike= 1
21)Falco= 2
22)Falcon= 1
23)Lucas= 2
24)PT= 1
25)Pit= 4
26)ROB= 1
27)ZSS= 1
28)Mario= 1
MK has 18.4% of the tourney's character choices.


*** Seems to ME that MK has been losing dominance/overcentralization, according to the tourneys I COULD use to help out my small research... WHOBO is the one with the least % of MKs, yet the top spots are overrun with them. Obviously the MK mains have been busy learning their matchups, it's not like 50% of the tourney was MKs only. Plus, it only makes sense to say that part of the top spots were taken by a couple of the best Brawl players NA can offer (M2K, Dojo, Razer...) along with its top MK mains (DSF, Tyrant, Lee Martin...). Where were the other equally-skilled top players who are NOT MK mains (NinjaLink, Ally, Anther...)? Obviously MKs would dominate, a player who uses the best character in the game PLUS has more skill than you, will beat you... Which is the case of WHOBO. ***

I agree that CoT4's results aren't usable for the reasons you stated. As for character choice, keep in mind that though 18%+ doesn't look like much, it is out of 37 possible character choices. Another thing to look at would be how much the numbers change from tournament to tournament. If you put the numbers together, you get something like this...

MK: 30 /21.1%
Snake: 8 /5.6%
Lucario:3 /2.1%
Wario: 6 /4.2%
Peach: 3 / 2.1%
G&W: 6 / 4.2%
Olimar: 4 /2.8%
PT: 3 / 2.1%
Pit: 7 / 4.9%
ROB: 2 / 1.4%
Sonic: 3 / 2.1%
DDD: 4 / 2.8%
Diddy: 7 / 4.9%
T. Link: 4 / 2.8%
Yoshi: 3 / 2.1%
Samus: 2 / 1.4%
DK: 1 / .7%
Fox: 5 / 3.5%
Ike: 2 / 1.4%
Marth: 12 / 8.5%
IC: 3 / 2.1%
Mario: 2 / 1.4%
ZSS: 2 / 1.4%
Falco: 7 / 4.9%
Falcon: 1 / .7%
Link: 1 / .7%
Lucas: 3 / 2.1%
Ganon: 1 / /7%

All for a total of 142, percentage has a .4 margin of error.

The nearest character doesn't even have half the amount of representation percentage. If other tourneys are taken into account, the result is likely the same or worse. Note, I didn't use CoT4 for the reasons that Kwekky stated. In a game with 37 different character options, 21.1% of one character is a lot of representation, especially if the next highest doesn't even break 10%.

@Kirbys: lets try to get a bit more rep in! With any luck, I will be able to make it to Genesis. Don't know what that will accomplish though. I doubt I'll make it out of pools.

 

[swordgard]

COT4 is very valid, only top of the metagame matters, top 13 is sufficient in sucha huge tourney. The problem isnt in lower end of metagame, only the top of the top.

 

[ShadowLink84]

that can apply to the whole cast vs mk.

It does.
that is why he is the best.
Metaknight has the most options in the game and also has option select
he will ALWAYS hav method of getting around one issue or another.

his conjecture however was that zard in particular is a 100:0 mu on mk. though i realize mk does have some advantage in the match up i dislike seeing highly exaggerated points like this because it actually gives the pro-ban side less credibility.


(i'm pro-ban btw)

Only idiots call it 100-0.
!00-0 is MewTwo vs Marth in melee.

 

[Kage Me]

Look above you. Kewkky posted them in his quote.

...I know that.

o_0;

 

[thrillagorilla]

COT4 is very valid, only top of the metagame matters, top 13 is sufficient in sucha huge tourney. The problem isnt in lower end of metagame, only the top of the top.

Why is this not a problem for the "lower meta-game"? I don't even understand your logic. If you don't place, then you don't matter? What kind of logic is that? Its like saying that M2K isn't the pinnacle of the Smash meta-game because he doesn't place first at every tournament (I've only seen one tourney where this was the case, and if I'm not mistaken he forfeited, but you see my point). The logic doesn't follow. The large scale picture matters, because of all the variables that can happen when you dissect and look at things on the small scale. Its like what happened with Mt. Saint Helens in Washington. The scientists that did the measuring of the mountain said it may or may not explode due to the data, but anyone who looked at the mountain's gargantuan bulge could say "Oh, look! It's gonna blow soon!"

Large scale picture matters.

Edit: Please forgive the bad example, but I didn't want this response to be on the next page and it was the only thing I could think of off the top of my head.

 

[swordgard]

Why is this not a problem for the "lower meta-game"? I don't even understand your logic. If you don't place, then you don't matter? What kind of logic is that? Its like saying that M2K isn't the pinnacle of the Smash meta-game because he doesn't place first at every tournament (I've only seen one tourney where this was the case, and if I'm not mistaken he forfeited, but you see my point). The logic doesn't follow. The large scale picture matters, because of all the variables that can happen when you dissect and look at things on the small scale. Its like what happened with Mt. Saint Helens in Washington. The scientists that did the measuring of the mountain said it may or may not explode due to the data, but any idiot who looked at the mountain's gargantuan bulge could say "Oh, look! It's gonna blow soon!"

Large scale picture matters.

Nope, because if a characte always places top 4 but not so much anywhere below, it means its a problem at the top of the metagame, which is where it really matters, because they are the ones playing the game at its maximum ability and therefore exploiting every little options they can get. Anywhere below does not matter, because i couldnt care less if MK dominated 90% of anything under top 16 but then good player could easily overcome it and no MK would place top 16. The problem is only at the top of the game, because its where you can see if a character truly is overpowered or not because this is where counters are found also, or if they cant be found if something happens to be broken.

 

[Dantarion]

I see what swordgard is saying.

If it was 90% MK but the top placements were a variety of characters, then it shows that too many people are playing mk without being good.

When all of the top players use MK, it shows that either (1)they are the best and just happen to use MK, (2)they play MK because they feel he is the best, or (3)MK is so good that MK makes them the best.

I am gonna go with 2. Theres no doubt that the best players would be the best regardless of picking MK, but the fact that they are the best players, AND they use MK just makes them that much harder to beat.

 

[Kewkky]

COT4 is very valid, only top of the metagame matters, top 13 is sufficient in sucha huge tourney. The problem isnt in lower end of metagame, only the top of the top.

No. Horrible.

Statistical data that isn't complete when field testing does not have enough data is considered useless. But, let's see how it works if we count CoT:4...

------------
Without CoT:4...

MK = 22.2% ..................... As we can clearly see, MK doesn't even occupy a quarter of the metagame.
Others = 77.8%



With CoT...

MK = 22.1% ..................... As we can clearly see, MK doesn't even occupy a quarter of the metagame.
Others = 77.9%
-------------

Either way it's the same thing, if not worse.


And how is it that lower competition doesn't matter? Are you saying the rest of the players don't count? OF COURSE THEY COUNT! This is a field test MADE in order to see how MK overcentralizes the game, not about how many pros use him and how many don't!

Nope, because if a characte always places top 4 but not so much anywhere below, it means its a problem at the top of the metagame, which is where it really matters, because they are the ones playing the game at its maximum ability and therefore exploiting every little options they can get. Anywhere below does not matter, because i couldnt care less if MK dominated 90% of anything under top 16 but then good player could easily overcome it and no MK would place top 16. The problem is only at the top of the game, because its where you can see if a character truly is overpowered or not because this is where counters are found also, or if they cant be found if something happens to be broken.

I see what swordgard is saying.

If it was 90% MK but the top placements were a variety of characters, then it shows that too many people are playing mk without being good.

When all of the top players use MK, it shows that either (1)they are the best and just happen to use MK, (2)they play MK because they feel he is the best, or (3)MK is so good that MK makes them the best.

I am gonna go with 2. Theres no doubt that the best players would be the best regardless of picking MK, but the fact that they are the best players, AND they use MK just makes them that much harder to beat.

So, if all the best players started using Jigglypuff and kicked everyone else's *** with her, would that mean she is bannable? Even if everyone else below them is using everyone else, would that mean Jigglypuff is overcentralizing by all of the top players using her?

Hell, that's a great way the top players can get an obstacle out of their way in competitive tourney... Even if Kirby isn't the best character, they could get him banned by getting together and agreeing that all of them will start using Kirby until he is banned!

What a horrible, horrible point of view.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Never mind, Kwekky beat me to it.

@Kwekky: Look at the combined numbers. This is around 21% of people selecting one character out of 37. The number is ludicrous, especially since the other "tournament viable" characters don't come even remotely close.

 

[Masmasher@]

Why is this not a problem for the "lower meta-game"? I don't even understand your logic. If you don't place, then you don't matter? What kind of logic is that? Its like saying that M2K isn't the pinnacle of the Smash meta-game because he doesn't place first at every tournament (I've only seen one tourney where this was the case, and if I'm not mistaken he forfeited, but you see my point). The logic doesn't follow. The large scale picture matters, because of all the variables that can happen when you dissect and look at things on the small scale. Its like what happened with Mt. Saint Helens in Washington. The scientists that did the measuring of the mountain said it may or may not explode due to the data, but anyone who looked at the mountain's gargantuan bulge could say "Oh, look! It's gonna blow soon!"

Large scale picture matters.

Edit: Please forgive the bad example, but I didn't want this response to be on the next page and it was the only thing I could think of off the top of my head.

^this
We were all noobs at somepoint (i still am). Those in the lower metagame matter because eventually they will become the upper metagame. Plus this so called large fighting game community is mostly made up of them. Sure sometimes their logic/whining is sometimes irrelevant but they attended that tourney. In order for the metaknight to win it (whoever did) Those people had to be disposed of. They were in the tournament, a obstacle on the way to the top placing. I know people are gonna look at this the wrong way but what sounds more impressive. I won a tournament with three people in it or i won a 414 man tournament? which one has the bigger pot? Plus thats assuming that everyone that didnt place in the money is garbage. Thats a very false statement. So while we may look at the highest levels of play being at a tournament means you matter.

thrilla that was just what i saw from you post.

 

[aeghrur]

Arbitrary numbers of "too much" are arbitrary.

 

[swordgard]

No. Horrible.

Statistical data that isn't complete when field testing does not have enough data is considered useless. But, let's see how it works if we count CoT:4...

------------
Without CoT:4...

MK = 22.2% ..................... As we can clearly see, MK doesn't even occupy a quarter of the metagame.
Others = 77.8%



With CoT...

MK = 22.1% ..................... As we can clearly see, MK doesn't even occupy a quarter of the metagame.
Others = 77.9%
-------------

Either way it's the same thing, if not worse.


And how is it that lower competition doesn't matter? Are you saying the rest of the players don't count? OF COURSE THEY COUNT! This is a field test MADE in order to see how MK overcentralizes the game, not about how many pros use him and how many don't!



So, if all the best players started using Jigglypuff and kicked everyone else's *** with her, would that mean she is bannable? Even if everyone else below them is using everyone else, would that mean Jigglypuff is overcentralizing by all of the top players using her?

Hell, that's a great way the top players can get an obstacle out of their way in competitive tourney... Even if Kirby isn't the best character, they could get him banned by getting together and agreeing that all of them will start using Kirby until he is banned!

What a horrible, horrible point of view.

No, the lower metagame does not count. I am sorry, what your talking about is falsifying that, here it is merely taking only into account the part that counts. Or else, i could take all the noobs who take metaknight and say they overcentralize the metagame. I am only talking about him overcentralizing the metagame at the top of the game, noone should even give a shiz about what happens to lower level of it. Its the same for the tier list, it only applies to the highest level of the metagame. Pro level is all what matters, and pros tends to play to win. Which is why not only they are pro, but they will use the best character, and thus will enhance their pro abilities to the point were the other characters become unviable compared to him at pro level. Pros wont win everything using jiggs, shes not overcentralizing like MK is doing right now. Look, pros are good, but MK helps them. This is why pros with MKs will start dominating, even above the pros without MK. There is your true problem. He is only overcentralizing at the top of the top.

EDIT: For a tourney of Cat4 magnitude, top 13 is mostly the best of the best. In smaller tourneys, its something like top8 or top 4.

 

[Kewkky]

@Kwekky: Look at the combined numbers. This is around 21% of people selecting one character out of 37. The number is ludicrous, especially since the other "tournament viable" characters don't come even remotely close.

Well, i don't know, but something tells me this is a common sight in every competitive game where characters of different abilities can be chosen. A large percentage of players will lean towards the best option, or the most user-friendly one. MK IS the best one, so lots of people want to use the best option.

Just like in SF4, people prefer Sagat. Just like in card games, people prefer the cards that centralize current deck construction. Just like in the most recent DBZ game, people prefer Kid Buu/Broly (dont know which one was people's favorite choice).

The most poplar options are the best options. MK's dominance has to do with people seeing pros use MKs and doing exceedingly well with him against everyone. Otherwise, only the handful that were actually attracted to his playstyle over other characters' would choose him.

Plus... Seeing as 78% of the community would rather use a different character, when looked at the situation from a macroscopic point of view, it's not as bad as people make it seem.

 

[Cirno]

The other tournament viable characters aren't the best in the game.

What percentage would you consider an acceptable number of representation for the best character in a game?

 

[Kewkky]

No, the lower metagame does not count. I am sorry, what your talking about is falsifying that, here it is merely taking only into account the part that counts. Or else, i could take all the noobs who take metaknight and say they overcentralize the metagame. I am only talking about him overcentralizing the metagame at the top of the game, noone should even give a shiz about what happens to lower level of it. Its the same for the tier list, it only applies to the highest level of the metagame. Pro level is all what matters, and pros tends to play to win. Which is why not only they are pro, but they will use the best character, and thus will enhance their pro abilities to the point were the other characters become unviable compared to him at pro level. Pros wont win everything using jiggs, shes not overcentralizing like MK is doing right now. Look, pros are good, but MK helps them. This is why pros with MKs will start dominating, even above the pros without MK. There is your true problem. He is only overcentralizing at the top of the top.

So, to make the game more user-friendly, we have to ban the thing that's winning the most tourneys, eh? Hmm...

If there was a fighting game where it would have two players that won every tournament they went to, and those players would go to EVERY tournament held that would have that game in it, and they always won those tournaments... Would that mean they are the ones that should be banned? What if they always used different characters, would they still need to be banned?

What if (hypothetically) after the ban, M2K stays on top of the competitive scene, but using Snake and ICs instead? The top spot of every tourney will be taken by M2K and whatever character he chose to take that top with. Will it make those characters bannable too? Or should we just ban M2K for dominating the PRO competitive scene? Shouldn't we look at the smaller portion of the community?

EDIT: For a tourney of Cat4 magnitude, top 13 is mostly the best of the best. In smaller tourneys, its something like top8 or top 4.

According to YOUR way of seeing things.


PS: I MYSELF would find it acceptable for a banning, when the percentage of the character usage is taken by half of the community, more or less (doesn't have to be 50% of players... As soon as we see it dominating people's choices at a point that we could call "critical", THEN we should ban the character)... 21% (20% rounded up) doesn't seem like a critical point. 80% of the whole community is still picking other characters, including pros that oftentime win tourneys (like NinjaLink, which also took a set from M2K, and he IS the best player in the world AND is using the best character in the world).

 

[swordgard]

So, to make the game more user-friendly, we have to ban the thing that's winning the most tourneys, eh? Hmm...

If there was a fighting game where it would have two players that won every tournament they went to, and those players would go to EVERY tournament held that would have that game in it, and they always won those tournaments... Would that mean they are the ones that should be banned? What if they always used different characters, would they still need to be banned?

What if (hypothetically) after the ban, M2K stays on top of the competitive scene, but using Snake and ICs instead? The top spot of every tourney will be taken by M2K and whatever character he chose to take that top with. Will it make those characters bannable too? Or should we just ban M2K for dominating the PRO competitive scene? Shouldn't we look at the smaller portion of the community?

According to YOUR way of seeing things.


PS: I MYSELF would find it acceptable for a banning, when the percentage of the character usage is taken by half of the community, more or less (doesn't have to be 50% of players... As soon as we see it dominating people's choices at a point that we could call "critical", THEN we should ban the character)... 21% (20% rounded up) doesn't seem like a critical point. 80% of the whole community is still picking other characters, including pros that oftentime win tourneys (like NinjaLink, which also took a set from M2K, and he IS the best player in the world AND is using the best character in the world).

The problem isnt m2k winning with MK, its when more than half of the best in cot4s are using MK

 

[pure_awesome]

Banning a character because such-and-such percentage of the community uses him can't work.

Especially when you consider that some of the pros don't use MK because he's MK and he's gay.

 

[Dantarion]

20% of people using MK is pretty bad IMO.
Swordguard, I disagree about the lower players not mattering.
90% of the players are lower players, we play the game too.

 

[aeghrur]

Banning a character because such-and-such percentage of the community uses him can't work.

This. Again, arbitrary numbers are arbitrary.

 

[thrillagorilla]

No, the lower metagame does not count. I am sorry, what your talking about is falsifying that, here it is merely taking only into account the part that counts. Or else, i could take all the noobs who take metaknight and say they overcentralize the metagame. I am only talking about him overcentralizing the metagame at the top of the game, noone should even give a shiz about what happens to lower level of it. Its the same for the tier list, it only applies to the highest level of the metagame. Pro level is all what matters, and pros tends to play to win. Which is why not only they are pro, but they will use the best character, and thus will enhance their pro abilities to the point were the other characters become unviable compared to him at pro level. Pros wont win everything using jiggs, shes not overcentralizing like MK is doing right now. Look, pros are good, but MK helps them. This is why pros with MKs will start dominating, even above the pros without MK. There is your true problem. He is only overcentralizing at the top of the top.

EDIT: For a tourney of Cat4 magnitude, top 13 is mostly the best of the best. In smaller tourneys, its something like top8 or top 4.

What would happen if a top snake player faced a top MK player in the first round after pools and got sent to losers brackets? Now that person faces another top MK in losers and loses. That Snake didn't place in the top ranks. does this mean that he/she is a scrub? No, it means he/she lost early. You are assuming that the top spots will always be the top players, and this isn't always the case. I'd use names, but I don't have permission. Look it up on the tourney results board.

The other tournament viable characters aren't the best in the game.

What percentage would you consider an acceptable number of representation for the best character in a game?

Its not just the high MK percentage, its the low Snake, DeDeDe etc. percentage. These characters are tourney viable. Why do they not have a higher percentage of play? Because MK is over-centralizing the meta-game. I would accept a high Metaknight number if the other numbers were higher as well. I don't want to arbitrarily throw out numbers, because they don't mean anything in an argument without context.

Edit: @:Masmasher@: Yeah, everyone else matters too. If the rest of the community didn't exist, neither would the tourneys. It would just be a whole bunch of MMs.

 

[Kewkky]

The problem isnt m2k winning with MK, its when more than half of the best in cot4s are using MK

Since we're not speaking of character-specific traits...

So, if more than half of the best (including the winners) were using Kirby, would that make him bannable?

If all of the pros don't appear at the tourney, then according to your logic, the number of MK winners don't matter, right? Well, in all the huge tourneys that have happened, we haven't seen the attendance of ALL the top players in a single one of them.

 

[swordgard]

What would happen if a top snake player faced a top MK player in the first round after pools and got sent to losers brackets? Now that person faces another top MK in losers and loses. That Snake didn't place in the top ranks. does this mean that he/she is a scrub? No, it means he/she lost early. You are assuming that the top spots will always be the top players, and this isn't always the case. I'd use names, but I don't have permission. Look it up on the tourney results board.



Its not just the high MK percentage, its the low Snake, DeDeDe etc. percentage. These characters are tourney viable. Why do they not have a higher percentage of play? Because MK is over-centralizing the meta-game. I would accept a high Metaknight number if the other numbers were higher as well. I don't want to arbitrarily throw out numbers, because they don't mean anything in an argument without context.

Im not saying the system is perfect, but considering that even in a tourney some people will play chars when they lose, even if its totally anti competitive, they should not matter imo. Yes, some mistakes can be done, however good pool seeding and others make this way less common. Yes , sometimes shiz happens, but the same can happen to MK players.

Noobs should not matter, only the highest level of metagame should. Because the highest level of metagame is playing the game at its limit and is therefore the place where you should be able to spot if a character REALLY has too many good options compared to others, because other pros wont be able to counter it.
I repeat, noobs should not matter in this, especially since alot of them would still choose lower tier chars whether it helps them win or not. In other word, if 50% of the people played CF, i wouldnt give a shiz because they would not overcentralize the top 8 because they would most probably get many placings in top 8 anyways in any big(200 people) tourney.

 

[swordgard]

Since we're not speaking of character-specific traits...

So, if more than half of the best (including the winners) were using Kirby, would that make him bannable?

If all of the pros don't appear at the tourney, then according to your logic, the number of MK winners don't matter, right? Well, in all the huge tourneys that have happened, we haven't seen the attendance of ALL the top players in a single one of them.

As of now, the closest we had to a huge tourney is CoT4, where the best of the best were already there. And look at top 13 >.>
If more than half of the best were using kirbys and a very huge amount of pros were there just like at cot4, then yes, hed be bannable. It would be a result of him being way above the other.

EDIT: Sorry for double post, my mistake :S

 

[thrillagorilla]

Im not saying the system is perfect, but considering that even in a tourney some people will play chars when they lose, even if its totally anti competitive, they should not matter imo. Yes, some mistakes can be done, however good pool seeding and others make this way less common. Yes , sometimes shiz happens, but the same can happen to MK players.

Noobs should not matter, only the highest level of metagame should. Because the highest level of metagame is playing the game at its limit and is therefore the place where you should be able to spot if a character REALLY has too many good options compared to others, because other pros wont be able to counter it.
I repeat, noobs should not matter in this, especially since alot of them would still choose lower tier chars whether it helps them win or not. In other word, if 50% of the people played CF, i wouldnt give a shiz because they would not overcentralize the top 8 because they would most probably get many placings in top 8 anyways in any big(200 people) tourney.

How do we separate the nOObs from the pros in tournament results? How do we even make the distinction of who the "pros" are? I understand what you are trying to say and I'm not trying to discredit you, but you can't make assumptions when dealing with this kind of issue.

As to your last statement, the nOObs are not doing that, so what does it have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing.

Ah, wait, I see you posted again. Your assertion doesn't matter for the same reason that the above one didn't. It didn't happen. It is a "slippery-slope" fallacy.

 

[l!nk_aut]

metaknight should not be banned. he´s not broken.

 

[Tyr_03]

No one has answered the important questions. How much is too much Metaknight? How many players need to play him in tournaments before he is overly dominant? What does it mean for a character to overcentralize the metagame?

Until these are answered, the argument is entirely opinion based. Unless we can agree on some kind of criteria the debate will continue. This is highly unlikely. As it stands, about half of the smashboards community is in favor of banning Metaknight while almost 40% are opposed to the ban. All things considered, Metaknight still has a pretty high approval rating.

 

[xDD-Master]

I think the biggest problem is just, that playing MK is:
-fun (You dont have lag on the most moves, dont get juggled or gimped... you can gimp and you can recover simply everytime (To Fail at Recovering just because of your Character Weakness is a bad thing - Link for example -.-) !!!)
-easy (well, he IS one of the most easiest to play with and you know that)
-you will have the good/best chances to win with him (Anyone who wants to disagree xD?)

-> Bad Combination IMO :S

There are characters who only fit in with one of those 3 things.

 

[thrillagorilla]

No one has answered the important questions. How much is too much Metaknight? How many players need to play him in tournaments before he is overly dominant? What does it mean for a character to overcentralize the metagame?

Until these are answered, the argument is entirely opinion based. Unless we can agree on some kind of criteria the debate will continue. This is highly unlikely. As it stands, about half of the smashboards community is in favor of banning Metaknight while almost 40% are opposed to the ban. All things considered, Metaknight still has a pretty high approval rating.

Eyada and Amazing Ampharos have been debating on such criteria. I'm still waiting to see AA's latest response. He said he wanted some time to think about it and for an issue as difficult as this one I can understand. It'll be good to see what he says. He writes really good counter points. I won't mind if the end result doesn't end up in a ban, I'm after the truth of the matter more than anything.

As to over-centralization, I'm using Eyada's latest set of criteria for interpretation of the numbers. The high MK number is more of a symptom of a different problem than the actual problem itself.

Edit: Sorry, I'm not trying to be insulting. I just see a lot of posts go up in this thread without much thought put into them and I begin to snip at everything I see.

 

[Tyr_03]

Yep, my interpretation of the number of people who approve and disapprove of the ban is arbitrary and opinion based.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Yep, my interpretation of the number of people who approve and disapprove of the ban is arbitrary and opinion based.

Sorry. Really, I should have put it differently. I'll edit it. I can't tell if you are being serious or not though...

Edit: Its gone. Again, I apologize.

 

[Kewkky]

How much is too much Metaknight?

The answer for that question can only be answered with opinions. Some people believe now we have too many MKs, whereas others think we don't have enough to say it's "too many" yet. I'm one of those that believe that a higher number of MKs in tourneys would be needed to say there are "too many".

How many players need to play him in tournaments before he is overly dominant?

In MY opinion (and mine alone right now), about half of the community using him would be just about right. It doesn't have to be exactly 50% of the community or more, as soon as we see a number that seems to be increasing an NOT stopping, and getting even closer to making tourneys consist of 50% MKs (or more), THAT'S when I'll be able to say that MK is overcentralizing.

As we saw in the tourney results, Hobo 11 (which is the oldest tourney) had 2x% MKs in it. CoT:4, next oldest, had a higher number, rounding up to 30% MKs in it, but I didn't get to see the rest of the characters in the tourney, so I can't really say HOW many MKs were in the tourney. WHOBO had roughly 18% MK attendance, which shows a clear decrease after the MK hype happened... After Genesis happens, we'll see how the MK situation is holding up, if it worsens or it doesn't. I bet I'll have a different view of what I have now if it DOES worsen (after all, his banning won't affect me! ZSS and Kirby forever! :D).

Has no one thought about the fact that, as most pros started using MK, MK had more people that could research him than when Brawl came out? Those pros had more capable minds than amateurs, so it was only natural that MK's metagame would progress faster. Due to the number of capable minds behind MK's development, and to the public's acceptance of the pros' results in tourneys with MK, people felt it would be a smarter idea backing up the one character that was beginning to progress faster.

As we spek, Falco mains are finding new uses for their cg and easier ways to laserlock characters, Pikachu mains are perfecting their buffered dthrows, and who knows what other mains have something up their sleeves that they aren't revealing to the people's eyes? It seems to me their metagame is progressing and hasn't halted (or slowed down)... When was the last time some new, actually useful AT (or new use for an attack) was found with MK?

What does it mean for a character to overcentralize the metagame?

When every other character's development is slowing down and that one character isn't (or is accelerating). When that said character halts other character's development due to his traits or benefits. When, no matter what happens, that character will always be on top of the others, or more numerous than the others by a large-enough number... At least, that's what I make "overcentralizing" to be.

 

[ShadowLink84]

The amount of players using MK is unimportant.
Why? If 100% of people started using Link, would he become ban worthy? No.

The reason for this is because that is overcentralizing due to popularity. It doesnt make a bad character ban worthy.

What matter sis the overcentralizing by nature.
Which is like Akuma which falls down to being, play this character or lose.
You cannot win unless you perform this tactic or use this character or do this to your opponent.

 

[Cirno]

[

Its not just the high MK percentage, its the low Snake, DeDeDe etc. percentage. These characters are tourney viable. Why do they not have a higher percentage of play?

Why does Snake have double the rep of DDD and Marth have 3 times as much?

Maybe because the representation depends on who wants to choose that character?


If you have a problem with how little representation a character has, start by representing them.

Because MK is over-centralizing the meta-game. I would accept a high Metaknight number if the other numbers were higher as well. I don't want to arbitrarily throw out numbers, because they don't mean anything in an argument without context.

So if Snake, MK, and DDD all took up about 30% of representation this would be ok?
I thought you guys wanted diversity?

If you are going to use those results as evidence of overcentralization MK will never be banned. Marth has a higher representation than both Snake and DDD . MK is his worse matchup which should discourage his play. And YET, people choose to play him. In the same way people choose to play MK.

If what you want is to even out character representation, promote a character you would like to see, play him yourself. I never saw so many Warios before Fiction hype spread around. Diddy was even considered to be just by winning by people not knowing the matchup until NL won the second time against M2K-- and now we have all of these Diddys.

So many of you shout overcentralization, but don't say how. How is MK overcentralizing? Give us a reasonable example so that if this happens again we stop it alot sooner. " Too many people pick MK is a ridiculous reason because once he is banned, where do you think that percentage go? Evenly into every character? You have a better chance of Sakurai admitting adding tripping was the stupidest thing he's done in his life.

None of the methods we've used in past competitive games to determine overcentralization apply to MK.

No one is being forced to use MK in order to win.
He does not renders a sufficient majority of or all, other characters non-viable.
Nothing he does breaks the game.

It would be best to stick with the No counterpicks argument, because as far now MK is just really popular.

And it's pretty obvious a lot of people would play him , look at how many type of people he is applicable to:

• Tier Whores
• Meta Knight fans (from the series)
• Hype Addicts (With all this MK is this and that talk who wouldn't want to atleast try him)
• Pro-ban (He's broken-- I'll show you by beating people I'm better than and losing to Sonic)
• Matchup Junkies ( A couple 50:50s at best, if you are better you will win and that's that)
• Style Lovers (Fast, furious, aggressive and highly anti-camp)
  

I can understand not wanting to face him. Beatable or not if you have to face a character every other set, and then occasionally lose as people switch to them as a last resort--you are bound to get annoyed/bored/ect.. And hell, a ban wouldn't hurt if they are your worst matchup or a bad matchup at all. But when you could have won simply by being a better player, does he deserve a ban? If Snake becomes his counter and things look generally the same will he still warrant a ban?

I really want to know-- why do we need to ban MK?

And as far as I know you can't arbitrarily throw out numbers if you are alright in the head. You can throw out arbitrary numbers, which is much different and would not apply to the question I asked at first.

So again, What percentage would you consider an acceptable number of representation for the best character in a game?

I think the biggest problem is just, that playing MK is:
-fun

Irrelevant. Snake, Diddy, and Squirtle are also very fun to play.
And if your argument is speed uair is the only thing MK wins at.

Lag?
Samus' aerials don't have to be auto-canceled, MK's do.
And Pit and Charizard also have glide attack lag cancels.

-easy

Also irrelevant.

People also say G&W is easy to use. A smaller extent mention Snake.

-you will have the good/best chances to win with him (Anyone who wants to disagree xD?)

Would you expect different from the best character in a game?

-> Bad Combination IMO :S

There are characters who only fit in with one of those 3 things.

Wario disagrees. Especially when so little Peaches pop up due to MK's popularity.

 

[EvolveOrDie]

When every other character's development is slowing down and that one character isn't (or is accelerating). When that said character halts other character's development due to his traits or benefits. When, no matter what happens, that character will always be on top of the others, or more numerous than the others by a large-enough number... At least, that's what I make "overcentralizing" to be.

I thought overcentralization is when the metagame revolves almost entirely around a characters ability to deal with a certain strategy/character. I could be wrong but I do think the issue (not whether he is deserving of a ban) with meta knight is that he is the only character to commonly have large representation.

 

[Kewkky]

I thought overcentralization is when the metagame revolves almost entirely around a characters ability to deal with a certain strategy/character.

See, the sad thing about me defining something that has no clear definition, is that I may or may NOT be wrong. What you said could very well be the real definition of overcentralization, or it could be another false one... Same as what I defined MY view of what overcentralization is.

But it doesn't just revolve around a character's ability to fare better against a certain strategy/character... It also depends on the amount of representation that character might have. If one person would use SF2's Akuma while every other person would use different characters, the public's reaction would be MUCH more different than if 50 people used Akuma and the rest used the other characters.

... Hence Japan's soft-ban, which they don't need to enforce thanks to the population's agreement on not using him.

I could be wrong but I do think the issue (not whether he is deserving of a ban) with meta knight is that he is the only character to commonly have large representation.

Correct! :D

 

[ShadowLink84]

But it doesn't just revolve around a character's ability to fare better against a certain strategy/character...

Actually it does. The fact that Ravager Affinity can wreck every deck EXCEPT tooth and nail mad eit ban worthy.
The fact that Akuma 9-1's everyone in SF2 makes him ban worthy.
That is part of overcentralization, where it is play to win.

It also depends on the amount of representation that character might have. If one person would use SF2's Akuma while every other person would use different characters, the public's reaction would be MUCH more different than if 50 people used Akuma and the rest used the other characters.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Even if one Akuma user played him while there were 50 billion other character users doesnt change the fact that Akuma warranted a ban.
A characters popularity has NOTHING to do with being ban worthy.
His popularity does NOT change his capabilities. It doesnt change the fact that he ***** EVERYONE in the game when in play.

It doesnt change the fact that he can chip you to death.
It doesn't change the fact that his low kicks are invincible.

Popularity has NOTHING to do with a character being ban worthy.

... Hence Japan's soft-ban, which they don't need to enforce thanks to the population's agreement on not using him.

nooooooooooo

Japans soft ban is the equivalent of our hard ban.
They acknowledge he is too good but they dont hard ban him.
Their culture works much differently than ours soa soft ban is possible.
Its an hoor code among top players.
They ban him for the same reason the U.S. banned him.
He is too good and overcentralizes by nature.

Correct! :D

^_^

 

[Kewkky]

ShadowLink, I'm speaking about MK's current situation. What I have said is in contrast with MK's situation and MK's situation only.