Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***

[Master Raven]

Fiction is pro-ban now? Sky (or Fiction if you're reading this), can you specifically tell us what caused him to switch sides? "The exploitation of MK" sounds very vague. >_>

 

[BentoBox]

Fiction is one silly individual, lol.

 

[Jupz]

I don't want Meta to be banned

He's too fun

 

[Prawn]

First post, lol.

Well, in my opinion the back room and ONLY the back room can make the final decision on this. This exact thread(if it hasn't already) should be placed there and voted on, and the majority result should win. Whether it be perm. ban, temp. ban. or no ban, the people who are making the final decision should all be proven brawl competitors. Not just kids who played a local tournament and won a few rounds. At least in the backroom you know most of the people are well-informed and can make a decision based on their own findings, rather than the ramblings of a philosophy major. It doesn't matter what we say here, they're already weighing most of the options I'm sure.

Just my 2 cents though.

 

[DtJ XeroXen]

Link: unwinnable.
Mario: unwinnable.
Ganondorf: unwinnable.
CF: unwinnable.
Sheik: unwinnable.
Squirtle, Ivysaur: unwinnable. (therefore, theoretically, even if Charizard is winnable, PT is going to be punished for transformations)
Bowser: unwinnable.
Ike: unwinnable.
Ness: unwinnable.
Fox: unwinnable.
Samus: unwinnable.

Just thought I'd highlight the untrue part.

 

[ShadowLink84]

awesome post

I recommend you take bothshaya's and your post then use them a a method of showing the pro-ban argument.

I wuold also recommend the same for anti ban, that way, both sides would have their arguments laid out.

 

[Nic64]

Just thought I'd highlight the untrue part.

basically the entire post was untrue

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

basically the entire post was untrue

do you have an argument to back that up?

 

[Nic64]

I don't see how I need one, claiming something is "unwinnable" is an outlandish, unwarranted claim that is difficult to say even in the most extreme of circumstances, aside from like DDD vs DK with infinites allowed there's not much that can be said to be unwinnable.

edit: that being said, I've lost as meta knight against much of that list and I've also beaten meta knight's with like half of that list. fox, mario, sheik, bowser, and squirtle DEFINITELY do not belong on such a list at all. fox, sheik, and squirtle in particular I would say do better against meta knight than you would expect for their tier position and maybe better overall than much of the cast, calling those unwinnable is just stupid. I think he just randomly copy and pasted a bunch of low tier characters without even thinking about it because honestly some high tiers like ROB do worse against MK than fox/sheik/squirtle IMO

 

[Tristan_win]

Wow.... Someone thinks Sheik Vs meta knight is unwinnable.

~sighs~

Chain camping, grab release into tipper usmash, chain edge guard, ftilt lock, ftilt into usmash, needles. Not to mention sheik attacks come out just as fast if not faster than meta knights... The match up isn't anywhere near unwinnable if you don't do anything ******** but the same could be said when fighting Captain Falcon although to a lesser degree.

Gotta dodge those Falcon Punches and shield those dsmashes.

 

[Ax00x0]

LOL at these posters. When was the last time any Link, Mario, etc. beat MKs on a massive scale? Use your heads, people.

 

[Zankoku]

Armada has taken first in all European tournaments he's attended so far. He only plays Sheik.

Even so, you don't need to beat MK on a massive scale to disprove "unwinnable."

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Wow, really, why do people read so deeply into things?
The point of the matter was to show that just because a character is good isn't enough to facilitate a ban.

So MK gimps people, so he can recover.
It is the effect of those abilities, not just the abilities in themselves.
How soooo incredibly broken they are within the context of the game rathe than MK just having 5 jumps.

why would I have to read any deeper? that was a reply to one point alone. The guy was talking about how MK is nearly ungimpable and all you did was list other characters that have good recoveries too, which only shows that the recovery isn't enough to make a great character not that it isn't one of the reasons that he is broken.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Thanks, Shadowlink84. I think that's a great idea, too. I would love to see the anti-ban side use Eyada's criteria for the basis of an argument. It might actually facilitate some discussion rather than the massive amounts of "No, This! No, That!" posts I've been seeing since the thread started.

If anyone hasn't seen the criteria, go take a look. It's on page 220. It's great work that doesn't really favor one side or the other.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

heres the link to the individual post since you can't quote on this thread, or can't link quotes.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7266367&postcount=3287

 

[CR4SH]

When the phrase "unwinnable matchup" is used by a player with a brain, they don't mean it literally. Its obvious to everyone that anyone enough better at the game will win any matchup. My little sister can NOT beat my ganondorf with her falco, not never not no how. Gdorf-falco is, however, an unwinnable matchup. What does that mean? It means that if two players, who are both skilled, equally skilled, and both understand the matchup at least very well, the ganondorf does not have a reasonable chance to win.

Maybe it's the poster's fault for using such a nebulous term. Unrealistic is probably better.

Edit: also. Eyeada, your posts are incredible. Where did you come from?

 

[Nic64]

it's still untrue for at least 4 of those characters even with a more lax interpretation in any case

 

[tekkie]

it's still untrue for at least 4 of those characters even with a more lax interpretation in any case

Would you interpret it as some sort of advantage for them or just a milder, gentler form of MK ****?

 

[Nic64]

of course it's in MK's advantage, I just find the word "unwinnable" to be a little ridiculous here.

 

[tekkie]

of course it's in MK's advantage, I just find the word "unwinnable" to be a little ridiculous here.

That's besides the point. There's still a level of play where all anyone needs to do to hit the "win match" button is pick MK (assuming skill levels are even, or even somewhat unbalanced), and that includes playing against everyone.

 

[PK-ow!]

First post, lol.

Well, in my opinion the back room and ONLY the back room can make the final decision on this. This exact thread(if it hasn't already) should be placed there and voted on, and the majority result should win.

Well... yeah. The decision *is* "what the SBR's official ruleset will say about Meta Knight". Of course it's their discussion, and of course this thread matters only as weight in that other (presumably ongoing) one.

Whether it be perm. ban, temp. ban. or no ban, the people who are making the final decision should all be proven brawl competitors. Not just kids who played a local tournament and won a few rounds. At least in the backroom you know most of the people are well-informed and can make a decision based on their own findings, rather than the ramblings of a philosophy major.

:OOOOOOO

You . . . do realize you just diminished all philosophers everywhere, right?

I find it strange that the "ramblings" of a philosophy major would be dismissed categorically. The very *point* of philosophy is that it makes someone into a person whose "ramblings" can contribute meaningfully to anything. Of any people, other than the elite placing players, philosophers would be the second best qualified to say anything. And next to them, students with training with philosophy. I mean, not that anyone's statements are taken on just authority, but given anyone is equally capable of intellectual honesty (or dishonesty), if it's a matter of deciding who you pay attention to, the philosophers would be among those most likely to pay up in good reasoning. They may not have personal access to true premises like the pros presumably do, but they know what makes a formally and informally proper argument.
Indeed, they like to think they make a 'team' with the 'scientists' primary to any given domain.

I'm not a philosophy major; I'm just incidentally trained in philosophy to a marginal degree.


I also see that the discussion of the Now has forgotten that there is no imperative for "an anti-ban argument" . . . again. *sigh*

An argument for a burdened position would include within itself its author's best attempt to reject his own position. He then fails, and publishes. . . or actually suades himself and rewrites.


@cr4sh: There is exception to that. If player A's skill is sufficiently large, and he uses Ice Climbers, it is literally unwinnable for any Ganon against him. Given all known options in Ganon's meta, he will not beat Ice Climbers that merely apply that minimum threshold of ability. Sufficiently large means he won't fall into baiting, and uses moves Ganon literally cannot answer (and of course, knows CG 0-death). Ganon cannot force Ice Climbers into any disadvantageous situation, even a Rock-Paper-Scissors scuffle. He loses.

Although, Ganon boards wouldn't always use the word 'unwinnable' for Ice Climbers.

I think our hierarchy is:

Neutral
Disadvantaged
Bad
Nightmare
Unwinnable
& lol

We call Falco a nightmare. We call Sheik unwinnable.
But we call Ice Climbers "lol".

lol.

 

[|RK|]

Seems like no one but Eyada noticed this, so...

For those who don't feel like reading the full argument, a grossly oversimplified, lazy, slightly inaccurate version of the logic is basically:

Diversity = the available viable options; more diversity = more options; more options = more possibility for skill; and more skill = more competitive, because skill = competitive. Apply the transitivity principle and you get Diverse = Competitive. (And yes, you also get that not Diverse = not Competitive.)

Then, once the fact that "diverse" = "competitive" has been established, it is obvious that "making a maximally competitive rule set" is the same as saying "making a maximally diverse rule set".

And the ban criteria comes from the idea that banning is used to maximize competitiveness. Competitiveness = diversity. Therefore, banning is to maximize diversity. Maximizing something means to increase it as much as possible, hence the criteria that a ban must result in increased diversity.

If you disagree with reasoning behind that, read the full argument. The full argument is not as imprecise, lazy, or flawed as that little summary is.

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'll bite. How does more options = more competitive. If competition is a display of skill, then doesn't that mean it actually takes less options to show true skill? By this reasoning, we could jump into skillsets as well. The higher tiers, especially Meta-Knight, have the most options. The lower tiers have less. This means that true skill is shown through higher tiers, as more options = more skill, correct? This also means that only higher tiers are competitively viable, since lower tiers have very little options. So by this logic, higher tiers = competitive, and by the same token, lower tiers = not competitive. That means that only bans that remove characters with little diversity are justified. If what you said of characters is not true of skillsets as well, what we have here is that your argument is a fallacy in and of itself.

 

[XIF]

First post, lol.

Well, in my opinion the back room and ONLY the back room can make the final decision on this. This exact thread(if it hasn't already) should be placed there and voted on, and the majority result should win. Whether it be perm. ban, temp. ban. or no ban, the people who are making the final decision should all be proven brawl competitors. Not just kids who played a local tournament and won a few rounds.

At least in the backroom you know most of the people are well-informed and can make a decision based on their own findings, rather than the ramblings of a philosophy major.

It doesn't matter what we say here, they're already weighing most of the options I'm sure.

Just my 2 cents though.

Having been in the backroom before, you'd be surprised what a misconception that is. Yeah there are a couple of intelligent posters there, but a lot of the backroom is just as dumb as the majority of smashboards. I wont name names either, but some of the best Brawl players are perhaps the worst of all, making such incredibly dumb statements they embarass the people they try to defend. Melee Backroom is so much cooler (albeit completely dead <_<).

I used to be a pro-MK ban person, but... when a game like Brawl is that bad... i'm a pro-play Street Fighter 4 person

 

[BOB SAGET]

how about we wait till genesis and see how much MK dominates

 

[Nic64]

because one tournament is still pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things? either MK is too good or he isn't, I don't understand the "lets wait until APEX and Genesis!" angle, they shouldn't really matter at this point.

 

[Dekar173]

Some places that have smash communities don't have SF4 communities, because the SF4 players are too lazy to progress their own community and actually go to competitions.

There is a serious core few who play SF4, and that's more of a group than a community.

 

[BOB SAGET]

oh come on. only 2 tier lists have came out! way too early to tell! so once more tournaments finish. we get a better understanding of how good MK is.

 

[ShadowLink84]

why would I have to read any deeper? that was a reply to one point alone. The guy was talking about how MK is nearly ungimpable and all you did was list other characters that have good recoveries too, which only shows that the recovery isn't enough to make a great character not that it isn't one of the reasons that he is broken.

The point of the examples is to show that while Mk is nearly ungimpable, there are several characters who fall into that area as well. Considering he was just naming attributes, I foudn it would be beter if I pointed out something similar.
In short, big dea, he has great attributes, big deal, how does it affect the metagame?

 

[XIF]

Some places that have smash communities don't have SF4 communities, because the SF4 players are too lazy to progress their own community and actually go to competitions.

There is a serious core few who play SF4, and that's more of a group than a community.

Well that's just about the most untrue statement ever.

SF4 is ABSURDLY popular. It's practically killed other capcom fighting game communities.

Final Round 12 this past March had an unprecedented 249 entrants to the SF4 bracket. This was not a dedicated SF4 tournament. FR12 was a 3 day event with over a dozen games being played for tournament, and it entirely eclipsed every other tournament.

I don't even need to make this argument, here's the only thing you need to know:

SF4 brought Daigo out of retirement.

that's big.

 

[Lord Exor]

Meta Knight will never be dethroned. If you're hoping for a magic MK counter, you better leave fantasy land and start living in the real world.

These polls don't make a difference--it's more than apparent that a majority desires Meta Knight's banishment. Three different polls all yield the same results.

 

[Nic64]

If you believe that to be the case I don't see why two tournaments in the immediate future would be the final word for you either, if more time is needed then that will likely not change so quickly, but I think most people have figured out where they stand by now...

 

[thrillagorilla]

Seems like no one but Eyada noticed this, so...



I'll bite. How does more options = more competitive. If competition is a display of skill, then doesn't that mean it actually takes less options to show true skill? By this reasoning, we could jump into skillsets as well. The higher tiers, especially Meta-Knight, have the most options. The lower tiers have less. This means that true skill is shown through higher tiers, as more options = more skill, correct? This also means that only higher tiers are competitively viable, since lower tiers have very little options. So by this logic, higher tiers = competitive, and by the same token, lower tiers = not competitive. That means that only bans that remove characters with little diversity are justified. If what you said of characters is not true of skillsets as well, what we have here is that your argument is a fallacy in and of itself.

No, I noticed too, RK. I just wasn't going to answer since Eyada said he would (she? sorry, I don't know). I can answer if you like. Also...

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7269717&postcount=3405

Everyone read my post please. It's long, but I made sure to put as much care and thought into it as I possibly could. So far, the only person to have responded to it was Shadowlink84.

 

[NightShadow6]

Ok quick idea if no one has come up with it. Just host a tourny with Meta banned and see wat happens. if someone posted that already then yea

 

[BOB SAGET]

If you believe that to be the case I don't see why two tournaments in the immediate future would be the final word for you either, if more time is needed then that will likely not change so quickly, but I think most people have figured out where they stand by now...

i just use that tournamnet as an example. this is a very large tournament so it can show how the metagame has developed.

 

[Zankoku]

Great example. How much do you think the metagame is going to develop in two months?

 

[|RK|]

First of all, us anti-bans are gonna work on making MKs look terrible. The at least there'd only be people who like him, and no tier crazy people, nor those who picked him up to prove a point. Especially since those who did the latter are the problem here.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll crush MKs with Lucario as I listen to Requiem to a Dream.

 

[Overswarm]

First of all, us anti-bans are gonna work on making MKs look terrible. The at least there'd only be people who like him, and no tier crazy people, nor those who picked him up to prove a point. Especially since those who did the latter are the problem here.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll crush MKs with Lucario as I listen to Requiem to a Dream.

You're right. You should all pick up MK, that'd show us.

 

[BOB SAGET]

Great example. How much do you think the metagame is going to develop in two months?

well we havent seen much action in a while, haven't we Ankoku.

 

[Zankoku]

well we havent seen much action in a while, haven't we Ankoku.

You tell me.

July/August 2008
S: Meta Knight, Snake

August/September 2008
*: Meta Knight
S: Snake

Fall 2008
S: Meta Knight
A: Snake, King Dedede

Winter 2008/2009
S: Meta Knight
A: Snake, Falco

February/March 2009
S: Meta Knight, Snake

Right Now
S: Meta Knight, Snake

 

[BOB SAGET]

You tell me.

July/August 2008
S: Meta Knight, Snake

August/September 2008
*: Meta Knight
S: Snake

Fall 2008
S: Meta Knight
A: Snake, King Dedede

Winter 2008/2009
S: Meta Knight
A: Snake, Falco

February/March 2009
S: Meta Knight, Snake

Right Now
S: Meta Knight, Snake

oh u got me there. i forgot about the character rankings list thread u made. ya it keeps records of unknown tournaments that have 13 people participating in them. of course, u probably only have an eighth of all tournaments that happened in north america.