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

[CRASHiC]

lets close the thread. the same thing has been said over and over again.

I think Metaknight should be banned so I never have to see another cosplay beastealite porno made of him again.

How about that?

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

Oh, geez. I disproved the fact that MK is broken TWICE already. Drop it, please.

Well, that's it guys. The final authority has spoken.

Might as well close the thread.

lol

ok RK tell us why is he not broken and we will disprove you
(P.S. did you just changed your avatar in the last few minutes RK?)

 

[|RK|]

Well, that's it guys. The final authority has spoken.

Might as well close the thread.

Aren't you the sweetest >_>

I mean drop the discussion about MK being "broken".

This thread shouldn't die.

The purpose of it now... is to debate.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I think Metaknight should be banned so I never have to see another cosplay beastealite porno made of him again.

How about that?

1.Where in hell did you find that? (please don't answer that)

and 2.why did you look at it in the first place?

 

[thrillagorilla]

Excuse me? Reread my post and you'll see that I'm merely repeating Eyada's logic with skillsets. His argument must be universal, else it is nulled.

/* Defining Skill /*
9.) The ability of players to deliberate and then meaningfully decide between multiple viable options in order to maximize the possibility of victory is called "skill".
10.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by skill.

/* Defining Diversity and showing a relationship to Skill /*
11.) The number of viable options available for players to base their meaningful decisions upon in a competitive game is called "diversity".
12.) By definition, the larger the amount of viable options a game has (i.e., the greater the diversity), the larger the amount of meaningful decisions players will have to make concerning those options.
13.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (9. and 10.), a game with greater diversity will provide more opportunities for players to show skill.
14.) As a corollary, a game with lesser diversity will provide less opportunities for players to show skill.

I don't see how this states that less options = more skill. I could just be missing it, so I'm sorry if that's the case. Would you be willing to break down how the logic works?

@Overswarm: Is that what they are theorizing now? I haven't kept up with it for the last four years or so.

 

[bobson]

I think Metaknight should be banned so I never have to see another cosplay beastealite porno made of him again.

Oh, don't worry, we'll keep making them whether or not he's banned.

 

[|RK|]

Ah, ah, ah. Do note that he applies transitivity. Therefore you can connect any point with another for they are all equal.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Originally Posted by RK Joker:
Seems like no one but Eyada noticed this, so...



I'll bite. How does more options = more competitive. If competition is a display of skill, then doesn't that mean it actually takes less options to show true skill? By this reasoning, we could jump into skillsets as well. The higher tiers, especially Meta-Knight, have the most options. The lower tiers have less. This means that true skill is shown through higher tiers, as more options = more skill, correct? This also means that only higher tiers are competitively viable, since lower tiers have very little options. So by this logic, higher tiers = competitive, and by the same token, lower tiers = not competitive. That means that only bans that remove characters with little diversity are justified. If what you said of characters is not true of skillsets as well, what we have here is that your argument is a fallacy in and of itself.

I re-read your post and his, RK. I don't see what transitivity has to do with your counter-argument (and yes, I know what it means. Webster's is rather handy). You made two assertions that you did not back up by logic or facts.

1. Less options = more competitiveness.

2. Characters with limited options should be banned.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that less options = more competitiveness from reading his assertions. Whats more, it looks like you only asked the question, then assumed that you were correct. Please explain it, because I don't see it. As for the second, the criteria doesn't state that things that are already limited in options should be banned. If these weren't your arguments, I suggest you look at the way you posted your argument, see how I could have come to my conclusion, then re-state it in a way that is more defined.

Gratuatous re-post...

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7269717&postcount=3405

 

[|RK|]

I only said that once, thrilla. Simply because the lower your character, and the less options, is the more skill required for that character. Then I went into using his reasoning for skillsets.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Recent discoveries have actually showed we certainly have our theory of evolution wrong and it needs to be updated.

I know that for recent discoveries concerning birds this issue has come up,primarily because of the evolution of those respective creatures.

Kinda funny really.
Going from archeopteryx to some creature with no arms and has teeth.

Our theory of gravity actually HAS been proven wrong before, a couple of times. We've updated it a lot.

Its not been proven its been supported.
hence why it is called theory.
not because its theorycraft (as we love to toss around) but because it is supportable theory.
**** like that you know?

 

[da K.I.D.]

the fact that MK is broken

thank you for finally understanding...

1. Whats more, it looks like you only asked the question, then assumed that you were correct.


2. http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7269717&postcount=3405

1. Welcome to the interwebz...

2. Absolutely amazing post, and if you were to make one just like that for the anti ban side, I would say just post the 2 right next to each other and close this thread

 

[CRASHiC]

1.Where in hell did you find that? (please don't answer that)

and 2.why did you look at it in the first place?

Its what Metaknight in Brawl is based on.
Its why he has transitivity, because in the porn, he's a transvestite.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Its what Metaknight in Brawl is based on.
Its why he has transitivity, because in the porn, he's a transvestite.

So funny that I actually forgot how to laugh.

 

[Zankoku]

Also, what in the world is ankoku doing arguing with bob saget, lol.

Boredom. I needed to kill some time before I headed back to my apartment at college from home.

 

[BOB SAGET]

ya dont argue with me. i'll win every time. MK is like SAGAT, hes the best character in brawl and sagat is the best in SF

 

[Eyada]

Ah, ah, ah. Do note that he applies transitivity. Therefore you can connect any point with another for they are all equal.

I am going to remove the "short" version of the argument because it seems to be causing a great deal of confusion. I asked a few of my friends to read my post and give me some feedback on it, and all of their arguments centered on fallacies introduced only in the "short" summary of the argument.

So I am removing it. Please respond only to the rigorous argument.

As thrillagorilla has already posted, my rigorous argument clearly shows why "more options = more skill".

If there is a problem with the argument, please list the premise that is incorrect and show me why it is false.


I will read through the rest of the thread in just a moment and edit in responses to any posts I find, but I want to take a second and make something clear that I feel is important to understanding where I'm coming from:

Until several months ago, I was a firm supporter of Sirlin's ideas on what did or did not justify a ban. When I read Playing to Win two years ago, I was rescued from an illogical mental prison I had acquired from a childhood friend. I was a Scrub of titanic proportions; and none of my scrubby beliefs were justified in the least. So, ever since his book "rescued" me by showing how horribly flawed my beliefs were at that time, I've been a Sirlin fan. However, two months ago my friend presented a series of logical arguments to me that completely shattered the credibility of Sirlin's ban criteria. Try as I might, I could not refute my friend's arguments while maintaining the integrity of Sirlin's ideas. I am a far stronger debater than my friend, so I was very shaken by the incident.

So I spent the next several weeks mulling over the problem. Eventually, unable to find an answer, I simply discarded everything I thought I knew about competitive gaming and simply started over from scratch. I rigorously explored competitive gaming from the ground-up: what is is, why we do it, why we make the rules that we do, why playing competitively is justified, why something should or should not be banned from a competitive game, and how something being banned could ever be justified.

My argument underwent a great deal of transformation; in fact, the very first draft looked nothing like what I've shown here, and it didn't even come to the same conclusion. However, I kept finding flaws and weaknesses in my proofs, and so I kept revising them. I destroyed a great deal of my previously held beliefs concerning competitive gaming in the process.

The final result of all that work is the argument that I posted here.

So, as is now apparent, I did not formulate this argument for the MK debate. My motivation for creating it had nothing to do with Smash, and everything to do with trying to understand the very core concepts of competitive gaming itself. It just so happens that Smash is a competitive game, so the argument is helpful in examining problems in the Smash Bros. games.

 

[Falconv1.0]

ya dont argue with me. i'll win every time.

Now that is funny as hell.

 

[2001]

When is this topic going to be closed. It's not even on topic anymore.....

 

[Zankoku]

ya dont argue with me. i'll win every time. MK is like SAGAT, hes the best character in brawl and sagat is the best in SF

You remind me of a certain someone. Maybe it's the tendency to go for ad hominems and when arguments fail, to just say them again and hope they'd work the second time.

 

[|RK|]

Ok, then, I see what you mean. However, this also does mean that MK doesn't warrant a ban, especially since diversity won't be maximized, as people would switch to the new highest. It is irrelevant whether Snake has counters, because all that means is that he can be beaten, and same goes for MK. So that means that the Domino Theory falls into place and repeated overcentralization will lead to a vastly uncompetitive game. On top of that, most of the community doesn't even play MK. Over 70% of the community plays a different character. This also means that those people like Overswarm picking up MK to prove a point are wrong and they are leading to the competitive community's downfall. They really should play other characters because what they will create is a community that will collapse upon itself.

 

[aeghrur]

Recent discoveries have actually showed we certainly have our theory of evolution wrong and it needs to be updated.

??? Huh? Are you referring to what is currently thought of as evolution or what Darwin referred to as evolution? I was talking about more current theories upon evolution. And... it hasn't been disproved yet. Update=/=disprove. Update means there were some flaws, they adjusted the theory to fit the flaws in the data, and it's fine again.

It's like, Snake was first because he had broken tilts and everyone was jumping into ****, so people thought he was broken.
Then MK became top tier... but that doesn't make Snake not broken anymore. He's just not as broken as MK, but still broken in some aspects.

Our theory of gravity actually HAS been proven wrong before, a couple of times. We've updated it a lot.

In the next 2 years, do you believe it will be disproved?
And even with updates, it still stands as a theory. =/ So... the theory has never been proven wrong, just updated.

It does, for extremely large values of 1.

????????????
I didn't know 1=/=1.
or that 1=1.5

Point is, anything "could" happen in the future, it's not a valid argument to say "lets not ban MK because __________ COULD happen."

Also, MK should be banned.

Yes

 

[Lord Exor]

First of all, us anti-bans are gonna work on making MKs look terrible. The at least there'd only be people who like him, and no tier crazy people, nor those who picked him up to prove a point. Especially since those who did the latter are the problem here.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll crush MKs with Lucario as I listen to Requiem to a Dream.

So you wanna get depressed while beating scrub MKs with Lucario?

 

[thrillagorilla]

Ok, then, I see what you mean. However, this also does mean that MK doesn't warrant a ban, especially since diversity won't be maximized, as people would switch to the new highest. It is irrelevant whether Snake has counters, because all that means is that he can be beaten, and same goes for MK. So that means that the Domino Theory falls into place and repeated overcentralization will lead to a vastly uncompetitive game. On top of that, most of the community doesn't even play MK. Over 70% of the community plays a different character. This also means that those people like Overswarm picking up MK to prove a point are wrong and they are leading to the competitive community's downfall. They really should play other characters because what they will create is a community that will collapse upon itself.

I'm sorry to say this RK, because its going to sound a bit harsh, but seriously, read my post again. I already refuted this argument and gave evidences as to why it is incorrect, even if indirectly. On top of that, it has nothing to do with my argument for mk being banned. I'm not interested in re-writing it. I will, however, re-post it.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7269717&postcount=3405

If it doesn't make sense, let me know why and I'll be happy to try and explain. Who knows, you may prove me wrong. I just want things to be move forward.

@Eyada: Good to know that I didn't misunderstand. I hope my argument doesn't misrepresent your criteria. You've done really good work.

 

[|RK|]

What? No, it's just that the song sounds really epic. Therefore, I'd like to listen to it as I play. In fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Ma4BvMUwU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg7h0ZIluLs&feature=related

Play those at the same time. Turn off the sound on the actual battle.

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

Ok, then, I see what you mean. However, this also does mean that MK doesn't warrant a ban, especially since diversity won't be maximized, as people would switch to the new highest. It is irrelevant whether Snake has counters, because all that means is that he can be beaten, and same goes for MK. So that means that the Domino Theory falls into place and repeated overcentralization will lead to a vastly uncompetitive game. On top of that, most of the community doesn't even play MK. Over 70% of the community plays a different character. This also means that those people like Overswarm picking up MK to prove a point are wrong and they are leading to the competitive community's downfall. They really should play other characters because what they will create is a community that will collapse upon itself.

I guess to speed things up, and because I'm bored, I'll point out the flaw to this argument that I didn't see at first, but after looking at Eyada's post a second time I see it (it is also referenced in Thrillagorilla's post.)

Eyada's assertion that if there is a clear best choice people will take it is the flaw in your argument. This is a major part of Thrillagorilla's argument. Even if you do not believe that MK is broken, it is a commonly agreed upon fact that he is the clear best choice and a "zero risk/high reward" character. The domino effect will not occur after meta knight is gone because there are checks and balances to all of the other characters. This means that there is not a clear best choice for competitive players to pick. Thus diversity will not be hurt in this case. There will be over centralization ocurring around the high tiers, however the diversity will not be able to be increased beyond this point due to the checks and balances of other characters. There is still some risk involved in using the best characters because they can be at a disadvantage, whereas meta knight can't.

To steal directly from Thrillagorilla's argument because he says it better than I can: " Even if the benefit of using one of the other characters is slightly higher, the risk outweighs the benefit, because there is an option where there is no risk involved." The option in this case being MK.

 

[|RK|]

I'm sorry to say this RK, because its going to sound a bit harsh, but seriously, read my post again. I already refuted this argument and gave evidences as to why it is incorrect, even if indirectly. On top of that, it has nothing to do with my argument for mk being banned. I'm not interested in re-writing it. I will, however, re-post it.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7269717&postcount=3405

If it doesn't make sense, let me know why and I'll be happy to try and explain. Who knows, you may prove me wrong. I just want things to be move forward.

@Eyada: Good to know that I didn't misunderstand. I hope my argument doesn't misrepresent your criteria. You've done really good work.

Well, the thing is that you don't refute it clearly. I don't see where you do that. The fact of the matter still stands that over 70% of the community isn't using MK, right? It doesn't matter WHY they aren't using him, but it matters that they AREN'T. While I do realize that MK still overcentralizes the metagame, the fact of the matter is that this will be so for any top character. For example, Snake. Let's say that Snake becomes top. People WILL jump to him, regardless of whether or not he can be beaten. If people don't complain then, then the reason that they're whining is because they cannot beat the top character. Oh, and can you deny that those like Overswarm are wrong? They are helping add to the overcentralization to prove a point. How does this help, besides according to Eyada's argument make the community worse off? It makes the community worse off for it because they are adding to the overcentralization, which in itself is wrong, correct?


EDIT: What? MK does NOT have zero risk. I reference again, the Wario matchup. It is now believed 50:50 by many. How does 50:50 present no risk against seriously competitive players?

Many think that Snake beats Meta-Knight, as well.

They WILL pick Snake because he is the next highest. It doesn't matter whether he can be beaten, because so can MK.

 

[da K.I.D.]

1. The fact of the matter still stands that over 70% of the community isn't using MK, right?

2. EDIT: What? MK does NOT have zero risk. I reference again, the Wario matchup. It is now believed 50:50 by many. How does 50:50 present no risk against seriously competitive players?

3. Many think that Snake beats Meta-Knight, as well.

1. Im sorry, but I HAVE to know where you ae getting this number from.

Also, dont you think that even if its 25%, dont you think 1 out of every four people in a tournament using MK is a bit excessive in a game with 37 different characters?

2. the wario match is not a risk, because the MK still has no disadvantage.

3. those people are wrong

 

[|RK|]

Earlier in this topic someone posted some numbers. Like 27.something play MK and 70.something play everyone else.

There is indeed a risk in a 50:50, for both.

Yeah, people like Inui and some other pro players said that.

 

[thrillagorilla]

What? No, it's just that the song sounds really epic. Therefore, I'd like to listen to it as I play. In fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Ma4BvMUwU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg7h0ZIluLs&feature=related

Play those at the same time. Turn off the sound on the actual battle.

That was awesome. I've never heard of the artist, though I usually stick to the classical realm in my music.

Try this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4oDDmoWf1M

Love it.

On topic: Like I said, I didn't refute it directly. Sorry about that. I'll try to make it clear. Snake is a "low risk/high reward" character. Marth, DeDeDe, etc. are as well. That's the difference between mk and Snake. According to the guidelines, Snake, Marth DeDeDe, etc. are all viable options because they are in the same category. Because they are in the same category, there is no clear-cut "best" character. This means that there is no dominant choice, meaning there is no need for a ban on any of them. The argument that the other characters will be banned afterward doesn't work because they don't fit the criteria for a ban. Also, like I said before, it doesn't relate directly to my argument.

As to your assertion about Wario being 50/50, I already stated why that doesn't matter in the post. As for Snake, I have yet to hear that Snake has a distinct advantage on mk from a Snake main. Again, 50/50s mean nothing in the context of my argument except for the situation that I already specified.



@anyone that argues that other characters need to be banned: *facepalm*



Hope that clears it up. Let me know if not. I'm happy to explain/debate.



Has anyone else read my argument? I like talking with RK quite a bit, but no one else is responding.

 

[CRASHiC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQEAQS1GVRI&feature=channel_page
play to this you two

I takes all of my bad habits away.
Stress is no longer a problem.
I play relaxed, easy and calm.

 

[|RK|]

Inui said that earlier in the topic Snake has an advantage over MK.

Oh, and despite MK being the dominant choice, there's always the chance of facing a Wario or a Snake. That means that because of the evenness, MK can still be outmatched.

The point is that MK can be beaten, right? Eyada's argument is diversity.

Now, there is still an abundance of characters that 3/4 of the community still do use.

With people like Overswarm, they mess up the numbers and cause this destruction of the community. There are many people who if they used MK, they'd have risk, because they can't use him. Me, for example.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Inui said that earlier in the topic Snake has an advantage over MK.

Ok, to clear things up, Inui stated it is commonly agreed it's 6/4 Snake ON FD. Something that most people have believed for forever and a half. I dont remember him stating any other stages, but I'm pretty ****ing certain Snake can go 5/5 with him.

 

[Lord Exor]

What? No, it's just that the song sounds really epic. Therefore, I'd like to listen to it as I play. In fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Ma4BvMUwU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg7h0ZIluLs&feature=related

Play those at the same time. Turn off the sound on the actual battle.

You mean the latter portion of the Requiem for a Tower arrangement of the original source material, which is undoubtedly depressing and hardly epic. The first two and a half minutes of even Requiem for a Tower are sad.

 

[Yuna]

85.) By definition, the only way to maximize something is to increase it.
86.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity help maximize diversity.
87.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity are justified.

I skimmed and skipped a lot because I have to go sleep. If anyone wants me to reply to anything specific, PM me a link to the post.

No, that's horrendous logic. Increase =/= Maximize.

That's like saying paedophilia = sexual relations with children. Because of this, if you have sex, you are supporting paedophilia. Or something...

You can increase diversity without maximizing it. Because maximizing something is increasing something to its highest degree. Also, you just proved that diversity is not a justifiable reason to ban.

We do not ban things to maximize anything (if we did, we'd have to ban tons of things). Since the only way (according to yourself) to maximize something is to increase it, this means that we do not ban things to increase diversity at all.

Good job, you just proved that we shouldn't ban MK because of diversity. Thank you, come again.

Also, dont you think that even if its 25%, dont you think 1 out of every four people in a tournament using MK is a bit excessive in a game with 37 different characters?

You obviously have never been a part of any large fighting game community where it's often only the Top 3 best characters who are being played (see 3rd Strike). Also, have you ever played Melee Competitively? Marth, Sheik and Fox have all enjoyed periods of "25% of the community spam this character"-ness.

 

[Eyada]

Ok, then, I see what you mean. However, this also does mean that MK doesn't warrant a ban, especially since diversity won't be maximized, as people would switch to the new highest. It is irrelevant whether Snake has counters, because all that means is that he can be beaten, and same goes for MK. So that means that the Domino Theory falls into place and repeated overcentralization will lead to a vastly uncompetitive game. On top of that, most of the community doesn't even play MK. Over 70% of the community plays a different character. This also means that those people like Overswarm picking up MK to prove a point are wrong and they are leading to the competitive community's downfall. They really should play other characters because what they will create is a community that will collapse upon itself.

I'm not going to argue whether or not MK deserves to be banned; I voted "Not Sure", and I truly mean that. I am undecided on the issue as of the moment I am typing this sentence; however, I haven't read any arguments using my framework yet. Other arguments presented for and against the ban are insufficient, as far as I can tell, because they are based on unjustifiable, invalid criteria for what should or should not be banned.

If that is not the case, I would like to see the arguments for it.

As for any Domino Theory, my rigorous argument already precludes the possibility of that happening, but I will elaborate so it is clear:

/* Establishing a justifiable ban criterion under a Competitive Rule Set. /*
73.) As shown in (72.), the goal of competitive rule making is to maximize diversity.
74.) Banning is part of competitive rule making.
75.) Therefore, the goal of banning is to maximize diversity.
76.) Banning anything in the game means a loss of diversity.
77.) Banning everything in the game leaves a total of zero diversity.
78.) Not banning something means that diversity is maintained.
79.) Therefore, not banning anything is the best method of maintaining maximized diversity in an already maximally diversified game.
80.) Not banning something that is making other options non-viable means that maximum diversity is not being maintained.
81.) Banning something that is making other options non-viable means that those options will become viable as a result of the ban.
82.) By definition, if a ban results in a net increase of diversity then that ban contributes to maximization of diversity.
83.) By definition, if a ban results in a net decrease of diversity then that ban contributes to non-maximization of diversity.
84.) By definition, if a ban results in neither a net increase nor a net decrease in diversity then that ban contributes nothing to diversity.
85.) By definition, the only way to maximize something is to increase it.
86.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity help maximize diversity.
87.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity are justified.

It's important to remember that banning something automatically means a loss of diversity. Since the goal of a competitive game is to maximize diversity, banning is inherently damaging to that goal. However, not banning something that is causing a loss of diversity is also damaging to that goal. When those two needs conflict, the only available option is to try to maximize diversity as much as possible by choosing the least damaging option.

Therefore, it becomes a question of which loss is greater:
-The loss of diversity inflicted by banning the troublesome option, or, -The loss of diversity inflicted due to not banning the troublesome option.

Those two quantities need to weighed against one another.

For example, in the case of Meta Knight:

If those quantities are equal the ban is unjustified, because the ban would not result in an increase of diversity. The amount of diversity gained would be negated by the amount lost when MK was banned.

If the amount lost by banning MK is greater than the amount gained due to his ban, the ban is unjustified because the net effect is a loss of diversity.

If the amount of diversity gained due to banning MK is greater than the amount of diversity lost by removing MK from the game, then the ban is justified because the net result is an increase of diversity.

Basically:

MK's diversity = suppressed diversity; the ban is unjustified.
MK's diversity > suppressed diversity; the ban is unjustified.
MK's diversity < suppressed diversity; Mk must be banned.

Simple as that.



As to the Domino Effect:

In Smash, the complex web of inter-weaving match-ups and counterpicks makes a Domino effect all but impossible.

Let's just imagine, for the sake of gaining a clearer understanding of my system, that MK is conclusively proven to be ban-worthy somehow. It doesn't matter how, just imagine that it happens.

Thus, MK is banned.

Now, imagine everyone starts clamoring that Snake needs to be banned.

The only reason to ban Snake is if he is suppressing diversity. So, which viable options are being made non-viable by Snake?

Pretend someone argues that Mr. Game and Watch is made non-viable by Snake. Let's pretend that they somehow prove, beyond refutation, that he actually is made non-viable by Snake.

Would banning Snake make G&W viable? A look at G&W match-ups shows that Marth is just as much of a problem for G&W as Snake.

Therefore, in order for G&W to be viable, we need to expand the ban to include both Snake and Marth.

But now we have a problem. Snake and Marth are two characters. G&W is one character. By definition, two characters is a greater amount of diversity than one character.

Therefore, the ban is unjustified.

Therefore, neither Snake nor Marth are banned.

Now, to be perfectly honest, in reality, I don't think it can be argued that either Snake or Marth cause G&W to be non-viable. So, please, don't think I am suggesting that. The Snake/G&W thing was an imaginary comparison meant to serve as an aid to understanding the system.

If you examine the same scenario for most characters in the game, you reach the same conclusion. The tangled web of interactions makes it very difficult to ban anything that doesn't dominate a great deal of other options in the game.

This makes it very difficult to justify banning any character; even MK. MK would need to be shown to be "the best choice" in some way, otherwise I find it hard to imagine that his ban can be justified. Or it would need to be shown that he is solely responsible for causing non-viability of otherwise viable options.

 

[CRASHiC]

This will be my only contribution to this thread today as I have to go to sleep soon.

No, that's horrendous logic. Increase =/= Maximize.

That's like saying paedophilia = sexual relations with children. Because of this, if you have sex, you are supporting paedophilia. Or something...

You can increase diversity without maximizing it. Because maximizing something is increasing something to its highest degree. Also, you just proved that diversity is not a justifiable reason to ban.

We do not ban things to maximize anything (if we did, we'd have to ban tons of things). Since the only way (according to yourself) to maximize something is to increase it, this means that we do not ban things to increase diversity at all.

Good job, you just proved that we shouldn't ban MK because of diversity. Thank you, come again.

It dependent on what's being said.
I've increased my ***** size. So I maximized it because size deals with numbers.
Diversity is measured by numbers as well, and thus, since large diversity, like the *****, is the goal, then diversity is maximized by increasing it.

Did we not ban items to maximize Smash's competitive level?
Did we not ban Shadow Moses to stop Dededee and Falco from wrecking 75% of the cast, to maximize fairness?
Also, he didn't say that the only way to increase diversity was to ban things, but that bans should only be to maximize something.

 

[|RK|]

I see, then.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Inui said that earlier in the topic Snake has an advantage over MK.

Oh, and despite MK being the dominant choice, there's always the chance of facing a Wario or a Snake. That means that because of the evenness, MK can still be outmatched.

The point is that MK can be beaten, right? Eyada's argument is diversity.

Now, there is still an abundance of characters that 3/4 of the community still do use.

With people like Overswarm, they mess up the numbers and cause this destruction of the community. There are many people who if they used MK, they'd have risk, because they can't use him. Me, for example.

Ok, to clear things up, Inui stated it is commonly agreed it's 6/4 Snake ON FD. Something that most people have believed for forever and a half. I dont remember him stating any other stages, but I'm pretty ****ing certain Snake can go 5/5 with him.

If it is due to the stage, mk strikes the stage and there is no longer an issue. It takes out having to deal with Diddy there, too. The match is 50/50 again, defeating your argument. Also, evenness is not risk and doesn't matter in my argument. I covered why it doesn't matter. Also, you just admitted mk is the dominant choice. By Eyada's criteria, you just stated he was ban worthy.

@Falcon: Hope I didn't take your comment out of context. Sorry if I did.

Edit: Yikes, didn't realize I was that slow. Sorry.

Edit2: @CRASHiC:How did Yuna even get that? Thanks for refuting.

 

[CRASHiC]

Edit2: @CRASHiC:How did Yuna even get that? Thanks for refuting.

He's tired. Yuna usually has good logic, weather or not I always agree with him.

 

[|RK|]

By Eyada's criteria, you just stated he was ban worthy.

Nope, because according to Eyada, even he doesn't know whether or no MK should be banned. Read his post...