Fox in Free-For-All/2on1

[CunningCubop]

Is everyone's fox weak in a 2 on 1?

I played a 2 on 1 with some kids that weren't exactly pros. 5 stock team battle, Link and Samus on FD. the Samus KOed my last at 150%, he had 2-3 stock left. One on one, either of them would have been extremely dead.

How is fox for in a situation like that? As I played him it seemed to me that he was out of his element.

Are fox tactics different for outnumbered battles or free-for-alls? Can fox be a dominant 2 on 1 player? Maybe he is normally I was playing badly.

Sidenote: It seems that free-for-alls are virtually ignored by most players. Why is it everyone likes 1 v 1 better?

Thoughts?

[Rebel581]

No distractions, no teaming up. Yea, Fox does badly in FFA's and stuff. He wouldn't be top tier IMO if they included FFA's and stuff into the tier list, but they don't and tournament's have 1 vs. 1's.

[ivootjes(nr18)]

FFA=Camping
And yes, fox sucks in FFA.

[loserlad89]

Well fox is a very technical character, and you have got to be able to perform everything that you want to do precisely as you want to. You cant do that if some other person is going to come and mess you up while you are trying to fight someone else.

[Zanguzen]

You'd probably end up using moves you don't normally use. For instance, phantasm comes to mind- good crowd control and can buy you time. Firebird also seems good. I doubt you could come up with combos, which is Fox's speciality, since the second opponent will hinder you. In the end, any character that greatly depends on combos probably would suffer the most.

[Sideem Slingh]

Im not saying fox is weak, but he isn't a defense character. He's for speed. Not for taking hits. And in a FFA or 2 v. 1, you need to be defensive or take the divide and conquer technique, which isn't fox's speciality either way. Fox is a pretty light character, and when he gets double teamed, he gets beaten badly. I don't have really any helpful hints, but I can tell you why people prefer 1 v 1.

People who play Super Smash Bros. Melee want to be the best. And to be the best, they have to show that they are the best. In 1 v 1, people can check their skill against another with no distractions, not counting items and levels. But it all gets changed in 2 v 1 or a FFA. In those choices it is all randomness and stuff. In a 1 v 1 if there is an unfair advantage, it is used. But in a 2 v 1, it gets abused by 2 people. Not fun. Also if teams (2 v 2) are unfair, the other team kills the weak link and murders you afterwords. Even if you are good, 2 v 2 can still be bad if you have a bad teammate. In FFA people don't want to die, so they take out the weakest so they can last the longest. That isn't fun for anybody, so FFA's are set aside for another day. But back to 2 v 2, if you want to win, you need to rely on your teamate. And to do that, you have to set aside some of your skills, which is something you haven't done or trained for. 2 v 1 is just a beatdown, unless you are way better than them. But 1 v 1 is obviously the best because the teams are even, though the skills aren't, and you can use the techniques you trained with, not to mention you are free of annoying teammates who die and give you another enemy to worry about.

That's what I think of that. I hope that helps to clear up some of the clouds.

[KarrokDragon]

Yeah, I would have to definitly agree with Sideem Slingh, Fox, is definitley not a FFA character, he relies on quick combos that rack up damge and KOs his opponet off the top of the stage preferably. But in a 2v1 situation. Fox can't pull pof combos in a cramped situation. As for a 2v2 match, I recommend peing a partenr with a skilled Falco player, thetwo characters makeup for the others weakness. Flaco, does more damage then Fox but lacks the KO attacks of him. Fox on the other hand id weaker but sends his opponets flying farther at lower damage. Whick is good if Flaco get and opponet to around 75% and then Fox can come in for the kill.