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

[Shadow 111]

When a post gets deleted, it leaves a "phantom" post behind, so since more than 30 posts were deleted, it makes two phantom pages.

this is all due to dmbrandon XDDD

 

[Kewkky]

Finally, someone like Amazing Ampharos steps up and does the actual research, rather than idle speculation born out of their personal dislikes for MK!

Geez, if that doesn't shut up people who say that MK's aren't dominating, they're wrong. Have you all ever considered that people might be changing to MK because they SUCK against MK, always lose against MK, can't see anything halting their advance BUT MK, and finally choose to beat their worst obstacle by changing onto MK? Am I right, OverSwarm?

That could be one of the reasons why people change their mains... And lots of good THAT'S doing them, if way over half of the MK population can't even place high in big tourneys.


PS: The colors were out of complete and utter boredom. Guess what I was aiming for!

 

[Falconv1.0]

I decided to look at the character diversity in Brawl in a different way (actually, I was just trying to prove someone on Gamefaqs wrong and ended up coming up with something too smart to only post there).

The following characters have placed top 8 in a tournament with 90+ entrees since the start of 2009. 90 entrees is my cutoff for a major tournament, and I decided at that number BEFORE looking at the list (so it wasn't picked to specifically maximize what I'd see). The highest place is indicated in parenthesis. If their placement on the list is only due to a split, it will be indicated with an asterisk.

Lucario (1), Snake (1), Meta Knight (1), King Dedede (1), Diddy Kong (1), Mr. Game & Watch (1), Zero Suit Samus (1), Wario (2/1*), Pikachu (2), Falco (2), Luigi (2), R.O.B. (3), Lucas (4/3*), Sonic (4), Donkey Kong (4), Samus (4), Marth (5/1*), Pit (5/4*), Toon Link (5), Ness (5), Kirby (7), Ice Climbers (1)*, Peach (3)*, Zelda & Sheik (3)*, Pokemon Trainer (3)*, Wolf (5)*, Fox (7)*

That is, 7 different characters have won major tournaments by themselves, 21 different characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments by themselves, 10 characters have won major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them, and 27 characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them.

The tournament "Road to Viridian City" would have perhaps added more diversity (I didn't look at it after I was done), but it barely missed the 90 mark (it had 89 entrees). NO KOAST was similarly excluded (with 87 entrees). We could also point out that this only includes tournaments in Ankoku's stats so it's possible that major Japanese tournaments would have expanded this even more.

If Meta Knight is killing character diversity in Brawl, I am not seeing it.

Did I hear the words get ****ing *****?

I think I diiiiiiiiiid.

 

[TLMSheikant]

Get ***** PRO ban. I thought id never say that XD.

 

[thrillagorilla]

I decided to look at the character diversity in Brawl in a different way (actually, I was just trying to prove someone on Gamefaqs wrong and ended up coming up with something too smart to only post there).

The following characters have placed top 8 in a tournament with 90+ entrees since the start of 2009. 90 entrees is my cutoff for a major tournament, and I decided at that number BEFORE looking at the list (so it wasn't picked to specifically maximize what I'd see). The highest place is indicated in parenthesis. If their placement on the list is only due to a split, it will be indicated with an asterisk.

Lucario (1), Snake (1), Meta Knight (1), King Dedede (1), Diddy Kong (1), Mr. Game & Watch (1), Zero Suit Samus (1), Wario (2/1*), Pikachu (2), Falco (2), Luigi (2), R.O.B. (3), Lucas (4/3*), Sonic (4), Donkey Kong (4), Samus (4), Marth (5/1*), Pit (5/4*), Toon Link (5), Ness (5), Kirby (7), Ice Climbers (1)*, Peach (3)*, Zelda & Sheik (3)*, Pokemon Trainer (3)*, Wolf (5)*, Fox (7)*

That is, 7 different characters have won major tournaments by themselves, 21 different characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments by themselves, 10 characters have won major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them, and 27 characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them.

The tournament "Road to Viridian City" would have perhaps added more diversity (I didn't look at it after I was done), but it barely missed the 90 mark (it had 89 entrees). NO KOAST was similarly excluded (with 87 entrees). We could also point out that this only includes tournaments in Ankoku's stats so it's possible that major Japanese tournaments would have expanded this even more.

If Meta Knight is killing character diversity in Brawl, I am not seeing it.

What are you using for ban criteria? What is this argument based on? Please list it, or then this becomes a bunch of numbers that don't mean anything. Also, please read Eyada's criteria, then my post before jumping to conclusions. The top spots are not the only things that can be used as proofs in this argument, nor are they the only things that matter. Just because people make the logical character choice does not mean that they have the capacity to "win" with him against people that have decided to go with other characters for reasons that you have stated in previous posts.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Get ***** anti ban. I thought id never say that XD.

That post just ***** pro ban, not anti ban....

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Did I hear the words get ****ing *****?

I think I diiiiiiiiiid.

I don't. Not enough data. While nice, it doesn't state how many times each character placed in the top 8 over all in all of those tournaments, just that they did at least once. For all we know, anyone that isn't MK could have only one placing and all the rest MK. Obviously thats not true, but I want the full extent of the numbers. Otherwise it's not complete information.

 

[TLMSheikant]

Get ***** pro-ban wow sorry >_> lol i kinda got used to say antiban . fixing it.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I don't. Not enough data. While nice, it doesn't state how many times each character placed in the top 8 over all in all of those tournaments, just that they did at least once. For all we know, anyone that isn't MK could have only one placing and all the rest MK. Obviously thats not true, but I want the full extent of the numbers. Otherwise it's not complete information.

You can look at Ankoku's stats yourself; it's not hidden knowledge. I will drop the big spoiler; Meta Knight has the best tournament performance. I will also let you know that no other major tournament was even close to as Meta Knight dominated as WHOBO, and most characters on that list had several appearances. Regardless, I'd like to point out these are MAJOR tournaments. Even one placing is significant here.

Also, speaking of Ankoku's stats, Meta Knight controls 26.2% of the points on the current list. I think that's actually down a bit despite WHOBO. Either way, just controlling 1/4 of the points doesn't seem too broken to me...

As per Eyada's post, I was considering a full refutation, but that's quite a bit of work. I suppose I'll get to work though and either edit it into this post or just post another post, depending on whether someone decides to post before I'm done.

 

[thrillagorilla]

You can look at Ankoku's stats yourself; it's not hidden knowledge. I will drop the big spoiler; Meta Knight has the best tournament performance. I will also let you know that no other major tournament was even close to as Meta Knight dominated as WHOBO, and most characters on that list had several appearances. Regardless, I'd like to point out these are MAJOR tournaments. Even one placing is significant here.

Also, speaking of Ankoku's stats, Meta Knight controls 26.2% of the points on the current list. I think that's actually down a bit despite WHOBO. Either way, just controlling 1/4 of the points doesn't seem too broken to me...

As per Eyada's post, I was considering a full refutation, but that's quite a bit of work. I suppose I'll get to work though and either edit it into this post or just post another post, depending on whether someone decides to post before I'm done.

Thank you for letting me know that you are working on it. It saves me a lot of frustration. I don't mind waiting, so feel free to take your time on it to be thorough. Just know that the information you provided doesn't refute my argument, because it wasn't one of my proofs. Also, as I said before, the information by itself holds no meaning. I would like to see your ban criteria and why this information refutes the pro-ban platform.

 

[rathy Aro]

The goal is to maximize diversity. Banning any character results in a loss of diversity. That point is extremely important. Banning a character is inherently damaging to the goal of maximizing diversity.

The only time banning a character is justified is when not banning that character causes even more damage to diversity than banning that character would.

I explained this more thoroughly here: Link.

There are several viable ways you can play metaknight since one does not have to play as effectively as possible since... its metaknight. That said removing him from the metagame would be like ripping several characters from the metagame. On the other hand the removal of mk is NOT going to make many (if any) style of play with any character more viable. MK simply does not have the 70-30 matchups that your argument seems to imply. He can't be counterpicked, which troubles some (I don't know why), but does take viability from characters. He is more viable than any other character, but this is a fact that can't be avoided in any metagame.

Soooo basically, banning MK takes more diversity from the meta than it would add since no set of characters would become significantly more viable as to make up for the loss of one of the most diverse character games.

 

[bow master1]

Are U Guys Complaining About Someone Being Banned??

God Dam Brawl Community


Learn 2 Beat Him.. This Happened With Sheik

Along Time Ago I Think ... But After A While

We Learned 2 **** Her..

Man Up And **** Metaknight

way 2 go mango.

 

[bow master1]

can some1 explain 2 me wat every1s talking about?

 

[Eyada]

There are several viable ways you can play metaknight since one does not have to play as effectively as possible since... its metaknight. That said removing him from the metagame would be like ripping several characters from the metagame. On the other hand the removal of mk is NOT going to make many (if any) style of play with any character more viable. MK simply does not have the 70-30 matchups that your argument seems to imply. He can't be counterpicked, which troubles some (I don't know why), but does take viability from characters. He is more viable than any other character, but this is a fact that can't be avoided in any metagame.

Soooo basically, banning MK takes more diversity from the meta than it would add since no set of characters would become significantly more viable as to make up for the loss of one of the most diverse character games.

I am not advocating the pro-ban position. I am only advocating the truth of my system and its implications for competitive gaming. If banning Meta Knight will result in increased diversity, then he must be banned if our Rule Set is to be considered competitive; if banning Meta Knight does not increase diversity, then he must not banned if our Rule Set is to be considered competitive. Period.

I'm not arguing that either side of the debate is correct. I am simply arguing that the only correct way to settle this discussion is in a manner consistent with the argument I posted.

thrillagorilla, on the other hand, has presented a pro-ban argument that utilizes my system as justification. Perhaps you should discuss that point with him. Edit: And I should note that thrillagorilla's argument, if not refuted, is sufficient proof that Meta Knight should be banned. If you don't think Meta Knight should be banned, refute thrillagorilla's argument; or refute my argument, since he is using it as the basis for his.

As per Eyada's post, I was considering a full refutation, but that's quite a bit of work. I suppose I'll get to work though and either edit it into this post or just post another post, depending on whether someone decides to post before I'm done.

If you are considering a refutation, please remember that the only proper way to refute my argument is by directly addressing the individual premises within the argument and showing that any one of them is incorrect; or by proving at least one counter-example that shows that my argument results in a logical contradiction of some sort.

You need only provide one counter-example, or show that one (or more) premise(s) in my argument is(are) flawed.

 

[thrillagorilla]

There are several viable ways you can play metaknight since one does not have to play as effectively as possible since... its metaknight. That said removing him from the metagame would be like ripping several characters from the metagame.

How? How would it be like ripping several characters out of the game? that makes no sense whatsoever.

On the other hand the removal of mk is NOT going to make many (if any) style of play with any character more viable. MK simply does not have the 70-30 matchups that your argument seems to imply. He can't be counterpicked, which troubles some (I don't know why), but does take viability from characters. He is more viable than any other character, but this is a fact that can't be avoided in any metagame.

My argument for ban has nothing to do with the "he isn't beatable" argument. As to the trouble with him breaking the cp system, read my post.

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

Soooo basically, banning MK takes more diversity from the meta than it would add since no set of characters would become significantly more viable as to make up for the loss of one of the most diverse character games.

It looks like you are miss-understanding the "why" of the argument. He does make them non-viable according to Eyada's criteria (as far as has been proven. The anti-ban side has yet to use the criteria to prove that he isn't. It's there. It's good. Use it). Read my post, I explain it.

@everyone: Stop accusing Eyada of being pro-ban. He provided ban criteria. That's all. He is one of the people on the fence that you are supposed to convince that your side is correct, anyways (look at his vote, look at his posts).

@Eyada: Sorry for the trouble. I can't help but feel that it's my fault.

 

[Nic64]

He does make them non-viable

Who does Meta Knight and Meta Knight alone make unviable?

 

[Falconv1.0]

Thrillagorilla-Believe it or not, some people dont actually care about his ban criteria. I dont want to even start an argument as to why because I will end up punching someone.

 

[Woozle]

Thrillagorilla-Believe it or not, some people dont actually care about his ban criteria. I dont want to even start an argument as to why because I will end up punching someone.

Internet.

10realitychecks

 

[Falconv1.0]

Internet.

10realitychecks

Because obviously there's no way I could punch someone irl, OR, be making an exaggeration

10why do you even post

 

[thrillagorilla]

Who does Meta Knight and Meta Knight alone make unviable?

He makes them non-viable according to the criteria. I stated how and why in my post. Please don't try and refute unless you have actually read both my post and the criteria.

@Falcon: I don't need to ask; I have a pretty good idea of why and if anyone actually states it there will be a lot of flaming, screaming, etc. There's no point, and I understand that. Sorry about you're frustration level. I know how you feel.

 

[Eyada]

@Eyada: Sorry for the trouble. I can't help but feel that it's my fault.

It's all good.

I've made a few posts that could be misunderstood as me claiming that Meta Knight should be banned; really, it's just examples where I needed to suspend my own judgment and pretend like MK's ban is justified in order to more clearly illustrate a point to someone. Suspending judgment and entertaining the notion that something is correct in order to explore its logical implications =/= requiring that one believe or support that thing.

I'll just reiterate that I'm still undecided on the ban. I'm waiting until more conclusive anti-ban arguments are presented so I can make a fair decision.

Not that my vote really makes much of a difference anyway. The SBR, TO's, and high level players are the ones who will actually decide what gets done.

 

[Woozle]

Because obviously there's no way I could punch someone irl, OR, be making an exaggeration

10why do you even post

I think that was already 10 characters.

 

[Kewkky]

Not EXACTLY, Falcon... I agree with you that some people couldn't care less, but not because they don't care for no reason.

People like me, we love arguing and persuading. But when someone who wants to try and say something, makes a huge post that takes time to read, and not bother to make it smaller for people like me to be able to read it without getting some form of stress (I get anxious when I want something to hurry, and it doesn't... like big posts), I'd rather not read it as a whole, and skim through it quickly. I appreciate Thrilla and Eyada's effort in finding neutral ground, and giving a nice view over the whole "whether banning can be an option", but the truth is... Humanity is lazy. I'm a human. I'm lazy. I can't bother to read something so huge whose purpose is to explain what can be considered "bannable" and what can't.

People would much rather persuade each side to join theirs by countering each other's points, than find neutral ground and find an even answer... Temporary bans fall under the pro-ban side, even if it's temporary. MK mains will have an amount of time not competing with their characters, pleasing pro-banners and displeasing anti-banners.

Me, I just go with my saem point of view, and I am unable to move from this spot, which I am at right now: MK is not taking all the tourneys. The PEOPLE fighting MKs just can't seem to find a way to get around MK. Change your strategies every once in a while, mix things up. There are characters that won't be able to fare against MK, but there are also characters who can... There are options. Learn to use them.

 

[thrillagorilla]

It's all good.

I've made a few posts that could be misunderstood as me claiming that Meta Knight should be banned; really, it's just examples where I needed to suspend my own judgment and pretend like MK's ban is justified in order to more clearly illustrate a point to someone. Suspending judgment and entertaining the notion that something is correct in order to explore its logical implications =/= requiring that one believe or support that thing.

I'll just reiterate that I'm still undecided on the ban. I'm waiting until more conclusive anti-ban arguments are presented so I can make a fair decision.

Not that my vote really makes much of a difference anyway. The SBR, TO's, and high level players are the ones who will actually decide what gets done.

Its kind of funny. My entire argument is based on the same premise. I haven't voted yet because I'm not convinced, either. I just got tired of the pointless bickering and took a side to argue from after your criteria came up. I'll stick with it until my hypothesis is proven wrong. Or correct .

Edit:

Originally Posted by Kwekky:
Not EXACTLY, Falcon... I agree with you that some people couldn't care less, but not because they don't care for no reason.

People like me, we love arguing and persuading. But when someone who wants to try and say something, makes a huge post that takes time to read, and not bother to make it smaller for people like me to be able to read it without getting some form of stress (I get anxious when I want something to hurry, and it doesn't... like big posts), I'd rather not read it as a whole, and skim through it quickly. I appreciate Thrilla and Eyada's effort in finding neutral ground, and giving a nice view over the whole "whether banning can be an option", but the truth is... Humanity is lazy. I'm a human. I'm lazy. I can't bother to read something so huge whose purpose is to explain what can be considered "bannable" and what can't.

People would much rather persuade each side to join theirs by countering each other's points, than find neutral ground and find an even answer... Temporary bans fall under the pro-ban side, even if it's temporary. MK mains will have an amount of time not competing with their characters, pleasing pro-banners and displeasing anti-banners.

Me, I just go with my saem point of view, and I am unable to move from this spot, which I am at right now: MK is not taking all the tourneys. The PEOPLE fighting MKs just can't seem to find a way to get around MK. Change your strategies every once in a while, mix things up. There are characters that won't be able to fare against MK, but there are also characters who can... There are options. Learn to use them.

Lazyness is a John. No Johns

 

[Nic64]

He makes them non-viable according to the criteria. I stated how and why in my post.

And who was this exactly again? I haven't seen you post anything that explicitly states that MK makes any other character unviable, and if you did you would be absolutely wrong because every character that he ***** has at least one terrible matchup with another character(I suppose Marth vs DDD is borderline but I don't think MK makes Marth unviable anyway).

 

[rathy Aro]

I don't necessarily agree with his criteria anyway I was just suggesting that even if I did it supports anti ban for the reasons I said above. Right now I'm too tired to argue against the criteria or against pro-ban within the criteria in depth so, eh.

I can say:
Banning MK is mean. This sounds like scrub logic, but people need to stop dismissing the simple fact that people have spent MONTHS developing mk's meta for tourney use and will suddenly find all of their work useless if the ban goes through. mk being in the meta does nothing similarly cruel; mk ****** your fav char and giving you no options to counterpick is NOT NEARLY as bad as you taking someone else's fav char and outright saying "you can't play him".

 

[Metatitan]

Are U Guys Complaining About Someone Being Banned??

God Dam Brawl Community


Learn 2 Beat Him.. This Happened With Sheik

Along Time Ago I Think ... But After A While

We Learned 2 **** Her..

Man Up And **** Metaknight

Nice comparison Mango. The only difference I see is that mk is more broken than sheik was (at least I think so). Besides, sheik had flaws, and mk pretty much has one flaw, and that is being light. But it does bring up a very good question, will mk eventually be beatable like sheik was? Or another question would be does the comparison matter since melee =/= brawl?

 

[thrillagorilla]

And who was this exactly again? I haven't seen you post anything that explicitly states that MK makes any other character unviable, and if you did you would be absolutely wrong because every character that he ***** has at least one terrible matchup with another character(I suppose Marth vs DDD is borderline but I don't think MK makes Marth unviable anyway).

This post...

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

Based on this post...

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7266367&postcount=3287

If you don't understand how I came to a conclusion or something just flat out doesn't make sense to you, let me know. I don't really want to re-explain the entire thing all over again,though. It took me 4+ hours to make that original post.

Edit: @rathy Aro: If you don't agree with his criteria, you have to say why. What about it is incorrect? Why don't you want to use it? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let people get away with being lazy anymore on this thread if they are going to argue one side or another. It's been going on way too long.

 

[Nic64]

I already read that, you link to that in every post you make, I didn't see anything pertinent in it and I'm not going to re-read a massive post again for one or two lines where you actually say something relevant to what I was talking about. Saying that MK is the most logical choice no questions if you are playing to win does not mean that other characters are unviable. It shouldn't be that hard to simply say "I believe MK makes ____ unviable because..."

edit:

· Metaknight doesn’t make the other characters non-viable.

Yes, he does. If there were another character that had multiple advantageous match-ups and evens with the rest of the cast (MK would have to fall under one of the even match-ups) then there would be two “zero risk/ high reward” characters to choose from, allowing for diversity to continue. As it stands there isn’t, so logic still dictates Metaknight to be the logical (dominant) choice.

do you know what not viable means? I probably missed this the first time because that entire paragraph never actually addresses the issue of character viability at all, and essentially tries to say that all other characters including those like snake and wario are unviable, which is just totally ridiculous.

 

[Eyada]

Thrillagorilla-Believe it or not, some people dont actually care about his ban criteria. I dont want to even start an argument as to why because I will end up punching someone.

Not EXACTLY, Falcon... I agree with you that some people couldn't care less, but not because they don't care for no reason.

People like me, we love arguing and persuading. But when someone who wants to try and say something, makes a huge post that takes time to read, and not bother to make it smaller for people like me to be able to read it without getting some form of stress (I get anxious when I want something to hurry, and it doesn't... like big posts), I'd rather not read it as a whole, and skim through it quickly. I appreciate Thrilla and Eyada's effort in finding neutral ground, and giving a nice view over the whole "whether banning can be an option", but the truth is... Humanity is lazy. I'm a human. I'm lazy. I can't bother to read something so huge whose purpose is to explain what can be considered "bannable" and what can't.

People would much rather persuade each side to join theirs by countering each other's points, than find neutral ground and find an even answer... Temporary bans fall under the pro-ban side, even if it's temporary. MK mains will have an amount of time not competing with their characters, pleasing pro-banners and displeasing anti-banners.

Me, I just go with my saem point of view, and I am unable to move from this spot, which I am at right now: MK is not taking all the tourneys. The PEOPLE fighting MKs just can't seem to find a way to get around MK. Change your strategies every once in a while, mix things up. There are characters that won't be able to fare against MK, but there are also characters who can... There are options. Learn to use them.

That's fine. If the community would rather resolve the problem by pissing on one another until one side finally grows tired of the argument and simply concedes to the other just to make the bickering stop, then so be it.

 

[rathy Aro]

Edit: @rathy Aro: If you don't agree with his criteria, you have to say why. What about it is incorrect? Why don't you want to use it? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let people get away with being lazy anymore on this thread if they are going to argue one side or another. It's been going on way too long.

Lol. I'm half asleep. You'll just tear my post apart for the many flaws that will be there. If I read either the criteria or your post now, I'll probably fall asleep. That said I will argue this tomorrow and if I forget you can pm if you want. now to visit the marth boards->sleep.

 

[bow master1]

seriously some1 explain this viable non-viable stuff 2 me.
would it help if i said please?
pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease

 

[Darxmarth23]

This poll needs to end.

Pro ban is staying at about 50% for about 4 days.

Let the SBR take it from here.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

I would imagine the SBR is waiting for Apex.

 

[Nic64]

I would imagine the SBR is waiting for Apex.

I don't see why it matters, everyone knows MK will place highly, nothing is going to change, the question is whether or not the current situation is acceptable.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

I don't see why it matters, everyone knows MK will place highly, nothing is going to change, the question is whether or not the current situation is acceptable.

I didn't say that it matters. I am just stating what is likely happening now.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

/* Defining a competitive game/*
1.) A game is considered competitive if the outcome of the game is determined by meaningful decisions made by the players; as opposed to being determined purely by luck or by random decisions which lack any sort of logical basis.
2.) Any option that can reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "viable" option.
3.) Any option that cannot reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "non-viable" option.
4.) Having only a single viable option in a game means that players must always choose that option in order to win.
5.) Therefore, games with only one viable option do not allow players to make meaningful decisions.
6.) Therefore, multiple viable options to choose from in a game are required before players can make meaningful decisions.
7.) Therefore, a competitive game must have multiple viable options.
8.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by players making meaningful decisions concerning various viable options within the game.

/* 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.

/* Defining Competitiveness and showing its relationship to increased Diversity /*
15.) By definition of the word "competitiveness", a game's level of competitiveness is determined by how much competition it fosters.
16.) Following from (1. and 10.) and the definition of the word "competitive", a game being resolved by skill between players is a competition.
17.) By definition, a game being resolved by a greater amount of skilled exchanges between players is a greater amount of competition.
18.) Therefore, a game which encourages greater amounts of skill encourages greater amounts of competitiveness.
19.) An increased amount of diversity causes an increased amount of skill, as shown in (13.)
20.) Therefore, increased diversity causes increased competitiveness.

/* Defining Overcentralization and showing the relationship between Competitiveness and decreased Diversity. /*
21.) If a single viable option in a game renders a sufficient majority of, but not all, other options non-viable, that option is said to be "overcentralizing".
22.) By definition, an overcentralized game has less diversity.
23.) Following from (15. and 16.), and by logic similar to (17.), a game being resolved by a lesser amount of skilled exchanges between players is a lesser amount of competition.
24.) Therefore, a game which encourages lesser amounts of skill encourages lesser amounts of competitiveness.
25.) As shown in (14.), less diversity means less skill.
26.) Therefore, decreased diversity causes decreased competitiveness.
27.) Therefore, overcentralization causes decreased competitiveness.

/* Defining Completely Dominant and showing its relationship to Skill /*
28.) If a single viable option in a game renders all other options non-viable, that option is said to be "completely dominant".
29.) A game with a completely dominant option does not allow for meaningful decisions, as shown in (4. and 5.)
30.) By definitions shown in (9. and 10.), skill cannot exist without the ability to make meaningful decisions.
31.) Therefore, the outcome of a game with a completely dominant option is not determined by skill.

/* Identifying the conditions necessary for a game to lack Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
32.) As shown in (28., 29, 30., and 31.), a game with a completely dominant option does not allow for skill.
33.) By the definition of "skill" shown in (9.), a game with zero viable options does not allow for skill.
34.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not allow for skill.
35.) By the definition of diversity shown in (11.), a game must allow for meaningful decisions among viable options in order to have diversity.
36.) Therefore, as follows from (4. and 5.), a game with a completely dominant option does not have diversity.
37.) Similarly, a game with zero viable options does not have diversity.
38.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have diversity.
39.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have skill or diversity.
40.) Therefore, a lack of skill and a lack of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
41.) Therefore, a lack of skill necessitates a lack of diversity; and a lack of diversity necessitates a lack of skill.
42.) Therefore, a game with no diversity cannot have skill; and a game with no skill cannot have diversity.

/* Showing the conditions necessary for a game to have Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
43.) As a corollary to (34.), a game with two or more viable options does allow for skill.
44.) As a corollary to (38.), a game with two or more viable options does allow diversity.
45.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options allows for both skill and diversity.
46.) By the definition shown in (9.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill.
47.) By the definition shown in (11.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has diversity.
48.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill and diversity.
49.) As shown in (13. and 14.), the quantity of skill and diversity in a game are mutually determined.
50.) Therefore, the presence of skill and the presence of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
51.) Therefore, the presence of skill necessitates the presence of diversity; and the presence of diversity necessitates the presence of skill.
52.) Therefore, a game with diversity must have skill; and a game with skill must have diversity.

/* Using the logical equivalence of Skill and Diversity and the relationship between Skill and Competitiveness to show the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness. /*
53.) As shown in (42. and 52.), the logical conditions required for skill and diversity are equivalent.
54.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, the presence or absence of skill implies the presence or absence of diversity; and the presence or absence of diversity implies the presence or absence skill.
55.) Therefore, skill is necessary for diversity, and diversity is necessary for skill.
57.) As shown in (15. and 16.), skill is necessary for competitiveness.
58.) Skill and diversity are logically equivalent.
58.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, diversity is necessary for competitiveness.
60.) As shown in (20. and 26.), increased or decreased diversity causes increased or decreased competitiveness.
61.) Therefore, the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.

/* Showing that the purpose of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game. /*
62.) The goal of competition is to test the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
63.) A Competitive Rule Set is a rule set meant to facilitate competition.
63.) The goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate competition.
64.) Therefore, the goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate testing the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
65.) Doing things that unnecessarily hinder one's attempts to do something is bad.
66.) Therefore, making a Rule Set that hinders the ability of one's tournament to effectively test the skills of players is bad.
67.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should facilitate competitive tournament play to the maximum extent possible.
68.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.

/* Showing that the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness leads to the conclusion that Tournament Rule Sets should maximize Diversity. /*
69.) As shown in (61.), the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
70.) As shown in (68.), a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
71.) Therefore, maximizing diversity causes a maximization of competitiveness.
72.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize diversity.

/* 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.

Point 1 is a bit flawed. Solitaire's outcome is determined by meaningful decisions by the players to a large extent, but it's obviously non-competitive. The definition needs reworked to factor in that competitive games necessarily are multiplayer games in which there are winners and losers.

I agree with options 2-10 for the most part. There are some subtle issues, but those get addressed further down more easily.

Point 11 has quite a few problems. One big issue is that it doesn't consider how different the options are from each other. You could have three versions of Meta Knight in which each one has one tilt on which he does 1% more than the others. All three would be viable options, but a game consisting of just those three characters wouldn't be as diverse as a game in which there was just Meta Knight and Snake. Another issue is that it doesn't consider that some options will eliminate other options further down the line. For instance, if you pick Marth, you are eliminating Ness's PSI Magnet from the game (for most practical reasons). Even if Ness's PSI Magnet is highly viable in the game tree in which you pick Pit, it's pretty bad in the game tree in which you pick Marth. Even more, you could have moves like Samus's tether attack that would be a viable option in a game tree resulting from a choice that is inviable (in this case, picking Samus). Arguments centering around the number of viable options are fatally flawed since diversity is simply far more complex than that.

Point 12 is also flawed. Let's say we have three games with 14 viable options. Obviously you don't make them all at once. Now, let's say you make two choices as such:

Game A:

7 choices followed by 7 choices (two decisions).

Game B:

10 choices followed by 4 choices (two decisions).

Game C:

5 choices followed by 7 choices followed by 2 choices (three decisions).

All three games have 14 viable options, but Game A and Game B intuitively are not the same diversity wise, and Game C has more meaningful decisions which makes this point fall apart. It's even worse if you look at the following Game D:

3 choices followed by 2 choices followed by 2 choices followed by 2 choices followed by 2 choices followed by 2 choices (6 decisions)

Game D has the most decisions of all, but it has only 13 viable options. Also, no matter how you correct the definition of diversity, point 12 retains a lot of these fatal flaws.

As per points 13 and 14 (essentially the same point), they neglect that not all decisions will be equal in difficulty to make. Let's say we have two viable decisions to make in two different games at two different points in time. Let's say in Game A seven factors of game state are relevant to deciding which viable option is superior. Let's say in Game B twenty-two factors of game state are relevant to deciding which viable option is superior. Obviously the decision making ability (i.e. skill) is more tested in Game B, but by points 13 and 14 they should be equal. It's reasonable, by this method, to assume that a game in which there are fewer viable options could, in fact, demonstrate more skill if there are more relevant game state factors to weigh. The opportunities for deception are another possibly complicating factor, but I think these points are dead enough.

Point 15 is a truism. Point 16 is likewise easy to agree with.

For point 17, we might ask how much skill is applied to each decision, as I addressed earlier. We could also simply ask how good the players are. Expert checkers players are probably displaying a higher level of competition than novice chess players even if chess is a clearly deeper game. We could even ask how popular a game is. A Game B in which there are 30% fewer decisions than a Game A (assuming each decision is equal to all the others, for the sake of the example) but the Game B has some element in it that causes it to be 600% more popular is going to foster more competition than the Game A. This is critical to Meta Knight by the way. If the game is less popular without Meta Knight, we could argue it hurts competition by your definition of competition.

Given the previous objections, points 18-20 are hard to address.

Point 21 is easy to agree with.

Point 22 is incomplete since I could ask "less diversity than what?". Do you mean to say less diverse than any game that is not overcentralized? That may be dubious. Do you mean than the same game that is somehow changed to not be overcentralized? That may be tricky to model since overcentralized is a possibly core value of the game.

It's really hard to continue at this point, but this should be enough to constitute a refutation. Here is what I have to say about the general idea of diversity and competition.

You are right to say that increased diversity is good in general, but diversity is very complex and difficult to measure (do remember that there are some choices, such as choosing a spacing, that may have hundreds or even thousands of viable options, and in some games, there may even be certain choices that have an infinite number of viable options, such as deciding exactly when in a 2 second window to throw a football). Given how complex it is, it's very difficult to say what changes to a game will increase it unless the game is very mature or the option is is so powerful as to shut out all other options (i.e. the option is broken). Brawl is not mature, and Meta Knight is not broken.

You also have to consider the cultural effects and how it can affect competition. As I alluded to earlier, cultural effects do have a real effect on competition. Now, I think we can agree with the assertion that part of being skilled (adept at making meaningful decisions) is being able to recognize all viable options, even ones that are non-obvious, and then picking the one that is the best at leading toward a victory. We might say this is an extreme seeking thing, and we might even say that the skill (and maybe even the competition) is maximized by this extreme seeking. However, banning things provides an incentive NOT to extreme seek. All your investments into banned elements are ultimately a waste. Currently, players can assume that the time they invest in learning any character is "safe", and that they won't have to worry about their experiences being nullified by a ban. You could argue that people who main characters that are unviable because of Meta Knight have their skill nullified, but do they really? It was their own lack of decision making ability in the first place that led them to pick a bad character. Isn't giving up that main just a part of getting better? It's really fundamentally different when dealing with the ban; we're looking at an environment in which doing everything you can to win (in this case, on the character selection screen) is not necessarily the best plan since the rules could be changed. This is why I am reflexively opposed to almost any ban, by the way. Bans hurt competitive communities pretty deeply by default. The good has to be pretty major in order to justify them.

If you want to suggest that the current controversy is already causing damage, I actually agree. We need to come together and make it very firm that Meta Knight is not going to be banned and that you are not risking wasting your time in any way by using him. That would be what I see as the minimum damage path.

 

[thrillagorilla]

I already read that, you link to that in every post you make, I didn't see anything pertinent in it and I'm not going to re-read a massive post again for one or two lines where you actually say something relevant to what I was talking about. Saying that MK is the most logical choice no questions if you are playing to win does not mean that other characters are unviable. It shouldn't be that hard to simply say "I believe MK makes ____ unviable because..."

edit:



do you know what not viable means? I probably missed this the first time because that entire paragraph never actually addresses the issue of character viability at all, and essentially tries to say that all other characters including those like snake and wario are unviable, which is just totally ridiculous.

Viable: Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable.

I see what you mean. I'll mull it over for some time and see if or how it changes my argument.


Edit:@Amazing Ampharos: Would you send Eyada a link to the post via pm? I don't want him to miss it since I have to go over my argument again and don't have the time to look it over.

 

[|RK|]

Wow, Ampharos.

 

[Kewkky]

Good God, when will people stop flooding the pages with useless 11-word posts? What in the world does "Wow, Ampharos" contribute? All it does is move the thread faster and make it hard to find the actual posts that mean something when we want to use them as reference.

Can you just, like, remove your fingers from your keyboards while actual people argue? I hate having to go back 4 pages just to find something that people are presently discussing.