The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)

[Doctor X]

and its clear that nobody is on M2Ks level but if you look at the like 10 best ppl below him, they all play MK

I'm not sure where you think you're getting this information, but here's the current EC rankings for Brawl:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=175544

There are only three MK mains in the top 10 if I'm not mistaken.

This. He didn't Use D3 at all at hobo 11 now.

If he did, maybe scrubs in Texas would have banned D3 as well.

 

[Espy Rose]

If he did, maybe scrubs in Texas would have banned D3 as well.

That's a low blow, even if I am/am not qualified as a "scrub".

FYI, the TO is banning MK with the means of being the "guinea pig" for the SBR, in a sans-MK environment.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

I'm not sure where you think you're getting this information, but here's the current EC rankings for Brawl:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=175544

There are only three MK mains in the top 10 if I'm not mistaken.



If he did, maybe scrubs in Texas would have banned D3 as well.

where do you get off at calling everyone in texas a scrub? It's not like you could come in here and own everyone.

Plus half of the tournament where people from out of state. East and West cost where there. Kind of funny how your only defense now is that everyone in texas is a scrub.


edit: Dallas banned MK in like 4 tourneys before xyro did in hobo 12.

 

[ph00tbag]

MK is banned at hobo 12 now. TOs seem to agree that MK is ban worthy, who are the people argueing against it just random players?

Then again, they also tried to ban chain throwing.

 

[infomon]

MK's even more broken Online. He should at least be banned in online tournaments.

The SBR does not consider online play in their rulesets.

I forgot to reply to da K.I.D.'s response to my questions about OS' ruleset, so here it is. Keep in mind, I think our ban-criteria template is something we should theoretically be able to apply to any character in Brawl, and possibly extend it easily to other fighting games as well.

1. "No counters or poor matchups" -- is this the same as saying "no disadvantageous matchups? Like do soft-counters count?

soft counters indicate a disadvantageous match, so yes the two are one and the same. and it fits because MK has no soft counters. that is why when its so important when we talk about MK's worst matchup being a ditto.

So when OS says "No counters or poor matchups", if the Snake matchup was 60:40 in Snake's favour, then MK would not be ban-worthy. Correct? But if it's 50:50, MK could still be bannable? Seems kinda strange that a character could lose on a coin toss and is still considered "too good". Why not just say "character must have favourable matchups against the rest of the cast"? Which sounds like it would match Yuna's "no other character has a reasonable chance of winning" criteria much better.

5. Could we say "most" instead of "several"? Maybe solidify this to either 5 or 6 out of 8.

most indicates more than half, so i agree with this, especially since 5/8 was how many played MK at HOBO

That's debatable. Azen was Lucario until his last two matches. So even if he had never switched to MK and lost the loser's bracket final with Lucario, he would still have placed third; correct? Two of those other five top Metas used other characters as well, so they also might have placed as high without MK. So I see anywhere between two and five MK's in the top 8 at Hobo11; of course that's only one tournament. But to follow OS' criteria, we'd have to find a way to deal with people changing character throughout a tournament.

6. I'll agree that half-a-year seems like the correct time-frame for a game like Brawl, which clearly has less depth/progression than, say, Melee. I think that the half-a-year time frame should not be allowed to begin sooner than half-a-year after Brawl's North American release date, because IMO that's about the amount of time it took for us to really figure the game out.

you are agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. 6 months is the right time, but not because we cant start counting off the six months yet? thats conflicting. if any thing i will give you this, MK has only been COMPLETELY dominating for 3 months, hes been beating everybody except snake since release, but he just started beating snake about 3 months ago, so I will give it until he dominates EVERYONE for 6 months...

Well I think it makes sense to ignore the time immediately after the game's release, regardless of who's winning, because we were obviously not playing at the highest level of play. This hardly matters anyway, because come March the game will have been out for a year, with a 6mo. starting period, followed by 6mo. of (possible, arguable) MK dominance that could satisfy the ban criteria. But acknowledging the game's "start-up time" would lend some legitimacy to our ban rules, so that they could perhaps be used in other fighting games, like a future Smash Bros. if there ever is one.

7. I'm not sure what this means.
a. Are the other characters prevented from playing because of an incredibly bad matchup against the broken character?
b. Or is it because they have counters, whereas the broken one doesn't, so all the mains of 3/4 of the cast have to switch to the broken char just to stay competitive?

a. is the correct answer, although b is good too, its mainly a.

I'd really like Overswarm to answer my question about #7, and maybe #8 too:

1. Character has no counters or poor matchups
(...)
7. Character prevents a large majority (3/4) of the other characters from being played competitively
8. Character has a even matchup at worst with a large majority (3/4) of the highest ranking characters on the tier list
9. Character has no other characters in the game that share these qualities

7. I'm not sure what this means. Are the other characters prevented from playing because of an incredibly bad matchup against the broken character? Or is it because they have counters, whereas the broken one doesn't, so all the mains of 3/4 of the cast have to switch to the broken char just to stay competitive?

8. Is point 8 really necessary, given that points 1 and 9 exist? I don't like the reliance on a "tier list"; it's not clear what we're taking a large majority of.

In particular for point 8... if the character has "No counters or poor matchups", isn't that the same as saying they have an even matchup at worst with all of the cast? There's something subtle here I don't understand

Thanks for help, sorry all for my long posts

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Then again, they also tried to ban chain throwing.

Xyro didn't try to ban chain throwing he banned infinites which destroy all of one players options. He also feels very different about banning MK because when you ban an infinite there are still other things you can do when you ban MK theres no more options for him.

If he didn't he would have banned him long ago.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I'm not sure where you think you're getting this information, but here's the current EC rankings for Brawl:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=175544

There are only three MK mains in the top 10 if I'm not mistaken.



If he did, maybe scrubs in Texas would have banned D3 as well.

lol

that link you posted hasnt been updated in 3 months, that is from back when snakes were still beating MKs

 

[K-Nite]

Uhm... why don't we just soft ban him.

 

[da K.I.D.]

soft bans require honor, something americans dont have

 

[infomon]

FYI, the TO is banning MK with the means of being the "guinea pig" for the SBR, in a sans-MK environment.

I don't understand what such an experiment is supposed to prove. Ban MK, and "Wow! MK's not winning tournaments anymore! Guess it was a great idea!" ??

The only thing a Texas ban of MK will demonstrate is faulty inference; at the next tournament you'll undoubtedly see more diversity in the tourney results, because the metagame will have been largely destabilized. Even if there is a character who would become "ban-worthy" without MK (using the same criteria that was applied to MK.... of which no concrete definition has been stated), it could take months for them to rise to the top the way MK has.

But on that note, the results from Hobo11 already were diverse. Between 2 and 4 of the top 8 were MK; Azen would have been there even if he'd stayed Lucario at the end and lost, amirite? What's Texas' stated reason for instituting a ban?

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

stuff)

for 7 its A. its a main argument for the pro ban.

for 8 matches are never 50:50 even a mirror match up is 51:49 because of port priority. Having neutrals against the whole cast is not the same because that character would dish out as much as he dishes out and the 51:49 would be considered a soft counter since someone has the advantage.

MK how ever has no soft counters.

 

[da K.I.D.]

we basically have already soft banned him, since most of us look down on those that use him anyway.

see how well that works for stoping ppl from playing MK...

 

[brinboy789]

question: i don't see or hear about any players that quit smash because of MK. did anybody? because i dont think anybody did. and contrary to popular belief, except to tier whores, people are not switching to MK. or at least not that i know of

why has nobody answered my question? answer please

 

[salaboB]

I don't understand what such an experiment is supposed to prove. Ban MK, and "Wow! MK's not winning tournaments anymore! Guess it was a great idea!" ??

The only thing a Texas ban of MK will demonstrate is faulty inference; at the next tournament you'll undoubtedly see more diversity in the tourney results, because the metagame will have been largely destabilized. Even if there is a character who would become "ban-worthy" without MK (using the same criteria that was applied to MK.... of which no concrete definition has been stated), it could take months for them to rise to the top the way MK has.

But on that note, the results from Hobo11 already were diverse. Between 2 and 4 of the top 8 were MK; Azen would have been there even if he'd stayed Lucario at the end and lost, amirite? What's Texas' stated reason for instituting a ban?

See if it ruins people's ability to compete.

See if it changes who people counterpick.

See if new characters show up in the top slots that were being entirely suppressed before.

See how much it upsets people.

There's a fair number of things that can be checked with a test at a big tourney.

why has nobody answered my question? answer please

Few reports nearer the start of this thread, bit too much effort to go look them up right now.

 

[cman]

Uhm... why don't we just soft ban him.

Americans don't care about honor. No one will stop playing MK because of a soft-ban. NO ONE!




As far as test banning MK, that wouldn't be very indicative of the post-MK metagame. Test ban tournys would originally have a massive amount of diversity, but that would probably eventually iron out to just a few characters, probably something around 5 (Snake, GW, Marth, DDD, and possibly falco) dominating with a few others randomly sprinkled. So i don't think a test ban would tell us anything meaningful, unless it was tested for an extended period of time.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

I don't understand what such an experiment is supposed to prove. Ban MK, and "Wow! MK's not winning tournaments anymore! Guess it was a great idea!" ??

The only thing a Texas ban of MK will demonstrate is faulty inference; at the next tournament you'll undoubtedly see more diversity in the tourney results, because the metagame will have been largely destabilized. Even if there is a character who would become "ban-worthy" without MK (using the same criteria that was applied to MK.... of which no concrete definition has been stated), it could take months for them to rise to the top the way MK has.

But on that note, the results from Hobo11 already were diverse. Between 2 and 4 of the top 8 were MK; Azen would have been there even if he'd stayed Lucario at the end and lost, amirite? What's Texas' stated reason for instituting a ban?

Yes Azen would have made it to 3rd with lucario but he can't go any higher which actually proves the point of go MK or loose.

Azen had to go MK in doubles as well because lucario/MK team was getting owned.

Criteria for banning MK could actually be this http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=124132

 

[worldjem7]

I wonder why no one brought up my post as part of their argument.

 

[brinboy789]

See if it ruins people's ability to compete.

See if it changes who people counterpick.on an antiMKcommunity? well i guess that would work

See if new characters show up in the top slots that were being entirely suppressed before.top tier...lol

See how much it upsets people.i dont get this part. why would you ban MK to see how much it upsets people

There's a fair number of things that can be checked with a test at a big tourney.

Few reports nearer the start of this thread, bit too much effort to go look them up right now.

oh and by the way, why hasnt anybody answered my question yet

 

[PK-ow!]

Ok, that's BS. How come when I do that vs. Yuna, people say, 'You're dumb for arguing with Yuna.', but when he does it, he's a force for truth/good?! Man, **** you guys.

...I was totally kidding, btw. I <3 you all (even you, Yuna ).

. . . wait, what?
Were you really kidding? That sounded pretty bitter.

Burden of proof. It may always seem to be arguably anywhere, but philosophers have compiled a number of guidelines for assigning it. In this case, it's pretty clear that banning MK is the respective 'affirmative' action, (being propped up by the affirmative claim "MK is broken"), so it is the side that needs an argument, from the initial position of "no one is banned." I mean if it were the other way, we'd need to argue why any character should not be banned, from the outset, to keep it in the game. But that makes no sense.

Yuna, insofar as counterarguments to the MK-ban motion have been successful (regardless of the fact that Yuna made them), Yuna has no good reason to believe MK should be banned. And by the way burden of proof falls in this situation, that is enough to be Yuna's reason for believing that MK should not be banned.
The idea is, that if Yuna is right that those counterarguments are good, no one has a good reason to believe MK should be banned (and so, they have reason to believe he should not be banned). The reasons they seem to have for banning MK don't stand up to reason (since, we're assuming, Yuna's counters work).

Even though this should have come first, what exactly do you mean by "do that vs. Yuna"?

that shouldnt happen because i dont think it should....

that never was, isnt and never will be anything close to a decent argument for anything anywhere ever

What do you mean? Who was this directed to?

Check the SBR ruleset for the SBRs official stance on these things. Past that, it is up to individual TOs.

Hey Overswarm.

. . . got any comments about people responding to your ban criteria? I have critiques. Others do, but I can't speak for them.


[we need spoiler boxes on this forum software.]

Given MK becoming balanced by new discoveries, those players with return anyway.

Once he's banned, he's gone, unless it's a temp ban (which won't bring the players back). This is because he'll be gone from friendlies and tournaments. Friendlies are playing to learn generally speaking, and playing as or against a banned character doesn't teach you anything, so the counter-MK metagame will stop.

No counter-Mk game means that MK will never be unbanned, barring extraordinary circumstances that something happens which illustrates their power against MK. Barring that minute chance, they will never be tested against MK in the top levels of play, which means, MK will never be unbanned and we'll never know the banning was unjustified.

Sure, there are effects from waiting a ban if it's justified, but removing a valid character has more severe long-term consequences.

How would we know and discover an effective technique or set of techniques against MK?

Without his presence in the tournament environment, the counter-MK game will stagnate and we'll never find anything to justify unbanning him, barring an amazing chance circumstance.

Ah, so it is? That sucks. I guess that forces me to put that notion to rest.

Two reasonably playable character does NOT make a metagame...

If one of those characters is restricting the entire rest of the cast, then that character is ban-able.

Interesting.

this is the infinitely looping conundrum...


personally i think it like this:

Right now, MK is banning every other character in the game.

Interesting perspective.

This is what every single person that switches to MK to win tourneys is doing. Its just that getting better involves playing MK

Meta Knight makes every one play better...

Lol, so true.

I'm not sure where you think you're getting this information, but here's the current EC rankings for Brawl:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=175544

There are only three MK mains in the top 10 if I'm not mistaken.

I've taken note.

@brinboy: Someone replied to your question with a question. It was meant to be instructional, I think. You were asked where you are and what tourneys you go to. You were being asked to question the scope of your experience with "the player scene," and thereby, the inferential power of your absence of knowledge of anyone having quit the game.
You really should look at these messages as a communication, not just for the responses you want to see, formatted as you expect or want to see them.

 

[brinboy789]

Yes Azen would have made it to 3rd with lucario but he can't go any higher which actually proves the point of go MK or loose.

Azen had to go MK in doubles as well because lucario/MK team was getting owned.

Criteria for banning MK could actually be this http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=124132

all i saw there was tourney rules...stuff about brackets...

 

[brinboy789]

. . . wait, what?
Were you really kidding? That sounded pretty bitter.

Burden of proof. It may always seem to be arguably anywhere, but philosophers have compiled a number of guidelines for assigning it. In this case, it's pretty clear that banning MK is the respective 'affirmative' action, (being propped up by the affirmative claim "MK is broken"), so it is the side that needs an argument, from the initial position of "no one is banned." I mean if it were the other way, we'd need to argue why any character should not be banned, from the outset, to keep it in the game. But that makes no sense.

Yuna, insofar as counterarguments to the MK-ban motion have been successful (regardless of the fact that Yuna made them), Yuna has no good reason to believe MK should be banned. And by the way burden of proof falls in this situation, that is enough to be Yuna's reason for believing that MK should not be banned.
The idea is, that if Yuna is right that those counterarguments are good, no one has a good reason to believe MK should be banned (and so, they have reason to believe he should not be banned). The reasons they seem to have for banning MK don't stand up to reason (since, we're assuming, Yuna's counters work).

Even though this should have come first, what exactly do you mean by "do that vs. Yuna"?




What do you mean? Who was this directed to?



Hey Overswarm.

. . . got any comments about people responding to your ban criteria? I have critiques. Others do, but I can't speak for them.


[we need spoiler boxes on this forum software.]



Ah, so it is? That sucks. I guess that forces me to put that notion to rest.



Interesting.



Interesting perspective.



Lol, so true.



I've taken note.

@brinboy: Someone replied to your question with a question. It was meant to be instructional, I think. You were asked where you are and what tourneys you go to. You were being asked to question the scope of your experience with "the player scene," and thereby, the inferential power of your absence of knowledge of anyone having quit the game.
You really should look at these messages as a communication, not just for the responses you want to see, formatted as you expect or want to see them.

no...nobody responded who who exactly quit the smash scene because of MK. and about the the who moved to MK, sorta, but not the first point

sorry for double post

 

[salaboB]

oh and by the way, why hasnt anybody answered my question yet

The answer is way earlier in the thread, there are reports from people of lowered tourney attendence and their friends stopping playing because of MK.

It's not worth my time to go dig up the quotes for you, there were 2-3 separate people who posted about it. You can search through the thread and find them as easily as I could.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

all i saw there was tourney rules...stuff about brackets...

Its about running an effective tournament kind of a joke because that should now include banning MK.

Also no one cares about your question now if you don't know for your self it means you lack experience in this argument.

 

[XienZo]

Its hard to find people who actually said "If it wasn't for MK, I would have stayed, but now, I won't", but there are people who switched to Melee and they were often pushed over by MK or convinced not to return by MK. Who are they specifically? I have no idea. I just know that there are some people like that but MK's going to be mixed in with other factors so its hard to tell.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

The answer is way earlier in the thread, there are reports from people of lowered tourney attendence and their friends stopping playing because of MK.

It's not worth my time to go dig up the quotes for you, there were 2-3 separate people who posted about it. You can search through the thread and find them as easily as I could.

He always does this last night he was no one answered my 4 points while like 7 people did and he kept going on about it for 10 pages.

 

[da K.I.D.]

heres the thing,
if there is anyone below the upper half of high tier that gets top 8 we will know that the game is better without MK,

if puffball shows up and top 3s we will know that the game is better without him

if boss (if i remember correct, he mains mario and seconds luigi) shows up and top 3s, same deal

at HOBO 11 if you look at the top 8 all people saw was

MK
MK
MK
not MK
not MK
MK
not MK
MK

but if the next tourneys results look anything like this

D3
Pika
Falco
DK
Sonic
Wolf
Snake
Mario

than we will know theres more diversity without MK

 

[ColinJF]

Who cares if there's more diversity without Meta Knight? That's not a reason to ban him, and it's also why "test tournaments" are completely pointless.

 

[Demon-oni]

Heck, I play MK, second character i ever did play, but if something doesn't destroy his meta-game by December, he should get the b&hammer. I can easily get high level tourney goer to 1 stock by just spamming tornado. I hate to see him go, but it's almost reached a point where there is nothing we can do but dittos to fight each other.

 

[salaboB]

Who cares if there's more diversity without Meta Knight? That's not a reason to ban him, and it's also why "test tournaments" are completely pointless.

The competitive scene actually surviving with decent attendance until the next Smash can be released says hi.

 

[ColinJF]

Only scrubs whine about diversity.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i think i am going to start keeping a list of people whose faces to rub it in once MK is universally banned
so far i got
ColinJF and yuna
and @ pk-ow:
im glad you can see my perspective and what i am trying to do and say, despite the fact that you disagree with me, especially with the matter concerning the child...

Spoiler

bboy789

 

[salaboB]

Only scrubs whine about diversity.

Only scrubs whine about the rules.

If MK gets officially banned you better not say a word against it.

 

[Tenki]

Just an idea when citing tourney wins:

On a different part of this discussion, someone asked for 'proof' that other people aside from M2K's MK or whatever win large tournaments.

Well, what if, instead of looking at the top 3, you looked at #4-8?

Top 3 are usually the best players, who could probably win with any character they are competent with. The 4-8 should be more representative of the populus.

Are there any patterns with this?

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

^hobo 11. Some times the 1-3 are examples as well like the tournament inui hosted.

Only scrubs whine about diversity.

You are stupid. Everyone knows diversity is better even world governments not just scrubs.

A balanced fighting game shows diversity if banning MK brings diversity into tournament results then It balances out brawl making it a better fighting game.

 

[ColinJF]

Only scrubs whine about the rules.

If MK gets officially banned you better not say a word against it.

This doesn't make sense.

By the way it doesn't make sense to talk about Meta Knight being "officially banned". The SBR doesn't have the authority to compel TOs to ban Meta Knight at their tournaments.

 

[da K.I.D.]

look at ankokus thread, Mk occupies a big portion of the 4-8s as well i believe it was 12%
while his tourney wins account for like 35% of all tourneys

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

This doesn't make sense.

By the way it doesn't make sense to talk about Meta Knight being "officially banned". The SBR doesn't have the authority to compel TOs to ban Meta Knight at their tournaments.

With this logic MK will never be officially banned now you have no reason to be here just leave and host your own MK only tournies.

 

[da K.I.D.]

This doesn't make sense.

By the way it doesn't make sense to talk about Meta Knight being "officially banned". The SBR doesn't have the authority to compel TOs to ban Meta Knight at their tournaments.

but people arent going to go to tourneys that dont follow the majority of the rules.
this reminds me of when i was talking about democracy last night
the people sacrifice some of their rights (making their own rules tourneys) with the hopes that the government(SBR) will make laws (rulesets) that are fair to everyone (tourneygoers) and if the government trys to do things that arent good for the citizens (metagame) the people (tourney goers) have the right to revolt (not go to tourneys) and overthrow the government (give up on smash/host their own tourneys)
EDIT
but youre right the SBR cant force anybody to do anything, but what they do is come to informed decisions, after much debate, about what the best things for competitive smash are. the TOs know that the SBR does extensive research and therefore know whats best and willingly submit to the SBR rulesets

 

[brinboy789]

but people arent going to go to tourneys that dont follow the majority of the rules.
this reminds me of when i was talking about democracy last night
the people sacrifice some of their rights (making their own rules tourneys) with the hopes that the government(SBR) will make laws (rulesets) that are fair to everyone (tourneygoers) and if the government trys to do things that arent good for the citizens (metagame) the people (tourney goers) have the right to revolt (not go to tourneys) and overthrow the government (give up on smash/host their own tourneys)

people arent going to quit smash because MK isnt banned. if thats true, then how come you still play smash?

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

people arent going to quit smash because MK isnt banned. if thats true, then how come you still play smash?

who says he does? Assuming things make an *** out of you and me.

edit: besides smash involves more than one game.

edit2: there are actually a lot of people who prefer to go to melee tournaments than brawl. It isn't only because of MK but he is a factor in it.