Proving Whether or Not MK is bannable with Data: A community to do list

[ShadowLink84]

A more practical cut-off would be 70-30
If a character HARD COUNTERS more than half of the staff, he should be banned.

MvC2?
I think the degree to which a character must hurt other characters viability must be established.
Primarily because you have games like MvC2 which arguably have only 4 characters that are viable out of a cast of over 50.

Same for melee where you have charters like SHeik pretty much ****** more than half the cast.

Again...please let this end...Arguing won't made Meta banned...Professional opinions and tournament results will guide us...[/quote
You pretty much just called myself and everyone else in here n00bs when yu made the professional comment.
Tournament results are not the end of all things either.

Just for once I want to see a time where the last posted in thread doesn't have "Metaknight" in it... Come on, people... post some new techniques or something...

You can always not post here.

 

[RDK]

A more practical cut-off would be 70-30
If a character HARD COUNTERS more than half of the staff, he should be banned.

Again...please let this end...Arguing won't made Meta banned...Professional opinions and tournament results will guide us...

Just for once I want to see a time where the last posted in thread doesn't have "Metaknight" in it... Come on, people... post some new techniques or something...

For Christ's sake people, learn your terms. Hard-countering isn't even comparable to making a character unviable.

Akuma doing 90-10 on the entire remaining SFII roster is overcentralizing. MK going even or slightly better with the rest of the Brawl roster is not overcentralizing, and that's not including Snake who has an arguably advantageous matchup with Meta.

 

[brinboy789]

But I disagree. I think he is "ignorant" and I claim that Link would become viable, just not an optimal choice. I hope you arn't expecting Link to somehow just start winning lots of tourneys if meta is banned. That's unreasonable, but of course one would expect better placings and performance.


Should I present Non-metaknight data like match ups against other characters such as Snake, One of Links best top tier match ups (Extremely winnable), to prove otherwise that in a meta game with out MK, because he is such a hard counter, Link will become viable? Of course I would present data from more than just snake. I may include a few other matchups and tournament matches such as Falco D3 GW ROB and Marth, maybe even more.

...no. link would not become viable. if he has any more 70-30+ matchups, which im sure he does, then hes unviable. his all around average, wiht a slightly better projectile game, and trash recovery. no, hes not viable.

and i dont mean viable like winning major tourney viable. i mean like, a rational person would enter a tourney with him

 

[Mecakoto]

It's more an issue of, "the match-ups are hopelessly out of date and we don't even really have a good theoretical model to go on", so no, we really don't know if MK makes any characters nonviable or not.

This. 90% of the Character boards did the Meta match-up first simply because he is 1 on the tier list. Because most boards do it a weekly rate, the MK match-up examination can be more then 30 weeks old on ones with a complete match-up evaluation. Even the ones with half-done match-up threads can be over 10 weeks old, which, in some cases, is to much.

Ya... Revisits need to be done. Some boards have already started that.

 

[SpongeBathBill]

If it's an issue of up-to-date data, what about just waiting until June? I assume the new tier list will also offer an updated MU chart, and people will trust this data, lending more credence to this whole project, you know?

Or will it not be in-depth enough or something?

 

[Mecakoto]

I see what you're saying, Sponge. We mind as well see how things turn out since June is almost here. After that, more rational decisions can be made.

Of course, this is mute if something like this can be pulled off consistently with every character on only Meta. =p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuyf219KbfQ

 

[1048576]

Wrong.
If a character was tio go 51:49 against everyone it wouldn't overcentralize around that character.

The degree to which the character deals with the cast is also important.

Akuma in SF2 goes 9-1 on everyone. THat is ban worthy.
Yun in SF3 foes 6-4 and 5-5 with ken. This is not ban worthy.

If the character has one 5-5 matchup, then that character is not banworthy. Fox in melee has even matchups. Apparantly, Yun goes even with Ken. There ya go. People can pick Yun and Ken in tournaments.

Why would you play a character with a disadvantage against the meta? You are trying to win, no?

 

[ShadowLink84]

If the character has one 5-5 matchup, then that character is not banworthy. Fox in melee has even matchups. Apparantly, Yun goes even with Ken. There ya go. People can pick Yun and Ken in tournaments.

Why would you play a character with a disadvantage against the meta? You are trying to win, no?

You are not understanding.

The degree to which the character harms the other characters.
If a character goes 51:49 everyone, he is not banworthy because the advantage he holds against them is so non-discrete, that the matchup is extremely winnable.

The matchup must be unfairly winnable.
i.e. Akuma in SF2/Akuma in SF2 HD remix.

Now not only that, but your argument about there needing to be only one even matchup is TERRIBLE.

If in a game a character hard counters everyone but goes even with only one, that character should not be banned under your logic.

Ravage Affinity in Magic The Gathering had only one deck that could compete with it.
Tooth and Nail.
Tooth and Nail had to be specially made to deal with Ravager decks.

Ravager ***** everyone except one deck, tooth and nail.
Big deal it had one even matchup, that doesn't mean Ravager is no longer ban worthy.
Its still causing terrible damage to the metagame because it is still overcentralizing around that one deck.

The number of advantages is not what only matters, it is also the degree to the advantage.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

What tournaments were used
And how recent is this?
How many entrants?
What was the average skill of the entrants.
Who did each player play against? Did the Rob/Marth ever have to play against an MK? Did they get the rainbow/sunshine bracket?
You can't just look at placings and assume that the characters are viable because of it.

----
I live in a tough region,(Not near as tough as NY or SoCal but still) If i went to a WY tourney, my placings may be higher (No offense to WY residents).

TL;DR
We can't judge Viability by Standings alone with out raw data of matchups through out the tournament along with skill levels of each player playing.

If you'd read the quoted post, you would know the answers to these questions. It was all tournaments with 90 or more entrants that occurred in 2009. There were 14 of them. The players were obviously skilled since tournaments of that size are always dominated by skilled players who always show up because that's where the money is. These are tournaments people travel for. I'll even disclose that one of the 14 was in Europe, but let's check any lingering regional elitism as the door and recognize that a 90+ man European tournament probably has Europe's finest at it who are not going to be bad players or even close.

And yes, you CAN just look at placings and determine viability when discussing MAJOR tournaments like this. Did they have to face any Meta Knights? I don't know. Maybe, probably, it doesn't matter. There are two possibilities:

a. They did and won/lost to them but not in such a way as to prevent them from making top 8.
b. They did not and Meta Knight isn't a big enough threat to render the characters inviable. If he were, they would have run into him.

It's really that simple. I mean, they could have gotten a really lucky bracket, but this is top 8 we're talking about. It's very improbable that they never had to face anyone good enough to stop them from making it out of pools and make it that far in the bracket, especially since Marth and R.O.B. making top 8 isn't an isolated incident (well, top 8 by himself is isolated for R.O.B., but he was used in combination with other characters other times).

 

[Sukai]

I'm not sure of what I'm going to say. It may come off as really cryptic and pessimistic. And no doubt I'll spark some ugly faces, but this is all coming out...

Jeez, Meta Knight. The Entire Metagame revolves around this guy.
Top Level?
Yeah that's nice and all, but seriously, we all aren't top level, and some of us may never reach that level, now I'm not saying that the Top Level isn't relevant, it most certainly is, but when it is exclusively selected in situations like this, it's ridiculous. I though we were a community, not a row of sheep bowing before the pros, the only ones who can handle Meta Knight and not lose. So, I guess in this topic, the Top Level is the only one that matters, so a select number of people get to have it their way, and **** the rest of us, right?

Sure he have a marvel of geniuses going back and forth about it, but seriously, how much time is going to progress before people see that this son of a ***** is broken, he has so many true combos, 0 deaths up the ***. Who else has that? Sure the top level pros can handle them but it's only the top level pros who can. Call me naive, but there's something wrong with that. Not only does this not exempt him from being broken, it basically means that unless we, the small insignificants, somehow rise to top level, we will never have player viability at a tournament. I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a good thing? I don't think so. As a smash player, I don't like the fact that my viability is determined by whether or not I can overcome a character that only the best of the best can handle. It's not very encouraging to say the least. Not only that, look at how many Meta Knights enter a tournament? Melee had more diversity and the top level there for the most part were just 5 or 6 characters banging heads. Clearly, Meta Knight carries such a huge intimidation factor that people believe their chances of victory are significantly heightened just by picking him. It's like a coward holding a gun--not that I'm implying any insults to Meta Knight players, just giving, realistically, a good analogy to compare with.

Meta Knight is seriously such a powerful character, that he is his only hardest match up. We all know the game isn't balanced, but seriously? This is ridiculous! Top Level? **** Top Level, I'll care about Top Level if/when I get there. My viability is determined by whether or not I can beat a pro Meta Knight, and I hate playing the "that's not fair" card, but one character? My viability and overall assumption of skill is determined if I can beat a broken character used at the highest level of play. The sheer imbalance of Brawl is what broke me out from being a scrub, and Meta Knight, no doubt plays a huge card in the claim that Brawl has little balance between it. Now who actually can rise to top level? I'm sure everyone is optimistic, but seriously. Even counting yourself in a potential sense, who else? Apparently only the Top Level can handle Meta Knight, which is the best argument to keep him unbanned, but what about us advanced/intermediate/mediocre players? People see they weight Meta Knight pulls at a tournament scene, it's frightening. Yeah, there are some people who go one character all the way through, but do they win?
Ally, sure. Um, who else?
Some people actually stop playing their passionate mains and go Meta Knight just to stay in the fight, the worse part about it is, they don't even have to be fighting a Meta Knight for them to make that decision.
Hell, some people actually promote players stop passionately playing their mains in a tournament and pick Meta Knight, just to survive off the back.

For such a pull on the metagame, it is in no way outrageous to consider banning him. He's too good, plain and simple. Sure, the Top Level pros can handle him, and good for them! I expect no less from people who are considered the best of the best. But Top Level isn't all that matters, if that was the case, then having a community means nothing, if all we do is dickride the pros. We as a community rise to our highest potential, which realistically, is not Top Level most of the time. Only one league of players can handle Meta Knight, that's not a credible reason not to ban him, in fact it leaves more of a reason to go about banning him. Most of the community are not elitists. So a heavy percentage of us are not tourney viable and a heavy percentage of that never will be. And I know, I know, there are times when we need to stop and let the metagame develop, but as it stands, it's not developing in a way that helps us find ways around Meta Knight, sure the Top Level can do it, but they never divulge any secrets or tactics, and regardless, more and more people are going Meta Knight in tournaments. The metagame has developed enough if we already have a group of elitist within the first year, and there is not real indication that hints the metagame going in a different direction, it's all just optimistic speculation. Metagame grows like a wild plant, it comes naturally, not by sculpting and shaping with happy thoughts, the metagame went this way, because it was inevitable, if something else comes along, although unlikely, so be it. Brawl doesn't have as much depth as Melee, the digging doesn't go that deep.

Good for the Top Level Pros that they can handle a broken character who most likely eventually ends up winning the tournament anyway.

 

[ShadowLink84]

stuff

Top level play is representative of the characters potential being used \. At lower levels of play the characters capability is not being used to its full extent.
So why should it matter?

Low level play is not taken into account because of that reason.

So no, MK is not ban worthy just because you suck.
Otherwise, we would have to ban everything that gave bad players a hard time.

 

[Nic64]

MK is awful at low levels anyway, I love MK scrubs, they don't know how to deal with the "wtf everything I do causes explosions!?" at all, and they're totally ignorant about how to gimp or really kill in general so I live to like 180%+ consistently, it's amazing >:D I don't understand where any of the "some scrub picked up MK and beat me ban him plz" is coming from, low level meta knight's are terrible.

 

[Deadweight]

stuff

This thread is turning into a "Should we ban MK thread" when it's not that at all.
Please stop bringing arguments pertaining to that matter into the thread as we are getting off topic.

@ Amphros.
I read the 14 90+ tournaments in 2009. I wanted to know the actual tournaments. Whobo? Apex? which did you use?. Also using a European tournament off balances the statistic. If my memory serves me correctly the best player in Germany plays shiek... Obviously there are metagame differences over seas.
Was Ninjalink the RoB that placed? Cause to my knowledge he switches to diddy vs MKs. I still feel that RoB remains unviable with MKs in the mix. (Slight bias as im a RoB main )

 

[ShadowLink84]

This thread is turning into a "Should we ban MK thread" when it's not that at all.
Please stop bringing arguments pertaining to that matter into the thread as we are getting off topic

Cut it out, the statements made are completely relevant to the topic at hand.
All criteria concerning a ban consider the high levels of play.
If the criteria were to fall onto lower levels of play, many more things become ban worthy.
As such, we ignore low level.

Stop trying to moderate the topic in such a fruitless fashion.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Cut it out, the statements made are completely relevant to the topic at hand.
All criteria concerning a ban consider the high levels of play.
If the criteria were to fall onto lower levels of play, many more things become ban worthy.
As such, we ignore low level.

Stop trying to moderate the topic in such a fruitless fashion.

No, he's right, and the topic has nothing to do with that, but it's trying to do is establish a project to get the data that would be useful, and whether or not MK is actually bannable should be confined to the thread about it.

 

[1048576]

You are not understanding.

The degree to which the character harms the other characters.
If a character goes 51:49 everyone, he is not banworthy because the advantage he holds against them is so non-discrete, that the matchup is extremely winnable.

The matchup must be unfairly winnable.
i.e. Akuma in SF2/Akuma in SF2 HD remix.

Now not only that, but your argument about there needing to be only one even matchup is TERRIBLE.

If in a game a character hard counters everyone but goes even with only one, that character should not be banned under your logic.

Ravage Affinity in Magic The Gathering had only one deck that could compete with it.
Tooth and Nail.
Tooth and Nail had to be specially made to deal with Ravager decks.

Ravager ***** everyone except one deck, tooth and nail.
Big deal it had one even matchup, that doesn't mean Ravager is no longer ban worthy.
Its still causing terrible damage to the metagame because it is still overcentralizing around that one deck.

The number of advantages is not what only matters, it is also the degree to the advantage.

No, the mtg meta is focused around three decks. The best deck; it's counter; and it's counter's counter, according to what you are describing.

A two char meta is better than an MK meta. How many characters do you want to see viable before we call it overcetralization?

Any matchup is winnable, bar 100-0, which is extremely rare. Why would you play one of the 49's though, when you get a better shot at winning from the 51?

 

[rehab]

For whatever reason? S tier very often has no matches that aren't very arguably in its favor. People play other hitbox producers for whatever reason, that's their prerogative while it is also their prerogative if they want to play the most solid thing available.

Be careful with that "how many characters have to be ___ before ___ gets banned," I seem to remember something else that people asked that about that went nowhere

 

[RDK]

No, the mtg meta is focused around three decks. The best deck; it's counter; and it's counter's counter, according to what you are describing.

A two char meta is better than an MK meta. How many characters do you want to see viable before we call it overcetralization?

Any matchup is winnable, bar 100-0, which is extremely rare. Why would you play one of the 49's though, when you get a better shot at winning from the 51?

We've already been over this a hundred times. Snake at least goes even with Meta; he arguably as an advantageous matchup, but that depends on personal opinion.

And there's no such thing as a 100-0 matchup. That means that you automatically lose as soon as the match starts, with no input whatsoever.

 

[salaboB]

And there's no such thing as a 100-0 matchup. That means that you automatically lose as soon as the match starts, with no input whatsoever.

100-0 is arguably possible, there may even be games out there where it exists (And the game is just so badly balanced that it was allowed to go live)

 

[cutter]

Ravage Affinity in Magic The Gathering had only one deck that could compete with it.
Tooth and Nail.
Tooth and Nail had to be specially made to deal with Ravager decks.

Ravager ***** everyone except one deck, tooth and nail.
Big deal it had one even matchup, that doesn't mean Ravager is no longer ban worthy.
Its still causing terrible damage to the metagame because it is still overcentralizing around that one deck.

Not even Tooth and Nail could stop Ravager. Tooth and Nail stood the best chance of beating Ravager, but it would still lose out most of the time.

No deck at all could reliably beat Ravager; the only deck that could do it was playing Ravager yourself. Even WotC admitted to this saying that Ravager warped the metagame and so they banned the deck.

In other words, true overcentralization.

 

[Flayl]

Ivan Ooze.

On topic: Close thread nothing new has been brought up yadda yadda don't make a 4th one or I'll slit someone's... power cord.

edit: My bad, totally thought this was the "should MK be banned" thread.

 

[ShadowLink84]

No, the mtg meta is focused around three decks. The best deck; it's counter; and it's counter's counter, according to what you are describing.

A two char meta is better than an MK meta. How many characters do you want to see viable before we call it overcetralization?

Any matchup is winnable, bar 100-0, which is extremely rare. Why would you play one of the 49's though, when you get a better shot at winning from the 51?

Because the matchup is STILL winnable.
I have said hat already. THe degree to which the character hurts other characters is also what matters. Not just the fact that he has an advantage, but the degree to hthose advantages.

Not even Tooth and Nail could stop Ravager. Tooth and Nail stood the best chance of beating Ravager, but it would still lose out most of the time.

No deck at all could reliably beat Ravager; the only deck that could do it was playing Ravager yourself. Even WotC admitted to this saying that Ravager warped the metagame and so they banned the deck.

In other words, true overcentralization.

Oh my error then.

 

[Overclassed]

...what?

Is this serious?

I thought at the end of the introduction I was going to see:

"HAHA.

Gotcha."

How on earth do you plan to account for human error, other than just randomly assigning some number 'x'

 

[adumbrodeus]

...what?

Is this serious?

I thought at the end of the introduction I was going to see:

"HAHA.

Gotcha."

How on earth do you plan to account for human error, other than just randomly assigning some number 'x'

First: Figure out possible errors in a given scenario by ease of making of mistake.

Second: figure out how often mistakes of each degree occurs based on top level play.

Third: Apply that to match-ups by showing how much that level of mistake impacts each match-up.


We're dealing of course with mistakes that are of the "you tricked me" variety, failures brought on through interaction with opponents, not technical mistakes.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

I suggest to create an agenda of match ups because you pretty much want to redefine every single one and even our match up ratio system because up until now most people have considered a 70-30 a hard counter.

I'm also not sure how much sirlin's criteria should be taken into account. After reading a post by AZ it seems like sirlin doesn't buy his own product. http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5873527&postcount=621 I've only read bits and pieces of sirlin's book but it seems that akuma was banned in HD remix with out following everything sirlin asks for.

 

[1048576]

Because the matchup is STILL winnable.
I have said hat already. THe degree to which the character hurts other characters is also what matters. Not just the fact that he has an advantage, but the degree to hthose advantages.



Oh my error then.

And I just finished saying, bar 100-0, ANY matchup is winnable. By your logic, Akuma is fine. You can win against him with certain other characters, just like you can win a 51-49 matchup. Why would you put yourself in that position, though? You wouldn't. You would always use Akuma in a tournament, just like you would always use the 51-49 guy.

 

[brinboy789]

And I just finished saying, bar 100-0, ANY matchup is winnable. By your logic, Akuma is fine. You can win against him with certain other characters, just like you can win a 51-49 matchup. Why would you put yourself in that position, though? You wouldn't. You would always use Akuma in a tournament, just like you would always use the 51-49 guy.

MK is mostly 60:40, with some easier, at some at MOST 80-20, but thats like 2-3 chars which all suck anyways.

wasnt akuma like 90:10 with everybody?

 

[judge!]

pretty much anyone that mk counters. snake or d3 counter even harder

 

[Red Arremer]

And I just finished saying, bar 100-0, ANY matchup is winnable. By your logic, Akuma is fine. You can win against him with certain other characters, just like you can win a 51-49 matchup. Why would you put yourself in that position, though? You wouldn't. You would always use Akuma in a tournament, just like you would always use the 51-49 guy.

In theory, every matchup which isn't 100-0 is winnable, that is true. However, in reality, everything beyond 75-25 is not winnable for the disadvantaged party on the same level of skill. 65-35 to 75-25 is extremely hard for the disadvantaged party, but if they get lucky or have a bit better skill than their opponent, they might be able to beat them.
60-40 and 55-45 are always winnable, it's just that the disadvantaged party has a slight disadvantage they have to overcome with strategy and outwitting their opponent.

 

[WhatIsRaizen?]

Have you ever wondered this? Apparently, Metaknight isn't everyone's hardest match-up.

Metaknight's easiest match-ups, from best to worst.

Ganondorf: 85:15 [Ganon's hardest match-ups are Ice Climbers (100:0), Sheik (95:5), Olimar (90:10), Falco (90:10), Pikachu (85:15), Yoshi (85:15), Metaknight (85:15), Mr G&W, Diddy, Wario, Marth (All 80:20)]

Captain Falcon: 80:20 [Captain Falcon's hardest match-up is Metaknight].

Link: 80:20 [Link's hardest match-up is Metaknight].

Samus: 80:20 [Samus's hardest match-ups are King DDD and Metaknight (80:20)].

Ivysaur: 70:30 [Ivysaur's hardest match-up is Metaknight]

Toon Link: 70:30 [Toon Link's hardest match-up is Metaknight].

Rob: 70:30 [Rob's hardest match-up is Metaknight].

Olimar: 35:65 [Olimar's hardest match-up is Metaknight].

Marth: 35:65 [Marth's hardest match-up is Metaknight].

Metaknight: 50:50 [Metaknight's hardest match-up is Metaknight (LOL)].

So, I'm wondering this, if more than 29 characters have harder match-ups than MK then why should he be the one to get banned? Those 29 characters will come across harder match-ups than Metaknight anyways.

 

[Darknid]

Those other characters aren't really dominating the metagame, though. Other characters have worse matchups usually due to some sort of infinite caused by D3, ICs, Bowser etc. or by some chaingrab(DK vs Wario..). But even so, this argument is extremely flawed. You're saying we shouldn't ban MK because he's not everyone's worst matchup?

The matchup ratios are also complete BS most of the time as people claim their character does a lot better against MK than they actually do(falco, bowser, DK and yoshi come to mind..)

 

[Red Arremer]

The matchup ratios are also complete BS most of the time as people claim their character does a lot better against MK than they actually do(falco, bowser, DK and yoshi come to mind..)

Bowser has a lot of untapped potential.

 

[Deadweight]

pretty much anyone that mk counters. snake or d3 counter even harder

RoB
/thread

 

[Red Arremer]

RoB
/thread

Meta Knight is the worst matchup for 3 viable characters: Marth, ROB, and Peach.
ROB and Peach still have hard counters (Zero Suit Samus and Marth respectively), thus banning Meta Knight would remove the only hard counter for one character: Marth.

 

[ShadowLink84]

And I just finished saying, bar 100-0, ANY matchup is winnable. By your logic, Akuma is fine. You can win against him with certain other characters, just like you can win a 51-49 matchup. Why would you put yourself in that position, though? You wouldn't. You would always use Akuma in a tournament, just like you would always use the 51-49 guy.

See we have this thing called READING.
I have mentioned MULTIPLE times that the DEGREE to how strong a character is what ALSO matters along with the number of advantages.
A character that has 521:49 is not ban worthy because the degree to which he beats everyone is very small and is within reasonable difficulty.

If Auuma goes 9-1 against everyone he is ban worthy.
because its no longer reasonably difficult for the opposing player to beat Akuma.
if i have to repeat my statement for a THIRD time, I am going to be rather upset with you.

Stop trying to twist my argument to fit your terrible ban criteria.
Who are you thinkaman?

 

[salaboB]

If Auuma goes 9-1 against everyone he is ban worthy.
because its no longer reasonably difficult for the opposing player to beat Akuma.

I thought, and I know this is a bit unrelated, that at high levels of play Akuma was simply unbeatable -- a top player using him against any non-Akuma would win, short of them having a random seizure and collapsing on the floor (Which matchup numbers don't take into account). Is this not the case?

If that is the case, how is it only 90:10 when Akuma never loses, period? These matchup numbers are so screwed up and, might I add, arbitrary.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I suggest to create an agenda of match ups because you pretty much want to redefine every single one and even our match up ratio system because up until now most people have considered a 70-30 a hard counter.

I'm also not sure how much sirlin's criteria should be taken into account. After reading a post by AZ it seems like sirlin doesn't buy his own product. http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5873527&postcount=621 I've only read bits and pieces of sirlin's book but it seems that akuma was banned in HD remix with out following everything sirlin asks for.

Not at all, it specifies tournament evidence as a way to illustrate unknown bannable tactics, or to prove a tactic that's controversal is clearly bannable.

Firstly, understand that this isn't a new game, this is a patch with a few changes. Only a few factors were really changed, and if you take into account a few factors you can essentially change x,y, and z lines in the match-up discussions to create your new match-ups. In other words, the games already been extremely well explored.

This is the same reason why we chose "items off" as the standard for brawl, while some things did change, it was easy to see that the core brokenness was still there.

With Akuma, it was the simple fact that his nerfs weren't enough to account for his overall power, plus he got new tricks, ultimately leaving him with a slew of what accounted for 90-10 match-ups, enough theoretical dominance to justify banning him with only limited tournament results.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I thought, and I know this is a bit unrelated, that at high levels of play Akuma was simply unbeatable -- a top player using him against any non-Akuma would win, short of them having a random seizure and collapsing on the floor (Which matchup numbers don't take into account). Is this not the case?

If that is the case, how is it only 90:10 when Akuma never loses, period? These matchup numbers are so screwed up and, might I add, arbitrary.

I should have been clear, I meant to say that even if Akuma went 9-1.
Though tecnically IRL there is no 10-0 matchup.

Just because those characters have a 10% chance of winning does not make Akuma any less ban worthy/ Because he is still creating such a major impact on the game.

He is no longer reasonably beatable and force sthe game into a , paly this or lse< situation.
Similar to Tooth and Nail vs Ravager Affinity.

 

[salaboB]

I should have been clear, I meant to say that even if Akuma went 9-1.
Though tecnically IRL there is no 10-0 matchup.

Just because those characters have a 10% chance of winning does not make Akuma any less ban worthy/ Because he is still creating such a major impact on the game.

He is no longer reasonably beatable and force sthe game into a , paly this or lse< situation.
Similar to Tooth and Nail vs Ravager Affinity.

I don't believe 90:10 means 10% chance of winning. Are you telling me that at top levels of play CF vs. MK the MK will actually lose 10% of the time? It seems unlikely.

 

[RDK]

I should have been clear, I meant to say that even if Akuma went 9-1.
Though tecnically IRL there is no 10-0 matchup.

Just because those characters have a 10% chance of winning does not make Akuma any less ban worthy/ Because he is still creating such a major impact on the game.

He is no longer reasonably beatable and force sthe game into a , paly this or lse< situation.
Similar to Tooth and Nail vs Ravager Affinity.

I don't believe 90:10 means 10% chance of winning. Are you telling me that at top levels of play CF vs. MK the MK will actually lose 10% of the time? It seems unlikely.

I expect better from anti-ban, but oh well. Pro-ban hasn't brought up anything new in the last million years, so here goes.

Matchup ratios do not work that way. 90-10 does not mean that the disadvantaged player / character will win 10% of the time, or 1 out of 10 times, or however you want to put it. It literally means that every single match he is disadvantaged 90 to 10. Each match is reset; it doesn't carry over to the next match.

And before salaboB bites my head off for misrepresenting his position, note that I'm responding to Shadowlinnk. I only quoted your post because it was relevant to the topic at hand.