SinisterHanded
Smash Cadet
Hello people,
I've spent some time thinking about tiers.
I am no pro-player like some out there, I'm kind of a philosopher.
But I've come up with some thoughts regarding the "dreaded tier placement" of your favorite character, and the current metagame.
If you think about it, the "tires don exits" HAS some truth in it, but is also false at the same time:
There ARE characteristics about a character that make him good or bad, but I think you, the playerbase has been emphasizing on the wrong character points.
We need to differentiate between "Makes a character easier to play" and "Makes a character good"!
Given Brawls new defensiveness, you need to think outside the box. I will show you an
example:
-Snake's tilts are often one of the points that are brought up to show he's a top-tier character.
But in our little world of theory, what if these tilts never hit in the first place?
Place yourself in a time with perfect and really high skilled players that can use the defensive techniques of brawl to their fullest, and you will see that the tilts make Snake easier to play but not good. True, when they hit, they can be devastating - but given enough player skill, they can be dodged.
Don't get me wrong, Snake is a really good character, but not because of his tilts or recovery.
An example from the other side of the spectrum: Link is regarded as a bottom tier character since the release of brawl and you always see one recurring arguement: "Link has horrible recovery".
Let's go to our world of ungodly skilled players again and you will see that this doesn't matter. A player that never gets hit does not need to recover. A player that rarely gets hit does rarely need to recover.
This makes Link a character that is essentially good, but hard to play.
You could kind of say that the current "tier lists" floating around are nothing but a list of "'Easiness of play' positions".
There are, like said, some characteristics though, that really make a character bad, no matter how skillful the player playing them is.
I will use Ganondorf as an example (sorry Ganondorf mainers):
Lag.
In our fantastic world of defensive players, attack lag is a deciding factor which makes a character good or bad. If an attack has startup lag, it's easier to dodge, and if it has ending lag it's easily punishable.
Low lag attacks make a character good, no matter what skill the player has.
I've though up some points which make a character truly good:
-Small size
-Disjointed hitboxes
-Comboability
of course, bad ones would be big, laggy and can't combo then.
These are just some points. But I think that given enough player skill, these are some of the only points that really matter when it comes to the goodness of a character - I'm sure you will think up others and post them here!
In melee things were just different, not so defensive, with just 1 air dodge and stuff...
so I really believe Brawl has the POTENTIAL to become more balanced, when the players really become skilled.
I am looking forward to your answers, please stay constructive!
I've spent some time thinking about tiers.
I am no pro-player like some out there, I'm kind of a philosopher.
But I've come up with some thoughts regarding the "dreaded tier placement" of your favorite character, and the current metagame.
If you think about it, the "tires don exits" HAS some truth in it, but is also false at the same time:
There ARE characteristics about a character that make him good or bad, but I think you, the playerbase has been emphasizing on the wrong character points.
We need to differentiate between "Makes a character easier to play" and "Makes a character good"!
Given Brawls new defensiveness, you need to think outside the box. I will show you an
example:
-Snake's tilts are often one of the points that are brought up to show he's a top-tier character.
But in our little world of theory, what if these tilts never hit in the first place?
Place yourself in a time with perfect and really high skilled players that can use the defensive techniques of brawl to their fullest, and you will see that the tilts make Snake easier to play but not good. True, when they hit, they can be devastating - but given enough player skill, they can be dodged.
Don't get me wrong, Snake is a really good character, but not because of his tilts or recovery.
An example from the other side of the spectrum: Link is regarded as a bottom tier character since the release of brawl and you always see one recurring arguement: "Link has horrible recovery".
Let's go to our world of ungodly skilled players again and you will see that this doesn't matter. A player that never gets hit does not need to recover. A player that rarely gets hit does rarely need to recover.
This makes Link a character that is essentially good, but hard to play.
You could kind of say that the current "tier lists" floating around are nothing but a list of "'Easiness of play' positions".
There are, like said, some characteristics though, that really make a character bad, no matter how skillful the player playing them is.
I will use Ganondorf as an example (sorry Ganondorf mainers):
Lag.
In our fantastic world of defensive players, attack lag is a deciding factor which makes a character good or bad. If an attack has startup lag, it's easier to dodge, and if it has ending lag it's easily punishable.
Low lag attacks make a character good, no matter what skill the player has.
I've though up some points which make a character truly good:
-Small size
-Disjointed hitboxes
-Comboability
of course, bad ones would be big, laggy and can't combo then.
These are just some points. But I think that given enough player skill, these are some of the only points that really matter when it comes to the goodness of a character - I'm sure you will think up others and post them here!
In melee things were just different, not so defensive, with just 1 air dodge and stuff...
so I really believe Brawl has the POTENTIAL to become more balanced, when the players really become skilled.
I am looking forward to your answers, please stay constructive!