Official 4BR Tier List v1.0 - Competitive Impressions

[Ulevo]

Game just ain't consistent. Additional games or stocks don't fix it well enoug because of other drawbacks.

With things like Witch Time, Aura, Tippers, LCS, and even shield breaks, do you really expect the game to be that much better over time?

There are 58 characters in the cast. At one point, several patches ago, the amount of relevant characters was significantly smaller, so the relevant knowledge pool was smaller. The amount of viable characters to take into consideration at a tournament now is really large. I myself have notes on 40 characters in total just so I can avoid being eliminated by a surprise character I am unfamiliar with, and even then you are not going to have exposure to top talent for every character a year and a half into the games life span. It just takes one good player with a particular style, strategy or unorthodox character to knock you into losers or out of the tournament.

Elements like rage and tipper mechanics are wild cards yes, but a lot of it is just match up ignorance and lack of community experience.

 

[san.]

There's always some element of chance in any fighting game. The trick to not making it feel overbearing or cheesy is having these "coin-flips" occur often enough that the odds average out.

I guess... But I'd like more control/options, just helps more in fighting games. Don't really like Extra Credits much.

 

[Tizio Random]

People saying the skill ceiling is too low... What if we are just at the first floor to an insane ceiling? Do you know how many things are still left unexplored? If other people are reaching the top players fast, the "true" top players will go even further. That's how the metagame works.

We reached the end? We won't reach it as long as people continue to explore new options. The sole fact that many low tiers are getting good results is amazing enough.

 

[Fatmanonice]

I don't think the skill ceiling is too low. I think we have a game that's largely free of jank, doesn't have anyone that's overwhelming better than most of the cast anymore, and doesn't allow pro players to go into cruise control to get out of pools. I find it weird that people find this upsetting. People were whining when Zero was steamrolling just about every tournament he went to but apparently people want to go back to the days of Mew2king picking Pichu just to humiliate his opponents because match up knowledge is extremely relevant in this metagame. Oh god, your favorite player lost to some unknown player or a low tier, let's blame the game and not the person who didn't come prepared...

 

[BananaBake]

It's hard to take the game seriously when a top 5 ranked player can lose to players not even ranked top 100.

Then... don't. You are free to have your opinion, but the rest of us are here to discuss the competitive aspects in general, thank you

 

[LancerStaff]

Melee has shine*, rest*, wobbling*, knee, laser, tippers...your point?
*Can potentially kill at 0%

Those require actual skill though. The ones that kill, anyway... Literally anybody can pick Marth or Cloud and through out a bunch of safe moves that kill. Brackets are a minefield.

Really, do you expect a game packed with characters like Mewtwo, Bowser and Ryu to ever be truly consistent?

 

[FeelMeUp]

Those require actual skill though. The ones that kill, anyway... Literally anybody can pick Marth or Cloud and through out a bunch of safe moves that kill. Brackets are a minefield.

Really, do you expect a game packed with characters like Mewtwo, Bowser and Ryu to ever be truly consistent?

err, no, lets not kid ourselves.
CC shining someone into an autocombo or bthrow/jab>shining them into death doesn't actually take any skill at all.
neither does cc dsmash, a 3% projectile that can be shot across the stage with no lag, a f1 invincible move that kills at like 10-20%, or a way to guarantee death off one grab.
admitting smash 4 has bs is one thing, but completely writing off the fact that melee has 3x as much stupid **** that adds more impact to each match is ridiculous

 

[Ninety]

Those require actual skill though. The ones that kill, anyway... Literally anybody can pick Marth or Cloud and through out a bunch of safe moves that kill. Brackets are a minefield.

Really, do you expect a game packed with characters like Mewtwo, Bowser and Ryu to ever be truly consistent?

Are we seriously using Smash 4 Marth as an example of skill-less easy wins? In comparison to Melee?

 

[HeavyLobster]

err, no, lets not kid ourselves.
CC shining someone into an autocombo or bthrow/jab>shining them into death doesn't actually take any skill at all.
neither does cc dsmash, a 3% projectile that can be shot across the stage with no lag, a f1 invincible move that kills at like 10-20%, or a way to guarantee death off one grab.
admitting smash 4 has bs is one thing, but completely writing off the fact that melee has 3x as much stupid **** that adds more impact to each match is ridiculous

In some ways the jank can create more consistency. Being able to neutralize half the cast with 2-3 really stupid options makes the random low/mid tier upset less of a threat. Relatively tame high tiers means that autopiloting through pools is harder to do, and you actually need to sort of know the MU if the opponent is good.

 

[FeelMeUp]

In some ways the jank can create more consistency. Being able to neutralize half the cast with 2-3 really stupid options makes the random low/mid tier upset less of a threat. Relatively tame high tiers means that autopiloting through pools is harder to do, and you actually need to sort of know the MU if the opponent is good.

this is an issue, though, because it shunts out the viability of all but 6-8 characters.
for example, bowser has no answers to a shielding sheik in melee because wd forward ftilt/grab means he loses a stock.
link has no answers to a lasercamping fox because fox does literally everything link wants to but better.
hell, even reaching into the higher tiers. ics are sort of invalidated by fox at top level play and pikachu is mauled by sheik.
i'll choose this game's health over melee's 100% of the time.

 

[KamikazePotato]

I think Smash 4 definitely has a lower skill ceiling than, say, Melee. That's not a bad thing. Melee has a *very* high skill ceiling, and I think at the moment Smash 4's ceiling is in a pretty good spot where it allows for certain players to be the clear favorites while also not being immortal.

The real reason for these upsets, more than 2 stocks or rage (although they are contributing factors), is the huge cast of characters and the fact that balance is much better in Smash 4. In Melee, if you didn't pick one of 3-4 characters your chance of winning a tournament, or even getting far in a tournament, were almost nonexistent. In Smash 4, you can pick a ton of characters and have a realistic shot at making a deep run. Additionally, the huge cast makes for a lot of matchups that top players might not be used to - this is something that will diminish over time.

 

[Nobie]

Tech skill isn't the only skill~

Knowledge isn't the only skill either~

This game is designed so that even if a good player makes a mistake they can eat something fierce. That's where this "inconsistency" comes from. It isn't that the skill ceiling of Smash 4 is "too low" or anything, but that there are fewer things you can do to completely separate yourself from the people below you in skill, no silver bullet or anything like that. You mess up against a pro or a For Glory player, you're eating something.

I used to play Japanese mahjong semi-competitively. If you want to enter a world where just bad luck can ruin all your best laid plans, can make all of your precise calculations and knowledge and theory and more just crumble in one bad move, let's talk.

 

[blackghost]

the upsets that were listed really were matchup knowledge based. and dont list umeki losing as too severe an upset if umeki runs into three above average player with a disjoint he's very likely to get knocked out. its in the nature of the character.
bowser beating shiek in actual practice is also very likely bowser doesnt need much to go right for a kill. just a few hits and he has a great grab game as well.
if anything this tournment should shelf the ridiculous idea that anyone in smash 4 is good enough to bypass pools ( never heard of an idea like that before form any fgc game)
learn. your. MUs.
pink fresh you always seem to run into bad us for bayo. RIP.
i take smash 4 megta over melee anyday. i dont need 70 percent the cast eliminated by one move that two characters have.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

If you go a bit further than that. It also comes down to how varied each character is. And the larger a tournament is, the better the chances you'll run into big talent, meaning you have a higher chance of running into these characters at some of their best. And since these characters aren't immediately invalidated by all the top tiers (some may even have a random good MU) that is bound to create upsets.

Some characters are just built to handle certain play styles or certain tools.

So while the odds are low, it is within the realm of possibility that you could see something as wild as a DK taking a major someday if he just doesn't run into the worst characters. Hell, imagine if DKWill was in top 16 and Nairo was still eliminated, all of the sudden, DKWill would be in a better position than usual.

 

[C0rvus]

There are many 50/50s and kill confrims from throws in this game. A few patches ago, these belonged mostly to the top characters. Since then, characters like Boweser and Robin have gained them, and Luigi, Sheik, and Diddy have lost them. This is a much better dynamic, but it also can lead to these inconsistencies or upsets, just by nature of the combos. Rage is a part of this, but they way things are now are better than they used to be.

Consider Robin versus Sheik. Sheik wins neutral many times no problem. Robin needs to win fewer times than Sheik to get her kill, and this works because Sheik is better at neutral and disadvantage. You can call it whatever you want, but that's how it works. These two archetypes going head to head can end in many ways, but more often than not the better player wins, because while the win conditions are different and skewed in one way, the path there is skewed in the opposite way.

 

[Nobie]

Have you ever noticed that when people talk about their favorite esports, they'll often claim that it has the "perfect balance of physical and mental challenges?" Somehow, all of these different games have just the right mix, as opposed to people being severely biased towards their games of choice.

The reason I bring this up is because I think the reward for perfecting a skill through practice is valued differently by different people. For example, some want to pour so many hours into learning a game that they believe it should make them clearly better. If the opponent cannot do this thing, they should win. Not just 9 out of 10 times, they want it 10 out of 10 times. If a game doesn't offer that, they might view it as being unfair or random or inconsistent.

I mentioned mahjong before is because it's a game I'm more familiar with but also a game that shares certain properties with poker in that randomness is a significant part of the game. I've seen many players, especially those who first start playing online, who are very mathematically minded. They've memorized the probabilities of things, they can calculate what's the ideal move or the best-chance move at all times, sort of like Mew2King. Except it's not just Mew2King getting baited out by Mang0, it's that the ENTIRE GAME is like one giant Mang0 and the most precise and detailed plans can just amount to instant loss if you overextend once. How you deal with that random factor (as well as your salt from having this happen!) is in itself a skill.

If a game appears inconsistent there can be plenty of reasons, but that doesn't mean it should be shunned. As others have mentioned, there are many factors that could be influencing this, and what we decide are the worst offenders is often the result of personal biases in how we view "competitiveness" in games.

Incidentally, Earth is a really good competitive Japanese mahjong player, and I think you can see elements of it in his Pit. He plays a relatively conservative style, as Japanese mahjong tends to be, but he mixes in small risks throughout, and he's not easily fazed by the unexpected.

 

[thehard]

I think what's happening here is similar to people saying "hey [low tier] got 13th at [regional] see they're not so bad!" without actually analyzing their bracket to see if there were any wins over notable players or not. By this I mean, if you think the game is inconsistent in itself why not analyze a match where an upset occurred and post it here. Pick out moments where "jank" actually occurred and someone didn't just get outplayed. It's become too easy to drop buzzwords in lieu of real data.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Nobie 's post reminded me of this quote:

"You can do everything right and still lose."

In a way, I think that's one of the things that make this game so beautiful.

 

[|RK|]

I think Smash 4 definitely has a lower skill ceiling than, say, Melee. That's not a bad thing. Melee has a *very* high skill ceiling, and I think at the moment Smash 4's ceiling is in a pretty good spot where it allows for certain players to be the clear favorites while also not being immortal.

The real reason for these upsets, more than 2 stocks or rage (although they are contributing factors), is the huge cast of characters and the fact that balance is much better in Smash 4. In Melee, if you didn't pick one of 3-4 characters your chance of winning a tournament, or even getting far in a tournament, were almost nonexistent. In Smash 4, you can pick a ton of characters and have a realistic shot at making a deep run. Additionally, the huge cast makes for a lot of matchups that top players might not be used to - this is something that will diminish over time.

I'm not quite sure how we can talk about skill ceilings in this game (which is still very young) in comparison to Melee. I really don't think we're there yet. Beyond that, I'm not sure how you can even compare skill ceilings for games of this level. There's a skill ceiling for, say, Tic-Tac-Toe, but you'll never hear that when it comes to any other sport. The reason is that people will always keep advancing - if not physically, then mentally. The top players still have a long way to go in improving their games - I wouldn't say that these upsets even prove anything other than that. A few of them got their moment in the sun by beating ZeRo - now it's critical for them to understand that this is no place for them to rest.

...All of that is in the case that you're talking about a skill ceiling as an actual limit, as opposed to just where the best players are *right now*.

 

[Locke 06]

I'm not quite sure how we can talk about skill ceilings in this game (which is still very young) in comparison to Melee. I really don't think we're there yet. Beyond that, I'm not sure how you can even compare skill ceilings for games of this level. There's a skill ceiling for, say, Tic-Tac-Toe, but you'll never hear that when it comes to any other sport. The reason is that people will always keep advancing - if not physically, then mentally. The top players still have a long way to go in improving their games - I wouldn't say that these upsets even prove anything other than that. A few of them got their moment in the sun by beating ZeRo - now it's critical for them to understand that this is no place for them to rest.

...All of that is in the case that you're talking about a skill ceiling as an actual limit, as opposed to just where the best players are *right now*.

Real life sports (like baseball) are not limited by computer codes and 60 fps actions. There is a theoretical limit to video games.

 

[Ninety]

Have you ever noticed that when people talk about their favorite esports, they'll often claim that it has the "perfect balance of physical and mental challenges?" Somehow, all of these different games have just the right mix, as opposed to people being severely biased towards their games of choice.

The reason I bring this up is because I think the reward for perfecting a skill through practice is valued differently by different people. For example, some want to pour so many hours into learning a game that they believe it should make them clearly better. If the opponent cannot do this thing, they should win. Not just 9 out of 10 times, they want it 10 out of 10 times. If a game doesn't offer that, they might view it as being unfair or random or inconsistent.

I mentioned mahjong before is because it's a game I'm more familiar with but also a game that shares certain properties with poker in that randomness is a significant part of the game. I've seen many players, especially those who first start playing online, who are very mathematically minded. They've memorized the probabilities of things, they can calculate what's the ideal move or the best-chance move at all times, sort of like Mew2King. Except it's not just Mew2King getting baited out by Mang0, it's that the ENTIRE GAME is like one giant Mang0 and the most precise and detailed plans can just amount to instant loss if you overextend once. How you deal with that random factor (as well as your salt from having this happen!) is in itself a skill.

If a game appears inconsistent there can be plenty of reasons, but that doesn't mean it should be shunned. As others have mentioned, there are many factors that could be influencing this, and what we decide are the worst offenders is often the result of personal biases in how we view "competitiveness" in games.

Incidentally, Earth is a really good competitive Japanese mahjong player, and I think you can see elements of it in his Pit. He plays a relatively conservative style, as Japanese mahjong tends to be, but he mixes in small risks throughout, and he's not easily fazed by the unexpected.

Sounds like competitive Pokemon. Even the best player can and does lose to poor rolls, untimely crits, or inconvenient procs.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I can honestly see Sm4sh being a stressful game during the long run of a tournament, since you really have to be attentive at all times, even in the first round of pools or you can get bodied like Zero, Trela, or Ally did. Unlike in Melee where if you're a top player you can justify skipping pools because you've reached a level of skill beyond the majority of other players.

 

[|RK|]

Real life sports (like baseball) are not limited by computer codes and 60 fps actions. There is a theoretical limit to video games.

Sure, but we're nowhere near close enough to hypothesize that. Humans have limits too, you know. Sm4sh (and many fighting games, tbh) has a lot of mental game going into it - it's way more than just what you can do with your hands.

I think what's happening here is similar to people saying "hey [low tier] got 13th at [regional] see they're not so bad!" without actually analyzing their bracket to see if there were any wins over notable players or not. By this I mean, if you think the game is inconsistent in itself why not analyze a match where an upset occurred and post it here. Pick out moments where "jank" actually occurred and someone didn't just get outplayed. It's become too easy to drop buzzwords in lieu of real data.

100% this.

Where are these "random" or "jank" moments that caused top players to be upset? Trela got stage-spiked by a Mechakoopa. He didn't pick it up once in the set to use to his advantage. He didn't know that matchup whatsoever. Ally lost to someone playing his own character. Even matchup, he got outplayed. Nairo got beat by Zinoto, a known poor matchup for ZSS. ZeRo's Monkey Flip habits were very easily read by Prince Ramen, and he didn't know how to get out of certain combos.

Rage is a known quantity at this point. The top players should know that they need to be on at all times if they want to win. That's what will separate the "gods" from normal people in this game.

 

[MF Viewtiful]

Tech skill isn't the only skill~

Knowledge isn't the only skill either~

This game is designed so that even if a good player makes a mistake they can eat something fierce. That's where this "inconsistency" comes from. It isn't that the skill ceiling of Smash 4 is "too low" or anything, but that there are fewer things you can do to completely separate yourself from the people below you in skill, no silver bullet or anything like that. You mess up against a pro or a For Glory player, you're eating something.

I used to play Japanese mahjong semi-competitively. If you want to enter a world where just bad luck can ruin all your best laid plans, can make all of your precise calculations and knowledge and theory and more just crumble in one bad move, let's talk.

I think you incidentally made me realize why I started to lose my interest in Smash 4. In particular, "there are fewer things you can do to completely separate yourself from the people below you in skill". I guess I really like the idea of "skill stratification". I like my skill level to be easily distinguishable from those lower and higher than me. A game where I have a harder time separating myself from the Johnny Donuts of the world and yet can compete with Micheal Jordan sounds pretty unappealing to me.

 

[C0rvus]

Seems like matchup knowledge, execution, and decision making separate you from others. That and your ability to read your opponent, which can't really be taught. Having more general experience generally shows as well.

 

[Djent]

Proposed discussion topic: is vs. even or slightly in her favor? I lean toward the latter but want your opinion.

We've seen this matchup played a number of times at "top" level. Between Genesis, Do or DI, LTC4, and now CEO, Nairo is 3-2 with Hyuga AFAIK. He also fought a close set with 3xA. OTOH, Hyuga also lost to Marss and NickRiddle, and Choco defeated Hayato at SHIG Tournament. Finally, I know that Ri-ma has variable results in the matchup. That's about all I know of in the results department.

 

[FeelMeUp]

What separates you in this game isn't actually as clear as it was in Melee because of how different it is.
Tech does not matter in Smash 4, as shown during ZeRo's dominance.
What's most important is how much damage you can get off of your opponent going offstage/being forced to the ledge. You'll notice that the games ZeRo loses are the ones where his ability to keep people on the ledge falters heavily and the neutral dominance isn't enough because his grab followups aren't the best.
While watching top level players you should be taking note of how long they keep the opposition on the ledge and how much damage they convert off of it.
It's the difference that makes a player like Nietono better than Zinoto for Diddy. Or even Mr. R better than VoiD.
No matter how little they know the MU, unless you have Sheik tier ledge options your character doesn't matter. You'll keep getting hit all the same.

 

[C0rvus]

Zero Suit Samus vs Toon Link near even without a doubt, but I lean a bit towards ZSS favor as time goes on. ZSS has a strong zone of her own and better zone-breaking abilities. Her reward seems a bit better but perhaps a bit less consistent. She also has very, very strong edgeguarding against a character with pretty middling recovery outside of zair range.

 

[meleebrawler]

I guess... But I'd like more control/options, just helps more in fighting games. Don't really like Extra Credits much.

As long as the human element exists, you will NEVER have games that are 100% skill based unless it's a pure logic game like chess... but then that brings about a different problem where all winning scenarios are figured out and repeated ad nauseam (and even then there's the luck matter of who gets to go first).

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I think you incidentally made me realize why I started to lose my interest in Smash 4. In particular, "there are fewer things you can do to completely separate yourself from the people below you in skill". I guess I really like the idea of "skill stratification". I like my skill level to be easily distinguishable from those lower and higher than me. A game where I have a harder time separating myself from the Johnny Donuts of the world and yet can compete with Micheal Jordan sounds pretty unappealing to me.

The thing is you can really only get so far without putting that time in. People like Ramin put their time in. Zero didn't study the MU or expected such a threat so early in the tournament and lost harder for it.

The thing is, that being a top player in this game vs Melee is really a matter of powerful vs untouchable.

 

[|RK|]

I think you incidentally made me realize why I started to lose my interest in Smash 4. In particular, "there are fewer things you can do to completely separate yourself from the people below you in skill". I guess I really like the idea of "skill stratification". I like my skill level to be easily distinguishable from those lower and higher than me. A game where I have a harder time separating myself from the Johnny Donuts of the world and yet can compete with Micheal Jordan sounds pretty unappealing to me.

You can still separate yourself out from those below you. In fencing, one thing I learned is that you don't see the people at higher levels doing too much things differently from the people below them. The biggest difference is that they make fewer mistakes.

In fact, that's one of the biggest reasons ZeRo was unstoppable pre-hiatus. Making a mistake, missing a tech, etc. was rare. But his biggest asset by far was his mind - the dude was absolutely solid when he was focused. There was no shaking him, and he adapted to any and everything.

That's one way he separated himself from the rest. But what I find to be more of an issue is this - we keep talking about how one mistake can cost someone a game. I don't agree with that, exactly. One mistake only costs someone the game if they've already made a series of mistakes to begin with.

Matchup by matchup, the amount of mistakes you can make before you lose your stock (or the game) varies... But it's never just one. Except maybe Mario and ZSS on Battlefield?

 

[Baby_Sneak]

Seems like matchup knowledge, execution, and decision making separate you from others. That and your ability to read your opponent, which can't really be taught. Having more general experience generally shows as well.

And the neutral. Like, ZeRo has a really good neutral that should be the benchmark for everyone to be above at least. Not just In execution, but in understanding and in knowledge.

Man, that would be amazing if that happened.

 

[san.]

As long as the human element exists, you will NEVER have games that are 100% skill based unless it's a pure logic game like chess... but then that brings about a different problem where all winning scenarios are figured out and repeated ad nauseam (and even then there's the luck matter of who gets to go first).

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Define "100% skill based", not really sure what you mean.

Smash 4, there's a steady build up of knowledge. Ex. Learning the timing of when you can attack, jump, or air dodge out of hitstun so you maximize your escape options, optimizing air dodge so you know when you can double jump or attack out of it, and recognizing these situations when the opponent is in the same spot.

When I mentioned SDI, I was thinking about things like SDIing spikes so you can tech the side of the stage, SDIing things like Fox's uair, jab setups, etc. It's just a bit different in this game. I didn't mean anything bad when I mentioned the term coin flip, but I was just saying that there isn't much crazy you can do no matter your skill level.

You have to make a choice of jump, air dodge, attack, or do nothing with variance lying with DI and how you drift and fast fall. You have to assess your positioning, your options, their options/potential followups, your previous choices, optimal DI, risk:reward, etc.


Let's switch it up a bit. Let's say you play a game with swords. You can swing up, left, right, down (stab). You can block up, left, right down. You can kick to interrupt blocks and it combos into a swing (pretty much grab). You can "chamber" your swing to counter your opponent's in the same direction (pretty much counterattack).

4-way Attack, 4-way Block, Kick (grab), Counterattack. Damage is based on your weapon, movement speed, hit location, and how long you had an attack held.

Simple, not much variance, and it's a great competitive experience. It's a good example of how nuanced options can still allow the more skilled player to win consistently (well, with best out of like 9 or something like that LOL):

 

[Locke 06]

Sure, but we're nowhere near close enough to hypothesize that. Humans have limits too, you know. Sm4sh (and many fighting games, tbh) has a lot of mental game going into it - it's way more than just what you can do with your hands.

If Sheik ftilts a Cloud's shield, he can up-B OoS and punish it every time due to it -13 or whatever. Yes, the mental game can always advance, but it's constrained by the engine of the video game. You can't delay in intervals that are not 60hz.

If a boxer's jab gets blocked, there's no "frame advantage" or "guaranteed punish."

Humans have limits? Well... not really.

 

[MushroomKiller]

Proposed discussion topic: is vs. even or slightly in her favor? I lean toward the latter but want your opinion.

We've seen this matchup played a number of times at "top" level. Between Genesis, Do or DI, LTC4, and now CEO, Nairo is 3-2 with Hyuga AFAIK. He also fought a close set with 3xA. OTOH, Hyuga also lost to Marss and NickRiddle, and Choco defeated Hayato at SHIG Tournament. Finally, I know that Ri-ma has variable results in the matchup. That's about all I know of in the results department.

I agree that it's pretty much near even at this point in the meta, though I'm inclined to believe that any obvious advantage ZSS might have is the result of Nario being a (slightly - not much) better player. I still believe she has a nominal edge over TL though, because she can box TL out with her fairs and zairs and bypass his zoning with smart shielding and her mobility. I'm not saying she can do this EASILY, but the tools that she has makes her better equipped to handle TL than most of the cast.

Where Toon Link excels in the MU seem to be in his punish game, as he can capitalize on any misreads (e.g. whiffed grabs, excessive shielding, Boost Kick out of shields) with those U-Tilt strings early percent, stray meaty aerials and throw + bombs mid and later percents. Needless to say, bomb + anything at this point is as good as ever, which ZSS particularly doesn't like because of her lighter weight and the surprisingly powerful moves of fair and uair. Lastly, the RNG of bomb exploding in hand and the occasional returning boomerang helps TL to escape from ZSS's infamous aerial combos, as well.

In other words, they have the right tools to deal with one another, but I have to give the slightest edge to ZSS because of her edge-guarding game, which, as C0rvus mentioned, can give TL some problems, especially at later percents when just about any aerial can kill. That and D-Smash.

Tangentially related, but am I the only who's beginning to see as more of a Top 15 character now? His recent results with anything Hyuga in them have all been top 5, and besides the Rosalina and possibly Cloud match-ups, I really don't see him struggling against any top and high tiers. He's already overtaken the likes of to sit comfortably in 14~15 in my eyes. Depending on how Hyuga does this CEO, I might even place him above the ranks of .

 

[Nobie]

I think you incidentally made me realize why I started to lose my interest in Smash 4. In particular, "there are fewer things you can do to completely separate yourself from the people below you in skill". I guess I really like the idea of "skill stratification". I like my skill level to be easily distinguishable from those lower and higher than me. A game where I have a harder time separating myself from the Johnny Donuts of the world and yet can compete with Micheal Jordan sounds pretty unappealing to me.

This isn't directed at you specifically, but I often find that skill stratification to be less of a "true indicator of a high skill ceiling!" and more of a way to protect players' egos. Let's say being better at Johnny Donuts but worse than Michael Jordan means you beat Johnny 70% of the time and Mike 15% of the time as well. You're clearly better than the former and worse than the latter, but the fact that you're incurring losses can stick in your mind, and make you question your skill. This hurts people who think, "WHY SHOULD I LOSE TO A WORSE PLAYER?!" even though they're winning most of the time anyway.

Having less skill stratification can also protect egos ecause people start to think they're better than they actually are. I don't know what the actual solution for this is.

 

[|RK|]

If Sheik ftilts a Cloud's shield, he can up-B OoS and punish it every time due to it -13 or whatever. Yes, the mental game can always advance, but it's constrained by the engine of the video game. You can't delay in intervals that are not 60hz.

If a boxer's jab gets blocked, there's no "frame advantage" or "guaranteed punish."

Humans have limits? Well... not really.

There are guaranteed punishes in some regards. A poor strike in judo could get you thrown, a poor attack in fencing will get parried then riposted, etc.

Just like in video games, the punishes depend on your opponent's execution. And of course, your own timing and conditioning.

Any game with this amount of options is unlikely to have a viewable ceiling at this point.

But as you said, real life inherently has more options, and I do agree with that point.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

CEO Top 16:

x3
x3
x2
x2
x0

I know I sound like a broken record at this point ... but that's something you cannot possibly ignore. I'm really curious about how this is going to affect @Das Koopa's rankings. Cloud will not gain *any* points from CEO, correct?

 

[|RK|]

CEO Top 16:

x3
x3
x2
x2
x0

I know I sound like a broken record at this point ... but that's something you cannot possibly ignore. I'm really curious about how this is going to affect @Das Koopa's rankings. Cloud will not gain *any* points from CEO, correct?

No ZSS, either. But yeah - I think that's how it works.

 

[Iron Kraken]

I'm here with an important announcement:

Cloud does NOT beat Rosalina & Luma .

Your information is out of date.

The reason for this common misconception is that shortly after Cloud came out, Dabuz lost to Tweek, and shortly after that Dabuz made a Rosa match up chart saying that she had a "-2" match up with Cloud. After that it became conventional wisdom to say that Cloud bodies Rosa.

Let's get an update:

-As far back as a couple of months ago Dabuz had already changed his mind and said the match up is probably even, after learning about it a little more.
-Falln has said that the match up is in Rosa's favor and he is ready to take out all Clouds.

While it's true that Cloud KOs Luma very easily, Rosa more than makes up for it by being able to exploit Cloud's recovery. Rosa can get in Cloud's face off-stage and force him to make a quick guess to save his life, either going for an immediately Dair/Bair to KO him or just waiting out the air dodge and then doing it. Rosa's Up-Air beats Climhazzard on the way down. Moves like Luma-F-Smash and Star Bits can abuse the fact that Cloud cannot sweet spot the ledge, and a de-tethered Luma can also exploit this weakness with moves like Dair.

A couple of days prior to CEO, Dabuz and Mew2King playing a bunch of matches on the MVG stream. Dabuz probably won about 80% of the matches because he was able to consistently gimp Cloud. Once the two switched characters (with Dabuz going Cloud and M2K going Rosa), Mew2King swiftly defeated Dabuz by not allowing him to recover. Dabuz was forced to concede M2K was right that it was not a good match up for Cloud.

Yesterday at CEO, Falln backed up his talk by taking out two Clouds in loser's bracket - Tweek and Z.

So please, spread the good word to your friends. Cloud does not beat Rosa.