F1ZZ
Smash Lord
Dont Ban Metaknight!
-
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!
Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***
- Thread starter SamuraiPanda
- Start date
- Status
I just want to preface this with an apology for the length.
I'm sorry. I tried to make it shorter.
Here's the post where I did so: Argument disproving "popularity" claim.
Diversity is the only valid argument, and that is true for all competitive games of every genre. No exceptions.
Even if people don't realize it, diversity was the reason that items and stages were banned in Melee; diversity is the reason that stages and items are banned in Brawl; diversity is the reason cards are banned in Magic: the Gathering; diversity is the reason that Akuma was banned in ST; diversity is the reason why he has been banned yet again in HDR; and diversity is also the reason why all things that have not been banned were not banned in the first place.
Diversity supersedes all other arguments for and against banning anything in a competitive game. All other arguments, of any variety, are sub-arguments that exist solely to help determine the final outcome of the diversity argument. At the final stage of reasoning of all arguments concerning allowing content in a competitive game, the final determining factor is always diversity (or lack thereof.)
The truth of the matter is that diversity is the only valid, justifiable criterion for deciding whether or not something should be banned in the context of a competitive game. Moreover, diversity has been the underlying justification behind all rule sets adopted by this community for both Brawl and Melee, even if it wasn't acknowledged or recognized as such.
A generalized summary of the argument supporting this is as follows:
1.) Establishing that "diverse" and "competitive" are really the same thing. This means that the diversity of a game is the sole factor in determining the competitiveness of the game. More diverse is more competitive, less diverse is less competitive.
2.) Establishing a clear concept of "completely dominant options" (i.e., an absolute lack of diversity) and "overcentralization" (i.e., extreme, but not complete, lack of diversity), showing why a game with those features is either not competitive at all or is strictly less competitive than it would be otherwise, and addressing how those two concepts help show that diversity is essential for competitiveness.
3.) Establishing that the goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game.
4.) Making the connection that premise (3.) combined with premise (1.) leads to the conclusion that the true goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize diversity because doing so leads to the maximization of competitiveness.
5.) Establishing the diversity-based criteria for banning something under a competitive rule set. Namely: An option in a competitive game can be justifiably banned when banning that option results in a net increase of diversity within the game. This means that the diversity lost by banning something must be less than the diversity gained by banning it. If the net result of a ban is a zero change in diversity or a decrease in diversity, the ban is not warranted. The goal of any ban is to maximize the competitiveness of the game by maximizing the diversity.
The first part, proving that competitiveness is determined by diversity , is the longest. I put this argument into writing a few weeks ago after re-reading Sirlin's book, mulling this idea over, and then deciding that it was accurate. I had no real intention of sharing it with anyone, but it is apparent that there is a great deal of confusion and disagreement circulating here concerning diversity and what sort of criteria can be used to justify a ban. Perhaps this will be helpful in solving the problem. I tried to format it somewhat for easier readability, but for the most part I just copy+pasted it, so I apologize for any reading difficulty. I have never presented this argument to a public audience for scrutiny before, so if you see any problems with it, please let me know.
For those who don't feel like reading the full argument, a grossly oversimplified, lazy, slightly inaccurate version of the logic is basically:
Edit: I am removing the "short" version, because it is not an accurate representation of the full argument. If you want to understand the idea, please read the full argument.
This post is already really long, so I will not put the explanations why this system supports items and certain stages being banned; however, if anyone cannot see why that is so, just post and I will respond with the explanations.
The full, rigorous argument is the following:
/* Defining a competitive game/*
1.) A game is considered competitive if the outcome of the game is determined by meaningful decisions made by the players; as opposed to being determined purely by luck or by random decisions which lack any sort of logical basis.
2.) Any option that can reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "viable" option.
3.) Any option that cannot reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "non-viable" option.
4.) Having only a single viable option in a game means that players must always choose that option in order to win.
5.) Therefore, games with only one viable option do not allow players to make meaningful decisions.
6.) Therefore, multiple viable options to choose from in a game are required before players can make meaningful decisions.
7.) Therefore, a competitive game must have multiple viable options.
8.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by players making meaningful decisions concerning various viable options within the game.
/* Defining Skill /*
9.) The ability of players to deliberate and then meaningfully decide between multiple viable options in order to maximize the possibility of victory is called "skill".
10.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by skill.
/* Defining Diversity and showing a relationship to Skill /*
11.) The number of viable options available for players to base their meaningful decisions upon in a competitive game is called "diversity".
12.) By definition, the larger the amount of viable options a game has (i.e., the greater the diversity), the larger the amount of meaningful decisions players will have to make concerning those options.
13.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (9. and 10.), a game with greater diversity will provide more opportunities for players to show skill.
14.) As a corollary, a game with lesser diversity will provide less opportunities for players to show skill.
/* Defining Competitiveness and showing its relationship to increased Diversity /*
15.) By definition of the word "competitiveness", a game's level of competitiveness is determined by how much competition it fosters.
16.) Following from (1. and 10.) and the definition of the word "competitive", a game being resolved by skill between players is a competition.
17.) By definition, a game being resolved by a greater amount of skilled exchanges between players is a greater amount of competition.
18.) Therefore, a game which encourages greater amounts of skill encourages greater amounts of competitiveness.
19.) An increased amount of diversity causes an increased amount of skill, as shown in (13.)
20.) Therefore, increased diversity causes increased competitiveness.
/* Defining Overcentralization and showing the relationship between Competitiveness and decreased Diversity. /*
21.) If a single viable option in a game renders a sufficient majority of, but not all, other options non-viable, that option is said to be "overcentralizing".
22.) By definition, an overcentralized game has less diversity.
23.) Following from (15. and 16.), and by logic similar to (17.), a game being resolved by a lesser amount of skilled exchanges between players is a lesser amount of competition.
24.) Therefore, a game which encourages lesser amounts of skill encourages lesser amounts of competitiveness.
25.) As shown in (14.), less diversity means less skill.
26.) Therefore, decreased diversity causes decreased competitiveness.
27.) Therefore, overcentralization causes decreased competitiveness.
/* Defining Completely Dominant and showing its relationship to Skill /*
28.) If a single viable option in a game renders all other options non-viable, that option is said to be "completely dominant".
29.) A game with a completely dominant option does not allow for meaningful decisions, as shown in (4. and 5.)
30.) By definitions shown in (9. and 10.), skill cannot exist without the ability to make meaningful decisions.
31.) Therefore, the outcome of a game with a completely dominant option is not determined by skill.
/* Identifying the conditions necessary for a game to lack Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
32.) As shown in (28., 29, 30., and 31.), a game with a completely dominant option does not allow for skill.
33.) By the definition of "skill" shown in (9.), a game with zero viable options does not allow for skill.
34.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not allow for skill.
35.) By the definition of diversity shown in (11.), a game must allow for meaningful decisions among viable options in order to have diversity.
36.) Therefore, as follows from (4. and 5.), a game with a completely dominant option does not have diversity.
37.) Similarly, a game with zero viable options does not have diversity.
38.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have diversity.
39.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have skill or diversity.
40.) Therefore, a lack of skill and a lack of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
41.) Therefore, a lack of skill necessitates a lack of diversity; and a lack of diversity necessitates a lack of skill.
42.) Therefore, a game with no diversity cannot have skill; and a game with no skill cannot have diversity.
/* Showing the conditions necessary for a game to have Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
43.) As a corollary to (34.), a game with two or more viable options does allow for skill.
44.) As a corollary to (38.), a game with two or more viable options does allow diversity.
45.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options allows for both skill and diversity.
46.) By the definition shown in (9.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill.
47.) By the definition shown in (11.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has diversity.
48.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill and diversity.
49.) As shown in (13. and 14.), the quantity of skill and diversity in a game are mutually determined.
50.) Therefore, the presence of skill and the presence of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
51.) Therefore, the presence of skill necessitates the presence of diversity; and the presence of diversity necessitates the presence of skill.
52.) Therefore, a game with diversity must have skill; and a game with skill must have diversity.
/* Using the logical equivalence of Skill and Diversity and the relationship between Skill and Competitiveness to show the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness. /*
53.) As shown in (42. and 52.), the logical conditions required for skill and diversity are equivalent.
54.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, the presence or absence of skill implies the presence or absence of diversity; and the presence or absence of diversity implies the presence or absence skill.
55.) Therefore, skill is necessary for diversity, and diversity is necessary for skill.
57.) As shown in (15. and 16.), skill is necessary for competitiveness.
58.) Skill and diversity are logically equivalent.
58.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, diversity is necessary for competitiveness.
60.) As shown in (20. and 26.), increased or decreased diversity causes increased or decreased competitiveness.
61.) Therefore, the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
/* Showing that the purpose of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game. /*
62.) The goal of competition is to test the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
63.) A Competitive Rule Set is a rule set meant to facilitate competition.
63.) The goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate competition.
64.) Therefore, the goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate testing the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
65.) Doing things that unnecessarily hinder one's attempts to do something is bad.
66.) Therefore, making a Rule Set that hinders the ability of one's tournament to effectively test the skills of players is bad.
67.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should facilitate competitive tournament play to the maximum extent possible.
68.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
/* Showing that the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness leads to the conclusion that Tournament Rule Sets should maximize Diversity. /*
69.) As shown in (61.), the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
70.) As shown in (68.), a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
71.) Therefore, maximizing diversity causes a maximization of competitiveness.
72.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize diversity.
/* Establishing a justifiable ban criterion under a Competitive Rule Set. /*
73.) As shown in (72.), the goal of competitive rule making is to maximize diversity.
74.) Banning is part of competitive rule making.
75.) Therefore, the goal of banning is to maximize diversity.
76.) Banning anything in the game means a loss of diversity.
77.) Banning everything in the game leaves a total of zero diversity.
78.) Not banning something means that diversity is maintained.
79.) Therefore, not banning anything is the best method of maintaining maximized diversity in an already maximally diversified game.
80.) Not banning something that is making other options non-viable means that maximum diversity is not being maintained.
81.) Banning something that is making other options non-viable means that those options will become viable as a result of the ban.
82.) By definition, if a ban results in a net increase of diversity then that ban contributes to maximization of diversity.
83.) By definition, if a ban results in a net decrease of diversity then that ban contributes to non-maximization of diversity.
84.) By definition, if a ban results in neither a net increase nor a net decrease in diversity then that ban contributes nothing to diversity.
85.) By definition, the only way to maximize something is to increase it.
86.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity help maximize diversity.
87.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity are justified.
/* Done /*
I'm sorry. I tried to make it shorter.
I've already refuted the "popularity" claim.
Here's the post where I did so: Argument disproving "popularity" claim.
You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what diversity really is.
Diversity is the only valid argument, and that is true for all competitive games of every genre. No exceptions.
Even if people don't realize it, diversity was the reason that items and stages were banned in Melee; diversity is the reason that stages and items are banned in Brawl; diversity is the reason cards are banned in Magic: the Gathering; diversity is the reason that Akuma was banned in ST; diversity is the reason why he has been banned yet again in HDR; and diversity is also the reason why all things that have not been banned were not banned in the first place.
Diversity supersedes all other arguments for and against banning anything in a competitive game. All other arguments, of any variety, are sub-arguments that exist solely to help determine the final outcome of the diversity argument. At the final stage of reasoning of all arguments concerning allowing content in a competitive game, the final determining factor is always diversity (or lack thereof.)
The truth of the matter is that diversity is the only valid, justifiable criterion for deciding whether or not something should be banned in the context of a competitive game. Moreover, diversity has been the underlying justification behind all rule sets adopted by this community for both Brawl and Melee, even if it wasn't acknowledged or recognized as such.
A generalized summary of the argument supporting this is as follows:
1.) Establishing that "diverse" and "competitive" are really the same thing. This means that the diversity of a game is the sole factor in determining the competitiveness of the game. More diverse is more competitive, less diverse is less competitive.
2.) Establishing a clear concept of "completely dominant options" (i.e., an absolute lack of diversity) and "overcentralization" (i.e., extreme, but not complete, lack of diversity), showing why a game with those features is either not competitive at all or is strictly less competitive than it would be otherwise, and addressing how those two concepts help show that diversity is essential for competitiveness.
3.) Establishing that the goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game.
4.) Making the connection that premise (3.) combined with premise (1.) leads to the conclusion that the true goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize diversity because doing so leads to the maximization of competitiveness.
5.) Establishing the diversity-based criteria for banning something under a competitive rule set. Namely: An option in a competitive game can be justifiably banned when banning that option results in a net increase of diversity within the game. This means that the diversity lost by banning something must be less than the diversity gained by banning it. If the net result of a ban is a zero change in diversity or a decrease in diversity, the ban is not warranted. The goal of any ban is to maximize the competitiveness of the game by maximizing the diversity.
The first part, proving that competitiveness is determined by diversity , is the longest. I put this argument into writing a few weeks ago after re-reading Sirlin's book, mulling this idea over, and then deciding that it was accurate. I had no real intention of sharing it with anyone, but it is apparent that there is a great deal of confusion and disagreement circulating here concerning diversity and what sort of criteria can be used to justify a ban. Perhaps this will be helpful in solving the problem. I tried to format it somewhat for easier readability, but for the most part I just copy+pasted it, so I apologize for any reading difficulty. I have never presented this argument to a public audience for scrutiny before, so if you see any problems with it, please let me know.
For those who don't feel like reading the full argument, a grossly oversimplified, lazy, slightly inaccurate version of the logic is basically:
Edit: I am removing the "short" version, because it is not an accurate representation of the full argument. If you want to understand the idea, please read the full argument.
This post is already really long, so I will not put the explanations why this system supports items and certain stages being banned; however, if anyone cannot see why that is so, just post and I will respond with the explanations.
The full, rigorous argument is the following:
/* Defining a competitive game/*
1.) A game is considered competitive if the outcome of the game is determined by meaningful decisions made by the players; as opposed to being determined purely by luck or by random decisions which lack any sort of logical basis.
2.) Any option that can reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "viable" option.
3.) Any option that cannot reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "non-viable" option.
4.) Having only a single viable option in a game means that players must always choose that option in order to win.
5.) Therefore, games with only one viable option do not allow players to make meaningful decisions.
6.) Therefore, multiple viable options to choose from in a game are required before players can make meaningful decisions.
7.) Therefore, a competitive game must have multiple viable options.
8.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by players making meaningful decisions concerning various viable options within the game.
/* Defining Skill /*
9.) The ability of players to deliberate and then meaningfully decide between multiple viable options in order to maximize the possibility of victory is called "skill".
10.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by skill.
/* Defining Diversity and showing a relationship to Skill /*
11.) The number of viable options available for players to base their meaningful decisions upon in a competitive game is called "diversity".
12.) By definition, the larger the amount of viable options a game has (i.e., the greater the diversity), the larger the amount of meaningful decisions players will have to make concerning those options.
13.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (9. and 10.), a game with greater diversity will provide more opportunities for players to show skill.
14.) As a corollary, a game with lesser diversity will provide less opportunities for players to show skill.
/* Defining Competitiveness and showing its relationship to increased Diversity /*
15.) By definition of the word "competitiveness", a game's level of competitiveness is determined by how much competition it fosters.
16.) Following from (1. and 10.) and the definition of the word "competitive", a game being resolved by skill between players is a competition.
17.) By definition, a game being resolved by a greater amount of skilled exchanges between players is a greater amount of competition.
18.) Therefore, a game which encourages greater amounts of skill encourages greater amounts of competitiveness.
19.) An increased amount of diversity causes an increased amount of skill, as shown in (13.)
20.) Therefore, increased diversity causes increased competitiveness.
/* Defining Overcentralization and showing the relationship between Competitiveness and decreased Diversity. /*
21.) If a single viable option in a game renders a sufficient majority of, but not all, other options non-viable, that option is said to be "overcentralizing".
22.) By definition, an overcentralized game has less diversity.
23.) Following from (15. and 16.), and by logic similar to (17.), a game being resolved by a lesser amount of skilled exchanges between players is a lesser amount of competition.
24.) Therefore, a game which encourages lesser amounts of skill encourages lesser amounts of competitiveness.
25.) As shown in (14.), less diversity means less skill.
26.) Therefore, decreased diversity causes decreased competitiveness.
27.) Therefore, overcentralization causes decreased competitiveness.
/* Defining Completely Dominant and showing its relationship to Skill /*
28.) If a single viable option in a game renders all other options non-viable, that option is said to be "completely dominant".
29.) A game with a completely dominant option does not allow for meaningful decisions, as shown in (4. and 5.)
30.) By definitions shown in (9. and 10.), skill cannot exist without the ability to make meaningful decisions.
31.) Therefore, the outcome of a game with a completely dominant option is not determined by skill.
/* Identifying the conditions necessary for a game to lack Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
32.) As shown in (28., 29, 30., and 31.), a game with a completely dominant option does not allow for skill.
33.) By the definition of "skill" shown in (9.), a game with zero viable options does not allow for skill.
34.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not allow for skill.
35.) By the definition of diversity shown in (11.), a game must allow for meaningful decisions among viable options in order to have diversity.
36.) Therefore, as follows from (4. and 5.), a game with a completely dominant option does not have diversity.
37.) Similarly, a game with zero viable options does not have diversity.
38.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have diversity.
39.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have skill or diversity.
40.) Therefore, a lack of skill and a lack of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
41.) Therefore, a lack of skill necessitates a lack of diversity; and a lack of diversity necessitates a lack of skill.
42.) Therefore, a game with no diversity cannot have skill; and a game with no skill cannot have diversity.
/* Showing the conditions necessary for a game to have Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
43.) As a corollary to (34.), a game with two or more viable options does allow for skill.
44.) As a corollary to (38.), a game with two or more viable options does allow diversity.
45.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options allows for both skill and diversity.
46.) By the definition shown in (9.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill.
47.) By the definition shown in (11.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has diversity.
48.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill and diversity.
49.) As shown in (13. and 14.), the quantity of skill and diversity in a game are mutually determined.
50.) Therefore, the presence of skill and the presence of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
51.) Therefore, the presence of skill necessitates the presence of diversity; and the presence of diversity necessitates the presence of skill.
52.) Therefore, a game with diversity must have skill; and a game with skill must have diversity.
/* Using the logical equivalence of Skill and Diversity and the relationship between Skill and Competitiveness to show the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness. /*
53.) As shown in (42. and 52.), the logical conditions required for skill and diversity are equivalent.
54.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, the presence or absence of skill implies the presence or absence of diversity; and the presence or absence of diversity implies the presence or absence skill.
55.) Therefore, skill is necessary for diversity, and diversity is necessary for skill.
57.) As shown in (15. and 16.), skill is necessary for competitiveness.
58.) Skill and diversity are logically equivalent.
58.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, diversity is necessary for competitiveness.
60.) As shown in (20. and 26.), increased or decreased diversity causes increased or decreased competitiveness.
61.) Therefore, the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
/* Showing that the purpose of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game. /*
62.) The goal of competition is to test the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
63.) A Competitive Rule Set is a rule set meant to facilitate competition.
63.) The goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate competition.
64.) Therefore, the goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate testing the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
65.) Doing things that unnecessarily hinder one's attempts to do something is bad.
66.) Therefore, making a Rule Set that hinders the ability of one's tournament to effectively test the skills of players is bad.
67.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should facilitate competitive tournament play to the maximum extent possible.
68.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
/* Showing that the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness leads to the conclusion that Tournament Rule Sets should maximize Diversity. /*
69.) As shown in (61.), the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
70.) As shown in (68.), a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
71.) Therefore, maximizing diversity causes a maximization of competitiveness.
72.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize diversity.
/* Establishing a justifiable ban criterion under a Competitive Rule Set. /*
73.) As shown in (72.), the goal of competitive rule making is to maximize diversity.
74.) Banning is part of competitive rule making.
75.) Therefore, the goal of banning is to maximize diversity.
76.) Banning anything in the game means a loss of diversity.
77.) Banning everything in the game leaves a total of zero diversity.
78.) Not banning something means that diversity is maintained.
79.) Therefore, not banning anything is the best method of maintaining maximized diversity in an already maximally diversified game.
80.) Not banning something that is making other options non-viable means that maximum diversity is not being maintained.
81.) Banning something that is making other options non-viable means that those options will become viable as a result of the ban.
82.) By definition, if a ban results in a net increase of diversity then that ban contributes to maximization of diversity.
83.) By definition, if a ban results in a net decrease of diversity then that ban contributes to non-maximization of diversity.
84.) By definition, if a ban results in neither a net increase nor a net decrease in diversity then that ban contributes nothing to diversity.
85.) By definition, the only way to maximize something is to increase it.
86.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity help maximize diversity.
87.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity are justified.
/* Done /*
I wonder if counterpicking decreases competitiveness. Of characters, that is. If you think about it, the best of each character generally don't counterpick. So are we making this game less competitive by giving people crutches? IDK...
EDIT: Eyada, I'll fully read your post later.
EDIT: Eyada, I'll fully read your post later.
The biggest problem I see with MK is that he is harder to punish and can get away with more mistakes. With match-ups it is if both characters are being played at the highest level possible. That's great and all but, we are human and we will make mistakes. MK has to make more mistakes because his are so much harder to punish meanwhile he is so good at punishing opponent's mistakes. Overtime having to play perfectly gets exhausting, espically when going against so many MKs one after another. So overtime with people getting exhausted they'll make more mistakes. While making the mistakes MK players will be able to punish more of them harder while the mistakes the MK plays will be lesser and won't be able to be punished/punished as hard. So, all these even match-ups get less even over time as MK slowly gains the advantage because of the above.
Dotcom
Smash Lord
This is indeed wrong.I just want to preface this with an apology for the length.
I'm sorry. I tried to make it shorter.
I've already refuted the "popularity" claim.
Here's the post where I did so: Argument disproving "popularity" claim.
You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what diversity really is.
Diversity is the only valid argument, and that is true for all competitive games of every genre. No exceptions.
Even if people don't realize it, diversity was the reason that items and stages were banned in Melee; diversity is the reason that stages and items are banned in Brawl; diversity is the reason cards are banned in Magic: the Gathering; diversity is the reason that Akuma was banned in ST;
The reason half of the stuff listed is/are banned is because people want to make fighting games as balanced as possible not as "diverse" as possible.
Reason items were banned?
It doesn't make the game more diverse to have items, it tips thee game in the favor of the person who can get to the items. You could be getting thoroughly trashed and recover all of the percent that you've accumulated. Sound fair?
Reason satges were banned ?
Wow. Yes the reason Warioware is banned is because it makes the game more diverse.
Could it be the fact, tha if you do what is required of you and the other person does it, you could gain innvincibility for a set amount of time. This might be fine for the non - competitive smashers, but for the people who spend money time and time again. They wan as fair of a shot as possible to win. This is why the majority of people want MK banned. MK is an unfair tip in the game's balance towards the person using him. So unless you are using him, the scales are tipped against you. Sound right?
-Ran
Smash Master
^^^
Copious amount of win.
Maybe if you do something extreme like CP pika against fox.
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
I honestly think Planking would turn out to be an unbeatable strategy and don't mind seeing it banned in tournaments. I just think it's hypocritical of our community to ban something we know little about. I honestly still want to see people actually experimenting with it. I doubt it's beatable and I'm almost certain that the advantage it gives is overwhelming, but if we don't know for sure...
Eh, I guess honestly I want it banned, I just want people to actually test it out.
GirugaMarc
Smash Apprentice
that post was amazing
Uh just so you know, balanced is very akin to diverse. Diverse amount of SKILLS required that is. Luck=/=skill
Falconv1.0
Smash Master
I still believe planking is beatable but I'm starting to really lean towards banning it.
SkylerOcon
Tiny Dancer
Why can't people realize that items were banned because of community preference?
While Eyada was only kind of mistaken here... you forget that there has to be one character that's the best at a stage like WarioWare, where being the best would be INCREDIBLY helpful. So in a way, Eyada was right... though at the same time he definitely was NOT right.
Edit:
This.
I should have specified that luck is the antithesis of skill, and because diversity is intricately dependent on skill, luck is also the antithesis of diversity.
That is why stages and items that introduce luck into the game are banned. Luck removes or drastically hinders the ability of players to make meaningful decisions; meaningful decisions are the basis of skill; skill is the basis of competitive gaming; and, as I showed in my argument, diversity is the very fabric of competitive gaming. Since Luck is damaging to competitive gaming, it is damaging to diversity.
Reading the full, rigorous argument will make what I'm saying here far more clear. I can see how this misunderstanding would arise from just reading the "summary".
thrillagorilla
Smash Ace
I'm currious how people are going to react to that post, Eyada. I'd like to hear a response from the anti-ban on it.
hova
Smash Champion
i have not read this thread at all and don't plan on offering an opinion
but i do believe that the brokenness of MK should not be the focus
will a ban on MK benefit the Smash community?? that should be the only question when placing your vote
don't worry about him being beatable or losing to scrub MKs
is a MK ban good for the community as a whole/large majority??
but i do believe that the brokenness of MK should not be the focus
will a ban on MK benefit the Smash community?? that should be the only question when placing your vote
don't worry about him being beatable or losing to scrub MKs
is a MK ban good for the community as a whole/large majority??
Noa.
Smash Master
Like what Hova said and what Eyada implied, what should be considered when banning MK is not whether or not he's unbeatable but whether or not banning him would be healthy/competitive for the community.
I'm not necessarily advocating any one side of the MK debate.
I'm just trying to provide a logical, reasonable framework that can be used to settle the question. The MK debate is a big problem, and there has been a lot of uncertainty and disagreement over the most important question that can be asked:
"How do we decide if Meta Knight should be banned?"
My system offers a concrete answer to that question.
Also, any reason used by the community for banning him or not banning him that doesn't hinge on diversity is logically unjustifiable. Reading my full argument makes the reasons for that more clear.
Also, diversity doesn't only refer to character diversity. It refers to all options available in the game: stages, characters, items (which should be banned), individual moves of characters, and so forth. Every single option in the game is part of the game's diversity.
Arturito_Burrito
Smash Master
umm not it falls under the I want to win catagory. Unless wanting to use link also means wanting to lose.
solecalibur
Smash Master
yeh simple and short
Some people will quit if he is but its annoying how easy it is to get away with mistakes with metaknight I'm also tired of the comments saying "well your not good enough to beat a metaknight" All that means is you dont know how much prority he has its unfair to other players There are threads on these fourms and people i know who quit metaknight becasue hes to cheap and unfair just like me
Some people will quit if he is but its annoying how easy it is to get away with mistakes with metaknight I'm also tired of the comments saying "well your not good enough to beat a metaknight" All that means is you dont know how much prority he has its unfair to other players There are threads on these fourms and people i know who quit metaknight becasue hes to cheap and unfair just like me
Noa.
Smash Master
Eyada's post sets a system that would define whether or not something is banworthy.
All that's left is whether the community accepts the system, and once they do, decide whether or not banning MK would increase or decrease the variety/competitiveness of the game.
All that's left is whether the community accepts the system, and once they do, decide whether or not banning MK would increase or decrease the variety/competitiveness of the game.
thrillagorilla
Smash Ace
Sorry, I got ahead of myself. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, sorry for doing so. I see a very good pro-ban argument coming out of this. I'll post it later tonight if someone doesn't beat me to it. Don't know if it will make a difference or not, but we'll see.
Edit: @solecalibur: it isn't that he has high priority, its that he bypasses the priority system altogether. Try throwing a few fireballs at mk thats using f-tilt. You'll see what I mean.
bigman40
Smash Master
If I could sig Eyada's post then I would. That was a mindblowing post of truth xD
One_With_Sumthing
Smash Apprentice
If not playing Link means wanting to win, then the next logical statement is that playing Link means not wanting to win, that is, wanting to lose. Therefore, if what you said is true, then what you said after is also true.
Then again, it's possible that someone would want to win as Link, therefore the first thing you said falls, and so too does the second. Of course, this is irrelevant to the current argument.
bigman40
Smash Master
Okay. Bye then
Maniclysane
Smash Lord
Oh man. I think you changed the minds of everyone on the proban side.
Poltergust
Smash Master
Yep. Nice knowing you!Okay. Bye then
For five seconds...
By the way, Eyada, your system has also been posted on AiB by Neko. I wonder how it'll be received there...?
D
Deleted member
Guest
Good for you? Do we really need these kind of people in competitive Smash anyway?
Wait, so all of the typing, copy+pasting, and formatting I just did wasn't even needed because this idea has already been presented?
Do you have the link to Neko's argument?
Edit @ below: Oh.
Alright then.
Poltergust
Smash Master
...No! Neko copied-pasta'd your argument to AiB. XD
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
People who don't agree with something and will show how much dissatisfaction they have with a decision made by their community to which they no longer want to be part of because of something as big as this? Yes, I think you need those kind of people, because otherwise you end up with a bunch of people whose ideas and theories fly by without any or very, very few consequences, who will then be presented with a new challenge and mayl not truly be guided to the best (or at least a very good) solution because if it happens to be a wrong or poor decision, nobody will do something to show how wrong/poor it was.
bobson
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,674
This is the best argument for banning Metaknight in the entire thread.
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
I don't think that's an argument. I think that's a simple "if, then" clause for his own personal reasons.
-Ran
Smash Master
The best poll perhaps would be.
"If Mk Isn't banned, will you still participate in tournaments?"
- Yes.
- No.
Telling results, perhaps?
"If Mk Isn't banned, will you still participate in tournaments?"
- Yes.
- No.
Telling results, perhaps?
bobson
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,674
Exactly. If Metaknight is banned, we finally get rid of Kamikaze.
I see nothing but positive there.
Da-D-Mon-109
Smash Lord
:flame:
You should also have those people make sure to answer honestly if they have participated in tournaments or not, since plenty of people that get mad about this don't even play compeditively. I'm glad I'm not a hypocrite in this respect, since I have competed in a few local tournaments whose rules do follow SBR guide lines, I am registered for the OTL June Tournament (I need to tell them I am going Lucario with just Ike as my secondary), and once I am free from the binds that are my parents I intend on going National. There really aren't that many people who scare me as Metaknight though (in my own personal experience) that don't main him, although if I meet someone who actually has put work into using him (which is a good thing, not a bad thing), I probably will be plesently surprised with the challenge.
I still think that this thread needs to be TEMPORARILY closed, so that all of the different sides (Ban, AntiBan, TemporaryBan) can get into groups, gather information, and talk amoungst themselves about the biggest points on each side, and then cometogether and try to convince the "Not sure" side that their viewpoint is right. Then, open a new vote with the key information on each side posted in the opening thread. But that's just my spin on this situation.
And Bobson, there are plenty of people who would quit because of the banning, not just Kamikaze. Some that would miss the main they have put a year+ into working on, some that enjoy brawling against him, others that still don't understand why it was needed in the first place, but plenty that would leave because of him being banned.
:flame:
You should also have those people make sure to answer honestly if they have participated in tournaments or not, since plenty of people that get mad about this don't even play compeditively. I'm glad I'm not a hypocrite in this respect, since I have competed in a few local tournaments whose rules do follow SBR guide lines, I am registered for the OTL June Tournament (I need to tell them I am going Lucario with just Ike as my secondary), and once I am free from the binds that are my parents I intend on going National. There really aren't that many people who scare me as Metaknight though (in my own personal experience) that don't main him, although if I meet someone who actually has put work into using him (which is a good thing, not a bad thing), I probably will be plesently surprised with the challenge.
I still think that this thread needs to be TEMPORARILY closed, so that all of the different sides (Ban, AntiBan, TemporaryBan) can get into groups, gather information, and talk amoungst themselves about the biggest points on each side, and then cometogether and try to convince the "Not sure" side that their viewpoint is right. Then, open a new vote with the key information on each side posted in the opening thread. But that's just my spin on this situation.
And Bobson, there are plenty of people who would quit because of the banning, not just Kamikaze. Some that would miss the main they have put a year+ into working on, some that enjoy brawling against him, others that still don't understand why it was needed in the first place, but plenty that would leave because of him being banned.
:flame:
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
Eyada, by chance, are you a college student/graduate?
... If so, did you major in philosophy? I'm asking this because that argument you presented was written in a very good style and one similar to that of many philosophical ideas.
Now that you've presented this, going back to my previous arguments, I can see some flaws in my logic. I'm going to have to rethink everything else. This changes my vote from "No" to "Not sure."
... If so, did you major in philosophy? I'm asking this because that argument you presented was written in a very good style and one similar to that of many philosophical ideas.
Now that you've presented this, going back to my previous arguments, I can see some flaws in my logic. I'm going to have to rethink everything else. This changes my vote from "No" to "Not sure."
lol, oh you.
- Status