Eddie G
Smash Hero
As if we've progressed anywhere to begin with.Arguing does no good when it doesn't contribute to the topic at hand.
Just throwing it out there.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
As if we've progressed anywhere to begin with.Arguing does no good when it doesn't contribute to the topic at hand.
Just throwing it out there.
You know, I can actually see what your coming from.I won't be giving any rules just to help the noobs out there, that would be anti competitive. This ain't Mario Kart wii. I don't care if this mentality was what ends up killing the game, i'd rather not play a game than just make concessions for people who aren't as good just to make them feel better.
This is why rules like banning d3s infinite make me sick and other rules. And yes, I am not "nice", I am 100% douche. This is a competitive forum about a game played in tournaments, play to win. Inui is right, I suck at being nice(even people irl know I act cold), and I also suck at English.
Now you can either suck it up and get better, or continue on saying that noobs matter, go whine about w/e character is beating you and continue on being terrible at the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_HominemI'm a little disgusted at the way you choose to represent your stance. Grow up.
Why, thank you, good sir!@Inui: Your posts are so much cooler when you post Phoenix Wright gifs XD
The tier lists are based on the higher levels of play indeed. Rules are based on the higher levels of play. Only high-level opinions tend to matter in the grand scheme of things.If the lower end of the game matters so much, why don't we have a tier list for lower level players? You guys don't ***** about the tier list only applying to the highest level, among other things.
If you're too bad to compete in this game, THAT SUCKS FOR YOU.
^This. This kind of thing has been happening for years. YEARS.You know why OS posted pictures and statistics?
Because that's what the Anti-Ban side was ****ing ASKING for!
That burns me up... =_=
I wasn't referring to learning curves, I was referring to how in brawl, character choice has a much larger outcome on a match than in melee. Or at least it just seems that way to me.Therefore you concluded that Melee Fox, even though he's the best character, is beatable because of his learning curve, therefore he's not bannable. But you switched this around for Metaknight saying he's bannable because he's the best character in the game while being easy to learn.
You have the analogy ***-backwards. Pro-ban is quite obviously the side employing creationist modes of thought.^This. This kind of thing has been happening for years. YEARS.
It's like arguing against creastionists. "Well I haven't seen you PROVE that we're wrong!"
People seems to forget that this game has been out for years. There is no mentality factor. There is no "laziness" factor (always laugh at this one). There is no "scrub level of play" factor. This is the metagame, plain and simple.
OS included 150+ tournaments only FOR A REASON. I don't see why people are talking about how banning metaknight caters to low levels of play. It doesn't (any more than it caters to high levels of play).
People love to view things in black + white. Wanna know why more people don't play metaknight? Because they're not willing to sacrifice everything to win. There's a negative stigma to using metaknight, and many of us do not wish to put up with the jokes, bad looks, or derisive comments that often come with using him. And all I can say is, thank you all for creating this negative stigma.
I don't care, it wasn't funny.
Just because I make a thread about something and give some proof doesn't automatically mean said proof is valid.OS has given yet more proof, and again, I hear anti-ban say "not good enough".
No worries, I have a good sense of humor. It's just something about the way you've represented your stance before the joke, funny guy.A fail joke disgusts you?
INTERNET: SUPER SERIOUS BUSINESS
Lighten up a little
That's the thing, even from a strict Sirlian prospective, we don't really have a criteria. The closest we have is a flat "50% of the cast hard-countered".No, it's not backwards. Anti-ban has asked for proof that MK is broken. And then it was given. They asked for more. It was given. I've seen endless arguments and listened to podcasts and this happens every time.
OS has given yet more proof, and again, I hear anti-ban say "not good enough".
So I ask..... What is good enough?
Nothing is without a criteria. That's what people need to do first. But in order to do that, the criteria must rest on evidence that hasn't been discovered yet otherwise each side will attempt to shape the criteria to match it's goals.So what exactly is valid proof, if the evidence here is not?
There have been multiple times I've heard anti-ban'ners ask for proof that the brawl scene is dying, they always seem to think the attendance is just as high or higher than it's ever been with the common "look at 'recent national tournament' 's attendance" response. Granted OS's chart doesn't show that the decline is due to MK, but people can no longer just disbelieve the fact that the competitive scene is dwindling, so it does serve some purpose, just not the whole purpose it attempted to prove.
Late in his post OS used a graph of Brawl tourney attendance decline. How does that bear any correlation to MK whatsoever? Graphs mean nothing if they're irrelevant.
Isn't it just going to come down to what people think is broken? Or rather for people who do agree on it.That's the thing, even from a strict Sirlian prospective, we don't really have a criteria. The closest we have is a flat "50% of the cast hard-countered".
That's always been my number 1 beef with this discussion, people were trying to prove MK was broken with no real standard as to what broken is.
This is so true. And EVERYONE knows it... yet we continue to bicker about it.That's the thing, even from a strict Sirlian prospective, we don't really have a criteria. The closest we have is a flat "50% of the cast hard-countered".
That's always been my number 1 beef with this discussion, people were trying to prove MK was broken with no real standard as to what broken is.
Except, the chart doesn't account for the possibility of reporting errors or secondary effects.There have been multiple times I've heard anti-ban'ners ask for proof that the brawl scene is dying, they always seem to think the attendance is just as high or higher than it's ever been with the common "look at 'recent national tournament' 's attendance" response. Granted OS's chart doesn't show that the decline is due to MK, but people can no longer just disbelieve the fact that the competitive scene is dwindling, so it does serve some purpose, just not the whole purpose it attempted to prove.
This is so true. And EVERYONE knows it... yet we continue to bicker about it.
We cannot continue to have a hung jury over the matter. There is no precedent to look up to. Many attempts have been made to establish one, but we can't seem to agree on that either (since it determines MK's fate). It's a vicious circle.
That's called "we ban whatever the **** we wanna ban".Isn't it just going to come down to what people think is broken? Or rather for people who do agree on it.
If people don't know what it is they have to draw a line for themselves.
Correlation does not prove causation.There have been multiple times I've heard anti-ban'ners ask for proof that the brawl scene is dying, they always seem to think the attendance is just as high or higher than it's ever been with the common "look at 'recent national tournament' 's attendance" response. Granted OS's chart doesn't show that the decline is due to MK, but people can no longer just disbelieve the fact that the competitive scene is dwindling, so it does serve some purpose, just not the whole purpose it attempted to prove.
Speaking of which I think it would be pertinent to try and revive your thread about what pro-ban needs to do to make steps towards a valid ban criteria. Tournament evidence, etc.Except, the chart doesn't account for the possibility of reporting errors or secondary effects.
It's just numbers from reported tournaments... self-selection bias much?
Well people need to ****ing get their a**es in gear and do something about it. I've talked to SBR people about it, and hopefully it will be a topic of discussion in the coming months.
But at the moment this discussion is pretty useless.
As I explained before, the solution is to make it rest on evidence that does not exist. Also, make it relevant to things other then MK's ban.
That's called "we ban whatever the **** we wanna ban".
aka "hello banning entire metagame!"
I fail with MK for now, I'm using tornado now, let's see the results.Meta Knight is dominant is the US, but other than that there's no good reason he should be banned. In fact, dominance seems to be your only argument. I can only agree that Meta Knight is dominant. Pound 4's results show how dominant Meta Knight can be without competition. Even the best Snake player, Ally, took the risk of playing Meta Knight (however, failed miserably).
Personally, I don't think Meta Knight should be banned. There's one simple problem that needs to be overcome: the SBR doesn't have criteria for a ban.
Meta Knight causes dominance, dropping attendance numbers, an arguably less enjoyable game and more passive playstyles. In the US it seems banning Meta Knight would definitely make the game more interesting. And looking at Pound 4's results I honestly don't think it would be a bad idea. Maybe it's a good idea to look what happens in the next 4 months, if Meta Knight really stays dominant. Maybe I have to reconsider my view on this. I voted anti ban (when I still was in the sbr > : ( lol ) last time, maybe I won't this time.
Europe, unlike the US, doesn't have multiple dominant Meta Knights ( ). So I guess we're cool here.
It won't lead to anywhere, SBR has the word, this is so useless.Arguing does no good when it doesn't contribute to the topic at hand.
Just throwing it out there.
MM my MK, scr00b....if Meta Knight was gone...Toon Link would be unstoppable... :o
wooo go overswarm
The only thing that graphs and statistics give us are numbers. They don't give us reasons, statements, or paragraphs. We have to analyze those numbers and come up with our own reasons to explain the numbers.Late in his post OS used a graph of Brawl tourney attendance decline. How does that bear any correlation to MK whatsoever? Graphs mean nothing if they're irrelevant.
I haven't read this entire thread yet, can you tell me where this was first pointed out?OS's graph is bogus, it's been pointed out several times.
Correlation =/= causation, hell, we don't even know if there's a correlation, all we know is that mk is present in the metagame and now there's fewer reported tournament attendees (as opposed to actual attendees).The only thing that graphs and statistics give us are numbers. They don't give us reasons, statements, or paragraphs. We have to analyze those numbers and come up with our own reasons to explain the numbers.
This is what OS did.
Using the numbers, he saw a rise in MK's dominance and victory.
Using those same numbers, he saw a fall in overall tournament attendance.
Why can't we relate these two things? Can we not PREDICT that MK must have had something to do with this? Can we not say that MK is a part of the problem?
Who are the non-MK players in this region that are anti-ban?Even among our non-MK players, it's hard to find people that are pro-ban.
It doesn't account for the possibility of reporting errors, but there could have been reporting errors earlier on as well. Reporting errors can occur at any time, and it's possible that the decline is actually sharper than the graph shows.Except, the chart doesn't account for the possibility of reporting errors or secondary effects.
It's just numbers from reported tournaments... self-selection bias much?
Nah, New England players like mikeray4 were using it first. I like it.scr00b?
really?
did inui just coin a new word?
**** it, I'm anti-ban. I would HATE to be called a scrub AND a n00b in the same word.
I can't name many pro-ban players in our area. Uh... Pierce. PRiDE used to be. Um...anyone else???Who are the non-MK players in this region that are anti-ban?
Rookie, Wes, Dire. I've neutral, than anti-ban, but now i'm leaning toward pro-ban. It'd be best to ask around, to figure out where non-MK mainers specifically stand. ZB, DA, MOB, SWR, Juice, etc. I'm sure the results would be interesting.I can't name many pro-ban players in our area. Uh... Pierce. PRiDE used to be. Um...anyone else???
1: ADHD (Diddy)
...
...
I count 15 MK's overall counting people who didn't go solo MK.
19....
...
How many Sagats can you count?