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

[Sosuke]

@ Inui: Which character do you use?

Just curious.

 

[Inui]

@ Inui: Which character do you use?

Just curious.

Here you go, ripped from my AiB profile:

Brawl Characters
Mains: Meta Knight, Snake, Wario
Secondaries: Marth, Ganondorf, Pit, Dedede, Fox, Ike, Peach

Melee Characters
Mains: Sheik, Ganondorf
Secondaries: Fox, Marth, Peach, Kirby, Young Link, Roy, Captain Falcon

Smash 64 Characters
Mains: Jigglypuff, Fox, Kirby
Secondaries: N/A

 

[Brinzy]

No Zelda = gtfo



I want that to-do list of adum's worked on... but of course I won't be doing the work...

 

[Masmasher@]

He doesn't. I was goign to leave the burden of proof on you, but heck, I'm bored.

Let's say I'm Jigglypuff, on the ground, in front of MK. What are his options?

Dash attack or grab? Dair beats either, but I prefer reading it to shield/dodge and counter-grab, since I'm Jigglypuff. Plus, if I dair too much, he will start baiting them with dashes and jumping into fairs instead.

Up-B? Please, that's just asking to get shield grabbed.

Nado? Lol, a random nado? Please don't argue that this is a legit option, I'm giving you a hint here.

Walk forward? This is his best bet, since I have to either bait a f-tilt chain and roll to grab or pound, or jump and try to take the battle to the air.

This proves nothing how do you shield grab up b. Hell he can running shield to stop your dair counter completly. nair can beat that. Nado if used properly cant be punished by jigglypuff.
Jigglypuff will get ***** in the air despite mks lack of mobility. Heck why are you even using jp against mk pick a different character or GG.

I really don't care, this isn't kickball teams. Someone says something wrong, I'm going to correct them. If someone insists on a wrong point while not having any background to give it validity at all, I'm going to point that out.

I'm not saying bad players or anyone else aren't allowed to have opinions or discuss or have a say in the community. I'm saying that they are in no position to insist things relating to the abstract mechanics of the game when they themselves have no shown any mastery of them.

I have actually agreed with a lot of adambrodus's posts, including in this topic, and think they are well-written. But, on this obsession with priority, he is very misguided.

What obssesion are you talking about. He simply mentioned it with captain falcon
You dont have to demostate frames to know about them. this point is moot.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Zelda has fantastic priority, as does Ike. I don't see why you are so focused on a singular element of the game that MK isn't even the best in. G&W has the best overall priority.

I hope this doesn't sound personal, but adumbrodeus, your arguments made it clear that you are not a good player at this game. I would money match you for at least $20, with both Jigglypuff and Captain Falcon. A quick Youtube scan seemed to confirmation my speculation and suggest that this would be easy money.

I'm in western Kentucky, so I can only hope that our paths cross at tourney in the South sometime.

...

You're not quite understanding my point, he's saying priority is meaningless, I'm pointing out that he's missing a major part of the equation when saying that, in Melee Falcon had options to make up for it, plus he had some useful high priority moves.

On the opposite end, there are definitely mitigating attributes which make high priority characters not as good.

However, in very general terms, you won't disagree with me when I say priority is good to have, right? It's not something that can be just laughed away by "time better", characters that can completely negate priority are the exceptions not the rule, and higher tier characters tend to have good priority.


I freely admit that I'm far from the best Brawl player ever, I'm better at melee, but I'm also not the best melee player. I simply don't have the time to play as much as I need to actually get really good. This isn't a John, this is a statement of fact, I choose to prioritize school, performances of various types, social life, and various positions I hold in various organizations over smash.

However, I am quite knowledgeable about the game, most regular contributors to the thread will tell you as much.


This disconnect mainly comes from posting on smashboards and reading up on technical data being a heck of a lot more convenient for me then going to tournaments, that and I have a knack for theoretical modeling, I'm an ISE major so it's part of how I do my thing, and even before starting college it was a natural skill of mine.

So yea, I can't put everything I say into practice, but I know what I'm talking about, kapish?

Original point being: good characters can punish quickly given they use an optimal response and deal good damage doing it, and every character hat meets that qualification can punish a higher priority move not by hoping to beat the move with one of theirs, but by selecting the proper response to punish them for being predicted. Watch any given good match and it's not people just spamming priority moves at the right spacing, it's people forcing openings often despite priority.

But only if you have the proper mitigating attributes to work with. And those mitigating attributes in sufficient quantity are rare.

Side note: Falcon has never needed priority, because he has always had the ability to force his way in and punish you to hell with high reward options that put the other guy in a terrible position. Hmmmmm given the character attributes he has always had I wonder what happens when you take that, his only outstanding strength away hmmmmmmmm

In an engine far more friendly to him, yes he could work without priority, but this is Brawl. If the engine was friendly to him that'd mean he'd have mitigating attributes which would cover for his lack of priority.

A jump in is basically an approach. Metaknight has approaches that are safe, damaging and overall hard to deal with, but freaking read him and choose the correct way to punish him (if your character is reasonably good I guarantee you they have an answer of some sort), that's what you have to be trying to do to be better than average at anything competitive

And what if he plays defense?

Against characters that metaknight doesn't have a safe approach, he can play defense and poke like Marth, forcing you to come to him. Then he punishes you when you approach.

I really don't care, this isn't kickball teams. Someone says something wrong, I'm going to correct them. If someone insists on a wrong point while not having any background to give it validity at all, I'm going to point that out.

Except that you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I wasn't even suggesting that priority was everything. I was merely pointing out that it was something*. There's a substantial difference, reread what I was responding to and understand where I was coming from.

I was beating down a crazy hyperbole trotted out as fact, I seriously think you were barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not saying bad players or anyone else aren't allowed to have opinions or discuss or have a say in the community. I'm saying that they are in no position to insist things relating to the abstract mechanics of the game when they themselves have no shown any mastery of them.

Shown mastery of something has nothing to do with abstract knowledge. Nothing whatsoever.

Just because you have the ability to probably beat me in a game of smash doesn't mean that given the technical details of the game you're good at modeling them. That's like saying being a good pitcher means that you know the physics and math behind every aspect of the game and can do various types of calc operation's on the Ball's velocity at various points in the game in order to apply that to theoretical models of the game.

The skillsets are fundamental different, and while being good at the first might give you an approximate feel for the end result of the second, does not make you good at the other.

 

[Curaga]

Super Smash Brothers Brawl:

SERIOUS BUSINESS.

By the way.

I've discovered the perfected method to defeating Meta Knight.

Shoot him with a gun.

The end.

 

[Brinzy]

Space animals and Samus still get ***** by him.

 

[P. O. F.]

planking = arbitrary thing that applies to everyone, not just MK

Yeah, ok. Because i'm sure Kirby, Snake, (one of the worst characters from the ledge get up) Falco, Fox, DDD, and everyone else are amazing at planking. I don't know about you guys but when I hear the word "planking" I certainly don't think of Sonic or Zelda. At WORST other than MK you have Marth or GAW. (on Pokey Stadium) That's about it. I'll bet you anything that the no ledge stall more thna X amount of times in a match was made a good chunk of around 95% for Meta Knight mains. I'm sure all of us could find plenty of footage of MK's running the clock as opposed to other characters. Some of you "think" you have a good idea what you are talking about when in reality, you're just other Meta Knight mains who would go insane to see this character banned.

There is a difference between presenting valid true evidence or just "supporting your character because certain people would cry to see him banned." Some of you on here however, are making valid claims and aren't being stupid. The debaters who have posted here are quite intelligent and not being ********.

@ Inui: Which character do you use?

Just curious.

Here you go, ripped from my AiB profile:

Brawl Characters
Mains: Meta Knight, Snake, Wario

What do you know? Another Smash Back Room player who USES META KNIGHT. LOL.

I smell a bit of Politics in the smash back room.

Coughcoughcoughoverswarmcoughcoughmewtwokingcoughcoughcoughsadaharuinui

 

[Brinzy]

I don't even play MK, so half of what you're trying to use against me is stupid and useless. Why the hell are you talking about Zelda and Sonic for planking? Excuse me for not being perfect with my wording and using "everyone", since I assumed nobody would take it literally, but I stand corrected. I can believe that this issue came up because of MK, but ledgecamping is not MK-specific.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What do you know? Another Smash Back Room player who USES META KNIGHT. LOL.

I smell a bit of Politics in the smash back room.

Coughcoughcoughoverswarmcoughcoughmewtwokingcoughcoughcoughsadaharuinui

You're just realizing NOW that Inui uses MK, sheesh.

Yes, a number of BRers use MK, your point?


You also realize that overswarm is probably the most virulent pro-ban member on the boards right?




Missed this:

I want that to-do list of adum's worked on... but of course I won't be doing the work...

Why not, if you're right then it positively confirms your side, if you're wrong, you know that you were mistaken and can switch sides, plus if only pro-ban is working on it there's a bigger chance bias can taint it.


Ultimately, it's better for our community to know, and a lot of the things there have beneficial side effects in other areas. For example, a better theoretical model helps match-up accuracy in general.

 

[Blitzmidfielder]

I voted yes. I'd color MK as not only advanced, but borderline too easy to play.

 

[Curaga]

Space animals and Samus still get ***** by him.

Samus and Wolf aside~

Fox and Falco players can be incredibly annoying and just stay way the hell away as much as they possibly can and lay on the guns.

Also, the use of the word "****" needs to really diminish.

 

[Brinzy]

Fine, fine.



Adum, that was more or less a "too lazy to do it now" statement than a refusal one.

 

[Red Arremer]

AA killed of my entire argument. Then again, what wouldn't you expect from the only person aside from Yuna on the anti-ban side who actually shows a consistent level of intelligence in this thread, imo?

=/
That hurts, considering I always try to argument intelligently.

Meta does damage the metagame, because he makes some characters COMPLETELY inviable.

No, he doesn't make some characters completely unviable, he makes no character completely unviable. Even Marth, Peach and R.O.B. still have tournament results, and just because they have to counterpick against Meta Knight in the worst case it doesn't make them completely unviable. Out of these 3 characters, only Marth would have profit from a ban, since Peach and R.O.B. still have hard counters in the roster next to Meta Knight.

I voted yes. I'd color MK as not only advanced, but borderline too easy to play.

How? Meta Knight is as hard to master as every other character. The only thing his player is having an easier time is covering his weaknesses with skill. Since Meta Knight has many merits but little flaws, it's easier for him than for Low Tiers, who have more flaws than merits.
But "easy to play" is not a valid argument, because it's not true. I've never heard of someone just picking Meta Knight without ever using him and proceeding to **** the whole tournament. If the player is just spamming moves like the Mach Tornado, you can use your own intelligence to counter that since pretty much every character can do that. If you lose to a bad Meta Knight, the only thing you have to judge is your own skill, nothing else.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adum, that was more or less a "too lazy to do it now" statement than a refusal one.

Cool, if I can get some real support I'm hoping to make it a community project.

 

[Master Raven]

What do you know? Another Smash Back Room player who USES META KNIGHT. LOL.

I smell a bit of Politics in the smash back room.

Coughcoughcoughoverswarmcoughcoughmewtwokingcoughcoughcoughsadaharuinui

el oh el

You do realize also that the last time they voted not to ban him that only two MK mains (Kel and M2K) voted no right?

 

[.AC.]

I voted yes. I'd color MK as not only advanced, but borderline too easy to play.

Learning curve is by no means a reason to ban a character.

 

[rehab]

...

You're not quite understanding my point, he's saying priority is meaningless, I'm pointing out that he's missing a major part of the equation when saying that, in Melee Falcon had options to make up for it, plus he had some useful high priority moves.

Good players don't lose to priority alone

not quite


In an engine far more friendly to him, yes he could work without priority, but this is Brawl. If the engine was friendly to him that'd mean he'd have mitigating attributes which would cover for his lack of priority.
I was going to say something about the fact that all his kill moves require setup, preferably a combo to be reasonably good moves but
uh
So are we agreeing or what




And what if he plays defense?

Against characters that metaknight doesn't have a safe approach, he can play defense and poke like Marth, forcing you to come to him. Then he punishes you when you approach.
Predict how he's going to keep you out, get around it and get in, it happens, no johns etc. Are you going to tell me it doesn't?




I was beating down a crazy hyperbole trotted out as fact, I seriously think you were barking up the wrong tree.
and I'm the one telling fantastic stories then? lol


Shown mastery of something has nothing to do with abstract knowledge. Nothing whatsoever.
You're taking zoning to be something like 100% effective all the time when even the best players let other best players in their DANGER zone and pay for it. Smart players predict will get inside and do their damage, zoning is by no means absolute since you are generally going to be outmaneuvering the person you are getting in on, not playing along with "HERE'S MY PRIORITY/RANGE, HERE'S HIS PRIORITY/RANGE, LET'S JAM THEM TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK GEE HIS CHARACTER HAD MORE SO I LOST

I ain't breaking up this quote man that'd take forever

 

[Nic64]

Your argument here is basically an appeal to emotion built on top of a lot of whining about how MK is too good.

I notice this a lot on this subject, like a few pages ago AA made a post clearly outlining, with evidence, how meta knight doesn't overcentralize the meta game at all. pro ban mostly ignores it until it gets burried a bit, then come back the "meta knight has no bad matchups and overcentralizes the meta game because there is no reason not to use him haoihgoajsgh" posts. It's really annoying. Then there are people like POF and Cr4sh who basically do nothing BUT this in this topic. It's really pretty pointless now...*thinks this topic should be closed*

On top of that, Pierce7d recently switched to anti-ban

what was his reasoning?

"I **** MK again"

Pierce is awesome, but his reliance on personal experience rapidly changes his opinion one way or another.

****, I was wondering why he hadn't come to the Snake boards and argued that the vs MK matchup is "probably worse than 40:60" yet.

And people all seem to base this stuff too much on personal experience, there are tons of examples of this and people changing their minds(fiction and ally seem to be the most prominent ones...), and just people in general mostly being shaped by personal experience, like how different regions perceive characters around what top players there use.

Also in regards to the Tornado: he was telling me that there are things you can do against the Tornado. You can angle your shield so that it doesn't shield stab you while defending against it. I don't give a flying crap if I can shlield the whole thing...I shouldnt have to "shield" EVERYTIME to stop a specific move in Smash Brothers. That's bull crap.

Of the thousands of posts on this subject, this paragraph may actually be the stupidest, scrubbiest, naivest, and most tellingly whiny of them all. Congratulations.

which is why I said, "MK is more banworthy" in response to some people asking for a snake ban.

The fact that anyone wanted snake banned just shows how silly this community is.

 

[Sosuke]

Theres a difference between "wanting something banned", and "thinking something should be banned".

lol, I want Snake banned.
I want all the top/high tiers banned. It makes it easier for me in tournaments.


It doesn't mean I think they SHOULD be banned.

 

[-Ran]

I was bored / sleep deprived.

Tournament Organizers: Total 114
For: 53 46.49%
Against: 48 42.10%
Unsure: 13 11.4%

Back Roomers: Total 39
For: 18 46.15%
Against: 16 41.02%
Unsure: 5 12.82%

Notes: BR's were not counted as TO's even if they had the user group. Mods were looked at to see which one they fell to.

 

[adumbrodeus]

not quite

The point is priority is one character attribute, and if you're of even skill and your character lacks priority without attributes to make up for it, you're gonna get destroyed, like Falcon does.

I was going to say something about the fact that all his kill moves require setup, preferably a combo to be reasonably good moves but
uh
So are we agreeing or what

Obviously not, you seem to believe priority is meaningless, it's an important character attribute, it's just not the ONLY attribute, others can cover for it.

Predict how he's going to keep you out, get around it and get in, it happens, no johns etc. Are you going to tell me it doesn't?

Don't be an idiot, this is about match-ups, not anyone's ability or lack thereof to beat MK players. This creates significantly disadvantaged match-ups, which will result in players of all skill levels losing to MK when the MK is not a large amount behind in skill level.

and I'm the one telling fantastic stories then? lol

No, you're the one who's choosing to act like an important character attribute is meaningless because "it's beatable".

Well, every character attribute is beatable with enough skill superiority. Heck, a good enough DK can beat DDDs in regions other then Atlantic north (and the oddball other area that bans DDD's infinites), but that's outside the relevant range.

When we're talking about match-ups, the assumption is equal skill level (among others), and with that assumption, MK is able to significantly advantage himself by playing defense.

You're taking zoning to be something like 100% effective all the time when even the best players let other best players in their DANGER zone and pay for it. Smart players predict will get inside and do their damage, zoning is by no means absolute since you are generally going to be outmaneuvering the person you are getting in on, not playing along with "HERE'S MY PRIORITY/RANGE, HERE'S HIS PRIORITY/RANGE, LET'S JAM THEM TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK CLANK GEE HIS CHARACTER HAD MORE SO I LOST

Again, generalizations in the aether. It can happen, but superior priority and range often result in a character being unable to reach that zone for the vast majority of the match and dying, even if they're about the same skill level.

Unless there are mitigating factors of course.

That's why we have bad match-ups in the first place.

I ain't breaking up this quote man that'd take forevernot quite

Highlight +quote button, it ain't hard. It's even broken into convenient blocks for that purpose when you press "quote".

I notice this a lot on this subject, like a few pages ago AA made a post clearly outlining, with evidence, how meta knight doesn't overcentralize the meta game at all. pro ban mostly ignores it until it gets burried a bit, then come back the "meta knight has no bad matchups and overcentralizes the meta game because there is no reason not to use him haoihgoajsgh" posts. It's really annoying. Then there are people like POF and Cr4sh who basically do nothing BUT this in this topic. It's really pretty pointless now...*thinks this topic should be closed*

Just quote it again whenever it's useful, that'll ensure that it doesn't get buried.

But it's not a post of the actual weaknesses of the pro-ban argument directly, it's just a list of what needs to be done to meet the ban criteria. However, by virtue of the fact that only one of the combitions was met so far, it also serves as an anti-ban argument.

And people all seem to base this stuff too much on personal experience, there are tons of examples of this and people changing their minds(fiction and ally seem to be the most prominent ones...), and just people in general mostly being shaped by personal experience, like how different regions perceive characters around what top players there use.

THANK YOU! At least using a meta-analysis of overall tournament results is defendable (but still weakened by the human factor, in other words, things like concentrations of good players in particular characters) but personal experiences are entirely shaped by your abilities, if you happen to be very good at a particular match-up, it doesn't mean your character is.

The fact that anyone wanted snake banned just shows how silly this community is.

Early days of Brawl, people were asking for a Snake ban. Never gained much force because he took a dive relative to MK, but they were definitely there. I don't remember who, but if I look it up, a few of them are probably pro MK ban right now.

I was bored / sleep deprived.

Tournament Organizers: Total 114
For: 53 46.49%
Against: 48 42.10%
Unsure: 13 11.4%

Back Roomers: Total 39
For: 18 46.15%
Against: 16 41.02%
Unsure: 5 12.82%

Notes: BR's were not counted as TO's even if they had the user group. Mods were looked at to see which one they fell to.

Interesting. Not particularly useful, but interesting.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What about the idea of actually letting the TO's decide?

 

[adumbrodeus]

What about the idea of actually letting the TO's decide?

Ultimately they always have the choice, this is just the recommended ruleset.

 

[-Ran]

There is a downside to letting TO's decide.

Every time we host a non-MK allowed tournament, lists such as the Character Ranking list become compromised.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It was more a nooby suggestion than anything, I was just throwing it out there. Good point Ran.

 

[rehab]

The point is priority is one character attribute, and if you're of even skill and your character lacks priority without attributes to make up for it, you're gonna get destroyed, like Falcon does.
This a huuuuuuuuge misunderstanding and I do not know how the hell you managed to make it happen. We are saying the same thing about Falcon, he is is terrible at everything there is to be terrible at, his whole character does not compute with this game. My neon lights point is that Falcon does not have a reliable way to do damage, which is what he needs to be good.Even if he had priority, what would he do with it? Everything outside of uair, nair, bair, loltilts and jab are unreasonably dangerous on block and can't be reasonably autocanceled, and what he has will probably stale very fast, he still lacks a killer with oomph, he wouldn't be in a position to do any more damage if he got a hit in, it's not like grabs become any more useful, and he would still be gimpable. The whole of Falcon's design is made a joke in this game.


Obviously not, you seem to believe priority is meaningless, it's an important character attribute, it's just not the ONLY attribute, others can cover for it. Captain Planet
F'in A dude, you really can't take an implication. OK, spelled out: Hitbox size and speed are not meaningless (which is so obvious I'd never thought I'd have to clarify it) but so long as both characters in a matchup have chances to set up the other character for damage through proper reactions and knowledge of the match's flow, the fight is not dead and done because of priority alone. Wario vs Peach, Melee Falcon vs Marth, et hellacetera, got dam dude.




No, you're the one who's choosing to act like an important character attribute is meaningless because "it's beatable".
Quote me where I implied it's meaningless.

enough DK can beat DDDs in regions other then Atlantic north
FGSFDS don't even start with that. As long as both characters have meaningful ways to damage, hitbox size and speed are not the be-all, and a match that is considered mildly disadvantaged because of it is not a guarantee among level skill ranges.

When we're talking about match-ups, the assumption is equal skill level (among others), and with that assumption, MK is able to significantly advantage himself by playing defense.
Yeah? Are you going to tell me he does it well enough to make ban? Characters that are good generally have some way to force him out of the witness protection program eventually by situational pressure, having an advantage playing defense doesn't make him unreasonable to be offensive on depending on the character.


Again, generalizations in the aether. It can happen, but superior priority and range often result in a character being unable to reach that zone for the vast majority of the match and dying, even if they're about the same skill level.
This is extremely uncomfortably close to semantics, I barely know where we stand. There are also many situational openings that a good player can make by doing something a little bit off, gambling on a specific answer to a specific defense and getting it right, and there are so many approach angles and placements on a given stage possible that even if somebody zones like a machine in a very safe way, the other person may jump in at just the right time and catch them if they're really focused on their options and have the reflexes needed. I have problems with the general way people discuss matchups in this topic, this perfect spacing nonsense and frames+hitboxes machinery, without accounting for the flow of real play.

rushrushrun-onsrock

 

[Curaga]

Does no body else just shoot the bat-winged thing? O_o

 

[adumbrodeus]

This a huuuuuuuuge misunderstanding and I do not know how the hell you managed to make it happen. We are saying the same thing about Falcon, he is is terrible at everything there is to be terrible at, his whole character does not compute with this game. My neon lights point is that Falcon does not have a reliable way to do damage, which is what he needs to be good.Even if he had priority, what would he do with it? Everything outside of uair, nair, bair, loltilts and jab are unreasonably dangerous on block and can't be reasonably autocanceled, and what he has will probably stale very fast, he still lacks a killer with oomph, he wouldn't be in a position to do any more damage if he got a hit in, it's not like grabs become any more useful, and he would still be gimpable. The whole of Falcon's design is made a joke in this game.

If he has priority he could, I dunno, actually punch his way through his opponent's defenses and deal some damage, at least on some reasonably fast moves. It's no surprise that Jab is one of his best moves, because it has OMG, priority.

F'in A dude, you really can't take an implication. OK, spelled out: Hitbox size and speed are not meaningless (which is so obvious I'd never thought I'd have to clarify it) but so long as both characters in a matchup have chances to set up the other character for damage through proper reactions and knowledge of the match's flow, the fight is not dead and done because of priority alone. Wario vs Peach, Melee Falcon vs Marth, et hellacetera, got dam dude.

Then stop doing such crazy hyperbole, because you seem to be writing it off as useless.

Quote me where I implied it's meaningless.

You are right. And?

If you lose to any character because their moves come out faster and have larger hit boxes when you atack at the same time they do, you are doing it wrong because you are probably attacking at the wrong time. Good players don't lose to priority alone, because they know how to handle it.

If you shouldn't lose to priority then it's meaningless, right?

If you said, "other factors can mitigate priority" then you'd be right, and I wouldn't have picked up on this, but you suggested that priority is an attribute that can be ignored.

FGSFDS don't even start with that. As long as both characters have meaningful ways to damage, hitbox size and speed are not the be-all, and a match that is considered mildly disadvantaged because of it is not a guarantee among level skill ranges.

Depends entirely on the degree, all else being equal, but one character has a massive priority advantage... the match will become heavily disadvantaged.

Yeah? Are you going to tell me he does it well enough to make ban? Characters that are good generally have some way to force him out of the witness protection program eventually by situational pressure, having an advantage playing defense doesn't make him unreasonable to be offensive on depending on the character.

When did I say that it did make him banworthy.

Newsflash: Disagreeing with what some anti-ban player said does not make you pro-ban.

This is extremely uncomfortably close to semantics, I barely know where we stand. There are also many situational openings that a good player can make by doing something a little bit off, gambling on a specific answer to a specific defense and getting it right, and there are so many approach angles and placements on a given stage possible that even if somebody zones like a machine in a very safe way, the other person may jump in at just the right time and catch them. I have problems with the general way people discuss matchups in this topic, this perfect spacing nonsense and frames+hitboxes machinery, without accounting for the flow of real play.

If it's getting uncomfortably close to semantics, maybe you need to be more careful how you word things so as not to bring this type of debate up in the future.

 

[DanGR]

Can someone tell me where I could find this "list of things pro-ban has to do"?

 

[Red Arremer]

There you go.

Pro-Ban's To Do List

1. Make a better theoretical model for match-ups. The current one really doesn't suffice because it neglects to take into account human error as far as I've observed, possibly a great deal more. I've attempted to help with my thread on "Mindgames Potential", though we still need a concrete understanding of how often a player should fall victim to mindgames, and to what degree before it can be finished.

2. Using the new theoretical model, make accurate match-ups.

3. Illustrate based on the match-ups, that MK makes 50% of the cast +1 nonviable, independent of any other characters.

4. Figure out a reasonable margin of error for tournament results to vary from the theoretical match-ups.

5. Illustrate that empirical results are the same as your match-ups would suggest or within the pre-determined margin of error.


If you can do this (not necessarily explicitly, since a lot of this is data-based, a lot of other people are capable of doing this, so you'll merely need to present the data) I will happily join pro-ban and argue your case. I'm sure a lot of other people will agree at that point and become pro-ban as well, because that would undercut the core of anti-ban.


However, until that's satisfied, I will not join you and you'll notice that the most vocal anti-ban crowd references to these same standards as well, so they will not join you either, so with that you could probably win the debate on this.

Until you do, pro-ban's got nothing.

 

[Masmasher@]

thank you Adambrodeus you basically said what ive been trying to tell rehab this entire time.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Listen.

First the problem is "Meta Knight wins too many tourneys."

No, YOU listen since apparently, you are suffering from such an incredible case of dyslexia that you STILL aremkaing assumptions of my statement.
I have not said ANYTHING along the lines of Metaknight winning too many tournaments.

So do explain where you are getting these ideas?
Are you so desperate to prove someone wrong that you are now in the business of straight out lying?

Too bad, Marth won more.

Correct Martrh did win more.

Then the problem changes to "Well, Marth didn't place as much in lower placings, so there's more diversity!"

Really? Do explain as to how I started talking about diversity in the top 8?
Last i saw, Iw as comparing Marth and Metaknight, two characters who win tournaments on a consistent basis.
However, Marth, unlike Metaknight, does not place in the top 8, primarily because in order for him to win, it appeared that he required players of that much more skill to win with him.
Meanwhile, the top 8 in melee was filled with spacies of different players.
Oh look, I have mentioned this, the FOURTH time.

Too bad again, there were just as many Foxes placing high as Meta Knights, and the other top characters all placed more often than all the top characters in Brawl hands down.

OH look, it is something I addressed in my very FIRST post that YOU replied to.

While Marth did indeed win more consistantly thne very other character, we also realize that the top 8 was filled with many other charatcers, most notably spacies.

So which is the problem? Is it that MK is winning too much, or that he is "overcentralized" and placing too often? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

am sorry, how stupid must you be?
You have strawmanned me repeatedly.
Where did I ever make the argument of diversity in the top 8?
Where did I make the argument about MK winning too much?
Where did I make the argument about MK overcentralizing?
Where?
WHERE?

Bring up the posts or cease strawmanning me.

Frankly, I am getting rather tired of having to repeat myself, what, four times? And STILL you try to assign these arguments to me.

What is even worse is when you bring up THE EXACT SAME POSTS THAT I HAVE BROUGHT UP SINCE MY FIRST POST.

You: Well Fox was 24% and was more dominating.
Me: *points to last post explaining that Marth only dominated in terms of wins but other characters such as the spacies took up the top 8 to a greater degree*

You: Well diversity in the top 8
Me: I have never said anything about diversity and if anything, my statements actually support what you said about there being LESS diversity in melee than there is in Brawl.

You: You are saying MK is winning too much/overcentralizing.
Me: I do hope you are confusing someone else since I have never said nor implied such an argument.

I await your reply and hope that, it won't have strawmanning.

 

[adumbrodeus]

thank you Adambrodeus you basically said what ive been trying to tell rehab this entire time.

No problem, I think that the entire thing had been going on for long enough, and that priority, while not the only measure of a character's ability definitely is useful and should not be ignored.

There you go.

Thanks.

BTW, can I get a consensus, does everyone basically agree with this?:

edit:

Pro-Ban's To Do List



1. Make a better theoretical model for match-ups. The current one really doesn't suffice because it neglects to take into account human error as far as I've observed, possibly a great deal more. I've attempted to help with my thread on "Mindgames Potential", though we still need a concrete understanding of how often a player should fall victim to mindgames, and to what degree before it can be finished.

2. Using the new theoretical model, make accurate match-ups.

3. Illustrate based on the match-ups, that MK makes 50% of the cast +1 nonviable, independent of any other characters.

4. Figure out a reasonable margin of error for tournament results to vary from the theoretical match-ups.

5. Illustrate that empirical results are the same as your match-ups would suggest or within the pre-determined margin of error.


If you can do this (not necessarily explicitly, since a lot of this is data-based, a lot of other people are capable of doing this, so you'll merely need to present the data) I will happily join pro-ban and argue your case. I'm sure a lot of other people will agree at that point and become pro-ban as well, because that would undercut the core of anti-ban.


However, until that's satisfied, I will not join you and you'll notice that the most vocal anti-ban crowd references to these same standards as well, so they will not join you either, so with that you could probably win the debate on this.

Until you do, pro-ban's got nothing.

It seems so far everyone who agrees with overcentralization as the ban criteria has spoken highly of it and I'd just like to know if everyone basically agree on it's use as the standard.

 

[Tommy_G]

It seems so far everyone who agrees with overcentralization as the ban criteria has spoken highly of it and I'd just like to know if everyone basically agree on it's use as the standard.

I don't agree with the overcentralization as a criteria to ban. It's a stupid idea to ban a character. Just because people play the character because they're the best doesn't mean that said character is good enough to be banned. See Kirby and Pikachu in smash 64.

 

[DanGR]

Adumbrodeus, I'm typing up a long explanation of why I don't agree with your list as the standard. It's taking longer than I thought.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

Adumbrodeus, I'm typing up a long explanation of why I don't agree with your list as the standard. It's taking longer than I thought.

then don't plague us with your petty attempts of getting your post count +1

 

[adumbrodeus]

I don't agree with the overcentralization as a criteria to ban. It's a stupid idea to ban a character. Just because people play the character because they're the best doesn't mean that said character is good enough to be banned. See Kirby and Pikachu in smash 64.

...


Overcentralization has NO relationship with a character being the best in the game, it requires that the character renders non-viable 50% of the cast or more.

It is the standard that has been successfully used by competitive gaming communities for years (ones that banned and ones that didn't, including ones that had borderline characters) and I see no reason why we can't use it.

It's based on Sirlin's (foremost competitive gaming theorist, and former professional Street Fighter player) criteria of what should be banned (note that the next page includes further explanation, without which your understanding will be incomplete), and the criteria is very tough to meet, emphasizing maintaining the game as is except in extreme cases.


You should've noticed just from the fact that my post contained a very explicit criteria that was far more restrictive then "being the best character".

Adumbrodeus, I'm typing up a long explanation of why I don't agree with your list as the standard. It's taking longer than I thought.

Ok, take your time? But do you agree with the standard of overcentralization in the "sirlin-centric" sense? Because if not, it'd probably be easier to discuss "why Sirlin's ban criteria?" rather then "why not my to-do list?".

It's created with Sirlin's analysis as a given, something that I will gladly defend, but it's pointless to disagree with the result (my post) if your reasoning is disagreement with the source, just disagree with the source.

 

[DanGR]

then don't plague us with your petty attempts of getting your post count +1

You think I care about post count? What is post count going to do for me??? My tag thing under my name is already at smash master or whatever. It's not going to go to another level. You can even check my post history and see that most of my posts are very, very long.

Anyways, everyone isn't going to hover over this thread forever. I posted because I don't want another one of my VERY LONG, well thought-out (in my mind), and revised-multiple-times post to go unnoticed because the anti-ban advocates left the thread because nothing was happening or because they moved on to another topic. Capisci?

EDIT:_______________________________________________________________________

Thank you Spadefox for finding the list.

The main disagreement in this debate is behind what actually constitutes a ban, and what is meant by the loose wording in the proposed bases (plural of basis?) of his banning. Before I begin, I'm speaking from what I view as the pro-ban side. I'm merely telling you guys why I'm opposed to adumbrodeus' list as is, from the pro-ban side of the debate- both sides of which I've been a part of, and as of right now I'm neutral between. Here we go.

1.)

"1. Make a better theoretical model for match-ups. The current one really doesn't suffice because it neglects to take into account human error as far as I've observed, possibly a great deal more. I've attempted to help with my thread on "Mindgames Potential", though we still need a concrete understanding of how often a player should fall victim to mindgames, and to what degree before it can be finished."

I do believe human error is taken into account with most matchup ratios, and I think most others would agree as well. Otherwise characters like Olimar (the perfect camp crud everyone talked about a while back) and the IC (desynch mastery) would dominate everyone. The amount of human error taken into account is not calculated evenly for all the matchups though. I do agree in that aspect. However!, I think until someone from the anti-ban side comes up with another way to view matchups more accurately, the way we do it now suffices. The same logic applies to banning Metaknight: until the pro-ban side proves that he's worthy of a ban, he should not be banned. In other words, I think coming up with a better way to analyze matchups should be a part of anti-ban's "To do list."

2.)

"3. Illustrate based on the match-ups, that MK makes 50% of the cast +1 nonviable, independent of any other characters."

Firstly, one must define nonviable. Many take this to mean the arbitrary "destroying the character" or "at least a 70-30 matchup." Others may explain it as "having an infinite that's very easy to employ or set up" or something else. Others think that no character in Brawl is nonviable because there's a counterpick system, and so you're not forced to play any particular matchup. Because you haven't defined it, I can only suspect that by "nonviable" you mean "DDD-infinite-on-Mario proportions." (although, personally, I do not think Mario is a "nonviable" character because of an infinite that one character has on him.)

Now that that's covered, I do not think Metaknight should have to render 50% +1 of the cast nonviable for him to be banned. There's an implication behind this. For Metaknight to render that many characters completely nonviable, his moveset would only have to be comparable to the infamous Akuma's, in which case he would make all the other characters nonviable as well. In fact, I think it's impossible for Metaknight to be able to render half the cast +1 nonviable without making the others useless as well, and here's why.

If Metaknight ever got to the point where he left 50% of the cast nonviable without having an infinite chaingrab/combo or one broken tactic that wrecks those specific and that many characters, (which he doesn't have) his moveset as a whole would have to make up for not having one of these. As we all know, movesets of characters do affect the entire cast as far as matchups go, and having this good a moveset would definitely affect the characters not in the proposed 50% +1. If Metaknight rendered only 50% +1 of the cast nonviable with his moveset, that would be equivalent to having DDD's infinite on half the cast, but it not affect the rest as nearly as much. That's impossible. If his moveset was that good, it would indeed affect the rest of the cast as well, and even more characters would be pretty useless than just 50% +1. This leads me to my point. This is too excessive an amount of dominance to be the standard minimum required to ban Metaknight.

3.)

"4. Figure out a reasonable margin of error for tournament results to vary from the theoretical match-ups."
"5. Illustrate that empirical results are the same as your match-ups would suggest or within the pre-determined margin of error."

Matchup ratios should already be taking into account who beat who, how, when, and why as well as the other deciding factors behind the matches such how much matchup experience each player has. When they don't, you've just got to ignore them. >_>
____________________________

I'll end by saying that I hope this made some sort of sense. I read over it many times, but I couldn't find another way to word a lot of any better. Sorry. >_< And I don't feel like typing anything else either, so take this as you will.

 

[RDK]

Except that MK does not place as high or as often as everyone says he does. Does anyone care to debate this point? We have no shortage of data available, it's quite easy to prove, and has been done many times.

You're completely missing the point.

I couldn't care less what some random Joe from the forums says about MK's placings. The only thing that matters is what people who know what they're talking about are saying. So yes, MK does place as well as people say he does, because the people saying he places that well are getting their information from tournament results.

Nice try, but this has nothing to do with anything.

The argument is that MK is "overcentralizing the metagame", when in fact he only has 25% of national tourney top 8 placings.

I don't care if the roster has 25 character, 39 characters, 2 characters, or infinity character.

Meta Knight is still placing the exact same amount. In no way is anything being discussed remotely relative to total cast size.

First, before you make this into a pissing match, note that I'm anti-ban, and not once did I ever say MK was overcentralizing the metagame.

Second, yes, total roster size and total number of viable charactesdoes factor into whether or not it's surprising to have one character dominate the metagame. Melee has 10 less characters than Brawl. That's a lot of characters.

Please, enlighten us all to my mathematical errors.

You completely neglected the roster size when comparing something that obviously has to do with roster size.

Yes, because counters are a unique concept to Brawl, and no fighting game has ever had strong counters in its cast before, especially Melee.

"Strange counterpicking mechanic", gimme a break, this isn't even worth my time.

Once again, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you even glanced at the Brawl matchup chart? Probably not, judging from the vacuity of your arguments.

Which has to do with Meta Knight........ how?

Wow you're dense. Let's quote d4ba's original post, shall we?

brawl has 35 characters.
melee has 25 characters.

Chances that certain characters are going to be better than others in most fighters?
I'll list you some examples. 56 characters in marvel vs capcom 2, 4 make up most team combinations. 19 tournament played characters in 3rd strike. 3 make up most tournament top 3 placings. Street fighter 2 turbo, 12 characters (not champion edition) and only a couple were placing high (until sagat got banned/depends where u played the game).

Do some rough math and you'll see that 10ish% of character viability is good. The unique method of how brawl matches work out allow many characters to be useful in tournament. However, since MK works so well all around and everywhere. Players would rather not be counterpicked at all and simply choose MK.

I believe this game has some the largest character playability than any other fighter; without Mk involved. How many times have you played a tournament match whenever someone loses the first round with their favorite character and plays MK throughout the rest of the set? It gets old.

To add further emphasis to this, consider double blinds. Neither you nor your opponent know who the other is picking. You lose the first match, so you get the counterpick. Your opponent loses the second match, so he get's the choice of counterpick for the third match. Which character will be effected the least by an attempted counterpick in this situation? Who's the safest choice?

Thinkaman, you're clearly anti-ban. So am I. But when you go around making erroneous statements hoping that using a lot of numbers and figures makes you look smart, you end up looking bad to the people that matter.