The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Dr. Tuen]

"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."

===

I've been working on this. I have the statistical tools necessary to assess this objectively, but the data mining has been taking an eternity. If anyone cares to help, I'm looking for top 8 results (player name and characters used) for the last year's worth of events.

With that data, I may be able to re-assess his "overpowered"-ness as well. Until then, you all can check out my first shot at analyzing MK's overpowered tendencies here:

Meta Knight's Dominance: The 1000 Player Analysis

 

[Zankoku]

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

Okay, I could've sworn you said stuff this like two weeks ago. It's funny, because you're complaining about compromise never happening and Unity's had the whole "experimental" thing going for a while now.

btw, I don't think the LGL really accomplishes much for people who actually want to stall the ledge, it just hurts the ones that try to do things from the ledge.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

MK Forces us to Cater our Ruleset to him
Quite honestly the best argument I've heard for MKs ban.

This is literally the only reason I am pro-ban.

 

[Mew2King]

What experimental thing?

I've been trying to make 10 minutes the standard for a VERY LONG TIME and no one listened. I've been trying to make RC/brinstar and less gay stages on but no one listens to that either. I just listed the things the BBR did. It's really ****ed up. Their intentions are obvious. They complain about the timer, so I make a poll to increase the timer, and they all vote against it. They did similar things with the stages. Obvious freaking intentions.

Btw I would like to bring up that point about rules catering to MK (it doesn't)
--LGL helps other characters, not just MK. DK has great planking, and GW Pit are pretty good at it too. There are probably more, but that is enough. Melee I believe there should be a LGL just because of jigglypuff, maybe sheik. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0r0DkNiqxc
--less gay stages (SINCE I DONT WANNA GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH PLAYER1 THAT GETS NOWHERE AGAIN I'M JUST GONNA SAY IN MY OPINION).
--and 10 min timer

they are ALL positive things that all benefit the game as whole to have. The only debatable one of them all is the stages, but other countries and Apex has no problem doing it so why does the rest of the USA. The timer and LGL should have been standard long ago. In fact there should be a LGL in melee

 

[Cassio]

BSP, Thiocyanides addressed the data by showing other communities that have dealt with characters having similar or greater success.

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.

Right now we have MK banned and MK legal tournaments. I've seen people attend both regardless of the side their on. Not saying things need to stay that way, but there can be compromise. Theres also the potential for greater divide.

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.

ehh, dont quite agree. Anything that ties MK with the word broken hasnt worked unless it includes lgls, timers, stages, etc. Something I've mentioned to be an argument worth looking at.

Without them all other definitions have been shot down really quick. Not too long ago Doc King came in here trying to say MK players only achieve success through their broken character, only to be turned away for putting down the skill/efforts of m2k, anti, etc.

The other side are people who come in here without a definition at all, simply saying MK is broken/too powerful. Thats kinda BS as well though, with that line of thought I could say Ganon is broken, get half the community to agree with me, then ban him. Need a more realistic example? ICs chaingrabs work as well.

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.

Occam's Razer...Given the same data, why select a complex explanation when a simpler one exists? Perhaps they simply arent considered overcentralising?

"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."

===

I've been working on this. I have the statistical tools necessary to assess this objectively, but the data mining has been taking an eternity. If anyone cares to help, I'm looking for top 8 results (player name and characters used) for the last year's worth of events.

With that data, I may be able to re-assess his "overpowered"-ness as well. Until then, you all can check out my first shot at analyzing MK's overpowered tendencies here:

Meta Knight's Dominance: The 1000 Player Analysis

Good luck with your project. Regarding your old project, I think its taken for granted but I think thats a large reason why people dont use the skill enhancement argument as much anymore.

 

[Deleted member]

There is no right or wrong side to banning Metaknight. The only way to debate it "factually" is to:

A. Invent arbitrary points in data, and then try to subjectively paint the situation past an equally arbitrary threshold.
B. Argue on theory instead.

Either way, there is still no purely factual presentation.

Arguing for or against banning Metaknight. Trust me, I kept MK from being banned pretty much by myself 3 times.

 

[Omni]

Arguing for or against banning Metaknight. Trust me, I kept MK from being banned pretty much by myself 3 times.

 

[Mew2King]

please read what i said this time

 

[Dr. Tuen]

If MK is banned, I would love to do a player-placement analysis on the players who are forced to switch characters. If their ability to take placements similar to what they had with MK doesn't recover in an appreciable amount of time, it could say something about the character's significant effects on player performance.

It would be a fantastic analysis :-)

 

[Zankoku]

please read what i said this time

Every time I read what you said you claim nobody read what you said and repeat events from two years ago so you can keep blaming everybody else.

 

[Mew2King]

wow that's super ignorant. Read my point

 

[B.A.M.]

BSP: :Sigh: Think of what you are saying. theres always going to be a top character. And what you said is right; MK PLAYERS HAVE TO ADAPT IN ORDER TO STAY ON TOP. If he was truly broken such things wouldnt be of such importance. That means is deals with players not the character. And when you have M2K going off to more tournies than anyone, when you have top players playing him of course hes going to have most of the money. What the hell does that have to do with a character being broken? In fact a huge problem with this debate is that fact that people dont actually think about John#s numbers lol. They dont break down what they really mean.


@Tuen: or it could say that other characters dont sync with their style..............

Im sure everyone by now who is actually keeping up with this debate realizes that overcentralization is a terrible ground for banning the character. The argument doesnt hold weight. Now the character actually being broken; thats what needs to be discussed. All this stuff about John's #s data is getting ridiculous. Im glad he did it; I am. Its just horrendous how people have misinterpreted what they mean.



Meta Knight's Dominance: The 1000 Player Analysis by Tuen


Everyone; please read this. People just cant seem to grasp this concept. People also seem to infer overcentralization means ban worthy. Plz look at Chun in 3S. This is something that occurs in fighters quite a bit.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

@Tuen: or it could say that other characters dont sync with their style..............

Very true. If people volunteered the information, interviews could go with the data set to try and help make sense of it. Though idk who'd be up for that. I even considered asking people to partner with me for "Project Zero" (to get more prospectives on the switching off MK experience), but I don't think anyone is weird enough to switch off MK just before Apex :-p.

Either way, it would be very insightful. I really need to finish my current project first though. I'll probably be on smashboards data mining all Thursday night :-/.

==

Im sure everyone by now who is actually keeping up with this debate realizes that overcentralization is a terrible ground for banning the character. The argument doesnt hold weight. Now the character actually being broken; thats what needs to be discussed. All this stuff about John's #s data is getting ridiculous. Im glad he did it; I am. Its just horrendous how people have misinterpreted what they mean.

1. John#'s data is somewhat inaccurate, but is helpful for a first pass look at what is going on in terms of over-centralization. To be clear though: no definitive ANALYSIS has been done on that data. Comparing percentages is not analyzing in a statistically robust manner.

2. Over-centralization is a more abstract topic with respect to banning criteria, but I believe it is still significant. It speaks towards interest and diversity in the playing field, which makes the game more or less interesting to watch. This type of interest is important when looking towards the future of our community. If the game is boring and repetitive, people will be less inclined to choose this game over MVC3 or Street Fighter.

**While the analysis isn't actually done yet, I highly suspect MK will yield statistically significant results when frequency distributions are analyzed (he'll be shown to be over-centralizing)

 

[BSP]

Im sure everyone by now who is actually keeping up with this debate realizes that overcentralization is a terrible ground for banning the character.

I haven't really been keeping up, why is this?

Now the character actually being broken; thats what needs to be discussed.

He's not broken under our current ruleset, but again, we have specific limitations only because of him.

If he had no restrictions, IDK, we'd have to see

 

[Player-1]

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?

I find this post really really bad, sorry casio, but I'll try to sum it up in a bit. I just did in the RC and have to make a few amendments to it for confidential stuff :X

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".

M2K, it's called the UNITY ruleset for a reason. The basic idea of it is to have a standard ONE ruleset in the country (continent) for various reasons. It was decided having any "in between" of having an MK banned and legal ruleset would pretty much go against this foundation. You could argue that the experimental rulesets also go against this, and while this is true, the experimental tournaments are not here to stay forever, just to gather some data improve upon the ruleset. Now whether you think that having a standard ruleset across the country is an entirely different argument, but BASED off the foundations of a UNITY ruleset, it wouldn't be wise to have 2 different rulesets or any optionality in it.

 

[Mew2King]

No one read what I said apparently

LGL
10 min timer
and (IMO, this one is the only debatable one of the 3 but I still think I'm right) less gay stages would help the game a lot

so even though they all help make MK worse (which SHOULD BE an added plus for you guys), those rules help the game as whole regardless. The fact that it ALSO makes MK worse is just.... another plus for you guys (if your REAL intentions were to combat him easier, and not get rid of him. Which I know for most of you it isn't like that).


@ player1 - and UNITY sucks. I don't care what it's supposed to be, a LOT of people HATE IT. But I guess what can we do when it's a majority takes everything right? Just like in history when one country with more people overpowers another even if they are doing it for self-gain

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I also agree that we need to increase the timer. A lot of Japanese matches go over the eight minute timer even though there is no money on the line. Players tend to play safer when there is a lot of money especially when there are only a few minutes left on the timer

 

[Player-1]

M2K, I agree with you on the 10 minute timer personally (although, I'd like to take it in baby steps first and try a 9 minute timer first), but it was discussed in the RC and was decided that the current timer is fine (this was before I joined, mind you), but I do agree with a raised timer.

You're not really making any points, M2K, by saying unity sucks. You're not giving reasons (or at least not connecting them to your reasons which I can assume it's 10 min timer and LGL, etc.), but hey, at least it's not like the BBR having port town legal. Also, if you say is true about a majority taking over then that must mean if a lot of people hate it then even more people love it.

 

[B.A.M.]

I haven't really been keeping up, why is this?





He's not broken under our current ruleset, but again, we have specific limitations only because of him.

If he had no restrictions, IDK, we'd have to see

heres a summary courtesy of Cassio. http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13427447&postcount=8398

I think LGL needs to go and we need to adopt a better stage list like Europe/ Japan. Thats just me. We have two scene that thrive just fine. We also have our scene which was HEAVILY influenced by a top player from the get go, M2K. Seeing as the top player taught these other top players how to use the character and people started picking him. The over centralization in the American community isnt just because hes the top character in the game. It began with M2K. If you want my honest opinion; Brawl wouldve been MUCH different had more Melee vets actually switched over. You have by a landslide at the birth of the game the best player playing the best character, doing all these amazing things. who are ppl going to flock too? Same for Wesker, or Dante, same for Chun, same for Sentinel and Cable. Its what happens. Look at all the other scenes.

Over Centralization does NOT warrant a ban. As far as Tuen's #s go, it showcases that MK isnt what gets you to the top. http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=123676
So I ask again pro ban, can we start talking about the character being actually broken? That should be the real debate.

 

[Mew2King]

having more numbers doesn't justify it as right

and what the above poster said is accurate

edit - except for the LGL part. I explained why (it makes other characters get easy wins once they get a lead. It makes it so there's almost no reason not to plank if you have the lead).


before brawl came out i decided i really really really wanted to be the best at it, back before even the japanese version of the game came out. I went to every single tournament around the world that I could get to and focused it all into 1 char. First week or two it was marth and DDD, then all DDD for a few months (winning nationals and getting top 2 with Azen at a few md/va things and winning NJ events) then all MK. and I went hardcore OD with MK. then everyone copied everything I did in both videos and watching me play. They were also inspired. I don't see anything wrong with that. I picked up Marth because I was inspired by Ken.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

No one read what I said apparently

LGL
10 min timer
and (IMO, this one is the only debatable one of the 3 but I still think I'm right) less gay stages would help the game a lot

so even though they all help make MK worse (which SHOULD BE an added plus for you guys), those rules help the game as whole regardless. The fact that it ALSO makes MK worse is just.... another plus for you guys (if your REAL intentions were to combat him easier, and not get rid of him. Which I know for most of you it isn't like that).


@ player1 - and UNITY sucks. I don't care what it's supposed to be, a LOT of people HATE IT. But I guess what can we do when it's a majority takes everything right? Just like in history when one country with more people overpowers another even if they are doing it for self-gain

I haven't read the thread so I don't know if this has come up, but have you considered the impact this will have on the average tournament completion time? Wasn't it Genesis 1 that had to be completed in someone's hotel room?

I posted this in a thread on AiB about reduced stocks, but I think it applies here. When considering the time impact of matches in tournament, take a look at what the maximum time length looks like (since Brawl matches tend to go quite long anyways).

3 stocks, best of 3, 10 minutes - maximum timeout length: 30 minutes
2 stocks, best of 3, 6 minutes - maximum timeout length: 18 minutes
1 stock, best of 5, 3 minutes - maximum timeout length: 15 minutes

I personally think that the solution is not to increase the time universally, but instead reduce the time to allow more time per stock. Current rules (8 min) allow 2.6 minutes per stock. Going to 2 stocks as listed above would allow for 3 minutes per stock.

Anyways, I think the time footprint that the rule would leave on tournaments would be very painful for tournament organizers.

 

[Cassio]

2. Over-centralization is a more abstract topic with respect to banning criteria, but I believe it is still significant. It speaks towards interest and diversity in the playing field, which makes the game more or less interesting to watch. This type of interest is important when looking towards the future of our community. If the game is boring and repetitive, people will be less inclined to choose this game over MVC3 or Street Fighter.

Maybe objective is the wrong word since apparently there's an internal definition. Or rather the point should be "too overcentralizing". More or less its meant to be comparative with a similar situation in SF:3S. The game is cited as among the best SF fighting games, has a similarly powerful and successful character in chun-li, yet cant be said to cause the game to be too boring, repetitive, or less inclined to be played. In other words its importance is questionable.

It may be community specific, but thats not something thats exactly measurable.

 

[Mew2King]

Think about the timer thing dude

are you less likely to time out someone when there's 1 min left and last stock 100% both of you, or 3 minutes left and last stock 100%. If there's a very small period of time left, and it looks like you can time them out, a smart person will go for it. In the same scenario, but 3 minutes left (10 min timer instead of 8) a smart person would just end the match normally, realizing a timeout is almost impossible to do.

I'd honestly argue matches would last shorter. Most people I explained this to agreed with me. It would also make them end with less timeouts, which is something people seem to not like in general.

 

[Strong Badam]

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.

Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don’t mean it’s a tough match—I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is 'broken' in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn’t designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since.

Source

Since Metaknight isn't S^9001 tier, I'm fairly certain that MK isn't even close to ~ten times better than Snake, Falco, Diddy, Marth, Wario, Ice Climbers, etc. The fact that the results at every relevant tourney isn't "so yeah the entire top 32 were MK only players" means that the comparison isn't a viable one.

I'd like to argue that depth in this case is referring to the number of valid unique situations in the game

I'll agree with this. I don't believe that MK alone invalidates characters, though; if a character loses badly to MK they probably lose to other good characters. The only situation to my knowledge of such a thing in this game is DDD invalidating DK, and even then I don't believe he's 100% invalidated. There was a case where a DDD was infiniting a DK through CPing to Green Greens I believe and the DK still won (lmao).

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.

Yup. That's why you can't justifiably ban MK. Mmhmm. Glad you understand.

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.

This is just a really bad example. Both of those games have sequels, and neither of those characters are broken. If you want to debate Magneto's or Chun's brokenness, let's go! I can probably prove that Magneto is not "holy ****in jesus balls broken" right here and now due to the fact that he is not in a tier all on his own. MK's brokenness is somewhat plausible at best and he has his own tier.

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.

I think that's pretty irrelevant. This only shows that MK is the best character, which is something we already know (He's a tier above every other character). The fact that the game is imbalanced doesn't really say much on its own.
I also think that we should instead compare cash won by tier, not simply by character. MK is the only character in S Tier and as such earns all of the winnings that S Tier characters do. A Tier is comprised of Diddy, Snake, and Marth. Comparing simply the "Cash Won (Full Split)" category:
S Tier: 33972.98
A Tier: 22749.37

S Tier only makes ~50% more than A Tier does. If my calculations and your claim of MK taking in 45% are correct, this means that A Tier pulls in ~30% of all tournament winnings. Clearly, A Tier is broken, overcentralizing, etc., since what is expected (better characters are performing better in tournament and are thus earning more of the tournament winnings) is occurring.

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.

I've already stated countless times that the LGL rule is unjustified. If a tactic in the game is broken and players are willing to abuse it shamelessly to win money, then stop playing the game for money; doing so will only ruin the game for you. The only MK limiting rule that I think could be justified is the IDC one, because that's literally a case where a character is unable to be confronted.

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.

Is this not true about the Mario vs. Diddy match-up, or the Sheik vs. Olimar match-up? Pretty silly to bring this up from my viewpoint. The fact that MK players can lose if they don't adapt is evidence enough that MK isn't broken IMO; if he were truly broken, he could just lol his way through tourneys without ever adapting. Not saying you made this point, but the ever popular and amusingly terrible argument that "MK takes no skill & players can use him to beat players better than they are" comes to mind.

If MK is banned, I would love to do a player-placement analysis on the players who are forced to switch characters. If their ability to take placements similar to what they had with MK doesn't recover in an appreciable amount of time, it could say something about the character's significant effects on player performance.

It would be a fantastic analysis :-)

What would an "appreciable" amount of time be? I can think of a variety of other factors that could contribute to this. For example, those players have been using the character for a long amount of time (e.g. M2K) and all or most of their tournament experience has been in using MK. It'd take that much time again to reach a similar level of tournament experience using another character. Additionally, MK might inherently fit the playstyle or personality of a top level player, and other characters might not mesh well. The list goes on and on.

2. Over-centralization is a more abstract topic with respect to banning criteria, but I believe it is still significant. It speaks towards interest and diversity in the playing field, which makes the game more or less interesting to watch. This type of interest is important when looking towards the future of our community. If the game is boring and repetitive, people will be less inclined to choose this game over MVC3 or Street Fighter.

That's just fighting a losing battle. You'd have to put a lot of arbitrary rules in place to possibly make this game exciting to watch, and even then I'd be impressed if this game could be exciting competitively.

 

[B.A.M.]

@ M2K: where's Tyrant at? get that dude onnnnnn

 

[Mew2King]

that dude doesn't post here hardly ever.

 

[B.A.M.]

I know i told him to though. I think hes at school though. People need to come out and speak man. People need to know whats up.

 

[Mew2King]

so yeah I'll come back to my statement since no one is saying anything

regardless of it MK exists or not

10 min timer
less gay stages (the ONLY debatable one here)
and LGL (because of SEVERAL CHARACTERS, not just one)

would make the game better

there are no MK specific rules. Just because these happen to help make MK worse (which SHOULD BE a GOOD THING for you guys) doesn't mean that they only are there for MK. Even if MK didn't exist, these rules would be the best.

Too bad only the LGL is still in effect at most tourneys. The other 2 should be as well.

 

[M@v]

I don't think anyone was debating the LGL rule being for just mk. Yes, MK was a huge factor in its creation, but a few other characters can abuse the **** out of the ledge, most notably GW

 

[Cassio]

I find this post really really bad, sorry casio, but I'll try to sum it up in a bit. I just did in the RC and have to make a few amendments to it for confidential stuff :X

lol, don't worry I eagerly await. I've acknowledged the post wasnt done too well or thoroughly since it was done quickly, so itll give me a chance to elaborate on the weaker points. Surprisingly it hasnt had a legitimate challenge so far. Except by tuen. Cause hes a genius.

 

[Mew2King]

People say rules cater to around MK. But they don't.

Even if MK was never a character in the game to begin with, the game is better with a 10 min timer, LGL, and (IMO) less gay stages.

The sad thing is of the 3, the only one that most tournaments actually use is the LGL.

everything else got voted down, generally/usually by the same people that vote for mk's ban

naturally they succeeded in their goal of making rules that MK is really good with and now having an excuse to ban him. good job

 

[Ussi]

I'd rather lower stocks than more time

3 stocks is just so long now ..

 

[B.A.M.]

I don't think anyone was debating the LGL rule being for just mk. Yes, MK was a huge factor in its creation, but a few other characters can abuse the **** out of the ledge, most notably GW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3gO6w_5eyo

Doesnt really happen to me.

 

[Player-1]

If competitive depth can be defined as (and commonly is) "the amount of unique situations in the game," then surely removing a character decreases the number of unique situations

I really dislike this definition mainly because it's using the word 'competitive' wrong. I guess we should add items on and set to high and it it will increase competitive depth because it has more unique situations according to this definition. Adding items would increase depth...but not competitive depth.

Besides that point, this is also untrue because so much of the brawl community uses and mains MK that we see lower competitive depth. If MK is gone then that means a high chance of more character diversity which means more unique situations. Furthermore, stage diversity will also increase since people won't be afraid of someone's pocket MK. Which will also increase competitive depth.

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.

It really has nothing to do with passion...if people can't click their mouse an extra 3 times to vote on something they might care about then it's just obvious to me that they don't care if he's banned or not.

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.

We shouldn't be looking to other communities in the first place. Smash is a different type of game than smash by many different factors. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with the SF scene, so IDK if it's just EVO like that or all of their tournaments, but if it was then I'd probably be pro-ban of chun-li. Saying "they don't ban their overcentralized characters so neither should we" is not a valid point.

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:

This last argument seems like a joke to me. I'm not even sure how you can call pro-ban's argument an "emotional appeal". You DO realize we have dozens of polls, charts, graphs, and well credible's opinions on the matter right? This is not an emotional appeal, and I'm not even sure how you can call it that.

You're post about how MAYBE people will leave and MAYBE come back is also bad. You do realize it works the same for both ways right? "MAYBE people won't leave if ban MK MAYBE people will come back anyway." Hypothetically, if the whole MK ban argument was about this and we just had a bunch of people saying they will quit if he's not banned and you go and tell me "Well maybe they won't leave..." am I really supposed to listen to that? That is highly highly illogical.

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:

This also connects with A,C, and D which you just got finished calling bad arguments....

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.

How "fun" a game is also an important factor to consider. An unfun game no one would want to play except the people making money off of it. The low level players stop having fun and stop entering tournaments. They stop filling the pot and the high level players are no longer making money so high level players also quit. No players=no scene. This is the reason why it's important to appease a majority...TO AN EXTENT. Whether you think MK is within that extent or not is your opinion.

I'm sorry casio, but to me, this argument just sounded. Like "Pro ban argument is bad and is a joke, blah blah blah strawman/contradict myself a bunch/interpret things wrong blah blah blah this1 argument sounds pretty good even though im contradicting myself"

having more numbers doesn't justify it as right
.

Copy and pasted from the argument not directed at you in case you're not reading them:

How "fun" a game is also an important factor to consider. An unfun game no one would want to play except the people making money off of it. The low level players stop having fun and stop entering tournaments. They stop filling the pot and the high level players are no longer making money so high level players also quit. No players=no scene. This is the reason why it's important to appease a majority...TO AN EXTENT. Whether you think MK is within that extent or not is your opinion.

to add on to that when I say to an extent, for example, I bet a lot of casual players (who may or may not outnumber the competitive scene, IDK, they probably do, but I'm not going to say it's a fact) would want smash balls on corneria only or something like that, should we appeal to the majority? Of course not, that is not competitive and we are trying to make a competitive ruleset. The basic idea of it should be to appeal to a majority while only losing a small amount of competitive factors and trying to work the community to a more competitive ruleset because they might be scared off by it at first. At least, that's the way I see it.

 

[B.A.M.]

@ Player-1 : uhh yeah it kinda does have to do with passion. Another thing is the fact that who are the people participating in this poll? Casual Players? As someone stated already, the people who attempt to change the status quo will be more likely to be vocal about their ideals rather than the opposition. Thats just how it is.

I really dont get how you can discount SF3: 3S like that. Isnt the whole point of Unity to model us in a way like these more reknown fighting games? I dont know why you wouldnt take a cue from arguably the best fighter of all time. No one is stating we shouldnt ban him on that alone. We are saying thats a foolish argument by telling of a similar case.

There are also other ways that we can create a fun game Player 1. For the billionth time take a good look at Europe/Japan if you dont want to look toward another community outside of smash. They have showcased to some extent that there is a reasonable ways to have a healthy and hype metagame.

Theres a serious issue when a character is getting banned due to overcentralization alone. And that issue deals with the community. You want players to have fun and get better; I understand that. Do it the right way. Not this bs MK ban method because everyone 'feels' hes too much. Thank goodness for ppl like GIMR helping out the community in an educational manner. MK isnt OP. Tuen's data is showing that potentially MK isnt the definitive reason why people start placing better. Unless I am confused, I really havent seen a legitimate argument other than 'theres too many MKs'. If this is common for a solid fighters, why is it so terrible for us?

Like I said earlier: people followed M2K in America, he had an overwhelming advantage from out of the gate and continue to push MK. People saw that and jumped on the bandwagon. Its what happens; I dont see why its so absurd.

 

[popsofctown]

and LGL (because of SEVERAL CHARACTERS, not just one)

How many times are you going to repeat this with no evidence? You've given one example, and even in that example multiple people have pointed out that Olimar can eventually beat DK's planking with Fsmash.

In what tournaments have all sorts of characters been successfully planking?

 

[Mew2King]

As someone stated already, the people who attempt to change the status quo will be more likely to be vocal about their ideals rather than the opposition. Thats just how it is.

this. "75%" is a bunch of bull****

endless amount of "final polls" until they get their way though

--

@ pops: Well when I was training, I used to train with a GW player named Velocity. For his time he was really good (he played with me a lot during the first year of the game's release) and one of the first things he did was plank. It was extremely gay, and a lot of characters had a hard time getting around it. When I was using King DDD, it was very hard to beat his planking. Once he got a lead and planked, there wasn't much I could do to stop it. On stage I was beating him, but almost unstoppable when he did that. Even with MK it was pretty hard, and I usually took damage more often than getting the ledge because of him mixing up Nairs and Uairs. It's not as easy as it sounds, but some characters can't really do much **** about it. It's so good if done right that if you have the lead there's almost no reason not to do it.

Inui planked me in tourney with pit and almost won the set because of it. He even beat me one game (granted this was the first month or two of the game's release, but all he did was shoot arrows then fly under the stage when i got close). **** was extremely stupid, and some characters can't really do much about it at all.

Those 2 things are just from my own experience. I've seen the DK thing and I'm sure everyone has by now. I don't know who else can do it well. Might be more, might not be. Either way, it's both overpowered and boring to the point that it's the best thing to do if you want to win.

Having a LGL is better with or without MK.

 

[Player-1]

@ Player-1 : uhh yeah it kinda does have to do with passion. Another thing is the fact that who are the people participating in this poll? Casual Players? As someone stated already, the people who attempt to change the status quo will be more likely to be vocal about their ideals rather than the opposition. Thats just how it is.

Casual players aren't voting because of the requirements to vote and if you mean non TO goers, Delux did some research and found some similar findings (I'm not sure if I'm suppose to tell you or not, as I would assume Delux would have put it out here if he wanted it out here and I didn't see it, so I'll keep quiet about it). The "passion" of something is one of the silliest arguments I've heard. The past couple of months we've seen quite an increase in the MK legality controversy meaning people should be more away. Not to mention the poll on AiB was about the same results as SWF, any non vocal anti ban should of been more away of how serious this is. If they don't think it's not an important enough factor go vote on then I don't care about your opinion if you're an anti ban, and if that's true then why don't we see it from the other perspective. No one said that if there is a ban that it would be a permanent ban or that there won't be another poll ever again (Im not saying that there will be either, IDK), but you can at least try to see it from the other perspective.

I really dont get how you can discount SF3: 3S like that. Isnt the whole point of Unity to model us in a way like these more reknown fighting games? I dont know why you wouldnt take a cue from arguably the best fighter of all time. No one is stating we shouldnt ban him on that alone. We are saying thats a foolish argument by telling of a similar case.

I didn't discount it...I said I don't think we shouldn't be looking to them for everything, then I responded what I think about chun-li which is the opposite of discounting...

There are also other ways that we can create a fun game Player 1. For the billionth time take a good look at Europe/Japan if you dont want to look toward another community outside of smash. They have showcased to some extent that there is a reasonable ways to have a healthy and hype metagame.

They have also removed stage depth from their metagame which harms competitive depth which is exactly what casio was arguing about in his post.

Theres a serious issue when a character is getting banned due to overcentralization alone. And that issue deals with the community. You want players to have fun and get better; I understand that. Do it the right way. Not this bs MK ban method because everyone 'feels' hes too much. Thank goodness for ppl like GIMR helping out the community in an educational manner. MK isnt OP. Tuen's data is showing that potentially MK isnt the definitive reason why people start placing better. Unless I am confused, I really havent seen a legitimate argument other than 'theres too many MKs'. If this is common for a solid fighters, why is it so terrible for us?

Tell me what is the right way then.

 

[popsofctown]

That's not tournament evidence.

There's this strategy called "grabbing" that ICs are really good at and some characters like Bowser and Ganondorf can't do much about it. For characters like ICs and Falco, there's really just no reason not to do it.
Etc.

EDIT: I got editted. He added tournament environment material.

But someone almost winning a set doesn't do it for me.

 

[Mew2King]

inui and will did it in tournament though -_-. velocity played with me all the time, he was my primary (ONLY for a long time) training partner. If you're gonna make comparisons like chain grabbing with falco and ICs then there's no point talking to you. The point was that people want LGL because most people deem ledge play as either boring and/or overpowered, and it is both of those things with several characters, and I am explaining why then it is better with a LGL than not, regardless of MK's existance or not.