The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[fkacyan]

I'd like to argue that depth in this case is referring to the number of valid unique situations in the game; banning Akuma from ST2 certainly did remove the possibility of selecting him as a character, yet it improved depth because the number of competitively valid character choices made available after the ban far outnumbered the loss of the single character Akuma.

I can't accurately predict whether the same holds true for Meta Knight, but as far as things like banning stages due to overcentralizing tactics and strategies go, the same logic applies. Having all stages on provides more options, but when evaluating their competitive validity, you'll find that several of them are actually quite limiting to the rest of the game simply by being allowed.

It's actually relatively easy to predict, Ankoku. Given MK can't plank, removing him removes an entire matchup from every character and many characters can win that matchup (And do), without really enabling any other character to start competing at a viable level.

EDIT: I guess you could make the argument that you could include more CP stages with MK gone, but that's more a weakness with our current CP system and less an issue with MK.

 

[Cassio]

Keep in mind this was with the inclusion of our attempts to 'cater our ruleset to MK', which I've admitted is a very valid argument worth exploring more. Id think that the only way for a scenario were removing a character adds depth, the character would have to be broken, which I also addressed.

 

[Zankoku]

I suppose at this point I can make the tongue-in-cheek comment that if top Meta Knight players that threaten quitting if MK is banned follow through on their promises, it might increase "competitive depth" for the weaker players.

In all seriousness tho', possibly the biggest issue of measuring depth in this way is that people, given the option, are more willing to take the safe choice over risking zero reward for digging deeper into the unknown.

 

[popsofctown]

It's actually relatively easy to predict, Ankoku. Given MK can't plank, removing him removes an entire matchup from every character and many characters can win that matchup (And do), without really enabling any other character to start competing at a viable level.
\

Peach becomes pretty viable with MK removed. Toon Link arguably becomes viable, although he'd still have a pretty weak overall matchup spread.

I don't think those characters and the terribly minor bumps anyone else would get would add up to MK's usage rate and significantly improve diversity, but it's not accurate to say in the absolute "no one at all is enabled by MK's removal".

 

[Flayl]

Keep in mind this was with the inclusion of our attempts to 'cater our ruleset to MK', which I've admitted is a very valid argument worth exploring more. Id think that the only way for a scenario were removing a character adds depth, the character would have to be broken, which I also addressed.

Your response to MK being too good was "nuh-uh, silly pro-banners". You didn't actually address anything.

I think the terrible job that anti-ban is doing of refuting MK's "too good"-ness is making me more pro-ban.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Dedede also becomes significantly more playable with MK gone. His worst MUs without the bat are -2 (idc about the BBR MU chart), all completely winnable. You might argue that Dedede increasing in usage (and he already is, I seriously doubt MK ban will accelerate it that much) will hurt other characters, but what characters in Top/High/top of mid lose to him? Marth, Wario, Lucario, maybe GaW (probably even), Wolf, Peach. We might lose to almost all of top/high, but they're all completely winnable except very arguably Ice Climbers.

And I'm sure Dedede is not the only character whose sole "unwinnable" matchup is Metaknight.

 

[popsofctown]

D3 is a counterpick character and always will be. He has several acute disadvantages besides MK, but is a good character because he has acute advantages as well. MK doesn't prevent you from using D3 as a counterpick character, and a plethora of painful matchups like Pikachu and Falco makes him a lackluster blind pick even with MK gone.

 

[Cassio]

@flayl That's because you seem to have a specific definition of what 'too good' is. What is 'too good' to you? If hes not broken can he still be too good? If so itd be impossible to cater to everyones definition of 'too good' because it becomes really subjective.

You are correct that I passed over the point, largely because its not one most people are using nowadays.

 

[B.A.M.]

Well said Cassio. Truth be told the LGL ( main rule that seems directly made for MK) is dumb as hell. I would advise anyone who wants to hear why to read through Grim Tuesday's thread in this section. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=310705

Cassio basically summed up everything that needed to be said. Pro-ban is on blast. And as for the ADHD comments......

YES! absolutely. Dude smashes MKs with his same style for awhile; not really changing much, and top players finally adapted. Is that REALLY all that absurd? Larry was still owning MKs until recent, WHEN HE DIDNT HAVE A WII OR ANYTHING TO PLAY WITH. I just really feel people dont really understand the work ppl like M2K, Anti, Tyrant, and other put into the game. M2k practices so much that when he doesnt play for a freakin day that fool swears he hasnt played in awhile lol. When Ally's Snake was winning like crazy; M2K said he is going to practice hours on hours a so he can win. People just need to come to terms that these people are good. I find it hilarious when Anti whipped out his Wolf that doesnt know half the techs vs Ally's MK who actually knows a little bit about wolf, brings him to last stock high % and every1 forgets. People quickly dismiss things all the time, but zero in on the most bias crap having to do with pro ban.

The sad part is that a ton of pro-ban is under the guise of NUMBERS AND STATISTICS. When its quite evident the crux of their argument is purely emotionally based. BBRC; if you are banning the bat. Ban him. I just dont want to hear any bs about it. The community is frustrated cuz they dont know what to do, noone wants to learn or put in the effort. Simple as that. State that salty *** people wanted him banned. That they hope their friend will come back, when theres nothing to support that argument sans their friends words.

Thats what I want to hear. None of this ' As you progress higher in the bracket, you are more likely to run into an MK.' ' it goes from 15% to 35%.' I dont want to hear about this fraudulent poll either. It sickens me that this is happening instead of an intelligent debate between pro ban and anti ban. Just bs everywhere.


EDIT: Okay Flayl states anti ban is doing a horrendous job outlining why MK isnt 'too good.' I would love to hear pro ban's reasoning he's too good. Then we can deconstruct it from there.

 

[Cassio]

The point of my post was mainly to focus on good arguments and to start ignoring bad ones we've cycled through. My main worry is that the bad arguments gain legs simply because theyre repeated frequently, (something a handful of the bbrrc seem to confirm by using the arguments themselves).

Ankoku are you saying you prefer to measure depth in another way? Or simply that its an issue with the definition.

 

[Zankoku]

It's an issue with humans being humans. We suck.

 

[DMG]

Issue with definition because it assumes that all/having more options is good/competitively healthy options.

If Hyrule Temple is legal, that is another stage that adds options for the entire cast. However, the stage competitively is a drain and would take away more than it gives. You have to assess whether those additional options/variety are actually healthy/contribute to the game.

 

[B.A.M.]

I concur wholeheartedly in reference to the stages. I do NOT believe that directly applies to MK however. What characters are being held down to that point due to MK?


@DMG: absolutely right. It deals with definition. People think more stages automatically mean more depth, while (as ive stated before) for the most part in this game more stages = less depth. Especially due to our CP system.

 

[fkacyan]

Peach becomes pretty viable with MK removed. Toon Link arguably becomes viable, although he'd still have a pretty weak overall matchup spread.

I don't think those characters and the terribly minor bumps anyone else would get would add up to MK's usage rate and significantly improve diversity, but it's not accurate to say in the absolute "no one at all is enabled by MK's removal".

Yes, but you also must consider characters who lose viability because they can't safely go into a doubleblind with MK out of the picture. DK immediately comes to mind.

 

[popsofctown]

Donkey Kong has numerous other -2's and doesn't have a single positive matchup on a character ranked above him.

 

[Zankoku]

Yes, but you also must consider characters who lose viability because they can't safely go into a doubleblind with MK out of the picture. DK immediately comes to mind.

I don't understand the meaning behind this. Are you claiming that players who previously would double blind into MK would now double blind into Dedede? Or that DK players can no longer double blind an MK to bait out the Dedede?

 

[B.A.M.]

^^^absolutely: The way our system works there are characters that actually a deterrent to some death matches. D3 isnt a -2 dude. Basically what hes saying is that with the threat of MK, Dk players dont have to fear LOL D3 CP

 

[DMG]

And to handle the threat of a MK CP, the Dedede player can CP MK.

Doesn't change how viable DK is lol.

 

[B.A.M.]

Im not talking about a D3 player. Im talking about a silly CP. Would you rather go your main or do MK dittos? In that sense that does change DKs viability imo unless im missing something.

 

[ElDominio]

I want to see the matchup ratios for MK be rediscussed. I'm pretty sure it isn't as "-1" as it's made out to be.

 

[Cassio]

It's an issue with humans being humans. We suck.

lol Ankoku, when playing video games mimics real life . I dont know that theres much you can do about that really aside from make a game thats completely and thoroughly balanced.

Issue with definition because it assumes that all/having more options is good/competitively healthy options.

If Hyrule Temple is legal, that is another stage that adds options for the entire cast. However, the stage competitively is a drain and would take away more than it gives. You have to assess whether those additional options/variety are actually healthy/contribute to the game.

I think I agree with this. However usually we define such tactics that would be a drain/take away more than it gives as broken no? Assuming you agree with that I'd argue MK is not broken in particular with the ruleset that nerfs some of his tactics. Now whether those nerfs are valid...as mentioned I think its worth discussing.

If you dont agree then it becomes really ambiguous. If thats the case that means that we ought to ban things that are powerful but not broken, would that be more correct?

 

[ElDominio]

Well said Cassio. Truth be told the LGL ( main rule that seems directly made for MK) is dumb as hell. I would advise anyone who wants to hear why to read through Grim Tuesday's thread in this section. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=310705

The sad part is that a ton of pro-ban is under the guise of NUMBERS AND STATISTICS. When its quite evident the crux of their argument is purely emotionally based. BBRC; if you are banning the bat. Ban him. I just dont want to hear any bs about it. The community is frustrated cuz they dont know what to do, noone wants to learn or put in the effort. Simple as that. State that salty *** people wanted him banned. That they hope their friend will come back, when theres nothing to support that argument sans their friends words.

EDIT: Okay Flayl states anti ban is doing a horrendous job outlining why MK isnt 'too good.' I would love to hear pro ban's reasoning he's too good. Then we can deconstruct it from there.

To your first point: If it is, then that's great. At least pro-ban got off their lazy butts and found some good grounds to ban him on.
Anti-ban is just painting itself as the poor ant being looked upon with a magnifying glass. Cut the BS.

To your second point: There's enough things pro-ban has posted up that you can deconstruct.
Have fun.
Here's a post you can read: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13427723&postcount=8420

 

[B.A.M.]

I would like to see every MU rediscussed as very few matchups have been properly been broken down like they should. In fact Id probably say the only board that has it right right now is the Marth boards thanks to C.J. I think thats an issue in and of itself. people think they know MUs by debating against their friendly mains for two seconds.

THIS is a real MU chart:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=311118


@ EL Dominio: NO they havent. We just stated numerous times how its not so. Thats been the whole point of the past 3-4 pages.
I havent heard clear cut reasonings. I hear every special recovers, he has two glides, his frame data is amazing. Im asking for clear cut reasonings

EDIT: Hows does that post show a clear cut way y hes broken?

 

[Zankoku]

That's a thread for a single match-up, not a match-up chart.

 

[fkacyan]

And to handle the threat of a MK CP, the Dedede player can CP MK.

Doesn't change how viable DK is lol.

With MK legal, assuming both players want to pull pocket MK, the first match can be one of the following in a double blind:

MK vs D3
MK vs MK
DK vs D3
DK vs MK

DK isn't as likely to run into a hard counter here.

Maybe DK isn't the best example of this, but I could also use ZSS, or any character that suffers from having a terrible MU against one member of the cast who MK can cover for relatively well.

I would also advise that you use the MU chart with about twenty gallons of salt. It's extremely inaccurate.

EDIT: If MK is "too good," I want the pro-ban people to go over to SRK and ask them to ban Chun-li.

 

[B.A.M.]

That's a thread for a single match-up, not a match-up chart.

Lol thanks for the correction Ankoku

@ Pro-Ban: I want a serious discussion about this; not just emotionally driven stuff. I want to hear everything that makes him broken as a character, so we can discuss it. No need for people to get all upset.

The ONLY reason he should be banned is because hes broken. Thats the only legitimate argument for pro ban, and thats truly the only argument anti ban would have to refute. Unfortunately some of the heads of the pro ban movement have been pushing other reasonings that dont stand up at all.

@Delux: your anti planking info would be quite useful for such things. Its really unfortunate this bureaucracy wont allow you to post it yet.

 

[DMG]

If you dont agree then it becomes really ambiguous. If thats the case that means that we ought to ban things that are powerful but not broken, would that be more correct?

The problem is agreeing on a definition on what is broken. That's basically what the debate is atm.

Something that is broken is powerful. The question is what threshold of powerful does something have to cross before it becomes broken. How much money won, how much dominance, how much usage, gameplay mechanic abuses, etc.

Most people who are anti ban, MK is not above their personal definition of broken. Most people who are pro ban, MK is above their personal definition of broken. There's no unbiased definition of broken for MK at this point because an unbiased definition for a broken brawl character was not found at an early enough point before MK was even reasonably questionable. Because of that, you could argue that any definition or criteria laid out after that point is subjectively biased one way or the other.




Thio: Third Strike is a different story though. The game has lived for long enough that frankly people who still seriously play the game aren't gonna be looking at banning characters. Even if Chun Li literally took every spot at every national for 2 years, no one would say "ban Chun Li" because it's aged well beyond the point of trying to be "correct" in addressing competitive issues. Same thing with MVC2: Magneto is holy ****in jesus balls broken, but who's looking at banning a character for a game over a decade old at this point?

Any game after a certain point (that's not being actively patched/updated/new series) probably isn't being heavily scrutinized to where you seriously consider banning a character regardless of how dominant.

 

[DeLux]

Cassio, I have reviewed your post in its entirety and will be forwarding it for discussion with the committee.

I appreciate the refocusing of the debate towards substance as well as you elegantly putting forth what you feel are important arguments in terms of maintaining our status quo and why the BBR-RC should not ban MK.

We are doing our best to do due diligence on the issue, and hope to come to a justifiable conclusion that satisfies both sides of the debate as soon as it's possible.

 

[B.A.M.]

Thank you Delux. Now if we could get started on discussing that substance we can actually move somewhere in this debate. No need to offend any side; just solid reason.

 

[Mekos]

Delux I think very few from anti-ban approve of that approach or have used it. If I may, I'd like to make a summary using some observations I've made. Id really appreciate if you read through this.

Pro-ban uses 3 general arguments of different popularity. Specific arguments fit into these categories.
1. MK is broken
2. MK is bad for/Banning him is good for the community
3. MK forces us to cater our ruleset to him

Technically 3 is an element of 1, but its worth isolating and removing for the moment. For now Im going to address points 1 and 2, which even intelligent members of pro-ban like popsofctown have called out on BS.

Metaknight is broken:
An ancient/dead argument. Without dwelling long on this, this was the focus of the ban movement in '09 that didn't take hold because it was determined that he was not broken, and nothings really changed. Even a large chunk of pro-banners admit this isnt true. High level play success is attributed to skill. Nonetheless when posts like those of Doc King and ADHD are made about how people are winning because of MK it takes away focus and attention from legitimate arguments.

Metaknight is bad for the community/banning Metaknight is good for the community:

And here we have the overwhelming majority of current pro-ban arguments. I've said in the past this argument itself isnt bad if it can be proven. As Strong Bad says if the community decides we want to play casually for the sake of the community itself, or just because its more 'fun' its not like anyone can stop us.

Let's look at a few of the points attempting to prove this argument:

A. Banning Metaknight adds depth
A poor point thats frequently addressed and then repeated. Ill refer you to Strong Bad's posts to address this more as he explains it more elegantly than I would.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=13408014#post13408014
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=13408143#post13408143
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=13408155#post13408155
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=13408239#post13408239
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13408391&postcount=7666
a tl;dr


B. 75% (or close to) of the community wants him banned
This is a frequently used point thats been frequently shot down.

By this point I sound like a broken record stating this, but voluntary polls are unreliable. I hope my previous post(s) will suffice for further explanation. Objectively looking at the poll 75% cant even conclusively tell us what a majority feels, instead we rely on our gut feeling (which is probably correct) as far as the majority goes. It also lets us know which side is more passionate. As far as the argument itself goes its not worth using once let alone repeated.

C. Metaknight is overcentralizing (objectively)
This was an amibiguous point at its best. However Thiocyanide made the observation (and ankoku found data) that Metaknight doesnt even dominate as much as chun-li in SF:3S, a well respected competitive fighter.



Unfortunately people still attempt to push this point as well in spite of its weakness

D. The game isnt fun enough
The last set of arguments all fall under this. Which include but are not limited to:
i. MK is overcentralising (subjective/community specific)
ii. Theres not enough character diversity.
iii. Metaknight dittos are boring
iv. Hardly anyone will quit and everyone else will be happy (because the game will be more fun)
v. People will stop quitting brawl (because the game will be more fun)
vi. People who quit will come back to the community (because the game will be more fun)
etc etc etc.

These argument almost seems like a joke, except that people like Player-1 and John#s are using them and attempting to make them sound objective (theyve talked to their friends so of course its true! oh yeah and lots of people come in here and say theyre quitting till MK's banned = instant validity). However with the previous three points A,B, and C weak, disproven, or constantly under attack this is essentially what most of pro-ban relies on. An emotional appeal with little substance or proof.

i.e. If we ban MK, then MAYBE the game will be more fun, and maybe maybe people will stop quitting, and maybe maybe maybe people will come back and play again.

quite honestly its risky and could just as easily prove to be detrimental with such little and difficulty obtainable information. I think DMG summed it up best:



Conclusion; arguments that appeal to the community are pretty trashy. Yet they take up the majority of debate since weak/disproven points are repeated as if they are strengthened by doing so. Cant even count how many times ive had to repeat information about voluntary polls as people recite the same disproven point.

MK Forces us to Cater our Ruleset to him
Quite honestly the best argument I've heard for MKs ban. To quote myself in regards to why its hardly addressed by anti-ban:



Popsofctown made a beautiful argument that unfortunately went unaddressed by both sides, as pro-ban has apparently wished to rely on unproven emotional appeals while anti-ban is forced to focus time on them. Im certain anti-ban would love nothing more than to focus on substantive arguments like these if we could get past the BS arguments currently being used now. Shoutouts to all the other pro-banners in this group who havent succumbed to the easy emotional appeals, I see yall posting on occasion.

As a footnote:
Going off pro-sentiment alone is unreliable. Several have admitted to outright bias (i.e. with reasons such as wanting the game to be more fun for them, helping/hurting them in tournament, etc.). With others it just oozes. My gripe is that while pro-banners are quick to jump on bias from people like m2k or anti, no one says anything to adhd or others. Just as an example, when adhd was beating m2k and losing to ally he would make out snake to be broken and easy to use and MK to be 'even'. iirc it got to the point where ally got upset at him for insulting his skill. The characters have changed, but the bias hasnt.

Honestly pros should have a good reason for not banning/banning MK just like everyone else. The reason pros should theoretically have more say is because theyre (theoretically) more informed through experience. But that shouldnt be taken as a given, nor should it be ignored that they could be just as bias as everyone else. Hence giving more weight to pro's opinions should require a superior understanding/explanation of the game. Otherwise whats the point?

Dang dis dude just smashed on all yall. It's settled Mk should not be banned!

 

[B.A.M.]

Real talk. Cassio took all the arguments that have been stated, and placed them into one concise post. This is what needs to be looked at.

 

[MechaWave]

Dang dis dude just smashed on all yall. It's settled Mk should not be banned!

This is a very very sad post indeed.

 

[Cassio]

Cassio, I have reviewed your post in its entirety and will be forwarding it for discussion with the committee.

I appreciate the refocusing of the debate towards substance as well as you elegantly putting forth what you feel are important arguments in terms of maintaining our status quo and why the BBR-RC should not ban MK.

We are doing our best to do due diligence on the issue, and hope to come to a justifiable conclusion that satisfies both sides of the debate as soon as it's possible.

Thanks Delux. I feel bad since my wording maybe wasnt the best and the post overall could've been organized better/more kindly, lol. Sorry if it sometimes sounds too bias but hopefully the points themselves will shine through in spite of that.

Also I didnt include any points that didnt relate to pro-bans argument. But there are a few.

1. Europe and Japan both have healthy, strong metagames and different rulesets without metaknight domination. Marc, Gheb and a few others worded this much better than I have so Ill refer to them.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=13402376#post13402376
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=13402448#post13402448
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13404528&postcount=7571

2. Fear of even stronger inter-community conflict and divide should an MK legal ruleset be elminated over an mk banned ruleset. Several TOs have already stated they will continue to run MK legal tournaments even if he were to be banned. This leaves a decent risk that the community will split should he be banned.

This is more a personal thought but at the very least there should be a way to incorporate both so that one part of the community is not boycotting the other. As an example Ill use the way things are now, we see pro-ban and anti-ban attending both types of events. It would be nice if this equilibrium could be maintained with whatever decisions are made.



There may be more points but thats what Ive caught for now. As another aside while I've constnatly attacked the "75-25" argument or any such specific stats and ranges for said stats, I dont think the poll itself was a bad idea. Only the conclusions some people are drawing from it.

 

[Ghostbone]

When did "you can't CP the same stage twice" become something that isn't DSR?

When it was proposed? Since that's not DSR, lol

Also I'm curious which TOs would still run MK legal tournaments as the main event for their state/region if MK's banned in Unity.

 

[Mew2King]

D1 and jtails told me they would already. D1 is getting a big venue soon and is having melee there and brawl too so if ppl don't go for brawl that sucks but he said it's gonna be nice venue and he's always going to run them because he loves melee. Unity is completely catering to 1 side with no compromise. That is extremely dumb unless you are on the side that wants him gone (and if they know they can get it, why should they stop from a selfish perspective?). Catering to 1 side is terrible. It is too bad that for the most part it does not matter who is right or wrong, but rather who has the "power".

 

[Zankoku]

But Mew2King, whether you ban Meta Knight or not, doesn't that mean you are completely catering to one of the two sides with no compromise? Banning Meta Knight and not banning Meta Knight appear to be mutually exclusive rulings, as far as I can tell.

 

[Mew2King]

you act as if he's broken. But he ISN'T. He deserves no such thing, period

 

[Zankoku]

But Mew2King, whether you ban Meta Knight or not, doesn't that mean you are completely catering to one of the two sides with no compromise? Banning Meta Knight and not banning Meta Knight appear to be mutually exclusive rulings, as far as I can tell.

you act as if he's broken. But he ISN'T. He deserves no such thing, period

What the **** are you talking about where in the hell did I say or act that he's broken

 

[BSP]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=295425

John#'s data doesn't get enough discussion IMO. I see pro ban bring it up a lot, but I never see much of an anti response.

What's the anti ban's response to nearly 45% of all tournament money being taken by one character?

Or, if you think John's data is flawed in some way and why it's not that great, say how.

Also, as for MK being broken. In our current ruleset, I'd say he's not broken, as he's been beaten countless times. However, we are specifically limiting him at the same time (looking at LGL here specifically) so keep that in mind.

And one more thing: I see Mekos and B.A.M.'s points about working on your character more to and changing up your style with MK (aka get better imo), but what about the fact that MK mains can get better and adapt to your strategies too? Plus, you're already at the disadvantage by using worse characters.

 

[Mew2King]

I was willing to compromise all the time, but every time I bring up a compromise, the BBR basically tells me to shove it up my ***. I told them to increase the timer, and/or get rid of the gay stages, and/or have LGL. It benefits more than just MK, but since it helps make MK less powerful, pro ban would have less of an excuse to ban him.

Want proof? In BBR 2 years ago we had a vote on who wanted MK legal and who didn't. A few people I won't name wanted MK banned. A lot of their argument was "he times people out too easily" (even though I was like the only one to ever really even do that). So we had a poll to increase the timer. Guess what happened? Those SAME PEOPLE voted against the increased timer

so what happens?

the BBR community makes rules that make MK at almost his best (such as the small timer and many stages to choose from) and then goes right into banning MK instead of a compromise

part of me thinks it was on purpose at this point

oh well no one cares though! as long me and a few other threats are outta tourneys rite? (even though people will deny it that is what is going on)