• 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!

Sakurai, Competitivness and the Tier-List conundrum.

Leprechaun_Drunk

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
339
Location
Bronx, New York
Let me start off by saying this thread is NOT intended to be a debate about tiers, Sakurai, or competitivness. These are just some of my thoughts about the subject from an objective point of view. (I have expressed anti-competitive sentiments in the past, but you will not find those in this post).

It is a fact that Sakurai intentionally tried to balance the game to appeal to a broader audience (casual players, ect.). He has stated that he does not want Smash bros. to be competition driven, and therefore changed things around from Melee to Brawl. Whether he failed to balance the game or not (and in my opinion he failed epicly), it seems that in Brawl, players with less skill have a seemingly increased chance to win against a player of more skill than they would in a Melee match. This has been a heated subject, and has competitive gamers up in arms. They have argued that fighting games are naturally competitive and should be developed so that victories are decided based upon the skill of the player rather than any other outside influences (i.e. tripping). There have been feelings that Sakurai should not have attempted to balance the game and should have appealed to the smaller, more dedicated fanbase of competitive players. This leads me to my next point.

The existance of tiers and their effect on the game is another heated subject. Many casual players believe tiers don't exist, but the general consensus of competitive players is that tiers indeed do exist. This leads to the main point of my post.

Now, logically, a player of more skill who mains Captain Falcon and faces off a player of lesser skill (not significantly, but still less skilled) who mains Snake will lose. Snake is currently the top tier character, and Captain Falcon is currently considered the worst in-game. Doesn't this detract from the spirit of competitivness? A player of greater skill should always be the victor, but in Brawl (and I would argue that this is less true in Melee, but that's beside the point) that does not always apply. Therefore, shouldn't competitive Smashers be yearning for a balance in the characters? If the game (or future games) were truly balanced (and I realize this will probably never happen), then and only then would victories be desided upon skill. In my experience, competitive smashers generally feel that attempting to balance the game is detrimental to the competitive community (in the instance of Brawl, at least.). Shouldn't it be the opposite? If the game was truely balanced, that would only enforce competitiveness in that matches would be decided soely on skill, rather than outside influences or "broken" characters.

I just found it odd that anti-tier players call for balance while the competitive smashers detest it.

Discuss intelligently, please.
 

Cloud Cleaver

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
349
Location
Central Virginia
An interesting point you've brought up. While I'm sure some egos will be pricked a bit, as is far too oft to occur with discussions such as these, it is worth noting.

I'm sure some of the competitive players will argue that "the truly skilled player wouldn't pick a low-tier character." While this is probably true (at least among those who compete), it kind of defeats the purpose of HAVING multiple characters. If variety is the spice of life, and I firmly believe that it is, Smash tournaments have got to be some of the blandest things on the face of the earth. I'm amazed that they haven't gone so far as to only allow top-tiers in the tourneys.

Sakurai's idea of 'balance' is a good one. The way he implemented it failed. I like Brawl better than Melee, but even I have to admit that the excessive defensiveness of Brawl really stunts the way it's played at higher levels of skill. I do wish, however, that the Melee diehards would either just cease their anti-Brawl whining and get used to it, or bugger off and continue to play Melee like they know they want to. There's really no reason for all this flaming and elitism here. So unskilled players like Brawl better. Why shouldn't they? They don't get wiped off the map. Skilled players like Melee better. Why shouldn't they? They can strut their stuff. Just agree to disagree and get over yourselves. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter that much.
 

WilldaBeast

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
199
Location
Ottawa, Canada
There are some things I agree with but some that just don't make sense to me.

Like I believe any character can beat any character, but not at any given time. Captain Falcon may have a new combo discovered that makes him one of the best or something, but Snake, who is already in the top tiers, will still be better because he has more general strengths than Captain Falcon because that one combo is diminished over time by the stale moves negation, meaning that captain Falcon is back to being sucky old Falcon.

It is true that Melee was more technical than Brawl and with the input of tripping and more floatiness, does that mean Brawl will have a much bigger air game? Or is it that Brawl is less competitive oriented in general.

In short I believe Sakurai wanted an all around game, for casuals and competitive smashers but still put things in for more reason than what people understand at this point.
 

Leprechaun_Drunk

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
339
Location
Bronx, New York
While I agree that Melee is more skill-oriented than Brawl, this isn't a Melee vs. Brawl discussion.

Melee requires more skill but it pretty much mandates the use of a top/high tier character to win. Gimpyfish comes to mind; many people believe that he would be a much more succesful smasher if he used a top tier character instead of Bowser.
 

WilldaBeast

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
199
Location
Ottawa, Canada
While I agree that Melee is more skill-oriented than Brawl, this isn't a Melee vs. Brawl discussion.

Melee requires more skill but it pretty much mandates the use of a top/high tier character to win. Gimpyfish comes to mind; many people believe that he would be a much more succesful smasher if he used a top tier character instead of Bowser.
That I do not believe I think if you are good at a character playing a character that is higher in the tiers will, yes, help but only if you are good at that character.
 

OrlanduEX

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
1,029
The truth of the matter is that no fighting game is perfectly balanced. It is impossible. There is no such thing and there has never been.

The more elements and characters you add to the system, the harder it is to manage everything. In Brawl however, Sakurai and company weren't even trying. The Smash series as far as Sakurai is concerned has always been about fan service, not very deep competitive play. Smash 64 and Melee ended being really deep competitive games by accident. In Brawl, Sakurai went out of his way to cut out the things that made Melee a complex game, but didn't really focus on balance between the characters as evidenced by the great gap in strengths of characters such as Snake and MK versus C. Falcon and Jiggly.

There is no point in arguing against tiers. The fact is, the game is by no means balanced and everyone knows that. Some characters are far stronger than others. A tier list is simply a means of organizing characters based on their inherent strengths and their impact on the current metagame. It is useful because it it gives you a good idea of which characters are posing the greatest threat in the current metagame and thus which characters to be most prepared for in tournaments.

Honestly, I don't see many competitive players complaining about game balance. Competitive players play with a "play to win" mindset which means that winning is all that matters. If you use a character who is weak against another character and lose, that's your fault. It is your choice who you use, so you shouldn't whine if you have a bad match-up.

What Melee fans are really mad about in Brawl is that Sakurai went so far out of his way to make Brawl a more shallow, casual friendly game.
Think about it. Melee was a game played by millions of people around the world, both casual and competitive and all enjoyed it. Casuals enjoyed because it was really made for them and competitive players enjoyed it because it turn out to be a deep game as well.
In Brawl though, Sakurai basically flicked off all competitive players for no real reason. Even if Brawl were as deep as Melee, casual players would still enjoy it just the same because they wouldn't know the difference.
 

AmigoOne

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
307
Because variations with character's movesets make it impossible to balance due to how complex how each attribute of each move and character affect each other.

I doubt Sakurai tried to truly balance the game. He just took out hitstun, making it "noncompetitive" which therefore "balances". BS.
 

Leprechaun_Drunk

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
339
Location
Bronx, New York
The truth of the matter is that no fighting game is perfectly balanced. It is impossible. There is no such thing and there has never been.
I agree with everything but the imposibility of character balance.

There is no point in arguing against tiers. The fact is, the game is by no means balanced and everyone knows that. Some characters are far stronger than others. A tier list is simply a means of organizing characters based on their inherent strengths and their impact on the current metagame. It is useful because it it gives you a good idea of which characters are posing the greatest threat in the current metagame and thus which characters to be most prepared for in tournaments.
I was thinking about this. It's kind of irritating, because even if a competitive smasher has anti-tier sentiments (in the sense that he/she wishes the characters were balanced) it doesn't matter because of the blatant existance of tiers in all 3 smash games. Unfortunetly, the only option (currently) is to embrace them. Nonetheless, tiers detract from true competitivness.

Honestly, I don't see many competitive players complaining about game balance. Competitive players play with a "play to win" mindset which means that winning is all that matters. If you use a character who is weak against another character and lose, that's your fault. It is your choice who you use, so you shouldn't whine if you have a bad match-up.
Wouldn't you agree that it takes some of the soul away from the game when, say, a competitive player who loves Captain Falcon or Jigglypuff and has a great amount of skill must resort to maining Snake or MK to be able to be successful in tournaments against players of lesser skill who are also maining Snake or MK?

While competitive smashers have no choice but to embrace tiers, all smashers should be united in a hate over their existance.
 

snakesandfoxes

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
I don't get why Sakurai is ever brought up. He never meant the game to be competitive in brawl or melee. Nintendo just makes game, they don't care about the fan base in regards to skillful championships. Melee was a good game on accident and Brawl was intentionally put down. Look at the online modes. Yeah, nothing. No leaderboard or a nametag on your character. You don't know if you are even fighting humans anymore if someone leaves. C'mon, they obviously didn't care.

The more variation, the harder it is to balance. But there are various games out there that are pretty close to balanced and are certainly not broken.

Tiers exist. You can't say all top players pick top tier characters tho. It depends on the game.
 

Crank

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
76
Location
Rural Nebraska
I don't get why Sakurai is ever brought up. He never meant the game to be competitive in brawl or melee. Nintendo just makes game, they don't care about the fan base in regards to skillful championships. Melee was a good game on accident and Brawl was intentionally put down. Look at the online modes. Yeah, nothing. No leaderboard or a nametag on your character. You don't know if you are even fighting humans anymore if someone leaves. C'mon, they obviously didn't care.

The more variation, the harder it is to balance. But there are various games out there that are pretty close to balanced and are certainly not broken.

Tiers exist. You can't say all top players pick top tier characters tho. It depends on the game.
Meh.

Melee was made to be neither competitive or non-competitive

Brawl was made NOT to be competitive

Theres quite a difference. And to the balance issue, no game at all can be balanced pre-release, its a fact. An INSANE amount of playtesting would have to be done to tweak the character roster to a balanced state, which Nintendo obviously didn't do.
 

Talazala

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
422
Location
Philly
Well you could have a perfectly balanced fighting game if you only have 1 character to choose from.

I personally like variation in the characters I face and use cuz it makes fighting games more interesting. There will naturally be characters that are better because of imbalances in range and speed. If someone plays as a character other than top tiers there reasons should be:

1. They are better at using a non top tier character rather than a top tier, so naturally they would choose the character they kick@$$ with more.

2. They want to throw off their opponents stability by using a character most people aren't familiar with.

3. They feel like they have a need to represent a character in epic battle. (not so sure about this one)

4. They want to lose.

5. They want to use a non top tier so they can gloat and rub it in the faces of tier whores.

6. They are un informed or stupid.
 

Sasha

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
323
Location
Berkerey, CA
The truth of the matter is that no fighting game is perfectly balanced. It is impossible. There is no such thing and there has never been.

The more elements and characters you add to the system, the harder it is to manage everything. In Brawl however, Sakurai and company weren't even trying. The Smash series as far as Sakurai is concerned has always been about fan service, not very deep competitive play. Smash 64 and Melee ended being really deep competitive games by accident. In Brawl, Sakurai went out of his way to cut out the things that made Melee a complex game, but didn't really focus on balance between the characters as evidenced by the great gap in strengths of characters such as Snake and MK versus C. Falcon and Jiggly.

etc.....
Okay I agree with you on most parts of your post. The only thing I disagree on is exactly how big the gap is between high and low tier characters. Given, there are practically zero universal techs that can bridge the gap such as those in Melee; however, I don't believe that "Pro" players need to pick High Tier characters to beat worse players who pick High Tierers. Now, having watched MANY youtube vid's, I can say that I am a fairly decent player. That being said, my friends and I are very nearly equal in skill level in Brawl, and I can still beat his Snake with my Jiggs.

I just don't believe that the "gap" is a huge as people say.
 

ADHD

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,194
Location
New Jersey
Ummm, he could have checked for chaingrabs and infinites. Even if they were in melee, were they ever as gay as they are now? If you lose a stock against falco, and get chaingrabbed to dair, you automatically lose the match unless the falco suddenly dies, because of how defensive brawl is, you cant make combacks like you could in melee. Thats unbalanced. One cheap little tactic to get a stock off and its looking dull for you.
 

MidnightAsaph

Smash Lord
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
1,191
Location
Bloomington, MN
It's so obvious you wonder what the two sides are thinking. I would LOVE a balanced game as far as characters go. Just love it. That way, there would be "no johns".
 

popsofctown

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,505
Location
Alabama
By the way guys...... it's not just Sakurai's fault, it's your (collective) fault too.

If you wanted to, you could balance all the characters in brawl within 10%. Today.

Brawl has a handicap feature. You can make a character always spawn with 10% damage, or always spawn with 20% damage.

If smashboards wanted, they could release an official list. Then, a standard. Midtiers facing toptiers get 20% advantage. Low tiers facing midtiers get 20% advantage.

You don't have to make the opponent lighter, you can also make the lower-tier character heavier. Changing the global weight number (it goes from .5 to 2.0) will make both characters heavier. Then you use the 20 or 30% handicap on the higher tier character, and only the low tier gets heavier. (someone would have to get the exact math for that)

I don't know why the smash community wouldn't accept such a change, but i somehow know that what i think is a good idea would be rejected.


But anywhoo. Don't be victims when you can be perpetrators. Shadow Moses Island gets banned to keep Dedede from being too powerful, but the community refuses to take it far enough and give CF a 30% advantage on Dedede so that Dedede isn't too powerful.
 

Leprechaun_Drunk

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
339
Location
Bronx, New York
By the way guys...... it's not just Sakurai's fault, it's your (collective) fault too.

If you wanted to, you could balance all the characters in brawl within 10%. Today.

Brawl has a handicap feature. You can make a character always spawn with 10% damage, or always spawn with 20% damage.

If smashboards wanted, they could release an official list. Then, a standard. Midtiers facing toptiers get 20% advantage. Low tiers facing midtiers get 20% advantage.

You don't have to make the opponent lighter, you can also make the lower-tier character heavier. Changing the global weight number (it goes from .5 to 2.0) will make both characters heavier. Then you use the 20 or 30% handicap on the higher tier character, and only the low tier gets heavier. (someone would have to get the exact math for that)

I don't know why the smash community wouldn't accept such a change, but i somehow know that what i think is a good idea would be rejected.


But anywhoo. Don't be victims when you can be perpetrators. Shadow Moses Island gets banned to keep Dedede from being too powerful, but the community refuses to take it far enough and give CF a 30% advantage on Dedede so that Dedede isn't too powerful.
This is pure genius.
 

Boat Mode

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
257
Location
Long Island, NY
By the way guys...... it's not just Sakurai's fault, it's your (collective) fault too.

If you wanted to, you could balance all the characters in brawl within 10%. Today.

Brawl has a handicap feature. You can make a character always spawn with 10% damage, or always spawn with 20% damage.

If smashboards wanted, they could release an official list. Then, a standard. Midtiers facing toptiers get 20% advantage. Low tiers facing midtiers get 20% advantage.

You don't have to make the opponent lighter, you can also make the lower-tier character heavier. Changing the global weight number (it goes from .5 to 2.0) will make both characters heavier. Then you use the 20 or 30% handicap on the higher tier character, and only the low tier gets heavier. (someone would have to get the exact math for that)

I don't know why the smash community wouldn't accept such a change, but i somehow know that what i think is a good idea would be rejected.


But anywhoo. Don't be victims when you can be perpetrators. Shadow Moses Island gets banned to keep Dedede from being too powerful, but the community refuses to take it far enough and give CF a 30% advantage on Dedede so that Dedede isn't too powerful.
this would cause such instablilty in the tier list, that it would demolish the standing one, and force a new one to be created. which would then cause more ones to be created until the tier list is just deemed crap. but the characters aren't balanced, so there would have to be a tier list. putting us back at square one.
 

Veggi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,590
Location
I'm gonna wreck it! (Fort Myers)
By the way guys...... it's not just Sakurai's fault, it's your (collective) fault too.

If you wanted to, you could balance all the characters in brawl within 10%. Today.

Brawl has a handicap feature. You can make a character always spawn with 10% damage, or always spawn with 20% damage.

If smashboards wanted, they could release an official list. Then, a standard. Midtiers facing toptiers get 20% advantage. Low tiers facing midtiers get 20% advantage.

You don't have to make the opponent lighter, you can also make the lower-tier character heavier. Changing the global weight number (it goes from .5 to 2.0) will make both characters heavier. Then you use the 20 or 30% handicap on the higher tier character, and only the low tier gets heavier. (someone would have to get the exact math for that)

I don't know why the smash community wouldn't accept such a change, but i somehow know that what i think is a good idea would be rejected.


But anywhoo. Don't be victims when you can be perpetrators. Shadow Moses Island gets banned to keep Dedede from being too powerful, but the community refuses to take it far enough and give CF a 30% advantage on Dedede so that Dedede isn't too powerful.
Somehow I didn't like it when I first heard this idea, but now reading it in this way, it sounds like a good idea.
 

Boat Mode

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
257
Location
Long Island, NY
think about it this way, some characters play different at different damages(lol lucario). if someone starts w/ 20%, they have an auto disadvantage, which would cause the middle of the line characters to come out on top. but then, the tier list would naturally change b/c its based off of tournament results. then you would have to re-apply the handicap...

i guess it wouldn't kill the tier list, as much as make it highly unstable, and ever changing, causing periods during which certain characters would be better b/c they have no start damage against certain characters.
 

BEES

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
1,051
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
I do not think a percent handicap would work. What would you do to balance Ness against Marth? When Marth has a 0-death grab-release chain on you, what percent do we give him to compensate?

You could give him 30, he'll still win. 50%, still in Marth's favor. It would need to be 100%. What good does turning the match into an instant death match do? It adds nothing to the competitive nature of the game. It has no bearing on the skill of the Ness or Marth player.


To be quite honest, most of the matchups in Brawl look pretty even. I think about 90% of the disparity between characters results from who has the chaingrab advantage. Characters like DDD, Falco, Pikachu, and Marth have a couple very unbalanced matchups because of that, and that affects which characters are tourny viable, and depending on who they would counter, which ones do well overall.
 

Boat Mode

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
257
Location
Long Island, NY
I do not think a percent handicap would work. What would you do to balance Ness against Marth? When Marth has a 0-death grab-release chain on you, what percent do we give him to compensate?

You could give him 30, he'll still win. 50%, still in Marth's favor. It would need to be 100%. What good does turning the match into an instant death match do? It adds nothing to the competitive nature of the game. It has no bearing on the skill of the Ness or Marth player.


To be quite honest, most of the matchups in Brawl look pretty even. I think about 90% of the disparity between characters results from who has the chaingrab advantage. Characters like DDD, Falco, Pikachu, and Marth have a couple very unbalanced matchups because of that, and that affects which characters are tourny viable, and depending on who they would counter, which ones do well overall.
i agree with most of what you said, but i don't think a gdorf and a mk on the same skill level are going to be even...

EDIT:lol at trev94
 

4Serial

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
1,237
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
by The Way Guys...... It's Not Just Sakurai's Fault, It's Your (collective) Fault Too.

If You Wanted To, You Could Balance All The Characters In Brawl Within 10%. Today.

Brawl Has A Handicap Feature. You Can Make A Character Always Spawn With 10% Damage, Or Always Spawn With 20% Damage.

If Smashboards Wanted, They Could Release An Official List. Then, A Standard. Midtiers Facing Toptiers Get 20% Advantage. Low Tiers Facing Midtiers Get 20% Advantage.

You Don't Have To Make The Opponent Lighter, You Can Also Make The Lower-tier Character Heavier. Changing The Global Weight Number (it Goes From .5 To 2.0) Will Make Both Characters Heavier. Then You Use The 20 Or 30% Handicap On The Higher Tier Character, And Only The Low Tier Gets Heavier. (someone Would Have To Get The Exact Math For That)

I Don't Know Why The Smash Community Wouldn't Accept Such A Change, But I Somehow Know That What I Think Is A Good Idea Would Be Rejected.


But Anywhoo. Don't Be Victims When You Can Be Perpetrators. Shadow Moses Island Gets Banned To Keep Dedede From Being Too Powerful, But The Community Refuses To Take It Far Enough And Give Cf A 30% Advantage On Dedede So That Dedede Isn't Too Powerful.
THIS IS ****ING GENiUS
 

popsofctown

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,505
Location
Alabama
I do not think a percent handicap would work. What would you do to balance Ness against Marth? When Marth has a 0-death grab-release chain on you, what percent do we give him to compensate?

You could give him 30, he'll still win. 50%, still in Marth's favor. It would need to be 100%. What good does turning the match into an instant death match do? It adds nothing to the competitive nature of the game. It has no bearing on the skill of the Ness or Marth player.


To be quite honest, most of the matchups in Brawl look pretty even. I think about 90% of the disparity between characters results from who has the chaingrab advantage. Characters like DDD, Falco, Pikachu, and Marth have a couple very unbalanced matchups because of that, and that affects which characters are tourny viable, and depending on who they would counter, which ones do well overall.
To defeat an idea, you have to demonstrate how the implentation of the idea has worse consequences then the current state of affairs. If you give Marth 30, things would be better than they are now, wouldn't they?
 

Boat Mode

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
257
Location
Long Island, NY
To defeat an idea, you have to demonstrate how the implentation of the idea has worse consequences then the current state of affairs. If you give Marth 30, things would be better than they are now, wouldn't they?
then theres that whole thing w/ the fact that tier lists changing throwing the competitive game into ******** cycles.

it would work in some examples, but(i can't believe im saying this) brawl isn't unbalanced enough, even w/ the unfair grabs, to allow for this to work.

the tier list going in cycles is a lot worse than an unfair tier list, and the chances of this creating stablilty are a lot smaller than the chances of it screwing over competitive play.

changes in percents would also cause drastic strategy changes depending on what tier you're in, making the tier your and a staple of the game. that might be the furthest possible thing from getting rid of tiers there is...
 

Leprechaun_Drunk

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
339
Location
Bronx, New York
then theres that whole thing w/ the fact that tier lists changing throwing the competitive game into ******** cycles.

it would work in some examples, but(i can't believe im saying this) brawl isn't unbalanced enough, even w/ the unfair grabs, to allow for this to work.

the tier list going in cycles is a lot worse than an unfair tier list, and the chances of this creating stablilty are a lot smaller than the chances of it screwing over competitive play.

changes in percents would also cause drastic strategy changes depending on what tier you're in, making the tier your and a staple of the game. that might be the furthest possible thing from getting rid of tiers there is...

The competitive scene doesn't need to revolve around a tier-list. If you eliminate tier lists (through whatever means, be it handicaps or waiting a lifetime for the perfect smash game), the competitive scene is only strengthened. If all the characters were magically balanced (or handicapped, which I still think is an amazing idea and should be implemented immediatly), then tier-lists based on tournament results would be nothing more than shallow popularity lists. Additionally it would reinforce the "higher skilled players will win" retoric because people wouldn't be choosing characters based on tiers, but rather would have to experiment with all characters (as all characters would be tournament viable) and choose a main according to their playstyle and what not, an effort that requires skill as well as knowledge of self and game.
 

Boat Mode

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
257
Location
Long Island, NY
too bad the original post said that the damage handicap given would be based off of the tier of the character in question.

EDIT:i know someone will say something about basing it off match ups between specific characters. not only would that over complicate the game like crazy, but it would also force people to have a completely different game style against every character just because of how much damage you and your opponents start w/
 

Leprechaun_Drunk

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
339
Location
Bronx, New York
too bad the original post said that the damage handicap given would be based off of the tier of the character in question.


Meaning handicaps are based off the current tier-list. Ie, Snake gets 30% (or maybe more...lol) against Captain Falcon because Snake is the top tier and C. Falcon is the bottom tier. Then, magically, Snake and Falcon are equal tier characters. Of course, as the game progresses the handicaps would need to be rearranged, but it wouldn't be as dramatic as you say; the progression would work in the same way the tier list's progression works. As new things are discovered that make characters better/worse, the handicap/tier list is adjusted accordingly. For example, in 4 months if a Jigglypuff tech is discovered that makes her the best character in the game, then she would obviously lose her handicap and it would be readjusted so that her opponents get a handicap.

Allow me to adjust my stance. If the handicap was implemented, Tiers would not disapear, but the way they effect the game would change. Instead of being a list measuring a character's potential in tournament play, it would become a list on which to gauge handicaps to make matches balanced, and thusly true measures of skill.
 

popsofctown

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,505
Location
Alabama
EDIT:i know someone will say something about basing it off match ups between specific characters. not only would that over complicate the game like crazy, but it would also force people to have a completely different game style against every character just because of how much damage you and your opponents start w/
Handicaps wouldn't be for specific matchups. This overcomplicates the game and is unnecessary. You don't have to kill the rock paper scissors matchups, they work in favor of character variety.

I'm glad someone likes the concept. Maybe i'll make a thread in the tactical discussion, when i feel like watching a good idea get buried.


The tier list handicap changes should be limited to a yearly basis. That way, the alteration isn't constant, and players are motivated to find advanced techs, because they can own for the rest of the year.

Also, when the tier list is examined, the authorities (this plan obviously requires authority) should seperate popularity out, and only examine the actual advatanges of the characters.
 

Genos

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
154
Location
New Hampshire
What a terrible idea. First off, Brawl is much more matchup dependent than tier dependent. Making certain characters lighter or heavier will only make sense in certain matchups. It may work better if it is by matchup, but as Freg explained, that is also a terrible idea. Keep in mind that weight isn't the only factor in how great a character is. It may have little to no effect depending on the character. It would severely help some characters, yes, but not all.
 

Cloud Cleaver

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
349
Location
Central Virginia
I like the idea of utilizing the handicap. Why not base it on tiers? Tiers change over time; the handicaps should change accordingly. Big deal. I do think, however, that there should be a divisive factor added to tourney-win stats based on character popularity. We all know that Snake wins more tourneys than Jiggs, but the simple fact that he's infinitely more popular has to account for a good chunk of that. A system of ratios might work; total wins divided by the number of different players in question maining that particular character, for instance.
 

popsofctown

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,505
Location
Alabama
Lighter or heavier matters in every single matchup. The point is to raise your opponents damage level, and then kill.

Even if you say some matchups revolve around killing, it doesn't matter all that much. If your percent is low, you get additional kill opportunities while your opponent is trying to rack.
 
Top Bottom