Results of SRT

[Krystedez]

All I was preparing to respond to any of this for was because I don't travel or play at nationals/regionals too often, so I defended the notion that I'm no less of a player than the ones who HAVE beat Rain. The main point was that I won not because of just Brinstar but because of a multitude of reasons; one being that Japan doesn't play many good warios at all and another being that I actually do well as Wario.

Not trying to be antagonistic here or anything but just trying to understand if people think I'm weird or something for a reason as Clow put it lol.

 

[clowsui]

LOL i just put down it was weird mostly because i heard there was some brinstar jank but wasn't sure

 

[GOofyGV]

the fact is that Krystedez won.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Rain had just picked up MK as his main right before Genesis. Comparing his MK from back then with his MK from now is close to blasphemy. I'm pretty sure Krystedez's Wario wouldn't be much of a threat to him anymore. And Japan has enough Wario players to play with anyway - more than the US does and better ones too.

 

[Overswarm]

Well if Rain can time travel you might have an argument, but the result is already set in stone.

 

[Krystedez]

Rain had just picked up MK as his main right before Genesis. Comparing his MK from back then with his MK from now is close to blasphemy. I'm pretty sure Krystedez's Wario wouldn't be much of a threat to him anymore. And Japan has enough Wario players to play with anyway - more than the US does and better ones too.

Well the bold statements from my knowledge are yet to be proven.

I mean I can understand; his Falco was impressive. His MK, though impressive to others and knocking many great foes out of bracket and showing just as unique of skill as I've known Japanese players to exhibit, did not stand up to the challenge of forcing down my Wario on Smashville. Then Brinstar I was surprised he even did that well on my counterpick, given it's not available to Japanese players in their events. But again, it's MK. He is naturally good there as is Wario.

So he switched to his main I guess and won handily game 2. However, I have only one recorded win over a high level Falco, back in MLG against DEHF, and he JUST beat me that tournament in pools. Not really much you can go by there in my opinion.

If anything I'd look forward to facing Rain again, but only if he shows as much promise in the matchup as M2K or Ally does. I wish to travel out to Japan one day.

 

[Kel]

Rain had just picked up MK as his main right before Genesis. Comparing his MK from back then with his MK from now is close to blasphemy. I'm pretty sure Krystedez's Wario wouldn't be much of a threat to him anymore. And Japan has enough Wario players to play with anyway - more than the US does and better ones too.

Rain mained MK before Falco. Rain and Bombsoldier decided to switch their characters back in the early days. Rain later realized (like most people do) that MK is the ultimate answer and switched back. Rain stilled played MK when necessary while he played Falco. Your post has no actual facts and is based on pure bias. Furthermore, it does nothing to further any discussion.


The real discussion should be whether or not the US can make its own damned rules now and ban MK. There were 4 MKs in the top 8! If not for a rule that specifically is set to nerf MK, there would have been 4 MKs in the top 5! I was one of the most adamant anti ban people in the back room for years, and even I know that this is ridiculous.

 

[infiniteV115]

Your post has no actual facts and is based on pure bias.


There were 4 MKs in the top 8! If not for a rule that specifically is set to nerf MK, there would have been 4 MKs in the top 5!

That was pretty hypocritical.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Rain started as MK main but then switched mains with Bombsoldier who mained Falco. That happened withing the first two months of brawl's release before any major tourney in Japan was held. At the first tourney Rain already went Falco only. Rain had not mained MK until a few weeks before Genesis when it came down to use him in tourney though. Until shortly Genesis he was a Falco main in his tourney life, end of story. Don't call out people who know the japanese scene better than you on 'bias' [which is a shame, considering you've been to Japan yourself].

 

[Luigi player]

4 MKs in top 8 sounds pretty good to me

 

[Eddie G]

That was pretty hypocritical.

Err...how?

 

[Krystedez]

Rain mained MK before Falco. Rain and Bombsoldier decided to switch their characters back in the early days. Rain later realized (like most people do) that MK is the ultimate answer and switched back.

Rain started as MK main but then switched mains with Bombsoldier who mained Falco. That happened withing the first two months of brawl's release before any major tourney in Japan was held. At the first tourney Rain already went Falco only. Rain had not mained MK until a few weeks before Genesis when it came down to use him in tourney though.

...Gheb you basically said exactly the same thing as Kel LOL and then
HAHAHA

and then...
*pffft*
you tell him.....

Don't call out people who know the japanese scene better than you on 'bias' [which is a shame, considering you've been to Japan yourself].

oh man riveting discussion gentlemen I'm out XDDD

In any case, no one person, including you Gheb, can really say for sure what his skill level could be, is, will be, or compares to, arbitrarily. Regardless of your "extensive" knowledge of the japanese scene, Rain for all we know on his own time may have practiced MK, and that's why his performance in Genesis may have been good, and then his performance at SRT even better.

 

[Krystedez]

Double post delete if needed

 

[Vinnie]

1 mk in top 2
2 mks in top 4
3 mks in top 6
4 mks in top 8

50% isnt that bad considering how "unstoppable" people consider MK.

Also there were 4 different characters in top 8, and everyone in the top 8 went pretty much 100% 1 character the whole tourney. They placed in the top 8 because they deserved it. People forget that it's player vs player, not just character vs character.

 

[GOofyGV]

1 mk in top 2
2 mks in top 4
3 mks in top 6
4 mks in top 8

50% isnt that bad considering how "unstoppable" people consider MK.

Also there were 4 different characters in top 8, and everyone in the top 8 went pretty much 100% 1 character the whole tourney. They placed in the top 8 because they deserved it. People forget that it's player vs player, not just character vs character.

And this is why I respect top players
they respect each other now mather what. sportmanship

 

[Overswarm]

1 mk in top 2
2 mks in top 4
3 mks in top 6
4 mks in top 8

50% isnt that bad considering how "unstoppable" people consider MK.

Also there were 4 different characters in top 8, and everyone in the top 8 went pretty much 100% 1 character the whole tourney. They placed in the top 8 because they deserved it. People forget that it's player vs player, not just character vs character.

You're an idiot.

Go main Mario and get back to me.

You think anyone there got there on skill alone? Bull****. We've seen it literally thousands of times across dozens of games: tiers matter. You'll have occasional stand-out players that make everyone say "wow" and then people catch on and their tricks disappear and they fade into obscurity.

You think it is coincidence that every major tournament series is inundated not only with MK players, but with MK players at the top? You think it is coincidence that he makes leagues more money than every other character?

Look at this.

LOOK AT IT.

You are worthless as a player if you do not play the right character.

It's not even up for debate anymore. To say otherwise is flat out lying. It's not an opinion. It is cold, hard, undeniable fact.

And you know what? You know it too. That's why you chose the character you did. You stack the deck as best you can, just like everyone else. You wouldn't do as well in a tournament that had a stage list that didn't cater to your character; but you don't have to deal with that, because you chose your character based off of what was available. If other stages were available, you would be playing a character other than ICs pretty fast.


You think 50% isn't bad? Again, idiotic. The New York Yankees have been a hot button issue in baseball for a long, long time because they just purchase the best team possible and are considered a giant in the world of baseball. Of the 40 World Series games they've played, they have won 27 (a world record). This doesn't mean "the yankees aren't that good". They are. They're a beast of a team. You're looking at it from the wrong direction.

People used to say "some other character would just take MKs place".

Again incorrect. MK is an outlier. Special. Distinct. He is separate to a degree of absurdity. He makes four times the money that the second place character does. When you remove MK, that second place character has a whopping 2% lead.... on 4 characters. 4% lead on 2 more.

Meta Knight has a 28% lead on money won compared to the second ranking character in MK legal tournaments. He wins over one third of all money available.


Do you not realize how insane that is?

Does that really not occur to you in the slightest?



Your position is a natural straw man. "Well, you guys said he's unstoppable and he wasn't ENTIRELY unstoppable, so..." is a pointless thing to say. You're masturbating. Look up and play with others in the discussion and you'll find no one said he was unstoppable. They said what he's doing, and has been doing, has been predicted to do, and what he will continue to do, is pretty ridiculous.



The amount of idiocy people will spout to keep their interests in check is just ridiculous. The writing has been on the wall for ages.

 

[Luigi player]

You're an idiot.

Go main Mario and get back to me.

You think anyone there got there on skill alone? Bull****.

yawn.

mario wouldn't win **** even without MK. and that is true for like 95% of the cast. every character would do better without MK because he is the best and then everyone moves one spot up. there might be very few exceptions like maybe toon link, but other than that not much would be different.
and of course the characters matter. everyone knows that. and MK is the best and results reflect that. but! there are other characters that can be used too that are really good and can compete at top level. top tier, high tier, sometimes mid tiers too.

results don't matter to MK haters, as long as there are just a few MKs in there their lifes break and they start whining.

 

[Vinnie]

I never said tiers don't exist lol wth @.@

Im just saying mk isnt as dominant as people make him seem.

Edit: thanks lp, im typing from my phone so I don't feel like writing novels atm. You said everything that I was thinking.

 

[Overswarm]

yawn.

mario wouldn't win **** even without MK. and that is true for like 95% of the cast. every character would do better without MK because he is the best and then everyone moves one spot up. there might be very few exceptions like maybe toon link, but other than that not much would be different.
and of course the characters matter. everyone knows that. and MK is the best and results reflect that. but! there are other characters that can be used too that are really good and can compete at top level. top tier, high tier, sometimes mid tiers too.

results don't matter to MK haters, as long as there are just a few MKs in there their lifes break and they start whining.

There is not a single character that even gets close to competing on MKs level. Not one. The closest any has ever been has been Snake and that was in the year following release.

 

[Overswarm]

I never said tiers don't exist lol wth @.@

Im just saying mk isnt as dominant as people make him seem.

Edit: thanks lp, im typing from my phone so I don't feel like writing novels atm. You said everything that I was thinking.

Yes you did. "It's player vs. player, not character vs. character".

The character has always been more important than the player when skill is even remotely close. It's why upsets occur more often in bad matchups.

You use the player/player example to downplay MK's dominance and somehow say that it's simply the players, not the characters, that are doing so well. I showed this is not the case.

MK is far and beyond a reasonable character to use.

 

[Vinnie]

And you know what? You know it too. That's why you chose the character you did.

What? I play other characters too bro... Have you never seen me 2 stock m2k/Nairo on several different occasions with gw??

 

[infiniteV115]

Err...how?

He was calling out Gheb for saying things that were not based on fact but pure bias, and then went on to assume that M2K would have beaten Masha in the set if it weren't for the scrooging rule.

 

[Vinnie]

People forget that it's player vs player, not just character vs character.

Never said it was only player vs player, I'm not stupid.

 

[Overswarm]

What? I play other characters too bro... Have you never seen me 2 stock m2k/Nairo on several different occasions with gw??

Wait, lemme guess:

you didn't use him in tournament at Japan?


or wait wait wait

You won a first round match with G&W, then switched?



You've always been a good player, I saw your matches long ago. But when push comes to shove, you stacked the deck so you have a better chance at winning. That's what we do. That's why there are so many MKs.

 

[Eddie G]

yawn.

mario wouldn't win **** even without MK. and that is true for like 95% of the cast. every character would do better without MK because he is the best and then everyone moves one spot up. there might be very few exceptions like maybe toon link, but other than that not much would be different.
and of course the characters matter. everyone knows that. and MK is the best and results reflect that. but! there are other characters that can be used too that are really good and can compete at top level. top tier, high tier, sometimes mid tiers too.

results don't matter to MK haters, as long as there are just a few MKs in there their lifes break and they start whining.

Not much would be different? Ahem...

That is all.

 

[xDD-Master]

@Overswarm:

Its just natural that people pick the best character. It happens in every game. This especially happens, when a Character is pretty 'basic', like MK. It would be less a problem if MK wasnt just as 'easy' to pick up.

I personally think that ICs are probably tied with MK for the first spot of the best characters, but then again, that only applies if the player doesnt drop any grabs, which so far no ICs is able to do (Vinnie and 9B are close though, especially against light characters). And players cant simply pick up ICs, like they can with MK. You have to learn the chaingrabs at first, which is a big hurdle to overcome if you are new to ICs. With MK you sure need learn Spacing & Zoning etc. (Or be good at it), and also Match-Up specific stuff (Especially the weird stuff like dealing with Bananas, Snakes Explosives & Pikmins for example), but that applies to every character. So MK as a character is still more 'basic' overall compared to the other characters, who have to master Banana Infinites, (Infinite) Chaingrabs, Pikmin Order, Explosives for example, which requires more stuff to learn overall. I dont want to say if its easier or harder, because that one is hard to decide, some people might find ICs or Diddy easier than MK. (Note: Just because something / a character is easier than others doesnt mean that you are automatically better with that)

So, its not a big surprise that there are more MKs than all the other characters, and its also not very surprising that MK wins the most money, when taking into account how many people play him. MK needs limitations like IDC-Ban and LGL or something similar though (I dont agree with the "Flying under the stage" rule though), so he isnt unbeatable, but once these rules are forced (Which isnt that big of a problem), he is viable for competitive play (IMO).

Sure, you can ban him, but then Top Players who played him, will still win, just with different characters, and ofc. that will be a lot of different characters. You could ban all the Top Tiers, and you would see all Snakes going to different characters, all Diddys going other characters, and so on. This is just normal. So its really easy to except more diversity if you ban the very most played character.

There is just one big problem with banning MK, which is that he is still beatable with some characters (ICs, Olimar, Snake, Wario, Diddy, Fox, Falco, Marth and maybe even more). The problem is just that MK alone is nearly just as much played as all the other characters together, especially when you look at top level of play. If you look at it this way, then its shouldnt be a surprise, why 50% of all the time a MK wins.

So in the end, its all just a matter of opinion, of when a character is 'too broken' and when not. I personally dont think MK is, because my 'bar' of how good a character is "allowed" to be, before considering banning him, is pretty high, and MK so far didnt reach this bar. Other people (Like you) may already see this bar reached. So whatever, we are argueing opinion vs. opinion in the end.

And tbh, its not that hard to accept that both MK-legal and MK-banned can co-exist, or is it? Just like there can be Mid-Tier and Low-Tier Events. No one ever complained about them. And srsly, there is no real difference between a LT and a MK-banned event if you ask me, just that LT has way more characters banned. I dont have a problem with that, and you shouldnt too.

 

[Overswarm]

The amount of misunderstanding in the above post is crazy.

What kind of person convinces themselves with circular logic? XD

"It's only natural for there to be so many MKs. People like to play good characters and MK is really good so there are more MKs. But since there are so many MKs it's no surprise why 50% of the time MK wins!"

So silly.


It isn't an opinion to say that MK is an overly dominant force and bad for the metagame and community.


What you personally "think" about a character's strength is irrelevant. Just results matter.

 

[xDD-Master]

The amount of misunderstanding in the above post is crazy.

What kind of person convinces themselves with circular logic? XD

"It's only natural for there to be so many MKs. People like to play good characters and MK is really good so there are more MKs. But since there are so many MKs it's no surprise why 50% of the time MK wins!"

So silly.


It isn't an opinion to say that MK is an overly dominant force and bad for the metagame and community.


What you personally "think" about a character's strength is irrelevant. Just results matter.

Too bad, but results dont show, if a character is beatable or not.

Maybe in 10 years MK wont win anything anymore, because all the other characters (Or more likely the players that play them) got so good, that even MK cant beat them anymore? What will you do then?

You cant just legitimately ban a character simply by looking at the results. It could be that we all just suck at the game? Or Top 8 could be all Ganondorf, because all Top players decided to main Ganondorf, and we all know that if the skill gap is big enough characters mostly dont count, so the 'dorfs would win. Would you ban Ganondorf then?

You may counter now with "we dont suck" or something, but you cant prove that. Just like I cant prove that MK is beatable. Just like you cant prove he is unbeatable.

You just take results as the ultimate truth, which clearly show that MK is too strong. But you know what? A person could say that a character isnt too strong unless he wins 100% of the time, and you couldnt even argue anything against that, because its an opinion. And there is NO objective way to decide if MK is too broken or not. Its all opinion.

You dont think so? So if there is, then tell me when exactly is a character TOO broken, and when not. Show me. Dont show me any Brawl-Money- or MK-related charts. I want a general definition of when something is too broken.

If you cant show me that, then I can conclude that its all opinion.

 

[z00ted]

Overswarm, I love you.

 

[Overswarm]

Too bad, but results dont show, if a character is beatable or not.

Maybe in 10 years MK wont win anything anymore, because all the other characters (Or more likely the players that play them) got so good, that even MK cant beat them anymore? What will you do then?

You cant just legitimately ban a character simply by looking at the results. It could be that we all just suck at the game? Or Top 8 could be all Ganondorf, because all Top players decided to main Ganondorf, and we all know that if the skill gap is big enough characters mostly dont count, so the 'dorfs would win. Would you ban Ganondorf then?

You may counter now with "we dont suck" or something, but you cant prove that. Just like I cant prove that MK is beatable. Just like you cant prove he is unbeatable.

You just take results as the ultimate truth, which clearly show that MK is too strong. But you know what? A person could say that a character isnt too strong unless he wins 100% of the time, and you couldnt even argue anything against that, because its an opinion. And there is NO objective way to decide if MK is too broken or not. Its all opinion.

You dont think so? So if there is, then tell me when exactly is a character TOO broken, and when not. Show me. Dont show me any Brawl-Money- or MK-related charts. I want a general definition of when something is too broken.

If you cant show me that, then I can conclude that its all opinion.

We did all this years ago. There is literally a 5 point PDF with several pre-emptive counter arguments from both the pro-ban and anti-ban side floating around on the internet.

We know that MK is overly dominant. We now have proof that not only is he overly dominant, but he is also stifling the metagame and forces it into a very small choke. Even crazier, we've also found that removing Meta Knight has helped several characters rise to the top while having no significant negative impact on those that were considered 'good' in a MK-legal environment.

If you think that "oh hey, things might change", the onus is on you.

 

[etecoon]

brawl will be dead competitively in 10 years or very very close to it to begin with, can't see it persisting in SSB4's shadow the way melee has tbh, it's not like sakurai can lower the bar much further

 

[clowsui]

Too bad, but results dont show, if a character is beatable or not.

Maybe in 10 years MK wont win anything anymore, because all the other characters (Or more likely the players that play them) got so good, that even MK cant beat them anymore? What will you do then?

if we don't use the data that we have now then what do we use? >_> 5 years of data not enough for you?

also consider that stage originalists have traditionally always been open to continuously testing stages and reintroducing them if they were wrongfully banned or banning them ASAP if they were wrongfully kept legal as opposed to stage constructionists. i don't suppose it'd be too different for a character either

You cant just legitimately ban a character simply by looking at the results. It could be that we all just suck at the game? Or Top 8 could be all Ganondorf, because all Top players decided to main Ganondorf, and we all know that if the skill gap is big enough characters mostly dont count, so the 'dorfs would win. Would you ban Ganondorf then?

your analysis is 2 dimensional and does not account for the progression of results over time and also does not adjust for "context" (ie different rulesets). this portion of your argument is invalidated.

for the record if ganondorf happened to dominate across time and we had to create rules specifically to limit ganon then we'd certainly ban him, yeah

You may counter now with "we dont suck" or something, but you cant prove that. Just like I cant prove that MK is beatable. Just like you cant prove he is unbeatable.

You just take results as the ultimate truth, which clearly show that MK is too strong. But you know what? A person could say that a character isnt too strong unless he wins 100% of the time, and you couldnt even argue anything against that, because its an opinion. And there is NO objective way to decide if MK is too broken or not. Its all opinion.

notice how Overswarm actually set a standard and you didn't, lol.

EVERY time this kind of debate pops up, pro-ban has something along the lines of "k here is our hypothesis here is our proof"

meanwhile anti-ban makes arguments about the legitimacy of the hypothesis and does not actually provide any of its own data. if anti-ban presents data, then there will be a legitimate discussion. until then, pro-ban looks overwhelmingly good LOL

You dont think so? So if there is, then tell me when exactly is a character TOO broken, and when not. Show me. Dont show me any Brawl-Money- or MK-related charts. I want a general definition of when something is too broken.

If you cant show me that, then I can conclude that its all opinion.

read what you are saying again. you are suggesting that all testable hypotheses are simply opinion, which is factually false.

 

[Kel]

Damn, I love this thread.

Hey, Gheb, have you ever played Kryz? Malcom? Reflex? Gluttony? Bpow? Blue Rogue? etc?

In contrast, what Warios do you believe give Rain so much practice that every other region in the world stands no chance to him? You may know the Japanese scene better than me now, sure, but do you know the rest of the world's scene? There are characters that are better in Japan (Olimar and Snake for example), and I have been saying this for years. The US and western world is NOT lacking in Warios though.

 

[xDD-Master]

We did all this years ago. There is literally a 5 point PDF with several pre-emptive counter arguments from both the pro-ban and anti-ban side floating around on the internet.

We know that MK is overly dominant. We now have proof that not only is he overly dominant, but he is also stifling the metagame and forces it into a very small choke. Even crazier, we've also found that removing Meta Knight has helped several characters rise to the top while having no significant negative impact on those that were considered 'good' in a MK-legal environment.

If you think that "oh hey, things might change", the onus is on you.

So what?

As I said, there is nothing wrong with MK-legal and MK-banned co-existing.
As you can see, MK-legal events ARE happening and people attend them, AND other characters beside MK place.
Therefore you can only asume that a MK-legal environment IS possible.

I never said that there is no place for MK-banned events to exist. They can happen, but there is nothing wrong with MK-legal. Just like there can be Mid-Tiers and Low-Tiers.

Just because YOU find it too much when a character wins 50% of the money, doesnt mean that other people also have a problem with that.
You can tell me as much as you want that a MK-banned environment is better, but it still is just an opinion.

You take 'more diversity' as the "ultimate" goal, right? (Because thats what you are mostly talking about when you are argueing pro-Ban)
Then you should also ban DDD. This one character makes many characters nearly unviable. But DDD is beatable, so we dont ban him, right?
Oh, sounds pretty familiar to me
*hint* MK is the same case... just that MK has no real counters.

So if you ban MK because he is played too much and takes too much of the money, then better ban ICs and DDD too, because then you will get even more diversity.

And you still didnt gave me an objective reason why MK HAS to be banned.
You still come up with Results-related reasons. What you conclude out of these results though, is opinion.
When I see the SRT results, I dont see a MK-problem.
He is good, he places well, but he can still be beaten. And if he can be beaten, he shouldnt be banned.


@clowsui:

Sure, the 5 years of data we have is pretty impressive, but if they show if MK banned should be banned or not IS as you can see a matter of opinion. Not everyone has a problem with 50% MKs. Whats so hard to understand about that?

And the game is about the characters not the stages.
I would prefer 1 Stage only + every character allowed over x characters banned but (nearly) all stages allowed.

And with saying that you would ban ganondorf, who clearly IS very beatable, just because of the results, then I can just lol...

Overswarm didnt set a standard. He brings up statistics which show that MK wins this and that amount of money.
But he NEVER (and probably never will ) be able to show that MK is OBJECTIVELY too broken.
"When a character wins 50% of the money he should be banned" is just an opinion.

Anti-Ban needs no arguments. We can just play our game with MK, and there is nothing wrong with that. We dont see or have a problem with that. So whats your problem?


You are acting like banning MK is objectively better for the game, but it isnt. In your Opinion it is, in others it isnt.

So again, whats so hard about both Rulesets Co-Existing?

 

[Sox]

nvm, i dont care

 

[clowsui]

there's nothing wrong with both rulesets co-existing but i think MK legal people should admit that they're really only hosting MK legal events out of a preference and not on any sort of conclusive logical basis

and you missed the caveat to my ganon point, lol. i said if ganon dominates over time and across different rulesets, then we should move to ban him or consider banning him. but the fact of the matter is that he isn't good enough to do this and the metagame has adjusted to destroy any possibility of him doing so. meanwhile, the metagame has adjusted continuously but has not been able to "shake itself free" of MK

look

in smash you have results. the context that goes along with them is composed of "ruleset" and "point in time [at which the results occurred]"

if ganondorf happens to dominate naturally across time and across different rulesets as MK has done, then there are two conclusions you could draw:
1. Nobody has figured out how to counter Ganondorf effectively
2. Ganondorf is too good

You can create a hypothesis to test these conclusions...which, transitioning back to MK, Overswarm has done in plenty of previous posts.

"Metaknight is broken because across time and across different rulesets, he remains by far and away the most consistently successful character."

He then chooses to measure success by amount of money earned (and, by proxy, placements)

 

[Overswarm]

So what?

As I said, there is nothing wrong with MK-legal and MK-banned co-existing.
As you can see, MK-legal events ARE happening and people attend them, AND other characters beside MK place.
Therefore you can only asume that a MK-legal environment IS possible.

I never said that there is no place for MK-banned events to exist. They can happen, but there is nothing wrong with MK-legal. Just like there can be Mid-Tiers and Low-Tiers.

Just because YOU find it too much when a character wins 50% of the money, doesnt mean that other people also have a problem with that.
You can tell me as much as you want that a MK-banned environment is better, but it still is just an opinion.

You take 'more diversity' as the "ultimate" goal, right? (Because thats what you are mostly talking about when you are argueing pro-Ban)
Then you should also ban DDD. This one character makes many characters nearly unviable. But DDD is beatable, so we dont ban him, right?
Oh, sounds pretty familiar to me
*hint* MK is the same case... just that MK has no real counters.

So if you ban MK because he is played too much and takes too much of the money, then better ban ICs and DDD too, because then you will get even more diversity.

And you still didnt gave me an objective reason why MK HAS to be banned.
You still come up with Results-related reasons. What you conclude out of these results though, is opinion.
When I see the SRT results, I dont see a MK-problem.
He is good, he places well, but he can still be beaten. And if he can be beaten, he shouldnt be banned.


@clowsui:

Sure, the 5 years of data we have is pretty impressive, but if they show if MK banned should be banned or not IS as you can see a matter of opinion. Not everyone has a problem with 50% MKs. Whats so hard to understand about that?

And the game is about the characters not the stages.
I would prefer 1 Stage only + every character allowed over x characters banned but (nearly) all stages allowed.

And with saying that you would ban ganondorf, who clearly IS very beatable, just because of the results, then I can just lol...

Overswarm didnt set a standard. He brings up statistics which show that MK wins this and that amount of money.
But he NEVER (and probably never will ) be able to show that MK is OBJECTIVELY too broken.
"When a character wins 50% of the money he should be banned" is just an opinion.

Anti-Ban needs no arguments. We can just play our game with MK, and there is nothing wrong with that. We dont see or have a problem with that. So whats your problem?


You are acting like banning MK is objectively better for the game, but it isnt. In your Opinion it is, in others it isnt.

So again, whats so hard about both Rulesets Co-Existing?

Anti-ban already did.

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

Reading it now is laughable.

 

[theunabletable]

You're an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Yes you did. "It's player vs. player, not character vs. character".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy as well as a tad of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

You think it is coincidence that every major tournament series is inundated not only with MK players, but with MK players at the top? You think it is coincidence that he makes leagues more money than every other character? [...] It's not even up for debate anymore. To say otherwise is flat out lying. It's not an opinion. It is cold, hard, undeniable fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation-causation_fallacy

The amount of idiocy people will spout to keep their interests in check is just ridiculous. The writing has been on the wall for ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

What kind of person convinces themselves with circular logic? XD

The thing you quoted isn't circular, the conclusion is not part of the premises. In fact, it's not surprising that if something is perceived as good in a situation where the results are based purely on people's reactions then more people will use it, and some situations have the added effect that it can be added to by the people, so the more people use it, the better it gets, and thus gets inflated results.

The Fridrich method for solving the Rubik's cube is definitely the most common method for speedsolving, and also has, unsurprisingly the fastest averages and fastest times, usually. That doesn't mean it's a better method than, say, Roux, or Snyder, or Heise (maybe better than Petrus ), it just garners better results right now for a variety of reasons, with many variables at play. We can't say "All that matters is these results, and these results clearly indicate this interpretation of the results, therefore the Fridrich method is objectively the best method," there's a huge amount of other things to take into account other than simply how much money one method has made over the others.


Just a few, wasn't looking that hard actually.

there's nothing wrong with both rulesets co-existing but i think MK legal people should admit that they're really only hosting MK legal events out of a preference and not on any sort of conclusive logical basis

Bull**** there's no sort of conclusive logical basis. Preference is the logical basis. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=317460

I have doubts you'd ever be able to find any conclusive logical basis for what should be done that isn't related to personal preference. People have been trying for centuries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem Descriptive statements can't easily give rise to normative ones, regardless of if the topic is morality, or

 

[Kel]

Did you guys know that if you ban every stage except for BF, FD, and SV that MK becomes less dominant.....

 

[Overswarm]

You used Ad hominem incorrectly. The strawman fallacy is only applicable during situations involving deliberate spin in order to reach a pertinent agenda and does not apply to a question/answer combination. Correlation does not cause causation but I wasn't applying that flawed concept; it is pretty obvious by the amount of data I've collected over the year that it isn't a simple correlation. The fact that you posted this means I should remind you that correlation != causation is meant to convey that correlation alone does not imply causation, not that it cannot be present. By definition, correlation or lack thereof is ever-present in a truth between two independent variables despite not having an effect itself on the outcome of any scenario. The circular reasoning would have better been described as a paradoxical statement though; however, the conclusion doesn't have to be part of the premises in circular reasoning if it is presented in conjunction with a whole.

Good luck in your freshman logic class!