If you believe Inui, his region knows how to handle MK.
It's also the region where MK has the second highest tournament win rate...
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)
- Thread starter SamuraiPanda
- Start date
- Status
It's also the region where MK has the second highest tournament win rate...
ProBrawler
Smash Lord
Um, that has absolutely no bearing on his argument whatsoever. It's just a random insult as far as I'm concerned: made because you couldn't think of a real comeback. And I live on the EC too, so I wouldn't be biased, lol.
Subtract M2K and Azen's MK wins from every region in AA's list.
Edit: @above; it has everything to do with Overswarm's character and metagame knowledge.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
This means what exactly?
Wait, nothing at all.
Meanwhile both you and Inui claim that the AN knows how to best deal with MK despite the fact he has over 50% win rate in that region.
There are far more MK wins than can be accounted for by M2K and Azen for that region.
List the recent tourneys that have had more than 30 people that have had an MK who hasn't been winning for months already with other characters in the top three.
DRaGZ
Smash Champion
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
You asid the exact same thing when I brought that fact up and guess what? its false.
M2K and Azen's wins are not the majority of MK's wins. in fact, they are in the minority as was the case when Azen was winning with Lucario.
They are the most consistent, but they do NOT make up the majority of those wins.
MK still maintains a high ratio of wins.
That falls on you. Your argument is that Mk hasn't been winning the majority of tournaments due to M2K and Azen, the burden of showing that evidence is yourself not us.
Let alone that the data that was showed to you was from September and October. So it is recent.
He's admitted it while still claiming his region has many players that can beat MK. If there are so many, how come other MKs than just the best keep winning there?
The region argument is just irrelevent, is what I'm saying.
@Thiocyanide: How many are there that don't have one of the best MKs show up and win at? Not many, right? If you don't have enough good examples of skilled MKs losing to others because the best MKs are always present for the tournaments that get "counted", you really can't say either way whether your region can handle MK or not.
First you drop the two best player's results because they play MK. Then you can drop the next few best player's results because there aren't any players of their caliber playing MK. Then drop the next few because they're MK again.
So just don't count any of the results.
Once again, at what major tourneys, and what players?
Atomsk, Inui, Spam, Shadow, and Diem are all dominant players that have been winning regardless of their MK use or not.
The people winning with MK aren't springing up out of the ground.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
You must have short term malfunction because i already explained to you why this BAD argument does NOT work.
Again let me repeat myself.
In SF2 prior to Akuma being banned you had the top 3 players.
After Akuma was banned those same top 3 players remained in place.
Under your logic Akuma should not be banned because the top players can win without him.
Flawed logic is flawed.
Stop bringing in an individual player's skill as an argument when it has no place in the discussion.
But Inui lost to a Sonic before >_> No best player should lose to a Sonic, unless they're Ganon or somtehing.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Which reminds me. Did we not have a case of Inui being Ninjalink's Diddy with his 2 week old MK? <_<
Edit: Sonic is steak tier. Steak tier>all tiers LOL
Edit: Sonic is steak tier. Steak tier>all tiers LOL
All that matters here is the top end (Read, top 16-8 at large tourneys).
If the same people are winning regardless of characters, that indicates player dominance, not character dominance.
You can call this a bad argument all you'd like, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
GofG
Smash Champion
Thiocyanide, if MK dominates every single player who isn't in the top 8 at tournaments, there is still a problem in the competitive smash community. I, for instance, attend local tournaments. We have a good community here in NC, sometimes Chu and Chillin come down and hang with us, but we're no where near NY or Texas.
We're the kind of people who are affected by MK. We're discouraged from playing Brawl because of MK. So what if the ABSOLUTE ****ING BEST PLAYERS EVER AWWWMMGMGGG can beat him if 99% of the competitive smash community can't?
We're the kind of people who are affected by MK. We're discouraged from playing Brawl because of MK. So what if the ABSOLUTE ****ING BEST PLAYERS EVER AWWWMMGMGGG can beat him if 99% of the competitive smash community can't?
Discuss local events and potentially hurt regions in another thread; this one's purpose is for high level play.FOR GREAT JUSTICE said:
GofG
Smash Champion
Thio, that's my point.
We are playing at a relatively high level. We can take Chu and Chillin. Are they not on a high level?
You are talking about the top 10-15 players in the nation. That is absolute TOP level play. The NC area is still high level play.
When I say 99%, I am talking about the players in Texas who aren't Santi or Dojo. I am talking about the players in Socal who aren't DSF. I am talking about the players in NY who aren't M2K. You think I'm talking about Scrubby McScrubScrub playing in his basement in Iowa with his friend LosermcScrubface.
We are playing at a relatively high level. We can take Chu and Chillin. Are they not on a high level?
You are talking about the top 10-15 players in the nation. That is absolute TOP level play. The NC area is still high level play.
When I say 99%, I am talking about the players in Texas who aren't Santi or Dojo. I am talking about the players in Socal who aren't DSF. I am talking about the players in NY who aren't M2K. You think I'm talking about Scrubby McScrubScrub playing in his basement in Iowa with his friend LosermcScrubface.
Calixto
Smash Apprentice
Do people not see Shadowlinks Akuma statement, or are they just ignoring it? I really can't tell.
Relatively high != Top
I would benefit from his ban, too, but in the context of this thread and the connected poll, I am obligated to argue against it.
EDIT: @Above
Akuma was affecting results in tourneys those people did not attend. Subpar players were winning with him against people with worse characters.
In this case, good people are still winning. Now, if I start winning with Meta Knight, we'd have another problem on our hands entirely.
It's a bad argument because all it's trying to prove is that players of disproportionate skills can beat other players. We already know this to be true, as evidenced by a good player fighting and winning against Akuma. So your argument, while true, proves nothing.
GofG
Smash Champion
Calixto, no one worth anything is arguing with Shadowlink's Akuma statement. We all recognize it to be true.
@Thio
So you are saying that we, as a competitive community, should do whatever is best for the top 10-15 players in the nation, ignoring the rest of the community of competent smash players?
@Thio
So you are saying that we, as a competitive community, should do whatever is best for the top 10-15 players in the nation, ignoring the rest of the community of competent smash players?
ProBrawler
Smash Lord
Analogy: Let's say in baseball pitchers develop a new kind of pitch that is nearly impossible to hit. And any pitcher can throw it nearly perfectly on the first try. However, the very best (let's say A-Rod, Howard, and Pujols) can hit it. What about the other 747 players? They're still pro.
If the pyramid under the top players collapses, the top players will find themselves without pots worth their time.
It's far more realistic for the Brawl community to look at High rather than Top skill levels.
GofG
Smash Champion
Of course, playing devil's advocate with myself, we moderately-high-level-of-play players are going to be losing to the top 10-15 regardless. Why should it matter to us what characters they pick to beat us?
It's not like we lose money; we were going to lose money anyway.
It's not like we lose money; we were going to lose money anyway.
Unless the other 747 players were able to quickly develop a method of hitting it, that pitch would get banned or restricted (you can only use it 1 in 3 pitches). Why? Because baseball is a spectator sport. Nobody wants to see a game that consists only of strike-outs.
Sorry, I probably took your analogy too seriously >_>
Do I have to quote the OP again?
If you're talking about a ban for the Smash community, sure! Go ahead. As I've said before, it'll be a placebo effect. We'll just be happier to give our money to the same winners every week. Hell, I've heard some people want to get him banned to get some more money back in the pot.
However, in the context of this thread, at the top levels of the metagame, he isn't changing anything, so I have to argue against his ban.
GofG
Smash Champion
Go ahead and quote the OP again. I'll wait for you to do so.
When did this thread turn into only the top level of the metagame? He specifically says "Highest" levels, that doesn't mean "Only the very top" -- levels is plural.
And if you think the top players will have as easy a time of it with counterpicks possible against their best non-MK characters and won't occasionally lose matches they could have taken as MK I suspect you're being unrealistic. So it will likely change things, if only slightly.
Foxy
Smash Master
I think you fail to realize that the "top level of the metagame", as you name it, consisting of only 10-15 of the nation's best, is completely irrelevant to the ban discussion.
The only time they come into play is when somebody faultily attempts to refute an argument about all of the best players picking up MK, or losing to MK in large tournaments.
Here's the deal: The same 10-15 people will keep winning, regardless of which top-tier character they play. However, there are a lot of players right below that skill level (a few to name are Dojo and Forte) who have placed among those 10-15 merely by learning a top tier character. But even that is a bit pointless to talk about, as they're almost as good anyways.
The real issue is with the good players who don't place high. The players who were semi-pro in Melee, play some Brawl, play it well, but not well enough to win consistently. Given the depth of Brawl, they are still at the very leading edge of the metagame; the only difference between them and the top 10-15 is experience. Now, when it comes to this crowd, any player in it can pick up MK and immediately start winning at least 30% more matches, and it only takes him a few minutes to learn MK. Is this an issue? YES. If in 98% of the tournament population of skilled players picking MK results in a guarantee of better results without any effort or drawbacks, it's a big issue.
Now, it isn't ban-warranting in degree, but if we want to make an intelligent decision that will help the dying game, a temp ban would be great.
brinboy789
Smash Champion
Foxy
Smash Master
Please observe that with Brawl, most of the players attending tournaments are at the height of the metagame.
Panda just didn't want people mongering the thread, talking about how they beat their friend's MK who didn't even know how to short-hop.
Highest level of metagame is in no way synonymous with the top 10-15 Brawl players in the nation.
Panda just didn't want people mongering the thread, talking about how they beat their friend's MK who didn't even know how to short-hop.
Highest level of metagame is in no way synonymous with the top 10-15 Brawl players in the nation.
"AND THIS IS ONLY ABOUT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE METAGAME."
Highest does not automatically mean "Only the very top" because "LevelS" is plural, so when combined with "Highest" you get more than "just the very top."
Honestly, this is just repeating the post you quoted. Why do you make me do this?
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
because he doesnt read things throughly...
its like arguing with a less knowledgable yuna, that doesnt know how to debate properly
its like arguing with a less knowledgable yuna, that doesnt know how to debate properly
Awesome as in hysterical.
I laughed. Alot.
Maybe you don't have a good taste in sarcasm? I live off the stuff.
@KID: Ouch...but I can see where it comes from.
'Highest' is synonomous with 'top.' They are both the superlative form of the word 'high.'
Salabo, if you're going to argue it's more than the top, define the boundaries of the argument so we can start using actual data instead of arguing the same hypotheticals over and over again.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
i think he did in his example...
popsofctown
Smash Champion
I'd say the top 8 in a tournament that pulled 20 or 30 players from the corners of a state, that top 8 is for certain in the "top levels of the metagame" that makes them part of the discussion.
- Status