John12346
Smash Master
Oops try again
Does anyone else find it weird how, when Akuma is not on the list, the best character in the game loses to the worst character in the game ONLY? That's some crazy stuff.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Why our current CP/Ban System doesnt work / make any sense
- Thread starter xDD-Master
- Start date
Does anyone else find it weird how, when Akuma is not on the list, the best character in the game loses to the worst character in the game ONLY? That's some crazy stuff.
That's an HDR tierlist. And furthermore its from EventHubs, a scrub site that should not be taken as an authority on anything. Ignore any tier list that doesn't cite its sources.Oops try again
Does anyone else find it weird how, when Akuma is not on the list, the best character in the game loses to the worst character in the game ONLY? That's some crazy stuff.
John12346
Smash Master
Akuma WAS banned during Turbo HD Remix, rather than Turbo, was he not? I understand it doesn't make sense that Akuma was banned in the game where he became LESS dominant, but that's just how it went down...
And if you can find another tier list from a more credible source, you're welcome to show, but I had a look through EventHubs myself; it looks pretty credible to me.
And if you can find another tier list from a more credible source, you're welcome to show, but I had a look through EventHubs myself; it looks pretty credible to me.
Akuma has been banned since 1994. You won't find him included in many tier lists because he's just not considered a part of the game. If someone asks me the ST top tier I say "Balrog, Vega, O.Sagat and Dhalsim". It doesn't even cross my mind to say Akuma. This tier list for example doesn't include him. This tier list (need Shift_JIS encoding) has Akuma's matches at 9-1 across the board, but its author, T.Akiba, is not a top-of-the-top player (although still very strong), and is known to have some weird opinions on other matchups. For that matter it also says "仮" ("provisional"/"interim"/"without substance") next to Akuma's name, which would seem to indicate that the results are based more on common understanding than personal experience, probably because nobody has put serious time into Akuma since 1994. Notice how both of these lists allow us to identify the author(s) behind them and judge the merits of their authority, which is how you tell if a tier list is credible, rather than by if it happens to be posted on a credible-looking site.
His banning in HDR was a separate issue. The argument for banning him in HDR, where he is significantly less powerful (but still far, far more powerful than intended) was essentially "This character is maybe not overpowered enough to be banworthy by our traditional standards, but he takes a game whose sole purpose is to be a better balanced version of ST and makes it worse balanced than ST. If he's not banned, we have to just go back and play ST anyway since the game isn't different enough from ST to stand on its own merits despite the inferior balance, and Akuma is already banned in ST anyway, so it's not like we're taking something out of the game by banning him. So we may as well just ban him and play the better game without him."
Ultimately a lot of people ended up thinking HDR was a worse game than ST for reasons unrelated to balance anyway, and to the extent that either gets played in tournaments these days (in America - ST has been going strong in Japan since forever and shows no signs of stopping) ST is the more popular game, but that's another issue.
Honestly I have my doubts if a game released these days with an ST Akuma-like character would see them banned. Players are much bigger on the "play something else" mentality these days, plus the scene is so much larger and more distributed that it's harder to get people to agree on anything. A character of HDR Akuma's power level definitely wouldn't have been banned in any other game.
I should note that I think demanding a proposed ban in Brawl live up to David Sirlin's arbitrary standard of banworthiness set by a game hardly anyone in your scene has the slightest bit of firsthand knowledge about is absolutely ridiculous, but since people are gonna do that anyway I might as well correct some of the ignorance surrounding that game. It seems like whenever this comes up most of the discussion degenerates into arguing about the true nature of ST Akuma's brokenness rather than arguing if MK matches up to Sirlin's idea of ST Akuma's brokenness, which is really what he is saying the standard for banworthiness should be. ST Akuma is completely busted, but even if he isn't, that just means Sirlin used a bad example; it doesn't change the fundamental nature of his argument.
His banning in HDR was a separate issue. The argument for banning him in HDR, where he is significantly less powerful (but still far, far more powerful than intended) was essentially "This character is maybe not overpowered enough to be banworthy by our traditional standards, but he takes a game whose sole purpose is to be a better balanced version of ST and makes it worse balanced than ST. If he's not banned, we have to just go back and play ST anyway since the game isn't different enough from ST to stand on its own merits despite the inferior balance, and Akuma is already banned in ST anyway, so it's not like we're taking something out of the game by banning him. So we may as well just ban him and play the better game without him."
Ultimately a lot of people ended up thinking HDR was a worse game than ST for reasons unrelated to balance anyway, and to the extent that either gets played in tournaments these days (in America - ST has been going strong in Japan since forever and shows no signs of stopping) ST is the more popular game, but that's another issue.
Honestly I have my doubts if a game released these days with an ST Akuma-like character would see them banned. Players are much bigger on the "play something else" mentality these days, plus the scene is so much larger and more distributed that it's harder to get people to agree on anything. A character of HDR Akuma's power level definitely wouldn't have been banned in any other game.
I should note that I think demanding a proposed ban in Brawl live up to David Sirlin's arbitrary standard of banworthiness set by a game hardly anyone in your scene has the slightest bit of firsthand knowledge about is absolutely ridiculous, but since people are gonna do that anyway I might as well correct some of the ignorance surrounding that game. It seems like whenever this comes up most of the discussion degenerates into arguing about the true nature of ST Akuma's brokenness rather than arguing if MK matches up to Sirlin's idea of ST Akuma's brokenness, which is really what he is saying the standard for banworthiness should be. ST Akuma is completely busted, but even if he isn't, that just means Sirlin used a bad example; it doesn't change the fundamental nature of his argument.
MK26
Smash Master
^you seem to have a very strong hatred for sirlin's philosophy, and that actually seems to be pretty common among the traditional fighting game community. would you mind explaining where that comes from and why its so widespread?
They're both competitive fighters with balance issues and you can use trends established in other similar games to help you balance others?
"HURR DURR SMASH IS UNIQUE"
8|
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
ADHD also used to think of MK being perfectly legal...back when Jason used to talk about how he couldn't deal with Diddy.
We can't use a top player as a basis for a claim because their motivations and reasons may be different.
While they can serve to be an indication, one cannot use them as direct evidence.
It isn't stand alone.
Um...what?
Go into the MU thread, remove Metaknight from the matchup list and then do a comparison of all the midtier and lower characters.
Very, very few of them benefit from his removal in the game because of the fact that they still have difficult matchups that still hamper their viability.
I am not really good at charts so perhaps you can clarify it for me.
From what I had reason, wasn't the average amount of money he was winning currently around 43%?
With it being over 50% with it being no split and it being 38% with splitting?
If I remember correctly, doesn't the no split refer to the money that could have been earned while the split refers to the actual money that has been earned?
True, but look back at the original point you made, which was top MKs are being beaten.
And now the player who used to beat top MKs the most wants him banned.
How can we not use top players as a basis for a claim when we're talking about top players?
Cause the MU chart is real data....
There are a bunch of problems with it if you haven't realised, including people overrating/underrating their character and just not understanding how the points work.
Think of it this way, if Ally wins $1000 using MK/Snake, in the split column, each will get $500, in no split both will get $1000.
No split indicates how much the MK players are earning overall, and split kinda distributes the money based on how many characters you used at a tournament.
John#s also made tables only counting tournaments with over 30 and over 45, (equal to as well maybe?) anyway, MK gets a lot better in those compared to when all tournaments are counted >.>
John12346
Smash Master
I'll explain this if I really have to, but the final conclusion we were able to come up with was that (Character) wins between (Full Split)% of the money and (No Split)% of the money.
We can't know where any character actually falls within their respective range, so we use (Average) as our best guesstimate.
We can't know where any character actually falls within their respective range, so we use (Average) as our best guesstimate.
I'd still like to know why it must fall between no split and full split.
Like again with the Ally example >.>
Ally uses MK and Snake, wins $1000.
Full split has $500 each.
No split has $1000 each.
Wouldn't saying MK actually won around $750 (average) mean Snake wins around $250? Why must they both be performing higher than the full split total?
John12346
Smash Master
Well, one sec, I found the posts I had made on the matter when I was discussing this very matter with Jebus.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13246776&postcount=7
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13249264&postcount=897
If you don't get it, I'll try to explain it a little bit better, but for now, try this on for size.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13246776&postcount=7
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13249264&postcount=897
If you don't get it, I'll try to explain it a little bit better, but for now, try this on for size.
John12346
Smash Master
Well, maybe it is, now that I look at it. But keep in mind, it's just a guesstimate of what the true value for each character could possibly be. It's closer to the true value than (Full Split) and (No Split) are, so why not, right?
ADHD
Smash Hero
My stance on the ban changed after the character started to abuse two things:
-Tornado canceling
-Glide fast-falling
Now both of his strongest moves (tornado and shuttle loop) have become with a high success rate of not being punished. He can powershield out of tornado immediately after landing, or anything really. The same goes for shuttle loop.
Yes, they have been present since the dawn of brawl, but where is the logical sense of keeping a character alive in which his most abusive moves have a low punish rate, and the rest is already distorted and very difficult to keep up with? I've been frame trapped a bazillion times trying to read the character, and I feel that when you're being punished for trying to combat player habits is when the line is drawn. His counterpicks are ridiculous, his moveset is beyond ridiculous, and his overdominance is evident, as he wins every singles and doubles event at large tournaments. The melee era did not consist of a single character winning both events at nationals, and it changed throughout it's history, but can we say the same for Brawl?
Ban ****ing Metaknight.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
I love you, ADHD.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
This kind of just goes back to my original point ghost.
Top player's can be an indication, but they shouldn't be used as direct evidence.
Essentially, it would be like picking out a piece of data and saying it is evidence for one thing or the other, you need to take into account the rest of the data as well, ebcause the top player's opinion isn't stand alone.
I don't believe I ever said that the MU chart is infallible, so I cannot understand as to why you wished to point this out.
Let alone that the tournament data isn't just numbers, ther are people playing those characters, and there are many, many factors and things that go on that cannot be predicted or controlled.
It is why we; typically; don't use an MU or Tournament only based tier list.
Ahhh okay, so I wasn't looking at the correct table, that makes things alot clearer.
I was looking at the first chart that had the smaller tournaments included, in which case...yeah...it is rather obscene.
Understandable, par tof the issue with MetaKnight is how incredible safe he is and how incredibly damaging his moves are, but my main issue with the bat not only are those two particular moves, but his ability to ledge stall and then glide under the stage.ADHD said:
Outside of another MK, its practically impossible to get him when he plays so defensively, and added to his great offensive ability...yeah I hate the character.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Fail
10fail
10fail
Ummm, top players and games between them are the only data of well, top level play.
What other data do you want me to take into account?
At the very least you can't claim characters won't do well/better in MK banned tournaments without tournament data.
KoNfucius
Smash Ace
ppl who dont like the current cp system would hate to play me. I currently main mk and diddy one of my favorite things to do after game one (and winning with mk) is to ban sv or yoshis and have them pick fd then change to diddy. Its amazing how salty ppl get when I do this. But it legal. This also works without mk. I entered a mk banned tournament lost game one marth(me) vs bowser (zigsta) game two I go fd with diddy win. Game 3 he counters brinstar I switch to toon link and win the set. I know it upsets ppl especially the ppl who only main one character and counter pick a level just to have their opponent swtch characters. but its just good strategy to have a different character incase you get hard countered.
