Official BBR Tier List v7

[| Big D |]

Ganon challenge tho

 

[Espy Rose]

You can't save yourself now.

 

[| Big D |]

Sudden death has the lowest margin of error tho, and if you only played it once it would be even lower.

Therefor it should provide more consistent results than 7 10 stock matches because of the high margin of error.

Not disagreeing with Shaya, although to me it should be pretty clear that more games/stocks will provide more consistent results while less stocks/matches will produce less consistent results.

It's like running a test multiple times for a more accurate sample, or surveying more than one person.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

More stocks or games makes endurance more of a factor. It isn't the same as preforming multiple tests for consistency, it changes the test.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I don't know about everyone else, and this is totally subjective, but I don't really mind removing some of the "endurance" part of the Brawl "test." Brawl tournaments take too long and 2 stocks is competitive, just not for all of the same reasons, which is fine (with me, anyway).

Shaving off a third of every set saves time and doesn't significantly reduce Brawl's creative value to me.

 

[DMG]

2 stock matches seem fine. 2 stock 6 min would be doable.

 

[Tesh]

I don't see how Brawl can survive when Smash 4 comes out when it takes this long to play. It pretty has to be a main event.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I don't see how Brawl can survive when Smash 4 comes out when it takes this long to play. It pretty has to be a main event.

Frankly, it can't. A lot of brawl's players started playing it because it was the new Smash game, and I suspect most brawl players will move on to smash 4 when it comes out for the same reason. I'm not one of them, but many people feel that Melee is a superior game, even Brawl players think Brawl is bad.

I like Brawl and like it more than Melee, but this post by Tesh is spot on. Brawl takes too long and on top of that most Brawl players will jump to the next game most likely, if it's at all decent.

With Smash 4 on the horizon, set length is brawl's global warming and 2-stock 6-minute sets is the obvious necessary solution.

 

[Tesh]

Well its not just about that. Melee was often a side event at lots of early Brawl tournaments. Even assuming alot of Brawl players drop it completely for Smash 4, it still takes a stupidly high amount of resources to run. Top level play (which is likely to be what lives on) is the most time consuming part. Less interest in Brawl would let it run on time, but be far less likely to be run at all.

Most brawl players would probably want to enter a Brawl side event if it was at a Smash U event.

Hopefully we simply run doubles and ditch Brawl singles if people wont lower stock count.
Here in TX its favored alot more.

 

[infiniteV115]

Wtf
Melee and even 64 have survived til now. Brawl isnt dying any time soon.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

V, I'm not sure that's true. Melee survived because it has a large, passionate, aggressively self-righteous fanbase that have banded together with one very annoying thing in common: they all think Brawl is **** and Melee is Awesome. Brawl-only tournaments aren't going to be a common occurance after Smash 4. If there's one thing Melee fans are right about (not really for the right reasons, but they are kind of right) it's that Brawl won't survive like Melee has. 64 is different, its success is more like a retro revival sort of thing.

 

[Tesh]

There will be people who stick with Brawl once they see Smash 4 isnt their type. I'm sure alot of Melee players thought Melee was over and Brawl was their future.

If you like chaingrabbing, pikmin tossing, nado spamming, ledge camping Brawl, I hope you aren't 100% comfy switching to Smash 4.

 

[infiniteV115]

Unless Smash 4 is significantly better than Brawl, I don't see Brawl dying any time soon. A lot of Melee players hate on Brawl for reasons that really just boil down to Brawl having different mechanics. And that's what made them stick to Melee in the first place.
And then there are probably a bunch who are okay with Brawl but decided to stick with Melee since they already got so far in that.

The same 2 things are likely going to happen during the Brawl-->Smash 4 transition.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

There will be people who stick with Brawl once they see Smash 4 isnt their type. I'm sure alot of Melee players thought Melee was over and Brawl was their future.

If you like chaingrabbing, pikmin tossing, nado spamming, ledge camping Brawl, I hope you aren't 100% comfy switching to Smash 4.

Worth noting that the Melee community did die out for a little while but experienced somewhat of a boost in past years because the Melee community has a complex and loves to be as big and loud as possible to prove how much better their game is. lol

 

[da K.I.D.]

If smash u is a high quality game, i hope every single player of melee brawl and 64 drops those games to play it. And i tbink for the most part, thats exactly whats going to happen. Namco having a hand in the process will be a HUGE factor for this. Since they are literally the best company at a factor wbich is one of smashes biggest failures on the whole. Character balance. Tekken Tag 2 is probably the most well balanced fighter ive ever seen

 

[Dekillsage]

Except every single decision on the game is being made by Sakurai.
I hope brawl doesn't die when smash 4 comes out. Every game is unique and should continue to be played.

 

[da K.I.D.]

None of these games really deserve to be played after smash 4 comes out. If its good.

 

[Dekillsage]

None of these games really deserve to be played after smash 4 comes out. If its good.

They do. Every game so far has been completely different and caters to different kinds of people. Everyone should give smash 4 a legitimate shot, but shouldn't have to drop their game because of it.

 

[B0NK]

I'll play brawl with you dekillsage, don't worry -_^b

 

[Dekillsage]

That's what I like to hear -_^b

 

[bubbaking]

Just poking fun at you And John needs to come back already >

Yeah, I figured as much. You're a pretty cool guy irl, too. You and Coontail. Vinnie seemed to be as well, but I'd only met him for a little bit. There are a lot of cool people on LI, but NY has its fair share of salt...

More stocks or games makes endurance more of a factor. It isn't the same as preforming multiple tests for consistency, it changes the test.

Why do you care if you aren't trying to time the person out?

All we need is 3-stocks and a 99-minute timer.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Re-phrase the question, because that makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[bubbaking]

I literally haven't been keeping track of the convo, so that's completely within the bounds of reason.

In reply just to your post (the one I quoted) though, I'm going to say that more stocks might call upon some endurance, but more games allows for a more accurate display of player skill and the MU being played, since it automatically causes a set to have the "multiple tests of consistency" that you speak of. It's kinda ridiculous when people say, "So-and-so person just got lucky beating so-and-so other person. It shouldn't have happened." They are ignoring the fact that the win took place over an entire set, which requires multiple victories. If so-and-so other player was actually supposed to win, he had x other games he could have not dropped to do so. If the # of games is increased, this just strengthens the legitimacy of a player's victory. This same reasoning is partially why no one should say, "So-and-so got lucky winning this stacked tourney." It's double-elimination. You get two chances. Don't complain because you lost out on both of them. Japan does their tourneys with only ONE chance.

As for timers, well, certain chars are only viable (or overly viable) in many MUs because of time-outs, which is kinda dumb, because the time imposed is just some arbitrary time that we came up with for tourney running. We artificially buffed certain chars' viabilities while nerfing others.

Edit: For example, MK would actually be WEAKENED in a competitive environment without timers (or with really long ones), and that wouldn't be a 'MK-centric' rule centered on limiting MK either. It would just be one (or a lack of one, rather) based on fairness and avoiding having any hand in nerfing or buffing anybody.

I dimensional cape to the ground.
I stall it just enough to move away.
Dimensional cape takes a slight amount of time to end going from air to ground than from ground to air. That is part of why the IDC is capable of being done to begin with, there will ALWAYS be a slight delay when you land on the ground from the air.

I think this might actually be a legitimate concern. I've done this myself without meaning to stall with MK. When you hit a platform or the ground, you end up staying in the cape a little longer. Idk, it could possibly have an effect somewhere, but I'm not going to comment much more on this issue. IDC wouldn't really be a problem with no or super long timers anyway. Nobody's going to stall for 30+ minutes without instantly acquiring Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or something. Super long timers would also solve all the more serious MK-stalling problems (planking, scrooging, air camping, etc), and it does this all without specifically targeting MK. I'm pretty sure that if we had no/longer timers, 'campy' stages that encourage timeouts (PS1/2, Delfino, etc) would be a lot more reasonable and our stage-list could be diverse again.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm not saying that it doesn't make the results more consistent, it just also increases the relevance of endurance which changes the game. So people arguing "oh, why don't we do it? The only downside is tourneys running longer" are incorrect.

Not having a timer is also an arbitrary nerf/buff to characters, you know. We aren't working off a default here so whatever we choose will be arbitrary. It's pointless to think about anyway because you can't run a tournament without a timer, logistically.

 

[Orion*]

Lmao endurance is a test regardless, try making it through a two day event without feeling exhaustion. The change is so minimal that it won't really effect results.

 

[bubbaking]

@Grim: I know, and it's unfortunate. I wouldn't say it's an "arbitrary nerf/buff" because I'd argue that the lack of a timer should be the standard 'by default'. Instead of aiming for timeouts (a goal some characters can realistically work towards while some chars simply can't), every char across the board would have the unified, simple goal of removing the opponent's three (or however many) stocks. Basketball games don't have two methods of winning to work towards. The aim isn't to either have the most points when the clock buzzes or do some other weird thing. It's simply to have the most points at the end. One objective for everyone. Also, think of all the 'extraneous' rules we could eliminate with the 'addition' of only one. We effectively wouldn't need the LGL, other anti-planking rules, anti-scrooging rules, IDC rules, anti-infinite rules, a whole plethora of stuff + more stages. Dare I say, MK might not even be so broken.

Also, consider this: SSB 64 doesn't have a timer. It's simply not available in the game, I believe. Yet they still have tournaments and their games even feature more stocks than ours (and a stage that is arguably much more campy than many of ours).

 

[Peachy-Desu]

Unless Smash 4 is significantly better than Brawl, I don't see Brawl dying any time soon. A lot of Melee players hate on Brawl for reasons that really just boil down to Brawl having different mechanics. And that's what made them stick to Melee in the first place.
And then there are probably a bunch who are okay with Brawl but decided to stick with Melee since they already got so far in that.

The same 2 things are likely going to happen during the Brawl-->Smash 4 transition.

Brawl *will* die if the next Smash game is better. There's almost no real reason to play brawl outside picking MK and Schwooing and nadoing everything in your way.

 

[PK Gaming]

V, I'm not sure that's true. Melee survived because it has a large, passionate, aggressively self-righteous fanbase that have banded together with one very annoying thing in common: they all think Brawl is **** and Melee is Awesome. Brawl-only tournaments aren't going to be a common occurance after Smash 4. If there's one thing Melee fans are right about (not really for the right reasons, but they are kind of right) it's that Brawl won't survive like Melee has. 64 is different, its success is more like a retro revival sort of thing.

couldn't agree more with this post

brawl won't die, but its popularity will be even smaller than melee in the long run, mark my words

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Smash 64 has a 10-minute timer out of game at most tourneys, it isn't usually necessary though

And there are characters who have difficulty taking 3 stocks just like there are ones who have difficulty timing out.

 

[bubbaking]

Then those characters are truly unviable. Removing stocks has been the goal of the game since SSB 64. If you can't do that, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not saying that the lack of a timer would eliminate campy play, because some characters simply need that, but it would eliminate the ability to win by time-out, which could easily be caused by running away which is very different from camping while whittling down the opponent and removing his stocks.

@PK Gaming: Actually, I've personally heard several high-level Melee players say that if Smash 4 ends up being better than Melee, Melee will die. The only reason Melee is alive now is because Melee players (myself included) see their game as better than yours. If Brawl players actually feel that Smash 4 is a better game than Brawl, they will most probably switch over. The SSB 64 scene is practically dead and it's because most players feel that Melee (and maybe Brawl) is better.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I really don't think removing the timer is going to affect tournament results or the tier list, though.

 

[bubbaking]

Sure it would. I bet Link and Jiggs would sink right down to the bottom of the tier list if they couldn't aim for time-outs. Meanwhile, Ganon and Bowser could look forwards to some actual interaction.

All semi-serious joking aside, do you really think the elimination of a timer wouldn't affect tourney results or MUs? Do you know how many tourneys have been won by MK timing people out? What about the multitude of ICs MUs that are 'even' pretty much SOLELY because they can be timed out? What about Anti timing Vinnie (or maybe it was ESAM) out twice because he lost whenever he tried to actually fight him? What about Vex losing to Suinoko because he got timed out (when he was literally right about to win)? What about the practical entirety of the Kirby/Sonic/Yoshi/etc. metagame against a whole plethora of chars?

Most current Melee players who didn't recently join our community have played Brawl at some point. Melee did 'die' at one point, not only because players left but because spectators left. It was 'revived' when players flooded back to it because they couldn't really stand Brawl (and spectators displayed more interest in watching Melee again). If Smash 4 is this awesome new game, Melee players are switching over. Brawl players are switching over. Heck, some of those stubborn SSB 64 players will probably switch over. There'll be no need to continue playing an old game that requires old equipment that is fading out of production.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Of course we remember all the times that matches were won due to time outs, because it's a memorable occurrence. Now compare that to all the matches won via taking stocks.

Seriously time outs are really rare. In match-ups where time outs are feasible, having the lead is a huge advantage regardless, it really doesn't make much difference imo. All that will happen without a timer is that in those MUs, neither player will approach and they last forever until the player without the lead gets chipped to death.

 

[bubbaking]

Or catches up in due time. It's just that the matches in which this might actually happen are cut short. You literally ignored every MU involving the ICs. Any sort of lead against them isn't a concrete lead. Heck, even a stock lead against them isn't a substantial lead. Remember what Z'zgashi (I think it was Z'zgashi) said? In a proper match between a good Yoshi and a good ICs, no one will ever lose stocks, because the Yoshi is going in with the mindset of timing the ICs out. That's the only reason that MU is 'even', isn't it? You can't have a mindset of accomplishing something that isn't possible. The timer is more significant than you're letting on.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

How would they catch up given infinite time if they can't catch up in 8 minutes?

When Yoshi times out ICs does he completely avoid any offense, or does he throw eggs? Same result, just takes longer for it to happen.

 

[Tesh]

bubba, good lord you'd have to be a complete idiot to think removing the timer would help. some people would just camp for EVER.

the game has to have a functional and concrete way of ending EVERY TIME.

 

[bubbaking]

Does Yoshi throw eggs? I don't know. Doesn't sound possible if ICs are constantly running after him, but I know very little about that MU, other than what I read in Z'zgashi's post. If there was infinite time, you wouldn't be able to win by blown-out running away, which would apply if that's what Yoshi is doing. If he's indeed chipping at the ICs, then I guess what you say would hold merit, but that's only if Yoshi is actually chipping at the ICs instead of, well, just running after getting a single hit in.

Edit: Actually no, scratch that. With an infinite timer, that MU would DEFINITELY be in the ICs' favor. It's only even now because of the timer. Do you think the ICs are going for a time-out? They just want to grab you so they can end your stock. It's not the same result at all. The Yoshis only win what they do because they're so good at keeping out of the ICs' grasp, so they get a quick damage lead and then run the clock, but the MU is still even. With more time to catch them, that MU would definitely be solidly in the ICs' favor. Another good example, I think, is DDD:Sonic. That MU is only +1 in our favor largely because Sonic can time us out after gaining a lead. If we were allowed more (infinite) time to catch him, that would be a solid +2, since we have the CG and dthrow > JC usmash on him. That and we can kill early while he can't kill and we have much better priority on our attacks.

It really isn't the same at all.

Edit 2: Tesh, read my original statement. I said the ideal solution would be a 99 minute timer, not a completely removed one. Also said that I know this isn't tourney-feasible. I was just making a point. Which part of that did you not understand?

 

[Jem.]

I think you guys are overlooking a huge problem: To run Brawl as a side event, you'd have to bring extra wii's too and Gamecube controllers/etc. Aint nobody trying to bring their Wii-U and Wii to tournaments.

Not to mention, Brawl doesnt have the "veteran leaders" really that Melee has. A lot of people have quit (like myself) and are just waiting until Smash 4 to compete again. It's safe to assume Vinnie/Havok/Anti/Tyrant/Pretty much every top player you can name will atleast attempt to main Smash 4. Then who is left for side event Brawl tournaments? Not to mention a natural reaction to having to re-warm up to a smash game when you played a different one at a tournament is to play defensive to feel the game out again. So it'll pretty much be a stall-fest everytime a Brawl side event were to happen. That and I'd be incredibly irritated if my Smash 4 match was being delayed for an MK vs IC 40 minute set for $20 for 1st place. I'd DQ them before I let that happen

 

[bubbaking]

It's a glitch.

Actually, I'm not so sure that the mechanics behind the IDC are actually a glitch. I think the DC is supposed to last a little bit longer when it hits the ground. Obviously, it was also purposefully designed into the move that you could change the direction you were travelling with it. That's just how it's supposed to work. It just wasn't intended to be used for stalling.

Calling the IDC a "glitch" may be just like calling wavedashing a glitch in Melee, which it isn't. The developers were completely aware of airdodge landing mechanics. They were programmed in. They just weren't intended to be used the way they were.

Using the downB for like 3 frames longer accidentally by landing is actually EDC(Extended Dimensional Cape). I think it's called IDC only when done for the purpose of stalling and for long periods of time. Both are still banned, but you do you find the ability to delay a downB by 1/4 seconds to be banworthy?

Accidental EDCs are banned? Really? I actually didn't know that.

If he won that game they probably would have just given the win to the japanese since it was an illegal move. The difference is that the TOs knew that M2K was in a 1v2 against two of Japan's best (and most solid) players and that if Japan won that game (which had about a 99% chance of happening) then that would have been the end of GFs. There's no point in DQing somebody for breaking the rules when they lost anyway XD

You're literally the worst kind of TO ever. So you're going to let M2K (or whoever else this may apply to) have false hope by leaving him in, and if something goes wrong by some twist of fate (it happens, lolz), you're going to just DQ him after the fact? Might as well just give the victory to the Japanese right away then. No sense in trying to sugarcoat everything.

It would have been a total buzzkill to cut the match short when you're in game 5 of dubs between Japan and NA at the biggest Brawl tournament in world history, just because M2K decided to extend his DC for about half a second. -_-

So you're going to be like Alex Strife now? Everything has to be 'for the hype'? So when a projector goes out, you're going to halt GFs and let the players cool down and lose their momentum, just to 'keep the hype'?

Edit: No offense to Alex Strife, but sometimes I think he forgets that he has a bigger responsibility to the players than he does to the spectators and stream monsters. This is a game FOR MONEY. You cannot be forcing the competitors to wait and cool down like that, just because the big screen couldn't be seen. That's really unfair and disrespectful.

"DQ him from the event that was over less than a minute later"

10/10 logic.

Yes, because I'm consistent, which is something you Canadians seem to not understand (out of line, but I like my trash-talk ).

This isn't that hard to understand dude. There's no point in DQing somebody for breaking the rules if they lost anyway. The whole point of DQing is to prevent faulty/unfair/cheap victories. You DQ people if they break a rule and win the same game in which they broke a rule. I can't believe I'm actually explaining this right now.

You are literally the WORST type of TO imaginable. You absolutely DO NOT DQ people just for "cheap victories". If we did, then we wouldn't be playing this game (or any Smash game, for that matter). "Cheap victories" permeate our metagame. The one thing NO fair TO in his right mind does is allow a broken rule to go by unpunished and then invalidate the player's win after the fact just because it was different from what he expected. Like, what's wrong with you? You can't seriously think this.

If an upset happens because of a broken rule that YOU let go by, then the guilt is on your hands. You can't go punishing the player by DQ'ing him after the fact. The very statement...

You DQ people if they break a rule and win the same game in which they broke a rule. I can't believe I'm actually explaining this right now.

is one of the most obtuse things I've ever heard. You DQ a person only if they win after cheating? Wth? Then why the heck are they still playing? If you're worried about "buzzkills", then you should be worried about players just unplugging their controllers in the middle of a match just because they broke a rule but were 'allowed to continue' simply because they have no hope. I wouldn't continue playing under those kinds of dumb circumstances. If you let a player go, then you let him go. You don't try to bite him later just because he won.

If you're going to DQ someone, you do it on the spot. You don't wait until the match ends. This doesn't only involve the 'cheating winner', either. If a 'non-cheating loser' suddenly 'wins' a match that he actually lost simply because the TO spontaneously decided to DQ the winner for something that happened in the middle of the match, the TO is liable to make the loser-turned-winner feel like his victory wasn't actually earned, like it wasn't legitimate. This probably isn't that major, but it's just one of many repercussions. You just DON'T change match results just because you decided to hold off on a call. You seem to fail to remember that this is still a game that players play for money. When money is on the line, you don't just hold off on calls to 'keep hype'. You have a responsibility to the players first and foremost.


Tl;dr - As a TO, you absolutely SHOULD NOT observe a rule being broken and then allow the match to continue unless you're officially 'pardoning' the cheating player, and you most definitely should NEVER let the results of a match influence your verdict. That's completely biased, partial, unfair, immoral, unethical, I don't even know what else I can keep calling it. It's just BAD!

 

[Kewkky]

I'd probably stop being as competitive as I am at Brawl and jump into Smash 4 as well. I'm almost absolutely sure Jem is correct in that just about every top player will jump ship. That's where the money will be at, and where people will be looking at when it comes to the community's behavior: the latest game.