The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[[FBC] ESAM]

MK is catchable. You don't see time-outs when MK is at 20% on RC, do you?

Please stop exaggerating people. Yes he is good at running away, but he isn't ****ing Sonic on Hyrule.

 

[Ussi]

I think Fox will give Sonic a run for his money on Hyrule actually.

 

[Player-1]

probably missing some, this is off the top of my head[/spoiler]
Thats 8 players that place in the money within their region. EIGHT!! With the large amount of high/top players, their metagame will OBVIOUSLY progress the fastest which only makes the character better!'

It isn't only that MK is the best character, but he has also been progressing the fastest out of any character by a LARGE margin.

Yeah, I agree with you. I just put RC there because other people seem to think that and that's why I said " but I really don't see RC being that bad personally". And I've said that you can just learn one stage and an the other. Also, I said that those arguments are the only arguments worth being called an argument, I didn't say that they were right or even good.

Also, I wasn't saying that we should ban character just because he is used more than any other character, I was saying that it is a viable argument if playing MK is being overcentralized. I'm not saying that he IS being overcentralized, because I don't really know where to draw the line on what is and isn't overcentralized, I'm just saying it's a good argument IF he is overcentralized. I would say the same thing if for some reason 60% of the community was using Ganon.

 

[John12346]

I was about to make a snappy one liner to that effect, Ussi. -___ -;
.
.
.
Anyway, I do agree with ESAM about the whole "don't ban MK just yet." I'm not sure if I've made my position very clear, but I'm not a pro-ban in the traditional sense of the term. I mean yes, I want MK banned and I obviously think the game would be a lot better off without him screwing everything up.

But my ultimate goal is to get the discussion on his legality in motion, not his actual ban. I always feel it is best when a topic of this caliber of fragility is discussed down to the wire, where each and every card in everyone's hand has been laid out on the table. With any less, we risk an uninformed decision, and that can only lead to tragedy in the long run...

There's no way Unity would get away with just randomly blurting out "MK'S BANNED, FGTS." Things have to be taken slowly, and one step at a time.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Discussion degenerates into flaming, and you know that John#s. Whether in the BBR, Metagame discussion. or anywhere else. The BRC is rather small at the moment so it might not there, but as of now there is no reason to ban him since we are still trying to garner the support of everybody.

 

[stingers]

idk esam, functionally I just don't see a difference. so it's easier for sonic to time people out on hyrule, but mk will still get the time out...100% of the time when he does it correctly, right? thats what Im saying

 

[Tesh]

ESAM, what I'm saying is MK on RC is more broken than Pit grabbing the ledge 120 times. My point is that you guys put a limit on alot of other things just so people can enjoy playing and watching the game a little more. Banning/limiting MK fits right into that category. Mk needs MORE limits.

Now are you going to tell me that Pit's planking is more broken than what MK can still do?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Yes, it is. MK can only really abuse **** against a few characters. Unfortunately, that is more characters than not, but Pit's planking, theoretically, is combatable by many MANY less characters, pretty much nobody.

MK on RC < Pit planking. I loved at Winterfest when R@vyn timed out 2nLio with 2 stocks low % because 2nLio couldn't kill him without running off and being put in a terrible position, so R@vyn survived until ~330%. That is totally less broken than actually having to confront your opponent occasionally, right? No.

 

[stingers]

there is no point in debating about MK on RC and pit planking, because there's a rule to deal with 1 and not the other

LGL = Effective stop to planking
Banning MK on RC = Effective stop to MK on RC

which one of those is in the unity ruleset?

 

[John12346]

Discussion degenerates into flaming, and you know that John#s. Whether in the BBR, Metagame discussion. or anywhere else. The BRC is rather small at the moment so it might not there, but as of now there is no reason to ban him since we are still trying to garner the support of everybody.

Well, yeah, I know that. History does teach us a lot.

I guess you misunderstood when I said things must be taken slowly in the case of this topic... I meant they need to be taken REAAAAAAALLY ****ing slowly. Not to the point that it never happens, but to the point where when it does actually happen, it happens as painlessly as possible.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

That will never happen though....there will always be a pretty much 50-50 split. However...there is a difference. The 50 that is upset now normally deals and still goes to tournaments. The other 50 probably won't, at least a large portion of it. They will just start using their own tournaments as opposed to indulging the MK like now.

 

[John12346]

Wait, ESAM, how can we say for sure that it's a 50-50 split?

Remember my theory on how fake account spam brings the overall results closer to 50-50 in the end?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Because there totally wasn't abuse of that on both sides...

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Because there totally wasn't abuse of that on both sides...

Exactly, did you not see his post about how it brings it closer to 50-50?

 

[Reizilla]

Except that more people being against it, means (I use that as loosely as this theory should be credited) that there are proportionally more people willing to create fake accounts to vote, so it still keeps close to the true percentages.

 

[Tesh]

No, only MKs would do something so dirty and cheap to win.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Except that more people being against it, means (I use that as loosely as this theory should be credited) that there are proportionally more people willing to create fake accounts to vote, so it still keeps close to the true percentages.

and what is to prove this to hold true?

 

[Conviction]

No, only MKs would do something so dirty and cheap to win.

I lost

 

[Reizilla]

and what is to prove this to hold true?

Say there are 400 people anti-ban and 600 people pro-ban. It's only logical to conclude that for every 4 anti-ban people that created an alt to vote, there were roughly 6 pro-ban people that also created an alt to vote. It's not like the pro-ban people are any more noble than anti-ban people. If anything, they're more desperate

So to answer your question, nothing. But it's only less likely that they created an equal number of alt accounts, despite being outnumbered.

 

[John12346]

I'll just explain it again for the 1000th time...

Assume there was a poll with Option A and Option B. Let's say that Option A had 200 unique individuals vote for it, and Option B had 500 different people vote for it. Option B would have 71.43% of the vote, and it'd be very clear cut in that case.

Now, assume some *******s from Option A and Option B both dump in 2000 votes for their respective sides. Now we have 2200 votes for Option A, and 2500 votes for Option B. Option B now only has 51.02% of the vote. That proves NOTHING.

Get it? We can assume mass alt. account voting from both sides, and that's what caused the results to become so close to 50-50 in all 4 ban votes.

For all we know, we might have had enough votes way back then to actually ban MK.

 

[Conviction]

I think at this time and point Anti-ban will be the ones less noble with data against them and past points defeated.

 

[Reizilla]

That's beside the point, Iblis. I was just saying that there's nothing stopping one side from doing the same as the other.

John, if anti-ban has 200 and pro-ban has 500, pro-ban will be able to pump out 2.5 as many fake votes. It makes no sense to assume that with one side greatly outnumbering the other, that there will be equal amounts of cheating. One side is much more likely. This doesn't mean that they did it, but there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that they didn't.

Yeah, alt accounts could screw up the exact percentages, but that vote wasn't anywhere close to ban. Logically, the percentage of skewing would be very small, with either side equally capable of reaping the benefit.

 

[Conviction]

Lol I know Q.

Also can't we just see the users who voted, so we can determine alts? (I could see corruption in vote viability though.

 

[John12346]

qB, you're assuming that the scenario played out like this:

"X% of all of the people who voted for whichever side created Y alt accounts and voted with them to bump up their side of the vote." If this were the case, then yes, the proportions would remain roughly equal.

However, who's to say that both sides didn't simply receive the same amount of representation. Just because one side got more votes doesn't mean that a proportionally large amount of people used alt accounts to vote.

For all we know, there could've been just one idiot on both sides who thought it'd be funny to pump in loads of votes.

Also I'm gonna make tallying up the votes my next project. Yes I'm masochistic.

 

[Reizilla]

And I'm not saying that didn't happen. But there's absolutely no evidence for it. And it should hold absolutely no credit in any argument for bringing back the ban debate. There's just a smaller chance of that happening than what I suggested. I'm just making sure that people see what, logically, was more likely to happen.

 

[Tesh]

this has to be the dumbest sub discussion to spawn from the mk ban discussion. are you people theorycrafting about how people might cheat in a damned poll? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW


sheesh

just

ban mk

and the cheating will stop

then have the poll for unbanning him

 

[WindMajor]

Wait, why are we discussing MK bans here? We all know that's not allowed in this sub-forum. Take it to the social group, guys, you can find the link to it in my profile.

 

[MK26]

mk ban discussion is a plague x_x

but its not in dedicated mk ban threads so they get away with it lol

 

[Dabuz]

Why not have mods add some sort of anti-alt voting method by IP-restricting to one vote per IP. Or only allowing votes from user accounts with 100+posts and that joined before this JUNE

 

[MK26]

^^ive been told that the second option is possible

the problem isnt the voting, its the fact that discussion will always devolve into trolling and flaming, creating a headache for the mods
the previous four ban discussions required basically 24/7 attention from the mod team

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Even better: Go through all of the votes and make sure each one is real individually. Yes, it'd be a lot of work, but this is basically the most important decision the Brawl community will ever make; I think it's worth it.

Just set some criteria before-hand like: If you have never attended a tournament before, your vote doesn't count (to avoid random noobs who won't even be affected by the rule from having a say), etc... If a person who votes doesn't pass that criteria, ignore the vote.

We don't NEED to moderate the discussion. Don't even have a discussion if possible (lock the thread). Let the pro-banners compile and post their argument (like they are right now in the social group) and the same for the anti-banners, put them both in the OP.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

I like how you guys think that votes from...a year ago? will make the BRC ban MK either way.

Saying that there were alt counts created is just speculation and it is pretty ******** to assume that that is truth when there is no evidence of it.

 

[Ussi]

@Grim

You'd probably want people to register to vote kind of thing.

Make it a title or something then put it in a voters only thread.

Sounds like too much work though for people to do though :x

 

[John12346]

Grim, before you do that, I'm gonna ask B10n1c if there's some way for him to filter out voters from a poll that has already occurred.

I'm all for doing tedious work, but this is just monstrous lol

Also ESAM, we're not expecting these findings to get MK banned, we're just looking for more information, that's all...

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

I'm not stopping you, I just think it is a waste of time.

 

[John12346]

So... you wouldn't find it significant if it turned out there were actually enough votes back then to ban MK?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Nope......

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I believe we have established that banning Metaknight is not a feasible possibility for the Brawl Backroom-Ruleset Committee.

 

[Conviction]

Is the IP address thing not possible?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

I believe we have established that banning Metaknight is not a feasible possibility for the Brawl Backroom-Ruleset Committee.

That's silly. It's perfectly feasible. It's not like the MK problem is going to go away by itself.