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

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

First of all im not mango im his fanboy fanboy and mango said wow who cares its just a man man-go up and yes mango sucks at posting he said

 

[Kewkky]

I do see the metagame stagnating as "what can we do to make our character beat MK?" While this is definitely not true across the board, it is true enough to cause worry.

I don't mean to start any arguments against you, just a heads up.

The metagame stagnating on "having our characters learn how to take down MK" is not a bad thing AT ALL. Once we find anything that might help us beat him, his reign will end. It could be anything, really: A weird infinite, a change in approaches, character-specific ATs that revolve around MK's defeat and ONLY MK's defeat... The success of finding ANYTHING that works only against MK on ANY character that isn't MK would lead to MK's downfall when faced with those characters... Meaning, less MKs and more of THOSE characters.

And if nothing is discovered... At the very least, the LOTS of experience against MK will make it so people don't have as hard a time as they do now against him, in the future. More experience = smarter decision-making, and this situation is no exception.

 

[tarmacker]

and tarmacker if he came back mango would be there to **** him =D

rofl, raaaaaape

im mango fanboynumber2

Edit: Number 3 now rofl

 

[Nic64]

I think mango and dmbrandon have made more posts that are actually worth reading than the rest of us combined in this thread, lmfao. The actual debate is really trite now.

 

[Sasha]

I don't mean to start any arguments against you, just a heads up.

The metagame stagnating on "having our characters learn how to take down MK" is not a bad thing AT ALL. Once we find anything that might help us beat him, his reign will end. It could be anything, really: A weird infinite, a change in approaches, character-specific ATs that revolve around MK's defeat and ONLY MK's defeat... The success of finding ANYTHING that works only against MK on ANY character that isn't MK would lead to MK's downfall when faced with those characters... Meaning, less MKs and more of THOSE characters.

And if nothing is discovered... At the very least, the LOTS of experience against MK will make it so people don't have as hard a time as they do now against him, in the future. More experience = smarter decision-making, and this situation is no exception.

True enough. I don't know though. I'd hate to see the game degenerate into "Beat MK!" Maybe you're right though. We'll see soon enough I suppose.

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

tarmaker- yeah mango is incredible

nic- i agree mangos post always make me smile and laugh

 

[|RK|]

Obviously so do you. And the fact that you keep popping up. At this point, it'd be wise to create a backup account, post differently than Mango, get a good post count, and come in as someone entirely different. Don't want to be IP banned, do we now?

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

Mango said they can ip ban him he doesnt care.. now he might actually go outside instead of being on smashboards for most of the day

<333 mango

 

[|RK|]

>_> Nice going, genius. Why would you be near Mango? Admit it and follow my suggestions. If you can't be a good troll then don't be a troll at all.

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

After reading most of this thread everyone seemed to loved mangos trolling and what are you gonna do ?
Tell on me? what u gonna cry ? u want a wamburger with some french cries maybe we should get you a weineken

and im talking to mango on aim

 

[Alus]

>_> Nice going, genius. Why would you be near Mango? Admit it and follow my suggestions. If you can't be a good troll then don't be a troll at all.

Yup yup this i agree with...
or you can continue trolling and have everyone add you to their ignore list...




or get banned

But either way im enjoying this!

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

who are you talking to lol

 

[Masmasher@]

Mango said they can ip ban him he doesnt care.. now he might actually go outside instead of being on smashboards for most of the day

<333 mango

I spit out my juice on the keyboard ROFL! A fanboy to a fanboy why mango why.....

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

DONT TELL ME THATS NOT FUNNY .... mango said

 

[pure_awesome]

RK, the fact that you're still responding to him several pages after he completely destroyed whatever remained of this thread makes him a success.

If I meet Mango at Genesis, I'm going to smack him as hard as I can, because he deserves it for being a tool. But that doesn't change the fact that he's by far the most efficient troll I've ever seen.

 

[Nic64]

or you can continue trolling and have everyone add you to their ignore list...

why in the world would anyone ignore him lol

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

Mango said hes got that WC backup =D and he said that was his goal

 

[Kewkky]

Man, MaNgO made everyone go off-topic... I'm still trying to shut people up about how they think MK is unbeatable and broken!


I can't argue by myself.........

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

Well mango said he shut them up for you

=D

 

[ShadowLink84]

Obviously, MK stops this by being a character who is not easily grabbed, therefore people choose him isntead of other easily-grabbed characters to avoid being CG'd. Plus, DDD's cg doesn't work on him, that's ONE way of regulating DDDs in tourneys: people tend to look for a better option against MK, rather than risk their luck with ******** grab games... Cuz that's practically what makes DDD "broken" in the right sense of the word.

play wario. You have several other characters that are hard to grab.
IT isnt that the game will revolve around CG's and camping. That is very beatable.
in fac, there are severals that are not MK thatbeat it out. Try grabbing Sonic, Wario, Pika or sevrla other characters. it is not easy.

MK doesn't stop other matches who don't have MK from NOT cg'ing people. But the option of being able to choose him, makes the DDD player NOT just jump in as DDD, but consider usign someone else if they know their opponent might be an MK user. You suck horribly at understanding the reactions a person might undergo upon a critical situation.

hey lets bring in player dependent behavior on something revolving around the characters capabiities.
What matters for a ban is that the character causes overcentralizing by nature. Not by popularity.
If everyone is using MK and he is popular, he is overcentralizing ue to popularity ot nature.
We do not care for popularity.

If you , as a DDD user, run into a Olimar or IC user, that Olimar or IC user, you arent going to jump in for the grab. You end up choosing someone else, who they have probkems with, who most likely, does not CG.

stuff

How are the tactics broken?
If the tactic is broken and cannot be beaten it would be ban worthy. MK's inclusion in the game isnt going to be enough to stop it. That would mean ravager shouldnt be baned because of tooth and nail decks.

If MK (according to you) overcentralizes, then the metagame revolves around MK too much. If you want him banned, then you want him to stop overcentralizing. Therefore, according to you yourself, you want to change the current metagame into something different,

Wrong. What you are describing is a case where the character is overcentralizing by the choices of the player.
You never ban to just make the metagame different.
You ban it to make sure the metagame does not revolve around one character.
Not to merely change it, but to increase the skill and choices, rather than it revolving around one character. Like Akuma

which will be loved by many more... Oh but wait, you said that what the metagame becomes isn't an issue. What redundancy is this of which you speak?

Of course... Who's to say the outcome will bring more to the Brawl world? This is a risk being taken into consideration, depending on where the community lies... And as I can see, half the community is pro-ban, and half could be anti-ban.

Let me explain better.
IF we ban a character, the outcome that we worry about is the status quo.
As in, if we make the ban and it is not justified, then the status quo is lowered.
Even though the brawl game might be more enjoyable, this ban that we have performed has lowered the status quo on what we can or cannot ban.

We changed the reasoning for the ban.
That is the outcome that is important. Not what the metagame becomes, but what justifies a banning.

If the ban is justified, it doesnt matter if the metagame becomes nmore enjoyable or not or if its fun.
Al that amttersis that elements that create overcentralizing by nature are removed.
Like Akuma.

Understand better?

You are trying to say that we should care about CG's and camping becoming a good tactic.
So what? That does not matter as long as it does not break the game.
Same for MK.
If MK is not breaking the game, you cannot ban him.

What people do or do not want does not matter. people want many things, that does not mean they are good.

When did I say "top players" suck because they lose to MK?

You mentioned how players losing to Mk advocate for his ban. in essence, you are stating that players who are not capable of dealingw ith MK are the ones who advocate for the ban.

stuff

Which does not amtter at all either way because we discuss the character being too good, or not too good.

A perfect hypothetical player wouldn't lose against an imperfect REAL MK main, and people can get quite close to be considered 'near perfect', so they could beat MK in theory.

No one is ever close to being near perfect.
Look at SDM's perfect control. Show when someone plays that well and I will show you a perfect Fox main.

hardware, software, mental and physical capabilities prevent perfection.
In theory you can beat Akuma with Ryu.
I have also seen Balrogs perfect Akuma users much less skilled with him.
Does this mean we should not have banned Akuma? Of course not.

Just because theoretically he is beatable, does not mean he should be unbanned.
It is only if being theoretically beatable, is within reason.

Let alone that skill should never be used as a reason to justify or not justify a ban. We look at character traits, not player traits.

And this is obviously true, as we've seen countless people defeating MK mains every once in a while, PLUS we've seen people whose character skill is so amazing, we just have to give them a hand for taking the time to 'semi-perfect' their game.

hey, my opponent was so much more skilled than me that he beat my obviously superior character.
Dont ban my character!
no dude, just because someone is THAT much better that he overcame the odds does not change the fact that the match was bad.

When Ninjalink beats metaknight you think he agrees with people saying diddy is a counter to MK or is even with MK? No.
he says that he himself as a player, was good enough to out perform his player.
Not that his character's capabilities made him superior in that matchup.

Which is why matchup ratios are looked upon so critically unless they are in the extremes. because something like 6-4 is very winnable because it means it still falls to being skill vs skill.

While something like 8-2 is definitely not a contest of skill.

Stop overexaggerating everything, MK is not broken..

Stop being stupid and putting words in my mouth.
I never claimed him broken.
Let alone I already designated my stance concerning the debate.
Seriously, spadefox did this earlier as well and I have yet to see an apology from him). You planning to continue this trend?

stuff

you keep making this fallacy.
argumentum ad hominem.

You are trying to dispel my argument by trying to refute the source, rather than refuting the argument itself.

I myself have beaten several Metaknights.
How long are you going to continue holding onto a flawed argument?
Let alone its really friggin obvious to people who have not played SF2 that akuma is broken when you say things like.

Chips opponent to death.
invincible legs.
breaks the game with his air fierball which no one can deal with.

Its far from telling a blindman what color is like.

other stuff

Again who cares about what the palyer is doing?
We care about the capabilities of the character.

Once again, did I ever say they were bad at the game? Stop reading invisible sentences, you're delusional.

You cannot read.

When you ignore the fact that the community has revolved itself around him for close to a year ow, you obviously think people suck if they are still having problems with him.
Here is an idea, stop bringing up player skill when it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRITERIA CONCERNING A BAN!

You obviously are telling people to stop sucking if you are constantly assuming that they are losing to MK's.

Delusional? hardly, it falls down to the way you present it.

Apparently whoever is in charge, does. Otherwise, they'd take the opinions of only REAL pros, and change the rules to however they desire, rather than post a public poll for the whole community, newbie and pro alike, to decide whether it is best to ban, or not...

They don't.
We do not care for the uneducated arguments provided by 75% of the peple here.
They lack the knowledge to back up their claims.

you think a neurologist is going to listen to a dog trainer about how to treat the brain?
No
.

So the opinion is heard, obviously, the opinion being cared for comes not from someone saying "MK IS BROKEN CAUE HE CAN RECOVER SOOOOO GOOD."
The opinion cared for is the one that says.

Metaknight is within the criteria of a ban because of his overcentralizing by nature. hhe hinders the metagame by becoming the only character capable of winning tournaments.

See the difference?
Same agreement different reason.

other stuff that automatically assumes my stance concerning MK being ban worthy and NEEDS TO STOP.

^^^
Cut it out its annoying. Otherwise I'll just report you as trolling simple because I cannot see as to how you are discerning my position on the ban.

 

[Alus]

why in the world would anyone ignore him lol

good point


lol now its time to stop the spam.

because MK isSERIOUS BUSINESS!!!

 

[|RK|]

After reading most of this thread everyone seemed to loved mangos trolling and what are you gonna do ?
Tell on me? what u gonna cry ? u want a wamburger with some french cries maybe we should get you a weineken

and im talking to mango on aim

Uh-huh. I'm just trying to help you perfect your technique. Otherwise you'll get IP banned. Simple as that. A good troll makes people laugh.

An excellent troll makes people believe him.

 

[MangosFanyboyFanboy]

im not trying to make people belive me i want them to know its me so that way they laugh .. mango said

and he said he made a few people laugh

 

[Eyada]

I reworked the rigorous argument. The revised version is at the end of this post. Edit: It comes to the same conclusions, in almost the exact same way. I just had to patch a few minor problems.

Again, apologies for the length.

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 the multiplayer requirement and I added it to the argument. I disagree with the part about having winners or losers being part of "competitive" as I think that the concept of a "game" implies a winner and loser; however, it is a minor quibble and is irrelevant to the overall argument, so as a courtesy I conceded the point and added the winner/loser clause to the argument.

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

There were indeed some issues. My revision of the argument takes care of them, I believe.

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.

Indeed. A "distinct options" clause was needed, even before reaching (11.), and I have added it in and revised the argument as necessary. I mulled over numerous possible methods of defining "distinct options", and while I feel that I settled on the most satisfactory one, if you have any issues with the new definition let me know. As such, the "MK triplets" and other such problematic scenarios no longer plague the argument.

As for needing to take into account the fact that certain options will be made non-viable by others at a later point, I disagree. When looking at the game at the character level, the "distinct viable options" we are discussing are the characters. A character is "viable" if picking that character can reasonably result in victory; and the criteria for deciding if a character can reasonably attain victory is if their overall match-ups don't render them non-viable in a tournament. It isn't a question of whether or not Marth makes Ness' Psi Magnet non-viable, it is a question of whether or not the option called "Marth" makes the option called "Ness" non-viable. When comparing the net result of everything that goes into the Marth vs. Ness match-up, does the option "Marth" make the option "Ness" non-viable? If yes, then none of Ness' moves are viable in a game where "Marth" is an option, because they cannot reasonably lead to victory; if they could reasonably lead to victory, then Ness would not be made non-viable by Marth. That is to say, if Ness' move set contains viable moves, then those viable moves can reasonably lead to victory; therefore, using those moves should reasonably lead to victory, which means that you will have achieved victory as Ness. If using Ness' moves cannot reasonably lead to victory, then Ness' moves are non-viable.

So the move set belonging to a non-viable character is itself non-viable. If the move set were viable, then that move set could reasonably result in victory, which would mean that the character the move set is associated with could reasonably result in victory.

Even if the only reason the move set cannot reasonably result in victory is because of other traits associated with the character (such as model size or falling speed), that doesn't change the reality that the move set, as it exists in the game, cannot reasonably result in victory. Even if a hypothetical situation could be imagined where giving the move set to another character would result in that move set being totally viable, that doesn't change the reality that the actual move set, as it exists in the game, does not reasonably result in victory. Since the move set does not reasonably result in victory, it is non-viable. Period.

Does that make sense, or do I need to rephrase my point for clarity?

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.

This illustrated an important flaw my definition of "diversity" that I should have seen myself; namely, that it essentially claimed that diversity is "the viable options within a game which serve as the basis for choosing between the viable options within a game", which obviously makes no sense. I have reworked the argument and the definition in such a way that this is no longer a problem.

Also, as you showed, the old flawed definition resulted in the conclusion that skill is solely dependent on how many decisions are made, rather than how much "mental prowess or effort" was required overall. Obviously, just making a large quantity of decisions isn't necessarily skillful, and I have reworked the definition to capture my intended meaning.

As for the examples, I believe the issues they raised have been resolved by my reworking of the argument.

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.

This was a symptom of numerous other problems in the argument. The revision alleviates this issue.

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.

Perhaps this stemmed from problems in my earlier argument, please read the revision.

The first point about player skill level is not relevant. Just because the novice players who are playing Chess fail to display the level of skill made possible by the game does nothing to diminish the game itself. Chess, due to having more distinct viable options and relevant complexities (see my revised argument), allows for more skill, and therefore more competitiveness, than Checkers ever will. This fact is true regardless of the skill level of players playing the game, and it is the only fact that my argument claims to be true.

The popularity argument is very accurate, and it seemed fine to me at first; but then I stopped and pondered the implications. If a game being popular increases the competitiveness of a game, then it logically follows that a game being not popular somehow decreases the competitiveness of the game; such that, even if a game were amazingly deep and skill-dependent, if everyone who played it suddenly stopped playing it, that game would somehow stop being an amazing competitive game. That is a highly unsatisfactory result, and indicates that there was some sort of problem. This prompted the revision that can be seen in my new argument.

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

Point 21 is easy to agree with.

Sounds good.

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.

True. In fact, after reviewing the argument over the last day or so, I agree. As such, that clause, which wasn't even necessary to the argument, has been removed.

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.

I agree with the fact there are some aspects of games with very complex amounts of viable options; however, the inclusion of a "distinct" clause alleviates this problem to a great degree. The numerous other objections I have to the football example notwithstanding, the simplest refutation is that it doesn't really constitute an infinite amount of distinct viable options. Assuming that the objective behind throwing the ball is for the ball to be caught, then only throwing the ball in such a way that it will be caught can be considered viable. If throwing the football during that 2 second time frame is the only way for it to result in the ball being caught, then the option "throw the football during this 2 second time frame" is the only viable option, and it is only one single option. Your argument that there are an infinite number of moments where the decision could be made to throw the ball (and that there are therefore an infinite number of viable options) is rendered false by a "distinct options" clause, because the end result of all of those infinite options is the same, and they are therefore essentially one option.

My revised argument might make the point a bit more clear.

As to complexity making banning difficult, I agree to an extent. If one is trying to argue for a ban on the grounds that a character suppresses diversity related to spacing, then the argument supporting such a claim would be prohibitively difficult to support due to the complexity of spacing. However, an argument, for example, that MK is ban-worthy because he removes the ability to meaningfully decide amongst characters in the counter-pick system due to being strictly the safest, and therefore the best, choice, is reasonably possible.

As to the maturity of Brawl, I am inclined to agree, but that discussion isn't relevant to the validity of my argument; and I am still undecided on the issue of MK. (Which also, strictly speaking, isn't directly relevant to the validity of my argument.)

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.

I will say that, in general, I agree. While your point doesn't strictly have anything to do with the validity of my argument, I agree that, in principle, a ban-criteria should result in as few bans as possible, otherwise it is probably too damaging to the fabric of a competitive community. However, my argument and system inherently resists banning anything, so I don't believe this is a flaw that can be attributed to it. An option must be shown to cause immense amounts of damage to diversity in order to be banned under my system due to the balancing effect that banning anything inherently results in a big loss of diversity. As such, I don't believe it is damaging to community competitiveness; on the contrary, I believe it is the only justifiable standard of "competitiveness" that we can judge things by, given the nature of how intertwined diversity and competitiveness are.

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.

While I do not know if not banning MK is the correct, justified path, I strongly agree with you that this problem being resolved as soon as possible is in the best interest of community health.


Below is the revised argument. Before that, I want to illustrate the concept of relevant complexities and explain why it is needed for my argument but why following it through to its full logical conclusion is irrelevant to my argument.

In my argument, I show that:

Skill = capacity for deliberation which leads to choosing the correct viable option to maximize chances of victory.

Deliberation = considering the relationships between all distinct viable options and all relevant complexities in order to choose the "best" viable option.

So, to illustrate:

Imagine a game with 3 distinct viable options. Now, imagine that the status of seven different factors within the game environment serve as the basis by which players evaluate the value of the 3 distinct viable options. This means that those seven different factors are "relevant complexities". So there are 7 relevant complexities.

3 distinct viable options, and 7 relevant complexities.

The process of deliberation is simply analyzing all of the relationships between those 10 objects and then determining, as a result of that analysis, which of the 3 options is the best choice.

Hopefully this makes it clear that an increase or decrease in the quantity of either distinct viable options or relevant complexities will both serve to alter the amount of skill possible within the game; given that skill is the capacity for deliberation that leads to victory. If there is less stuff to deliberate, then less mental effort is required to figure out the best option, and thus less skill is needed to win the game.

I did not include the full logical exploration of relevant complexities and the relationship it has to skill because that relationship is only relevant to Game Designers or people discussing Game Design Theory. It is of no use in establishing Rule Sets, which is the purpose of my argument. Thus, I didn't include the full exploration of relevant complexities because that exploration is outside the scope of my argument and it has no impact on the outcome of my argument.

Here is the full revised, rigorous argument:

/* Defining a competitive game/*
1.) A game is considered competitive if the outcome of the game is determined by meaningful decisions made by multiple players, as opposed to being determined purely by luck or by random decisions which lack any sort of logical basis, and if the resolution of the game results in at least one winner and at least one loser.
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.) An option is called “distinct” if the effects of that option are sufficiently unique such that they serve as a reasonable basis for players to meaningfully choose that option over some other option.
5.) As a corollary, if the effects of an option are sufficiently similar to the effects of another option to the extent that it is not reasonably possible for players to meaningful choose one option over the other, then neither of those options are “distinct” and those two options are essentially one "distinct" option instead.
6.) Having only a single distinct viable option in a game means that players must always choose that option in order to win.
7.) Therefore, games with only one distinct viable option do not allow players to make meaningful decisions.
8.) Therefore, multiple distinct viable options to choose from in a game are required before players can make meaningful decisions.
9.) Therefore, a competitive game must have multiple distinct viable options.
10.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by players making meaningful decisions concerning various distinct viable options within the game.

/* Defining Skill /*
11.) The ability of players to deliberate, in such a way that it enables them to meaningfully decide between multiple distinct viable options in order to maximize the possibility of victory, is called "skill".
12.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by skill.

/* Defining Diversity and Relevant Complexities and showing a relationship to Skill /*
13.) The number of distinct viable options available for players to meaningful decide between in a competitive game is called "diversity".
14.) The relevant game states that players use as the basis for meaningfully deciding between various distinct viable options are called “relevant complexities”.
15.) From the definition of the word “deliberate”, it follows that the act of a player considering the relationships between all distinct viable options and all relevant complexities in order to reach a meaningful decision as to which distinct viable option maximizes the player’s possibility of achieving victory is a form of deliberation.
16.) By definition, the larger the amount of distinct viable options a game has (i.e., the greater the diversity), the larger the amount of deliberation players will have to undergo concerning those options.
17.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (11. and 12.), a game with greater diversity will result in more skill.
18.) As a corollary, a game with lesser diversity will result in less skill.
19.) By definition, the larger the amount of relevant game states a game has (i.e., the greater the relevant complexity), the larger the amount of deliberation players will have to undergo concerning those game states.
20.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (11. And 12.), a game with greater relevant complexity will result in more skill.
21.) As a corollary, a game with less relevant complexity will result in less skill.

/* Defining Competitiveness and showing its relationship to increased Diversity /*
22.) By definition of the word "competitiveness", a game's competitiveness is determined by the degree to which it is competitive.
23.) Following from (1., 11., and 12.), the degree to which a game is competitive is determined by the degree to which skill determines the outcome of the game.
24.) By definition, a game being resolved by a greater amount of skill between players is a higher degree of skill.
25.) Therefore, by definition, a game which encourages greater amounts of skill encourages greater amounts of competitiveness.
26.) An increased amount of diversity causes an increased amount of skill, as shown in (17.)
27.) Therefore, increased diversity causes increased competitiveness.

/* Defining Overcentralization and showing the relationship between Competitiveness and decreased Diversity. /*
28.) If a single viable option in a game renders a sufficient majority of, but not all, other viable options non-viable, that option is said to be "overcentralizing".
29.) Following from (22. and 23.), and by logic similar to (24.), a game being resolved by a lesser amount of skill between players is a lesser degree of skill.
30.) Therefore, by definition, a game which encourages lesser amounts of skill encourages lesser amounts of competitiveness.
31.) A decreased amount of diversity causes a decreased amount of skill, as shown in (18.)
32.) Therefore, decreased diversity causes decreased competitiveness.

/* Defining Completely Dominant and showing its relationship to Skill /*
33.) If a single distinct viable option in a game renders all other options non-viable, that option is said to be "completely dominant".
34.) A game with a completely dominant option does not allow for meaningful decisions, as shown in (6. and 7.)
35.) By definitions shown in (11. and 12.), skill cannot exist without the ability to make meaningful decisions.
36.) 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. /*
37.) As shown in (33., 34, 35., and 36.), a game with a completely dominant option does not allow for skill.
38.) By the definition of "skill" shown in (11.), a game with zero distinct viable options does not allow for skill.
39.) Therefore, games with less than two distinct viable options do not allow for skill.
40.) By the definition of diversity shown in (13.), a game must allow for meaningful decisions among distinct viable options in order to have diversity.
41.) Therefore, as follows from (6. and 7.), a game with a completely dominant option does not have diversity.
42.) Similarly, a game with zero distinct viable options does not have diversity.
43.) Therefore, games with less than two distinct viable options do not have diversity.
44.) Therefore, games with less than two distinct viable options do not have skill or diversity.
45.) Therefore, a lack of skill and a lack of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
46.) Therefore, a lack of skill necessitates a lack of diversity; and a lack of diversity necessitates a lack of skill.
47.) 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. /*
48.) As a corollary to (39.), a game with two or more distinct viable options does allow for skill.
49.) As a corollary to (43.), a game with two or more distinct viable options does allow diversity.
50.) Therefore, a game with two or more distinct viable options allows for both skill and diversity.
51.) By the definition shown in (11.), a game with two or more distinct viable options necessarily has skill.
52.) By the definition shown in (13.), a game with two or more distinct viable options necessarily has diversity.
53.) Therefore, a game with two or more distinct viable options necessarily has skill and diversity.
54.) By the definitions shown in (11. and 13.), the presence of skill and diversity in a game are mutually determined.
55.) Therefore, the presence of skill and the presence of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
56.) Therefore, the presence of skill necessitates the presence of diversity; and the presence of diversity necessitates the presence of skill.
57.) 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. /*
58.) As shown in (47. and 57.), the logical conditions required for skill and diversity are equivalent.
59.) 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.
60.) Therefore, skill is necessary for diversity, and diversity is necessary for skill.
61.) As shown in (22. and 23.), skill is necessary for competitiveness.
62.) The necessity of skill and the necessity of diversity are logically equivalent.
63.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, diversity is necessary for competitiveness.
64.) As shown in (27. and 32.), increased or decreased diversity causes increased or decreased competitiveness.
65.) Therefore, the diversity of a game, in conjunction with the relevant complexity of a game, determines the competitiveness of the game.
66.) Therefore, diversity is determinant in the competitiveness of a game.

/* Showing that the purpose of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game. /*
67.) The goal of competition is to test the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
68.) A Competitive Rule Set is a rule set meant to facilitate competition.
69.) The goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate competition.
70.) 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.
71.) Doing things that unnecessarily hinder one's attempts to do something is bad.
72.) Therefore, making a Rule Set that hinders the ability of one's tournament to effectively test the skills of players is bad.
73.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should facilitate competitive tournament play to the maximum extent possible.
74.) 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. /*
75.) As shown in (66.), the diversity of a game is determinant in the competitiveness of the game.
76.) As shown in (74.), a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
77.) Therefore, maximizing diversity and relevant complexity causes a maximization of competitiveness.
78.) Rule Sets can be reasonably expected to dictate the behavior of players in regards to the options they pick during the game. (i.e., in regards to diversity.)
79.) Game mechanics are unintelligent and do not adhere to Rule Sets.
80.) Therefore, Rule Sets cannot reasonably be expected to dictate the behavior of game mechanics.
81.) Therefore, Rule Sets which attempt to dictate the relevant complexity of games are not reasonable.
82.) Therefore, the only option for maximizing competitiveness available through Competitive Rule Sets is maximizing diversity.
83.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize diversity.

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

/* Done /*

 

[rehab]

My opinion in song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqxo1SKB0z8



You Have To Show Them That You're Really Not Scared
You're Playin' With Your Life, This Ain't No Truth Or Dare
They'll Kick You, Then They Beat You,
Then They'll Tell You It's Fair
So Beat It, But You Wanna Be Bad


Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It
No One Wants To Be Defeated
Showin' How Funky Strong Is Your Fight
It Doesn't Matter Who's Wrong Or Right

Just Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It

Beat It, Beat It, Beat It, Beat It

 

[Kewkky]

play wario. You have several other characters that are hard to grab.
IT isnt that the game will revolve around CG's and camping. That is very beatable.
in fac, there are severals that are not MK thatbeat it out. Try grabbing Sonic, Wario, Pika or sevrla other characters. it is not easy.

They are beatable, and I agree with you that there are many choices besides MK... But for some weird reason, everyone chooses MK... I wonder why? Might it be because, overall, he's better than the rest of the options? Does his "overall performance" ring a bell?

hey lets bring in player dependent behavior on something revolving around the characters capabiities.

Planking is strictly player-dependent behavior. How many planking MKs have you seen around in contrast to how many rushing MKs you've seen? Not everyone decides on playing dirty... And dirty tactics, like Planking, are strictly player-dependent behavior... Which tourneys are banning.

If you , as a DDD user, run into a Olimar or IC user, that Olimar or IC user, you arent going to jump in for the grab. You end up choosing someone else, who they have probkems with, who most likely, does not CG.

So, this only feeds my point. DDDs, when faced against MKs, decide to change characters more than half the time, in order to not have that same problem.

How are the tactics broken?
If the tactic is broken and cannot be beaten it would be ban worthy. MK's inclusion in the game isnt going to be enough to stop it. That would mean ravager shouldnt be baned because of tooth and nail decks

I don't care about ravager, or Akuma... Although I understand what you said last time about choosing their examples as the 'control' group. I care about MK right now, since he's in the present, and presently being discussed. His only broken tactics that are player-dependent are IDC usage, and Planking... And both are banned in all the tourneys I've seen so far.

Wrong. What you are describing is a case where the character is overcentralizing by the choices of the player.

A.K.A. player-dependent decisions. Not everyone decides on using MK when faced with MK, or using MK to win tourneys for that matter.

You never ban to just make the metagame different.
You ban it to make sure the metagame does not revolve around one character.
Not to merely change it, but to increase the skill and choices, rather than it revolving around one character. Like Akuma

Akuma's case was different in different aspects.
1) His banning was due to an overwhelming amount of votes in agreement. MK has what, 50% more or less?
2) All of his character-specific traits overshadowed everyone else's traits. They were just TOO GOOD to be challenged by almost anyone. Sure, Akuma had his losses, but what win:lose ratio did he have, tourney wise? I'm sure he took all the top spots of his tourneys every once in a while. MK hasn't had those moments, save WHOBO, as far as I've seen.
3) Since he was taking the top spots of every tourney AND everyone wanted him gone, it was a clear answer as to what would happen if the ban took place: by closing down the Akuma option, the many MANY other character options would open up.

These are just some points I'm emphasizing. I'm sure there must be others, but I don't really want to argue about Akuma... Although I understand what you're trying to state. That you're only mentioning him to have him as a 'control' towards MK's banning.

Let me explain better.
IF we ban a character, the outcome that we worry about is the status quo.
As in, if we make the ban and it is not justified, then the status quo is lowered.
Even though the brawl game might be more enjoyable, this ban that we have performed has lowered the status quo on what we can or cannot ban.

We changed the reasoning for the ban.
That is the outcome that is important. Not what the metagame becomes, but what justifies a banning.

If the ban is justified, it doesnt matter if the metagame becomes nmore enjoyable or not or if its fun.
Al that amttersis that elements that create overcentralizing by nature are removed.
Like Akuma.

Understand better?

Instead of making it better for other communities to progres,, we should stick to the matter at hand and decide for ourselves whether it is worth it to ban MK or not. Status quo is nice and all, but what brings a player to the game is how fun the game is, and how promising its rewards is. If life was all about rewards and not fun, then we'd be seeing more scientists, lawyers and doctors, instead of garbagemen, factory workers and truckers, since those jobs don't have the most rewards... And although some people are stuck in those jobs for their wrong decisions in life, it still proves that if life was about "rewards" and not "fun", then the decisions they made before would be different. They wouldnt've gotten that woman pregnant for the "fun" of trying unprotected sex, nor would they have cut class for the "fun" of hanging out.

You are trying to say that we should care about CG's and camping becoming a good tactic.
So what? That does not matter as long as it does not break the game.
Same for MK.
If MK is not breaking the game, you cannot ban him.

I'm trying to explain how MK is not breaking the game, but just like I'm apparently not understanding your points, you're not understanding mine.

What people do or do not want does not matter. people want many things, that does not mean they are good.

Then why are people arguing over the debate? Some people want MK in, others want MK out. Are we both wrong, perchance? Is there a third "good" option in this?

You mentioned how players losing to Mk advocate for his ban. in essence, you are stating that players who are not capable of dealingw ith MK are the ones who advocate for the ban.

Which does not amtter at all either way because we discuss the character being too good, or not too good.

No player that has had a problem with MK before would want to advocate for the ban. Only people who find themselves in a check/checkmate position are the ones who wish the ban would come true. People have different ways of reacting towards MK's dominance: some change their mains to MK, others keep trying, and others give up and whine.

MK is too good, but not at the level of being beyond everyone else.

No one is ever close to being near perfect.
Look at SDM's perfect control. Show when someone plays that well and I will show you a perfect Fox main.

hardware, software, mental and physical capabilities prevent perfection.
In theory you can beat Akuma with Ryu.
I have also seen Balrogs perfect Akuma users much less skilled with him.
Does this mean we should not have banned Akuma? Of course not.

Just because theoretically he is beatable, does not mean he should be unbanned.
It is only if being theoretically beatable, is within reason.

Obviously the game revolves around skill. If Balrog beat less-skilled Akuma players, it's because he knew what he had to do in order to win. If he PERFECT MATCH'd them, it means he knows exceptionally well what he had to watch out for, PLUS he could predict them, since they were so much less skilled than him.

Every character in every game is beatable, starting with the completely stupid example of "Connect two controllers, choose a character AND the broken character, don't use the broken character and punch him with the normal character until it says KO. Voila! He is beatable!". So we can start our theories based on him being beaten. If he can't even lose half a bar, even when you're doing this, then he is theoretically unbeatable. Why even try against a character like THAT? .... MK is beatable, theoretically speaking... AND Practically speaking. Proof is in the tourney results.

Let alone that skill should never be used as a reason to justify or not justify a ban. We look at character traits, not player traits.

If a character had an impossible-to-do, frame-precise, infinite combo on the whole cast that no player could recreate because of lack of skill YET the character still have the option of doing it... ould it make him bannable? You tell me.

When Ninjalink beats metaknight you think he agrees with people saying diddy is a counter to MK or is even with MK? No.
he says that he himself as a player, was good enough to out perform his player.
Not that his character's capabilities made him superior in that matchup.

Even if diddy isn't a counter, people agree that he can be considered a neutral matchup against MK under circumstances. For a character to be a counter on another, they have to have an advantage... Diddy has no advantage, just an equal chance of winning vs. MK under said circumstances. So, I agree that he isn't a counter (of course, I never said he was a counter).

Stop being stupid and putting words in my mouth.
I never claimed him broken.
Let alone I already designated my stance concerning the debate.
Seriously, spadefox did this earlier as well and I have yet to see an apology from him). You planning to continue this trend?

Are YOU planning on continuing nitpicking my points? I'm also ANTI-BAN, and i've known you're anti-ban for the longest time, but your critiques towards me invoke defense on my part, so why would you expect me to keep quiet?

I myself have beaten several Metaknights.
How long are you going to continue holding onto a flawed argument?
Let alone its really friggin obvious to people who have not played SF2 that akuma is broken when you say things like.

Chips opponent to death.
invincible legs.
breaks the game with his air fierball which no one can deal with.

Its far from telling a blindman what color is like.

Sounds to me like they were persuaded into believing he wa broken. With no personal experience, they're also part of the "newbs" you couldn't care less about. Why would you even listen to them? Oh, and I have played several SF games, including SF2.

Again who cares about what the palyer is doing?
We care about the capabilities of the character.

Planking. Player-dependent decision. Care to explain how no one cares about planking?

When you ignore the fact that the community has revolved itself around him for close to a year ow, you obviously think people suck if they are still having problems with him.
Here is an idea, stop bringing up player skill when it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRITERIA CONCERNING A BAN!

You obviously are telling people to stop sucking if you are constantly assuming that they are losing to MK's.

They don't.
We do not care for the uneducated arguments provided by 75% of the peple here.
They lack the knowledge to back up their claims.

Welcome to the "Should Metaknight be banned?" thread! It even has its own poll, for EVERYONE to use and help decide on the outcome! Remember that we don't care about 75% of you people here, so after the voting, we'll look for the people who matter's votes, and ACTUALLY use those for reference! Thanks for your help, SWF community!

Metaknight is within the criteria of a ban because of his overcentralizing by nature. hhe hinders the metagame by becoming the only character capable of winning tournaments.

How can this be, when AA made a post a couple of pages back (thanks a lot, spammers, yet again) dating the results of NATIONAL tourneys, where we could see MK NOT being the only character taking tourneys?

^^^
Cut it out its annoying. Otherwise I'll just report you as trolling simple because I cannot see as to how you are discerning my position on the ban.

I know you're antiban. I'm defending my points, which YOU are coming OUT OF NOWHERE and choosing ME to TROLL AT... And if it's not me, it's other anti-banners. I'm defending the anti-ban side, and you are countering my points, rather than making them better. Why would I want to sit back and watch you destroy my arguments when we are in the same side?

 

[iamthemicrowave]

overswarm wants MK banned and he loses to sonic LOL

also crimson king touches little boys

 

[Overswarm]

A sonic. I beat all the others.

I'm also better than you'll ever be.

What does that make you?

 

[Lawz.]

A sonic. I beat all the others.

I'm also better than you'll ever be.

What does that make you?

it makes him a microwave

 

[ShadowLink84]

They are beatable, and I agree with you that there are many choices besides MK... But for some weird reason, everyone chooses MK... I wonder why? Might it be because, overall, he's better than the rest of the options? Does his "overall performance" ring a bell?

Oh hey overall performance applies to other forms of gameplay outside of the camping and CG.
MK is a safe choice, he isnt the best choice. if you know your opponent is a DDD user, yyou can use Olimar otr any other character.
Mk is great as a starter in the case of a blind.

Does not mean he is the only method of stopping CGing and camping.

Planking is strictly player-dependent behavior. How many planking MKs have you seen around in contrast to how many rushing MKs you've seen? Not everyone decides on playing dirty... And dirty tactics, like Planking, are strictly player-dependent behavior... Which tourneys are banning.

oh, so its not Metaknights capability that allows him to plank so well?

So, this only feeds my point. DDDs, when faced against MKs, decide to change characters more than half the time, in order to not have that same problem.

DDD's will switch out when they face an Ice climber of an Olimar.
Big dea MK is ANOTHER choice among several.

he is used often ebcause he can also handle everything else not just the CG's and the camping.

I don't care about ravager, or Akuma...

*facepalm.
The purpose of their mentioning is toexplain the criteria of the ban.
WHhy ignore something that is being used as support?

Although I understand what you said last time about choosing their examples as the 'control' group. I care about MK right now, since he's in the present, and presently being discussed. His only broken tactics that are player-dependent are IDC usage, and Planking... And both are banned in all the tourneys I've seen so far.

How are those player dependant when they are the result of his capabilities.
All the player does is choose to do them.
Planking and IDC are part of his capability.

A.K.A. player-dependent decisions. Not everyone decides on using MK when faced with MK, or using MK to win tourneys for that matter.

Which has no place. As I have been saying earlier.
Which is why I pointed it out.

Akuma's case was different in different aspects.
1) His banning was due to an overwhelming amount of votes in agreement. MK has what, 50% more or less?

Oh there was a vote? There was a vote wher epeople asi, hey peepz, we got a character with invincible legs, game breaking fireball, and nasty combos that **** the entire cast. You wanna vote?

No.
He was debated by the upper echelon of the community, the people who understood how Akuma played and what he could do.

stuff

That is part of overcentralizing. Why are you enforcing something I have said?
What are you trying to argue?

stuff

big deal everynoe wants him gone.
Tons of people wanted Sheik gone from melee. They didn't get it though. What matters is what he does, which is overcentralizing, which you just reinforced in a convulted manner.
Why?

You could not win unless you played Akuma.
Thats overcentralizing.
So, what are you arguing?

These are just some points I'm emphasizing. I'm sure there must be others, but I don't really want to argue about Akuma...

No one is arguing about Akuma, we are discussing the criteria of a ban.
Which doesnt include player skill.

Instead of making it better for other communities to progress,, we should stick to the matter at hand and decide for ourselves whether it is worth it to ban MK or not.

*facedesk*
This ban criteria is the CORE of deciding what to ban or what not to ba.

magical Scientist OTK in yu-gi-oh.
Play this deck or lose. Thats overcentralizing.
Akuma in SF2. Overcentralizing.
Ravager in MTG. Overcentralizing

Hey look, they all hve the same property where its a "play this deck/character/tactic" or lose scenario. Where it all fell down to using this one deck.
Thats overcentralizing by nature.

It isnt just what other communities is doing, this is the result of over a decade of competitive gaming.

Status quo is nice and all, but what brings a player to the game is how fun the game is,

This is the competitive community. Fun has no place.
If it was egal, I woud IDC.
if Akuma was legal, I would use him.
This is play to win, not play to have fun.

stuff

I am sorry, I cannot see as to how any of that relates to the criteria of banning.

I'm trying to explain how MK is not breaking the game, but just like I'm apparently not understanding your points, you're not understanding mine.

No I understand full wel what you are saying the tihng is that your arguments have no place in the criteria for a ban. At least, not the way you are saying it.

Then why are people arguing over the debate? Some people want MK in, others want MK out. Are we both wrong, perchance? Is there a third "good" option in this?

oh hey, lets debate the why behind the debate even though it serves no purpose.
All those why's are meaningless.
There is no true third option.
He is either banned or he is not.
That is how powerful a ban is, you cant have some middle ground.

Which is why we should be so reluctant to ban.
You cannot stop a character from using a move, you cannot force the player to use the character sometimes.
He is either banned or not.

NOw what does this have to do with MK being ban worthy or not?

No player that has had a problem with MK before would want to advocate for the ban. Only people who find themselves in a check/checkmate position are the ones who wish the ban would come true.

Ninjalink.
malcolm.
Cue other people who have beaten MK but want him banned anyway.
You are making an assumption of the source of the argument.
Rather than trying to refute the argument itself.
Why?
It does not matter if I cant beat MK, or if I were to 3 stock M2K everytime (laugh at that idea).
All that matters is my argument and whether it is sound.

People have different ways of reacting towards MK's dominance: some change their mains to MK, others keep trying, and others give up and whine.[/quoet]
Irrelevant.

MK is too good, but not at the level of being beyond everyone else.

If you are too good that means you are ban worthy. Because you are too good. Hence the too preceding good.

MK is just a good character.

Obviously the game revolves around skill. If Balrog beat less-skilled Akuma players, it's because he knew what he had to do in order to win. If he PERFECT MATCH'd them, it means he knows exceptionally well what he had to watch out for, PLUS he could predict them, since they were so much less skilled than him.

have you ever in your life played SF2?
You would know that Akuma vs Balrog=death for Balrog in the hand of a COMPETENT player.
In other words, for Balrog to win, his opponent nees to have very, very little skill.
Thats how good Akuma is.

The issue is whether the skill required is reasonable.
As in, your opponent does not need to be mentally ******** in order for them to lose while using Akuma.
The best Balrog will ALWAYS lose the a decent Akuma.
Thats how broken Akuma is.

THat is completely unreasonable.

Every character in every game is beatable, starting with the completely stupid example of "Connect two controllers, choose a character AND the broken character, don't use the broken character and punch him with the normal character until it says KO. Voila! He is beatable!". So we can start our theories based on him being beaten. If he can't even lose half a bar, even when you're doing this, then he is theoretically unbeatable. Why even try against a character like THAT? .... MK is beatable, theoretically speaking... AND Practically speaking. Proof is in the tourney results.

Just beause he is theoretically beatable does not justify the character remaining legal.
Again Akuma.
Theoretically beatable.
By your logic, just because he is theoretically beatable, he cannot be banned.

MK is MUCH more beatable than someone like AKuma.
That is the difference.
he is within reasonable bounds.
Your opponent can play his best and beat the opponent.

He isnt like Akuma who no matter how hard you try, you will lose unless your opponent cannot press the button.

If a character had an impossible-to-do, frame-precise, infinite combo on the whole cast that no player could recreate because of lack of skill YET the character still have the option of doing it... ould it make him bannable? You tell me.

Ice Climbers in melee. You tell me.

Even if diddy isn't a counter, people agree that he can be considered a neutral matchup against MK under circumstances. For a character to be a counter on another, they have to have an advantage... Diddy has no advantage, just an equal chance of winning vs. MK under said circumstances. So, I agree that he isn't a counter (of course, I never said he was a counter).[/quoet] he isnt even. Sooo...whats your point?

Are YOU planning on continuing nitpicking my points?

Stop making inae argument such as assuming the source is a bad player or cant deal with MK.
Stop using inane arguments that do not relate to ban criteria.
you cant say, he is beatable, therefore not ban worthy.
its the degree of being beatable.
Otherwise, we should not ban it because we ALWAYS have a possibility of beating it.

I'm also ANTI-BAN, and i've known you're anti-ban for the longest time, but your critiques towards me invoke defense on my part, so why would you expect me to keep quiet?

Cause your arguments do nothing!
What does assuming the opposing side cannot beat MK do?
Nothing.
it doesnt change hard core data.
Being beatable doesnt change anything.

you are presenting arguments that do not aid in proving MK not ban worthy.
Bringing up player dependant behavior does nothing. its not part of ban criteria.

Sounds to me like they were persuaded into believing he was broken. With no personal experience, they're also part of the "newbs" you couldn't care less about. Why would you even listen to them? Oh, and I have played several SF games, including SF2.

You do not need to persuade them.
All you need to do is lay the facts on them.
If I showed you the character A-bomb from Mugen, I would not need to say anything to you for you to go "BAN!".
Or I could describe a character to you.

GOD.
When you use anyone other than God, as soon as you start the round you lose.
If you are also using God, the first person who shouts "YATZE!'" while flapping their hands wins.

Ban worthy character?

Planking. Player-dependent decision. Care to explain how no one cares about planking?

PLanking, the result of a characters capabilities.
infinite dimensional cape, result of character capability
Or are you saying the player wishes these things into existence?

Welcome to the "Should Metaknight be banned?" thread! It even has its own poll, for EVERYONE to use and help decide on the outcome! Remember that we don't care about 75% of you people here, so after the voting, we'll look for the people who matter's votes, and ACTUALLY use those for reference! Thanks for your help, SWF community!

Couldn't put it better myself.
=)
Its here more for the debate where I believe they will look at the arguments rather than the vote.

How can this be, when AA made a post a couple of pages back (thanks a lot, spammers, yet again) dating the results of NATIONAL tourneys, where we could see MK NOT being the only character taking tourneys?

Wooooow. I can't believe you YOU JUST TOOK MY POST AND COMPLETELY REMOVED EVERYTHING ELSE!

Now for anyone reading here is the part kewkky did not include.

So the opinion is heard, obviously, the opinion being cared for comes not from someone saying "MK IS BROKEN CAUSE HE CAN RECOVER SOOOOO GOOD."
The opinion cared for is the one that says.

Metaknight is within the criteria of a ban because of his overcentralizing by nature. He hinders the metagame by becoming the only character capable of winning tournaments.

See the difference?
Same agreement different reason.

You know, I like the part where you removed, EVERYTHING else from that quote you used.
Good stuff.

We care for people who have knowledge, not those who do not.

I know you're antiban. I'm defending my points, which YOU are coming OUT OF NOWHERE and choosing ME to TROLL AT... And if it's not me, it's other anti-banners. I'm defending the anti-ban side, and you are countering my points, rather than making them better. Why would I want to sit back and watch you destroy my arguments when we are in the same side?

I am trolling you?
So I am basically pulling a mango/dmbrandon?

I will rip up BOTH the pro ban and anti ban when they say something stupid.
Me being anti ban isn't going to stop me from pointing out flawed arguments.

Stop using flawed arguments and I will not jump on your case.

Edit: Forget it im bored.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
Is the community in general this pathetic? Why on earth do people continue to get personal with this stuff? Why does everyone continue to actively try to hurt other people? This isue is not one where we need to be offensive to anyone on anyside. There is rarely a reason to ever actually act abrasive to people. We'll probably have the Wii for maybe another 5 or so Years before Nintendo will release the next generation system, with another Generation of Super Smash Brothers. The choices we make now, concerning situations like this, could possibly change the way that things will roll in the Super Smash Bros universe, now and forever. And fighting eachother like a bunch of kids, trying to make pot-shots at eachother, and actually trying to be offensive is not what should be done. It definitely isn't what's best for the community. Lets try to keep this as profesional as we can, and make sure that what we do is well-thought out and right.
:flame:

 

[Samuelson]

So i read a couple pages in this thread and all i saw was a bunch of whining about how MK should be banned. I also saw Mango being awesome and lots of people being douche bags...good ****

MK shouldn't be banned by the way....

 

[Praxis]

HEY GUYS

http://www.getyourtournament.com/2009/04/wong-prefers-seth-banned-from-tourney.html

THIS DOESN'T SOUND FAMILIAR AT ALL.

Banning Seth from "Street Fighter IV" tournament play would be acceptable in Justin Wong's eyes.

Wong, the famed New York player who won the Gamestop "Street Fighter IV" national championship last weekend, voiced his opinions while a guest on Live On Three earlier Thursday afternoon.

Tournament organizers are still debating whether to ban Seth and Gouken from tournament play. Many tournaments to this point have disallowed the characters, but the tide has turned a little bit.

"If you think about Seth, he's not really a 'Street Fighter IV' character," Wong said. "If you play against him, you really just have to hope for the best, especially if you play a really good Seth."

Wong described an example where a Seth player virtually wins a round if he or she has an ultra ready and their opponent is down to less than 5 percent health. There's little chance to avoid it.

"You're basically forced to eat the ultra," Wong said.

Ryan "Gootecks" Gutierrez, another guest on the show, agreed with Wong.

"It's just something that's not consistent with 'Street Fighter,'" Gutierrez said.

As far as why some tournaments allow Seth, it's probably because players are still learning the character and haven't exposed the character's true strengths.

"No one really knows about Seth's true potential," Wong said. "Further down the line, the more perfect people play him, the harder it is to beat him. He has seven options on a wake up and he can stun you in two combos."

You can practically replace "Seth" with "Metaknight" and this article is a fluid read. Seth is beatable. Seth has way more options than the rest of the cast. Seth becomes a problem at high level play, and beating him relies on waiting for his mistakes ("hoping for the best"). He doesn't seem to even compare to other characters in the game (like MK can't be gimped or edgeguarded and can even plank the ledge for invulnerability the entire match or use IDC to stall- we had to ban both of these from competitive play just for him!).


Seth = MK?

 

[phi1ny3]

MK is not bannable enough in my book, not even via Overswarm/reflex/etc.'s opinion.

 

[CRASHiC]

Not true, I hear Yun gets absolutely beasted in Mexico.

Stages in Street Fighter matter?

 

[deepseadiva]

You can practically replace "Seth" with "Metaknight" and this article is a fluid read.

MK isn't even in Street Fighter IV.

INVALID ARGUMENT

 

[bobson]

If I meet Mango at Genesis, I'm going to smack him as hard as I can, because he deserves it for being a tool. But that doesn't change the fact that he's by far the most efficient troll I've ever seen.

If I meet Mango at Genesis I'm going to buy him a drink for the same thing.

 

[Kinzer]

OS, AFAIK the only note-worthy Sonics you fight/fought are Shugo and ITT, I know you say you've seen some more around and even played them, but what good does some random no names do for you? Unless you want to clarify to all of us that it's not that, then I'm afraid the answer is:

"No good!"

-Sonic the Hedgehog.

MY TO usually has me as a clean-up person and seeds me in the bracket to weed out the guys that are "meh...", and they play all a buncha characters I forget, doesn't mean the characters the players play suck... (oh and to any Vegasmashers reading this, you know who you are, so please don't give me any @#$% about how I say you suck when you know you really don't...)

...However what good is it doing for the discussion at hand, we all know you just play MK to show how "broken" he is or some @#$% but I wanted to get that cleared up.

 

[aeghrur]

Lol, MANGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Hilarious.
If it wasn't for AA and Eyada, this thread would be going nowhere.

 

[pure_awesome]

I'm way more interested in Praxis' post than the over-the-top debate going on with AA and Eyada.

Aren't Gouken and Seth both Mid Tier? What's up with that?