Why MK should NOT be banned (the opinion from someone who actually fights them)

[Eddie G]

Ics only have even or better matchups : )

Then they certainly need to be re-analyzed.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well said, Pierce. It can't be put any more clear cut than that. Of course, those who still don't want to believe it will just scoff it off and continue to read from their predetermined checklist of ban criteria.

Without a criteria bans become essentially random, which means banning becomes subject to momentary whims of the community.


I look at our stagelists and I look at the community's easy acceptance of MU surgery and I get worried. We're gutting the game piece by piece, and I don't know where we're gonna stop.


Banning things set precedents, because people look to earlier decisions to inform later ones and if we keep this up, I'm wondering what's gonna be left when the dust settles.

 

[Eddie G]

I agree that criteria should be set, but I still don't agree with the community following ban criteria set by other fighting game communities for their games.

In essence, MK isn't really the main issue that disturbs me, but rather the ban criteria (or criteria reflection in general) that is followed.

It just seems...flawed. Call it a gut feeling I suppose.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I agree that criteria should be set, but I still don't agree with the community following ban criteria set by other fighting game communities for their games.

In essence, MK isn't really the main issue that disturbs me, but rather the ban criteria (or criteria reflection in general) that is followed.

It just seems...flawed. Call it a gut feeling I suppose.

Ok, then what do you propose?


Understand though, it wasn't built for "other fighting games" it was built for competitive gaming in general and it wasn't really a criteria so much as a set of principals. We only derive a criteria from that set of principals.

 

[HeroMystic]

If Jesus were to be discovered in this thread, I think he would beat Metaknight.

No, he could convert him to being a priest and lay his sword down in the pursuit of happiness.

But enough on practicing my troll skills, since this thread picked back up.

But yeah, I agree with what you're saying, but I would just keep it in this thread instead of making a new one.

Fair enough. Here's what I remember:

Pro-Ban

-Metaknight overcentralizes the Metagame. By that, it is meant that many balance aspects of the game, like tier lists and character rankings, are dictated by Metaknight.
-Metaknight dominates the tournament scene. By this, it is meant that many players either mains, or seconds Metaknight and he makes up for at least 70% of the players there. Keep in mind, you don't need to win in order to dominate, though it doesn't make it nearly as convincing.
-Metaknight discourages low/mid-level play. To the point where we lose more players than we gain, making an unhealthy metagame.
-Metaknight has no disadvantgeous match-ups against over 30 characters. Heavily stated due to the fact this game relies on a CP system.
-Metaknight will kill Brawl. Due to heavy centralization, Metaknight has the ability to kill Brawl because of his absurd amount of "gay" options and being the best character in the game by a considerable margin.

Anti-Ban

-Metaknight does not meet the ban critera. He is not broken, just too good. There's a difference. He has no unblockable attack, or an "instant win" button. Banning him just absurd.
-Slippery Slope Fallacy. Banning Metaknight as he is now just allows more characters to be set up for ban. Do we allow Snake to be banned for his grenade camping or Diddy to be banned for his banana shenanigans?
-Let the Metagame develop. Melee is still a game that is changing. Brawl may not have nearly as much technical depth but things are still being discovered.
-Metaknight is beatable. Many players despite the match-ups have the ability to defeat MK. While the player does have to outwit the MK player, it's by no means unbeatable.
-Get Better. Or in other words, no Johns. MK is the best character in the game. Of course he's going to be a hard fight, but players already proved by beating the defeating the best MK main in the country that he beatable.

Evidence for Pro-ban: Pound 4 Results, Tier list, character rankings.
Evidence for Anti-Ban: Sirin's, The Ban critera, Pound 4 Results.

Let me know if I missed anything.

 

[Eddie G]

Ok, then what do you propose?


Understand though, it wasn't built for "other fighting games" it was built for competitive gaming in general and it wasn't really a criteria so much as a set of principals. We only derive a criteria from that set of principals.

I've got nothing to propose at the moment, sorry. I haven't really thought about it.

I understand. :3

 

[adumbrodeus]

I've got nothing to propose at the moment, sorry. I haven't really thought about it.

I understand. :3

Then maybe the proper next step would be a meeting of the minds to establish as a community, the criteria require in order to ban things.


Truth be told, I'd love MK to be covered due to my "marth main" grudge against him as a character, but nobody seems willing to go about figuring out whether he's bannable in a comprehensive manner, which leaves us with just throwing biases at each other and getting nowhere.

 

[hotgarbage]

Hmph, I found this (somewhat old) blip interesting, as it seems to contradict his other statements on the subject. Thought I'd throw it out there :0

The top 8 finals for Soul Calibur were really exiting, as I knew they would be, but not for the greatest reason. It was all about Hilde's bull**** ring out combos. My friend Cedric made top 8 (winner's side!) using Hilde and I thought he'd win the whole tournament. Another Hilde made top 8 with the same tactics. We saw several matches with Hilde where she won all six rounds with ring out, ha. When this happened, half the crowd was laughing at the ridiculousness of this obviously unfair combo. The other half was booing and yelling out curses at Hilde. Everyone was excited and yelling.

Hilde seems to cause a great divide in the Soul Calibur 4 scene. Should she banned? Is she already "soft banned"? (Apparently not!) Will she be fixed? (She already was in the PSP version, apparently.) The people sitting near me during the finals joked that apparently the Hilde bull**** is fair after all, considering both Hilde's lost. The Ivy player, who I hear usually does all sorts of interesting things, played with a super boring turtle style and was able to beat Hilde. No problem then, right? Ha.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Hmph, I found this (somewhat old) blip interesting, as it seems to contradict his other statements on the subject. Thought I'd throw it out there :0:

Can you post the link?

 

[HeroMystic]

Funny how that quote seems awfully similar to what we're going through currently.

 

[Overswarm]

Ok, then what do you propose?

A common sense approach involving all of the factors the character affects, and inciting only global changes that only change the frequency of events rather than the quality of events. (That means we get rid of a character instead of doing thing like "ban tornado" to make him weaker)

Take a close look at the following list. It gives a lot of information!

1 Meta Knight (168 top8, 117 top4, 67 top2, 67 wins, 419 total) - 3699.1
2 Snake (128 top8, 67 top4, 44 top2, 52 wins, 291 total) - 2503.1

A Rank «Overused» 24.28%
3 Diddy Kong (80 top8, 33 top4, 22 top2, 21 wins, 156 total) - 1126.6
4 Marth (41 top8, 40 top4, 17 top2, 13 wins, 111 total) - 919.8
5 Falco (56 top8, 34 top4, 20 top2, 10 wins, 120 total) - 803.9
6 Ice Climbers (47 top8, 22 top4, 21 top2, 15 wins, 105 total) - 659.9

B Rank «Standard» 11.92%
7 Wario (47 top8, 26 top4, 8 top2, 12 wins, 93 total) - 528.2

(http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=165954)

What do these characters all have in common? They all do better vs. MK than those listed below them.

This gives us three potential answers to why the top 7 on that list are the top 7.

The first is that these characters are all simply better characters. They're all stronger, have better matchups across the board, aren't hard countered, do well on multiple stages, etc., etc. This may be due to the rulesets they play under, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

The second is that people are randomly picking up characters they find "fun" and they happen to be these 7, and it is totally coincidental.

The third is that these characters all simply have the best matchups against MK, and MK has determined who is tournament viable.


While one could argue that "these are just good characters", that's ignoring the multiple bad matchups that 2-7 have and the good qualities the characters below them have. If MK were removed from the game, do you really think D3 would be that low? What about Kirby, or ROB? Alternatively, would Snake and Diddy be that high when these other characters aren't taken out by MK (either by being beaten by MK or by the players maining him dropping him for MK)?

It's infinitely more likely that the better matchup vs. MK you have, the better chances you have in tournament. Falco might have trouble with Kirby and ICs and get owned running into them in bracket (this actually happened, come to think of it), but it is infinitely more likely you'll see Falco play vs. MK. If Falco can play vs. MK, he can place highly in tournament. If he can place highly in tournament, you'll see more MKs.

1 Meta Knight (168 top8, 117 top4, 67 top2, 67 wins, 419 total) - 3699.1
2 Snake (128 top8, 67 top4, 44 top2, 52 wins, 291 total) - 2503.1

A Rank «Overused» 24.28%
3 Diddy Kong (80 top8, 33 top4, 22 top2, 21 wins, 156 total) - 1126.6

Metaknight: 3699.1
Snake and Diddy combined: 3629.7

The two characters below MK combined are beaten by MK. They just barely bring it close to even.

You'll also find that both Snake and Diddy Kong have "hero" players: ADHD and Ally. People used to say MK had a "hero" player in Mew2King, but now it's just a league of high-tier MK mains.


This is pretty much the definition of over-centralization. You've got one character that has better placements than the 2nd and 3rd place character combined and he has single handedly determined who is tournament viable.

I believe this alone puts him on the "watch list" for banning, and I don't think many people could disagree with that he's an issue. While some can play the "there's always a best character" card, that's more of a cop out and less of an argument. Just because there is a best character doesn't mean we should allow any dominant character to do what they please.


So now that we know to look at MK, have data showing that he is overcentralizing the metagame, and showing that for all intents and purposes there is no consistent matchup that defeats MK, what do we look for?

For one, what people want is important. If 100% of the people want Metaknight banned, regardless of the reason, he should be banned. Keep in mind I said 100%. The idea I'm trying to illustrate is that this is that while we should have competitive integrity, this is still a game that is ultimately played for enjoyment. If an entire room full of people says "we should ban metaknight", your tournament with that room of people should ban metaknight. If one guy says "But I main Metaknight and don't want you to...", it gets a little muddy.

The public MK ban vote won 100% of the time. All 4 votes had MK banned as the result. The SBR polls were close, some with MK ban winning and some with MK ban failing. The only reason MK is not banned at this moment is because the SBR didn't reach 2/3rds majority to ban him. Not close to 100%, but it shows this is not an unpopular decision and certainly in the realm of possibility. Looking at the names in the votes, you'll see that the high-tier smashers are on both sides of the fence.


http://lueshi.info/upload/images/metaknight.pdf

^PDF of the old MK debate

We also have ban criteria set:

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it
is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

A- Everything we have banned in Super Smash Brothers history has met both of these
criteria, and
B – Besides Metaknight, there is nothing we have yet to ban that satisfied both of these
criteria.

This is a retroactive ban criteria. It was created by looking at what we HAVE banned in the past. Items, stages, techniques, etc.

For those that want to ban MK because he's "broken", you'd have to define broken. Most anti-ban people define broken as thus:

"Functional definition for "broken": Character somehow ignores game mechanics, cannot
be beaten, or has some random uncontrollable effect. Metaknight does not bend the rules
of smash to bypass hit stun, DI, KOs, free movement, or other concepts familiar to smash
game play."

If this is the case, Metaknight should be broken if he has IDC, but we banned that already so we're good to go in that area.

Unfortunately, their "broken" criteria allows the banning of Ice Climbers and was created not by precedent in the smash community, but by precedent in other games. Oh well.


So how you define "broken" is really up to you. Something doesn't have to be broken to be banned though; if this was the case we wouldn't have banned items but instead turned them to "low" and only added "food" and other small items.

If you take the time to look at all of these results anyone with good judgment can see that
the word “dominant” may need to be reexamined. Mew2King, one of the best Melee
players and arguably the best Brawl player easily pours countless hours until the point of
obsession attempting to make this “broken” character invincible, and yet Ally has a
winning record of 2-1 in regards to out-placing (obtaining 1st place) over Mew2King in
this season.
Moving back to the results you’ll notice that Meta Knight is not taking every top spot,
does not congest the top places, and at multiple occasions is barely present. Among the
top placements, you can find a multitude of characters such as Snake, Wario, Marth,
Diddy Kong, DDD, Falco, Olimar, and Ice Climbers.
There are many non-Metaknight mains including Ally who have trained their characters
to be more than a force to reckon with such as Anther’s Pikachu, Fiction’s Wario, DEHF
and SK92’s Falco, mikeHAZE and NEO’s Marth, Razer’s Snake, Atomsk’s DDD, Lain
and Meep’s Ice Climbers, and ADHD and Ninjalink’s Diddy just to name a few. If you
compare the top Metaknight player’s such as Mew2King, Tyrant, and Dojo they only
make up a small fraction of a large talented whole.

Since then, our Metaknight roster has increase drastically and the other character's with "hero" mains have either lost their heroes or have yet to show any increase in that character as a whole. You'll also find that their "top placement" characters is close to what Ankoku has for his list now; the only difference is those that did poorly vs. MK have dropped drastically while others have stayed the same or risen based on that matchup.


Another of their arguments was thus:

Once Metaknight was determined to be the best character in the game, there was a huge
flock for players to jump on the “best character” bandwagon which caused Metaknight’s
character development to increase at an alarming rate. The rest of the character’s quickly
became fixated on creating a strategy to beat Metaknight and through the journey have
discovered techniques that apply to both Metaknight and the rest of the cast.
It is reckless to ban a character when the metagame, reflected through character
techniques and tournament results, continues to grow and evolve.

It's been a bit longer now, and Metaknight's effect on the metagame has grown stronger. What's more, the pro-ban predictions have all come true to the letter. MK mains continue to flourish, almost everyone good picks up an MK secondary, and the only non-MKs you have left at the top of the tournament scene are Smash Heroes that main someone who has a decent matchup against MK.

Since MK has no bad matchups, at worst having theoretical "even" matchups, you'll find that the MK secondary is almost universal regardless of the main.

Metaknight has been explored to the point where stalling has been a major issue with the
character. However, the two primary methods of stalling already have solutions, and are
no longer evidence for a ban. The IDC has already been formally banned and is no longer
an issue. Planking is banned in some areas, but this problem is not specific to Metaknight.
Even more specifically, the Dojo vs DEHF ruling from Genesis was not a situation with
Metaknight, rather just a poor judgment call. Any basis that would further extend past the
basic definition of a ban for a more specific criterion has no application to this debate.

We had to ban IDC, and the planking ban is still a huge issue... and involves only MK. Since this statement, we have seen discussion on air time limits, ledge grab limits, ledge grab limits for MK only, limitations on gliding under the stage, and auto-losses for MK if the timer runs out. These things have far from been resolved.






Metaknight's usage has gone up. Usage of non-MK characters has gone down. Usage of characters that specifically do well against Metaknight have gone up.

With Metaknight continuing to rise, having a grand total of TWO non-MK using players in the top 8 at pound 4.... can you really say "this one guy totally didn't lose to MK" as a basis for not banning him?



A better question is "why not", really.

 

[hotgarbage]

Can you post the link?

What I quoted is all he says on the subject, but here it is anyways. It's at the bottom of the page.

Funny how that quote seems awfully similar to what we're going through currently.

It does parallel it very nicely, though our situation seems much more severe.

 

[etecoon]

Metaknight's usage has gone up. Usage of non-MK characters has gone down. Usage of characters that specifically do well against Metaknight have gone up.

unfortunately, if this makes MK more worthy of a ban, it also makes him less likely to be banned doesn't it? if I switch to diddy for his great vs MK matchup and practice a lot so he's my new main, why would I want MK banned so that peach and luigi players could suddenly threaten me? if I go snake why do I want MK gone so DDD is far more common? the BBR said this wasn't up for discussion for at least a year, and over time people have less and less personal reason to ban MK as they either pick MK themselves, a character that does better vs MK, or quit, so I'd think over time a ban becomes less likely because in the process of adapting to MK's existence, people become dependent on him even if they picked a different viable character

 

[Overswarm]

unfortunately, if this makes MK more worthy of a ban, it also makes him less likely to be banned doesn't it? if I switch to diddy for his great vs MK matchup and practice a lot so he's my new main, why would I want MK banned so that peach and luigi players could suddenly threaten me? if I go snake why do I want MK gone so DDD is far more common? the BBR said this wasn't up for discussion for at least a year, and over time people have less and less personal reason to ban MK as they either pick MK themselves, a character that does better vs MK, or quit, so I'd think over time a ban becomes less likely

It's true. Unfortunately, anti-ban has the advantage in that they can just dismiss things (and have) and say "it's too soon" or "it's too late" depending on how the game is going.

When we tried to ban MK the first time, we were told it was too soon. Now all of anti-ban's old arguments have changed or fallen apart and ours have only grown.... but many could say they aren't a big fan of the potential change since it hurts them. The whole "I've spent so much time on this character" argument.

 

[Ripple]

**** good read overswarm, **** good read

 

[Overswarm]

**** good read overswarm, **** good read

I miss our ROB vs. DK matches.

 

[Kuraudo]

If the Brawl Back Room has opted for the factor of, "I've spent so much time on this character", that is the weakest anti-ban argument I have ever heard. I sincerely hope that no one actually defends Meta Knight for such a reason. I agree with absolutely everything that Overswarm, if not most of the Pro-Ban debaters, have said.

And looking back on the arguments that the anti-ban had, before when Brawl's metagame was flourishing and constantly changed, I remained neutral but agreed with the idea of waiting before officially banning Meta Knight, simply because of it "being too soon"

Now?

Well...not much I can say that everyone else has said. Smash Bros. is too popular of a series to die out, even if we keep on the anti-ban side of things and Meta Knight stays around. All that will be left is something akin to Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Whereas Storm, Magneto, Cable, and Sentinel are your only hope if you are skilled. (The term "only" can be widely stretched when you think of Hero players as Overswarm has mentioned)

Feel free to stick an apple in my mouth and shut me up, anyone, if this is out of line to compare.

Meta Knight overcentralizes the Brawl Metagame, just as the God Tiers (Storm, Magneto, Cable, and Sentinel) overcentralize the Marvel vs. Capcom 2 Metagame. The only reason that they aren't banned is because...well, to be honest I'm not quite sure. Probably because they aren't Akuma of Street Fighter 2 HD or whatever. Point being is that I can draw a similarity in how people who main the lower tier'd characters feel about the situation.

Not to cater to them, but...ah hell I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.

tl;dr version, I agree with Pro-Ban, ban Meta Knight, ggz.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yet you side-step the central point. Yes, MK does centralize the metagame, but so do all top characters. You never differentiate between reasonable centralization and what truly overcentralizes.


Worse, you don't even have a criteria to establish the difference.


That's what I'm holding out for, and I'm not alone on this. I see what's going on with our metagame right now, and this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back if we don't do it with properly comprehensive justification that is universally applicable but at the same times covers only what is absolutely necessary.


As you yourself said overswarm, once banned it's very difficult for things to be unbanned, and if we set a precedent of irresponsible banning then we only have ourselves to blame when the metagame is gutted by future arbitrary bans. We already have popular match-up surgery, why do you think it will end here?



TL;DR: what you have is information what you lack is a true criteria. That is your next step. I already gave a starting point, perhaps debating off that would allow us to form a standard that is universally agreed upon.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

unfortunately, if this makes MK more worthy of a ban, it also makes him less likely to be banned doesn't it? if I switch to diddy for his great vs MK matchup and practice a lot so he's my new main, why would I want MK banned so that peach and luigi players could suddenly threaten me? if I go snake why do I want MK gone so DDD is far more common? the BBR said this wasn't up for discussion for at least a year, and over time people have less and less personal reason to ban MK as they either pick MK themselves, a character that does better vs MK, or quit, so I'd think over time a ban becomes less likely because in the process of adapting to MK's existence, people become dependent on him even if they picked a different viable character

its sad but true. I think the next question is, should we tolerate MKs current presence? Or do we continue to do as the quote above suggested and "join the other legions of MKs"?

 

[Kuraudo]

Yet you side-step the central point. Yes, MK does centralize the metagame, but so do all top characters. You never differentiate between reasonable centralization and what truly overcentralizes.

( I did read everything you said, in case you think I'm nitpicking out a part of your post. ^^; )

I think, as beaten to death as this point has been made out to be, that unlike Meta Knight, all of the other top characters have options that are capable of being shut down by characters below or around them. And unlike MK, do not have a grand plethora of other options when one gets shut down, to compensate. That's what makes them fly under the radar. They have glaring weaknesses when compared to Meta Knight, and therefore, are a more respected list of characters that are "too good"

Narrow-minded as my statement could be, it's my observation of the top tier cast from that stand-point as to why MK centralizes the metagame far beyond anyone else.

 

[Overswarm]

Yet you side-step the central point. Yes, MK does centralize the metagame, but so do all top characters. You never differentiate between reasonable centralization and what truly overcentralizes.


Worse, you don't even have a criteria to establish the difference.


That's what I'm holding out for, and I'm not alone on this. I see what's going on with our metagame right now, and this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back if we don't do it with properly comprehensive justification that is universally applicable but at the same times covers only what is absolutely necessary.


As you yourself said overswarm, once banned it's very difficult for things to be unbanned, and if we set a precedent of irresponsible banning then we only have ourselves to blame when the metagame is gutted by future arbitrary bans. We already have popular match-up surgery, why do you think it will end here?



TL;DR: what you have is information what you lack is a true criteria. That is your next step. I already gave a starting point, perhaps debating off that would allow us to form a standard that is universally agreed upon.

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it
is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

A- Everything we have banned in Super Smash Brothers history has met both of these
criteria, and
B – Besides Metaknight, there is nothing we have yet to ban that satisfied both of these
criteria.


As listed in the post. What we need from that is information and motive. We have both.

The "slippery slope" argument is a little old; Snake, Diddy, ICs, Wario, they ALL have bad matchups and bad stages. Metaknight has consistently shown that he does not.

 

[Diddyknight]

Nice explanation OverSwarm.

 

[HeroMystic]

unfortunately, if this makes MK more worthy of a ban, it also makes him less likely to be banned doesn't it?

That would actually fall under this:

Pro-Ban

-Metaknight will kill Brawl. Due to heavy centralization, Metaknight has the ability to kill Brawl because of his absurd amount of "gay" options and being the best character in the game by a considerable margin.

It also falls under the counterargument of the Anti-ban's argument of "let the metagame develop" because by that time the damage would've already been done, as it was said at the first MK ban thread.

@Adumbrodeus: Can you repost your criteria? Sorry, but I hardly remember a thing about it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it
is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

A- Everything we have banned in Super Smash Brothers history has met both of these
criteria, and
B – Besides Metaknight, there is nothing we have yet to ban that satisfied both of these
criteria.


As listed in the post. What we need from that is information and motive. We have both.

The "slippery slope" argument is a little old; Snake, Diddy, ICs, Wario, they ALL have bad matchups and bad stages. Metaknight has consistently shown that he does not.

Define "alien", define "decreasing quality". Those are wiggle words I can apply to just about anything.


What I'm ASKING FOR is a hard criteria, numbers, unambiguous. Something we can debate over and preferably compromise over.



As far as "slippery slope", this is more a reductio ad absurdum and a recognition of the community's adherence to precedent. Note that I didn't discuss characters, I discussed stages and match-up surgery, both of which you've commented on before. The fact that the majority of the community seems fine with conducting match-up surgery to make DK viable suggests that I am correct about being concerned.

@Adumbrodeus: Can you repost your criteria? Sorry, but I hardly remember a thing about it.

50%+1 of the cast rendered non-viable.

I did a full explanation (including strictly defining potential wiggle words) in my blog post, that said discussing what exactly those strict definitions would be is a good area to work on.

 

[Ripple]

50%+1 of the cast rendered non-viable.
.

MK has a 65-35 or better on 17 characters in the cast. 16 if you just count PT as 1.

and for the sake of argument, we'll consider a character with 65-35 or worse to be non-viable


37/2= 18.5

19 characters must be rendered unviable according to you criteria

19>16

MK is not ban worthy with adumbrodeus' criteria

 

[Flayl]

and for the sake of argument, we'll consider a character with 65-35 or worse to be non-viable

lol smashboards (not directed to you Ripple)

 

[Overswarm]

Define "alien", define "decreasing quality". Those are wiggle words I can apply to just about anything.


What I'm ASKING FOR is a hard criteria, numbers, unambiguous. Something we can debate over and preferably compromise over.

What you're asking is for is a different set of arbitrary data. I recognize that the decision to ban anything is arbitrary sans 100% dominance (which cannot happen due to human error). As I understand it is arbitrary, rather than focusing on a rigid, arbtirary number system I look at the game as a whole and refer only to things Metaknight has an affect on. To say "MK should be banned if he wins X % of monies", "MK should be banned if he has Y amount of points on ankoku's chart", or anything of the sort is sillyness that is looking for justification.

Don't hide behind numbers; they are merely data that can be interpreted. Look at the game as a whole. Setting rigid banning criteria is setting yourself up for mistakes or failure.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What you're asking is for is a different set of arbitrary data. I recognize that the decision to ban anything is arbitrary sans 100% dominance (which cannot happen due to human error). As I understand it is arbitrary, rather than focusing on a rigid, arbtirary number system I look at the game as a whole and refer only to things Metaknight has an affect on. To say "MK should be banned if he wins X % of monies", "MK should be banned if he has Y amount of points on ankoku's chart", or anything of the sort is sillyness that is looking for justification.

Don't hide behind numbers; they are merely data that can be interpreted. Look at the game as a whole. Setting rigid banning criteria is setting yourself up for mistakes or failure.

No, this is prior to numbers, there's already plenty of numbers, criteria is merely a CONTEXT through which we view numbers.


No, it's not, just the opposite, not having a rigid criteria is setting yourself up for exactly the problems that we have right now, nobody can agree on what is banworthy and that makes every decision arbitrary. The result? A 500+ page result that bans every conceivable point of minutia.




And as I've stated before, criteria should draw from the attributes of the character themselves, both of those example criteria are ridiculous for the same reason, it draws on the players not the character. Empirical evidence should be used as a check on a deductive conclusion, not in place of one.

 

[HeroMystic]

What makes me scratch my head is that Adum's criteria doesn't reflect upon just one individual being classified as God Tier. Currently, Fox in melee has no bad match-ups either, but he's often has to compete with Marth, Falco, Shiek, and the upcoming Jigglypuff in tournament results. That doesn't make Fox banworthy because of slippery slope fallacy.

But in Brawl we have Metaknight with an extremely high tournament domination and practically dictates the rest of the character rankings due to the fact that the Brawl tournament scene heavily relies on the Counterpick system for players to advance to the next match, something Melee isn't "hindered" by.

Metaknight does not make 50%(+1) of characters unviable, that is fact. However, I can't say Brawl should be judged by this due to the CP system, where at least one character has a counter (hard or soft), some more than others, and they wipe out the majority of the competition which allows those characters to fight the "undisputed champion" Metaknight. This is what I mean when I say he dictates the tournament scene.

Adding on the fact that Metaknight used to be in his own tier once to represent his extremely high tournament numbers, and yeah, I think you can see where I'm getting at with this.

 

[Overswarm]

No, this is prior to numbers, there's already plenty of numbers, criteria is merely a CONTEXT through which we view numbers.


No, it's not, just the opposite, not having a rigid criteria is setting yourself up for exactly the problems that we have right now, nobody can agree on what is banworthy and that makes every decision arbitrary. The result? A 500+ page result that bans every conceivable point of minutia.

AZ had rigid criteria for Genesis; it was achieved at Pound. Others have rigid criteria that it doesn't matter if MK takes every spot in a tournament as long as it isn't #1.

Setting arbitrary rigid criteria is a losing strategy.

If you set the criteria too low, things get banned earlier. If you set it too high (often the case), nothing gets banned.

What's worse is that when the SBR selected criteria for banning, everyone's criteria either fit or didn't fit Metaknight at the time it was made... for their respective side. If we did it again, we would have the same issue.

All you need is motive and data, and then its a discussion that has to take place. Setting arbitrary criteria that can't move is a recipe for failure.

If you can somehow quantify how many Metaknights are needed to create a problem you could theoretically do it, but this is unlikely. This even less likely when matchup ratios are in themselves inherently biased.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

My issue with MK is not that he is unbeatable (Diddy may very well "counter" him, although I have my doubts and feel that long-term, MK will win that match-up) but that we have to create special rules just for him. Planking, circling etc. rules and ledge-grab limits are all primarily in place to stop MK from timing out matches after he gains a slight lead or doing other similar things.

If we are putting rules in place that stop MK from playing to win, then MK is bannable. Not because he is "overcentralizing" (and believe me, he might be; there's more to "overcentralization" than how many people are playing him) but because obviously he is broken in a capacity that requires us to create rules especially tailored to him. Even Pit is more easily dealt with when he attempts to Plank or circle camp.

This does not mean that we are required to ban him, simply that by the rules set and commonly associated with those required to ban a character, MK does in fact fit the criteria. I've heard rumors that Sirlin himself would have banned MK a long time ago, which will undoubtedly surprise those of you who hump his leg.

MK is inarguably a bannable character.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What makes me scratch my head is that Adum's criteria doesn't reflect upon just one individual being classified as God Tier. Currently, Fox in melee has no bad match-ups either, but he's often has to compete with Marth, Falco, Shiek, and the upcoming Jigglypuff in tournament results. That doesn't make Fox banworthy because of slippery slope fallacy.

But in Brawl we have Metaknight with an extremely high tournament domination and practically dictates the rest of the character rankings due to the fact that the Brawl tournament scene heavily relies on the Counterpick system for players to advance to the next match, something Melee isn't "hindered" by.

Metaknight does not make 50%(+1) of characters unviable, that is fact. However, I can't say Brawl should be judged by this due to the CP system, where at least one character has a counter (hard or soft), some more than others, and they wipe out the majority of the competition which allows those characters to fight the "undisputed champion" Metaknight. This is what I mean when I say he dictates the tournament scene.

Adding on the fact that Metaknight used to be in his own tier once to represent his extremely high tournament numbers, and yeah, I think you can see where I'm getting at with this.

Perhaps you might've understood better if you read the linked blog. "Renders nonviable" is a perfect example of a wiggle term which is precisely why I chose to define unambiguously there.

AZ had rigid criteria for Genesis; it was achieved at Pound. Others have rigid criteria that it doesn't matter if MK takes every spot in a tournament as long as it isn't #1.

Setting arbitrary rigid criteria is a losing strategy.

If you set the criteria too low, things get banned earlier. If you set it too high (often the case), nothing gets banned.

What's worse is that when the SBR selected criteria for banning, everyone's criteria either fit or didn't fit Metaknight at the time it was made... for their respective side. If we did it again, we would have the same issue.

All you need is motive and data, and then its a discussion that has to take place. Setting arbitrary criteria that can't move is a recipe for failure.

If you can somehow quantify how many Metaknights are needed to create a problem you could theoretically do it, but this is unlikely. This even less likely when matchup ratios are in themselves inherently biased.

Who said I was suggesting an arbitrary criteria? I backed up the criteria with reference to a theoretical framework and included citations, you know, how people develop these sorts of things in the real world. I included the reasoning in the linked blog post.


Without a criteria, we're destined for failure because people will simply vote with their biases, and nothing will be accomplished besides a headcount of peoples' biases. And when we establish that precedent, it will be repeated each and every following discussion, with the final result being that we'll be banning whatever the hell people feel like banning at the time.




edit:

My issue with MK is not that he is unbeatable (Diddy may very well "counter" him, although I have my doubts and feel that long-term, MK will win that match-up) but that we have to create special rules just for him. Planking, circling etc. rules and ledge-grab limits are all primarily in place to stop MK from timing out matches after he gains a slight lead or doing other similar things.

If we are putting rules in place that stop MK from playing to win, then MK is bannable. Not because he is "overcentralizing" (and believe me, he might be; there's more to "overcentralization" than how many people are playing him) but because obviously he is broken in a capacity that requires us to create rules especially tailored to him. Even Pit is more easily dealt with when he attempts to Plank or circle camp.

This does not mean that we are required to ban him, simply that by the rules set and commonly associated with those required to ban a character, MK does in fact fit the criteria. I've heard rumors that Sirlin himself would have banned MK a long time ago, which will undoubtedly surprise those of you who hump his leg.

MK is inarguably a bannable character.

Circle camping is just stalling, why people have persisted to allow it when stalling has been banned since day 1 baffles me. It's just as broken as every other form of stalling, no more, no less.



Planking, since when was that proven bannable?



As for Sirlin's opinion, proof? And even if he does, he's a theorist, his writings are useful to establish a baseline reasoning and only because they are logical. If he just randomly woke up one morning and decided "hey, mk should be banned", then it would be irrelevant. If he wrote up an in-depth proof, then it's worth considering.

 

[Overswarm]

Without a criteria, we're destined for failure because people will simply vote with their biases, and nothing will be accomplished besides a headcount of peoples' biases.

And with a criteria, we'll ban or not ban him based off of arbitrary criteria. The position of whoever sets the criteria would determine whether or not he is banned.

You can reference whatever you'd like, but it is still irrelevant. You either want MK banned or you don't. There will always be a "what if" scenario, a "just wait and see" scenario, and a "it goes against competition" scenario. Always. The only way you can convince 100% of the people is if he won 100% of the tournaments out there and every other placement.

 

[adumbrodeus]

And with a criteria, we'll ban or not ban him based off of arbitrary criteria. The position of whoever sets the criteria would determine whether or not he is banned.

You can reference whatever you'd like, but it is still irrelevant. You either want MK banned or you don't. There will always be a "what if" scenario, a "just wait and see" scenario, and a "it goes against competition" scenario. Always. The only way you can convince 100% of the people is if he won 100% of the tournaments out there and every other placement.

That's why we it gets discussed and compromised on first, BEFORE it gets accepted.


Honestly, why didn't we do this FOREVER ago? Like you know, back during the early days of the SBR?



Regardless, deriving a criteria from a set of principals designed to govern exactly this situation is not arbitrary, it's the exact opposite of arbitrary.

 

[Overswarm]

That's why we it gets discussed and compromised on first, BEFORE it gets accepted.


Honestly, why didn't we do this FOREVER ago? Like you know, back during the early days of the SBR?



Regardless, deriving a criteria from a set of principals designed to govern exactly this situation is not arbitrary, it's the exact opposite of arbitrary.

We did. Tried to, anyway. Like I said, the principles regarding this is arbitrary. You cannot change that in any way shape or form with the exception of Metaknight's dominance at 100%.

I know what you're trying to say, but you're heading in the wrong direction.

This:

Regardless, deriving a criteria from a set of principals designed to govern exactly this situation is not arbitrary, it's the exact opposite of arbitrary.

can be translated to this:

"Just write why you think something should be banned and then we'll follow that"

They mean the same thing and have the same results. Your idea of having banning criteria might have merit if we didn't already have a character that could be used as an example of what needs to be banned.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

What makes me scratch my head is that Adum's criteria doesn't reflect upon just one individual being classified as God Tier. Currently, Fox in melee has no bad match-ups either, but he's often has to compete with Marth, Falco, Shiek, and the upcoming Jigglypuff in tournament results. That doesn't make Fox banworthy because of slippery slope fallacy.

But in Brawl we have Metaknight with an extremely high tournament domination and practically dictates the rest of the character rankings due to the fact that the Brawl tournament scene heavily relies on the Counterpick system for players to advance to the next match, something Melee isn't "hindered" by.

Metaknight does not make 50%(+1) of characters unviable, that is fact. However, I can't say Brawl should be judged by this due to the CP system, where at least one character has a counter (hard or soft), some more than others, and they wipe out the majority of the competition which allows those characters to fight the "undisputed champion" Metaknight. This is what I mean when I say he dictates the tournament scene.

Adding on the fact that Metaknight used to be in his own tier once to represent his extremely high tournament numbers, and yeah, I think you can see where I'm getting at with this.

No fighting game is inherently based on a CP system.

Even look at SF4, Sagat and Ryu have no counters. Ryu just has a bunch of neutrals with advantages mostly around the low tier, a balanced top tier.

Sagat on the other hand is MK like 6-4 most of the cast, with a few 7-3's. He does have some neutrals, Ryu, Akuma, and Dhalsim, but for the most part he wrecks the cast.

Now while he isn't as good as MK, he seems to share the same trait with the being uncounterable.

My issue with MK is not that he is unbeatable (Diddy may very well "counter" him, although I have my doubts and feel that long-term, MK will win that match-up) but that we have to create special rules just for him. Planking, circling etc. rules and ledge-grab limits are all primarily in place to stop MK from timing out matches after he gains a slight lead or doing other similar things.

If we are putting rules in place that stop MK from playing to win, then MK is bannable. Not because he is "overcentralizing" (and believe me, he might be; there's more to "overcentralization" than how many people are playing him) but because obviously he is broken in a capacity that requires us to create rules especially tailored to him. Even Pit is more easily dealt with when he attempts to Plank or circle camp.

This does not mean that we are required to ban him, simply that by the rules set and commonly associated with those required to ban a character, MK does in fact fit the criteria. I've heard rumors that Sirlin himself would have banned MK a long time ago, which will undoubtedly surprise those of you who hump his leg.

MK is inarguably a bannable character.

This is a good supporting argument.

 

[Kewkky]

And when we establish that precedent, it will be repeated each and every following discussion, with the final result being that we'll be banning whatever the hell people feel like banning at the time.

No, this is the mindset of slippery-slope. What I don't know is, how can anti-ban ever think that people will want to ban Snake or Diddy afterwards? These characters, unlike MK, have clear disadvantages and can be worked around even by their advantaged MUs. MK can only be worked around at the top of his game by what, 2 characters? MK has too many "greats" and I barely even see any cons to him as a whole, at least Snake and Diddy have exploitable weaknesses that are humanely possible to reach with more than just "the characters with close-to-even-yet-disadvantaged-anyway" MUs.

Circle camping is just stalling, why people have persisted to allow it when stalling has been banned since day 1 baffles me. It's just as broken as every other form of stalling, no more, no less.

Well, it clearly is because some TOs are just stupid. here is no other definition for what they are, people plank and camp and stall in their tourneys as MK and they just let it slide. When was the last time you heard a TO disqualify a player for stalling?

What makes them even stupider is the fact that they create these easy-to-bend rules and expect MK players to be fair and abide them. And when people complain to the TOs about planking/scrooging/whatever happening in their matches, the TOs just shrug off the victims because the rules weren't broken. Instead of just shrugging off the reality that is MK pissing off players, the TOs should be extremely strict with their rules and disqualify people as soon as the intent of planking/scrooging/whatever has been confirmed, instead of waiting on some craptastic rules to be met, such as "70 ledge-grabs".

Planking, since when was that proven bannable?

Let's see... Take a large sum of the characters in the game, give them a disadvantage in a match, and pit them against a planking MK, who is arguably the best defensive character in the game. How do you expect them to retake the lead? They will either increase their disadvantage by jumping off and attempting to hit MK/stagespike him where they will then get hit/die as a result of attempting to get him out of there (otherwise known as 'stalling'), or in the rarest case they will regain the advantage and fight to keep it against one of the best offensive characters in the game.

Pit, G&W, Marth (and whoever else who else) can plank, sure... But do they also have a great offensive:defensive game to boot? MK excels greatly in both of these stats, bypassing almost the entire cast in defensive AND offensive individually... Giving him the unfair advantage of having both those qualities, as well as one of the best gimping movesets in the game to punish people who would want to stop his planking/camping/whatever, is to much for the entire cast to handle at the best possible scenario.


Logic is great and all, but sometimes you just gotta stop being a theorist and open your eyes. MK dominating is painfully obvious, but deduction/reasoning in the anti-ban is clouded due to some criteria they desire not being present, or at times some data not being tallied.

 

[adumbrodeus]

We did. Tried to, anyway. Like I said, the principles regarding this is arbitrary. You cannot change that in any way shape or form with the exception of Metaknight's dominance at 100%.

I know what you're trying to say, but you're heading in the wrong direction.

Again, how so? we're referencing to an outside set of idea that are pretty much considered the definitive ruleset for banning, and then deriving a concrete criteria from that. How is that arbitrary?

can be translated to this:

"Just write why you think something should be banned and then we'll follow that"

They mean the same thing and have the same results. Your idea of having banning criteria might have merit if we didn't already have a character that could be used as an example of what needs to be banned.

Unfortunately, that is an issue and there's nothing we can do about it now.


That said, I think you're underestimating the amount of influence this could have, there seems to be a fair number of people who are "on the fence" as it were and have opinions similar to me in this regard, not the "hell no" group but the "prove it" group, the people who are waiting for a PtW derived criteria to be cemented that bans everything we should have banned, and doesn't ban anything that we don't.


And then we get useful data, get a statistically valid way of tracking results by character (ankoku's tracks centralization), redo the theoretical basis for MUs, then apply that to the criteria, and see what we come up with.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think it's really simple.

Remove the rule against planking. It isn't stalling, after all. Now, watch how many of MK's matchups go from "doable" to "virtually unwinnable" and how much of the cast he shuts down. After all, he already "shuts down" about 40% of the cast in his matchups; how many more would become unwinnable if planking was a legal, viable strategy? Metaknight would almost certainly shut down at least half, if not far more.

 

[Overswarm]

Again, how so? we're referencing to an outside set of idea that are pretty much considered the definitive ruleset for banning, and then deriving a concrete criteria from that. How is that arbitrary?

No, we're not. We're looking at Brawl.

If someone is working for a company and the company wants him fired, but doesn't have "criteria for firing", they fire him. Then the criteria is made based off the guy who got fired. They evaluate this and change it as time goes on.

During the meeting, those that want him fired would propose criteria that the guy would fit (so he'd be fired). Those that wanted the guy to stay would make criteria in the opposite direction.

As a result, the criteria would be set by the majority and there would never be a compromise.

That said, I think you're underestimating the amount of influence this could have, there seems to be a fair number of people who are "on the fence" as it were and have opinions similar to me in this regard, not the "hell no" group but the "prove it" group, the people who are waiting for a PtW derived criteria to be cemented that bans everything we should have banned, and doesn't ban anything that we don't.

No one is going to say "ban (character)". If they do, they won't be joined by many. We universally scoff at the idea of banning a character; MK has obviously broken the mold here.