What Sakurai is Doing: An Essay Regarding the Possibilty of Multi-Dimensional Tiers

[Icelement]

Alternative tiers outlook

thats why you are a scrub.
FACT = you should qq more about internet posting style

this is why i said i didnt want to hear from people like this. ignorance doesnt help discussion it destroys it.

plz do not post in here again. your ignorance fouls this thread.

that's why i said i dont have time for people like that. now plz move on this is not a DO TIRES EXITS thread.

Being a bit hostile, aren't we?

Now, I'm not going to be respected here, and I knew that before I hit the quote button, but at least try and swallow your urge to be an elitist and read a few lines before ignorantly dismissing my argument as you did with many of the posts before me. At the very least, the summary (underlined) at the end of my post.

Tiers are prevalent in any fighting game, and pretty much every game that has any kind of PVP or competitive play. This is obvious to even the most inexperienced of players, especially ones with common sense (take note, I am not in any way taking a cheap shot at anyone in the thread.) The way these tiers are setup is very linear to most people, choosing to group them from highest to lowest (bottom, low, middle, high, top) rather than the way you have described brawl may be shooting for.

Don't get me wrong, as I am all for balance of play in games, but the way you accept these tiers is so cold, so firm, so narrow minded, that it makes everything you say seem dry and dismissive. Tiers in melee show an obvious trend, again as you had mentioned, that speed is the most valuable statistic for a character to have. In my opinion, this holds true somewhat, as the faster characters do seem to win more often than the ones with 'gimped' speed, WDing, and other factors. The tiers as I imagine you know, are suppost to be a 'scale' of sorts, defining the real value of each character in the game and giving them a ranking out of 26. This is where I tend to sway on the subject however.

In tournament play, it is a safe bet to say that a top/high tier character will win because of the trend in using said characters. Even so, the mid-bottom tiered characters are still used (rarely albeit) in regular tourneys, or in mid-bottom tourneys. These characters again seem to hold true to their ranking, and more often than not will show a trend of tiers existing. Along with speed, power and control, skill is a variable that greatly affects outcomes of matches. When tiers are examined and reexamined, skill is considered to be "equal" as to remove the largest most complicated variable to simplify the tier equation. This is where my thinking comes in.

Tiers list the characters in order by value and tournament winning percentages. Obviously professional players have a lot of practice, and the skills they have learnt over the years oftentimes sway the tides of battle. If skill is implemented in the tier equation, the tiers could be entirely different. The argument at hand is that tiers exist and are concrete in competitive play. In this case, is every professional level player the same in terms of skill? This is impossible obviously. Doesn't this mean that tiers could never be truly concrete then? They are based on rate of winning for the most part after all.

Thats about it. Tiers are existent, and there is never any way to deny that truthfully, but are they nearly as static as you think? Is the topic really so fragile and dear to you that you would need to scold others for "ignorance" instead of actually debating the theories? It seems that way when I read your posts, and I personally dislike that way of thinking.

Forgive me for repeating myself as much as I did, but I'll try and be kind enough to give a brief overview.
Summary:

Tiers are an obvious part of the game, but are they really as strict and unforgiving as they are demanded to be?
Without any addition of skill into formulas of tiers, the list changes rapidly per person and per experience.
How can it be that tiers are so linear and set in stone, but good players can lose to other good players using lower level characters?
Imbuing skill into the lifeless formula for tier structure could drastically change the way tiers are viewed, and thought of.​

Thanks for anyone that read this far. I know I have a bad habit of repeating myself, but I can't much help it. I would also like to mention that 5150, despite your hostility and extreme elitism during the rest of the thread, I respect you as a person and I do not in any way intend to insult you. I respect your effort and opinions on the topic, and you make clean and precise points about many issues, despite me being on the other end of the debate.

Note: Negative comments are welcome, but everyone likes productive and well thought out arguments much more.

-Icelement

 

[5150]

Being a bit hostile, aren't we?

Now, I'm not going to be respected here, and I knew that before I hit the quote button, but at least try and swallow your urge to be an elitist and read a few lines before ignorantly dismissing my argument as you did with many of the posts before me. At the very least, the summary (underlined) at the end of my post.

Tiers are prevalent in any fighting game, and pretty much every game that has any kind of PVP or competitive play. This is obvious to even the most inexperienced of players, especially ones with common sense (take note, I am not in any way taking a cheap shot at anyone in the thread.) The way these tiers are setup is very linear to most people, choosing to group them from highest to lowest (bottom, low, middle, high, top) rather than the way you have described brawl may be shooting for.

Don't get me wrong, as I am all for balance of play in games, but the way you accept these tiers is so cold, so firm, so narrow minded, that it makes everything you say seem dry and dismissive. Tiers in melee show an obvious trend, again as you had mentioned, that speed is the most valuable statistic for a character to have. In my opinion, this holds true somewhat, as the faster characters do seem to win more often than the ones with 'gimped' speed, WDing, and other factors. The tiers as I imagine you know, are suppost to be a 'scale' of sorts, defining the real value of each character in the game and giving them a ranking out of 26. This is where I tend to sway on the subject however.

In tournament play, it is a safe bet to say that a top/high tier character will win because of the trend in using said characters. Even so, the mid-bottom tiered characters are still used (rarely albeit) in regular tourneys, or in mid-bottom tourneys. These characters again seem to hold true to their ranking, and more often than not will show a trend of tiers existing. Along with speed, power and control, skill is a variable that greatly affects outcomes of matches. When tiers are examined and reexamined, skill is considered to be "equal" as to remove the largest most complicated variable to simplify the tier equation. This is where my thinking comes in.

Tiers list the characters in order by value and tournament winning percentages. Obviously professional players have a lot of practice, and the skills they have learnt over the years oftentimes sway the tides of battle. If skill is implemented in the tier equation, the tiers could be entirely different. The argument at hand is that tiers exist and are concrete in competitive play. In this case, is every professional level player the same in terms of skill? This is impossible obviously. Doesn't this mean that tiers could never be truly concrete then? They are based on rate of winning for the most part after all.

Thats about it. Tiers are existent, and there is never any way to deny that truthfully, but are they nearly as static as you think? Is the topic really so fragile and dear to you that you would need to scold others for "ignorance" instead of actually debating the theories? It seems that way when I read your posts, and I personally dislike that way of thinking.

Forgive me for repeating myself as much as I did, but I'll try and be kind enough to give a brief overview.
Summary:

Tiers are an obvious part of the game, but are they really as strict and unforgiving as they are demanded to be?
Without any addition of skill into formulas of tiers, the list changes rapidly per person and per experience.
How can it be that tiers are so linear and set in stone, but good players can lose to other good players using lower level characters?
Imbuing skill into the lifeless formula for tier structure could drastically change the way tiers are viewed, and thought of.​

Thanks for anyone that read this far. I know I have a bad habit of repeating myself, but I can't much help it. I would also like to mention that 5150, despite your hostility and extreme elitism during the rest of the thread, I respect you as a person and I do not in any way intend to insult you. I respect your effort and opinions on the topic, and you make clean and precise points about many issues, despite me being on the other end of the debate.

Note: Negative comments are welcome, but everyone likes productive and well thought out arguments much more.

-Icelement

well ill just make this quick

#1 you cant factor skill into the tier list. skill is taken to be equal between the 2 players playing each other. all tier lists are based off of this assumption.

#2 a tier list is really a list of how effective a tool is at getting the job done. so how effective a character is at winning. this can change as people learn new ways to use the tool (character). i gave an example of that in my op. this happens in our current tier list and would happen in mine. tiers are never set in stone.

 

[DrewB008]

well you kinda do have a 3d tier in melee. That's why you have counter characters. In melee i can use Jiggs to **** any power character and do pretty well against space characters. Dr. Mario, who'll lose to sheik most of the time, can destroy fox, falco, falcon, gannon, marth easily (it's all in the cape). There's been a largely 3D tier in melee, watch a video of DK vs. Fox.

you should have brought up this idea without giving any examples, because honestly every single one you bring up is false.

 

[DRaGZ]

IMO, depth > balance.

If the game's skill cap is out of all players' reach, players can always strive that extra distance above and beyond his opponent to win. If that depth is sacrificed in order to achieve "balance" (true balance doesn't exist, FYI), players are more likely to stalemate each other, the game is more likely to slow down, and the game is more likely to go from a mix of wits and skill to a test of patience. It makes things more lame in general.

I mean, look at Halo. Halo 1 had depth. No **** the Pistol wasn't balanced. No **** the glitches used weren't intended. No **** players abused the "behind the scenes" gameplay functions... But look:

Virtually everything that happened in Halo 1 was a result of what a player did, there was no "randomness" interfering. This created a stable mental game.

The Pistol in Halo 1 wasn't balanced, and the glitches used changed the game far beyond the way Halo was originally intended to be played. But at the same time, these things all gave players the opportunity to rise above other players. Effort and skill were rewarded.

mental game + individual skill (not even throwing teamwork into the mix)

In Halo 2 and 3, that depth of mental skill and technical skill was removed. Random BS happens all the time in 2 and 3, so you can't depend on many rules to create a stable mental game between players. The new Pistol (the BR) is weak and doesn't take as much skill to use. The outcomes of fights are forced and the skill cap is lower than what most good players are capable of preforming at. Yes, now all of the weapons are good choices in Halo 3, but as a result it's been overbalanced into a lame, random, boring mess of a game. If you try to win you get frustrated and/or bored. The game is just not fun at any competitive level.

This shouldn't happen to Brawl, the Smash series doesn't deserve it. It is definitely possible to over-balance a game. People need to understand this. Hopefully Sakurai is fully aware of this and has been making sure Brawl has great depth. If all he wants to do is make every character equally playable, to eliminate tiers in his game, he will fail and Brawl will turn out to be just another game that you played for a few weeks and never looked back to. Why? Because once you get over the learning curve, it won't be fun to play.

I've seen this happen to games in the past. That's why I'm hesitant to be hyped for Brawl. Sakurai looks like he loves his game and has the best of intentions (he wants to make a good game, not make money), but at the same time I have no way to know that he understands the delicate balance between game balance and game depth. Six years from now, I want to be playing this game just like it's brand new. Here's hoping for the best

Halo 2/3 is random? Uhm...energy sword/plasma grenades/rocket launchers much? The skillful use of those weapons separate regular players from the pros. And obviously, people like the balanced changes in Halo 2: it sold much better than the original, got better ratings. It's not just because it was a sequel, it's because it was a better game.

Also, it's not a good idea to compare a shooter with a fighting game since they have different kinds of competitive mechanics. Fighting games in particular need to have balance because then only a few characters will be used. Shooters don't need to have as much balance because, with the exception of unique multiplayer shooters like Team Fortress, everyone essentially starts on the same footing in terms of equipment and options available. The pistol may be broken, but it's broken for everyone, so it essentially comes down to skill. On the other hand, Ibuki (who is my favorite character in Third Strike) needs around 11 hits to do what Ryu could do with one strong Shoryuken. That's not balance, and it's not going to stay balanced because not everyone wants to play Ryu (or any of the other top-tiers). I mean, technically everyone could play the same four characters, but that's boring. Everyone could play the same weapon in Halo, but it'll still be fun because the nature of the game allows for enough variety. A fighting game does not.

I'm just sayin' man.

 

[5150]

Halo 2/3 is random? Uhm...energy sword/plasma grenades/rocket launchers much? The skillful use of those weapons separate regular players from the pros. And obviously, people like the balanced changes in Halo 2: it sold much better than the original, got better ratings. It's not just because it was a sequel, it's because it was a better game.

Also, it's not a good idea to compare a shooter with a fighting game since they have different kinds of competitive mechanics. Fighting games in particular need to have balance because then only a few characters will be used. Shooters don't need to have as much balance because, with the exception of unique multiplayer shooters like Team Fortress, everyone essentially starts on the same footing in terms of equipment and options available. The pistol may be broken, but it's broken for everyone, so it essentially comes down to skill. On the other hand, Ibuki (who is my favorite character in Third Strike) needs around 11 hits to do what Ryu could do with one strong Shoryuken. That's not balance, and it's not going to stay balanced because not everyone wants to play Ryu (or any of the other top-tiers). I mean, technically everyone could play the same four characters, but that's boring. Everyone could play the same weapon in Halo, but it'll still be fun because the nature of the game allows for enough variety. A fighting game does not.

I'm just sayin' man.

well tbh i agree that halo 1 >>>>>> halo 2/3 and that post was very smart.

but yes move on and talk about brawl tier lists sakurai gg etc

 

[aruby14]

IDK Cap Falcon was the fastest character in melee but he had some of the stronger smashes and moves he was just broken and could be near unbeatable at times i really liked this thread though really interesting

 

[Endless Nightmares]

Game & Watch
Speed: 7
Control: 8
Power: 8

Why is he still a ****ty character

 

[5150]

Game & Watch
Speed: 7
Control: 8
Power: 8

Why is he still a ****ty character

because if those were the values for game and watch fox would be
Speed: 14
Control: 12
Power: 15

 

[MookieRah]

IDK Cap Falcon was the fastest character in melee nut he had some of the stronger smashes and moves he was just broken and could be near unbeatable at times i really liked this thread though really interesting

He was the fastest by running speed and aerial momentum, but definitely not from attacks. Fox is by far the speediest all around. My view of Falcon is very similar to 5150's, as I believe he is a very balanced character that is good.

 

[aruby14]

He was the fastest by running speed and aerial momentum, but definitely not from attacks. Fox is by far the speediest all around. My view of Falcon is very similar to 5150's, as I believe he is a very balanced character that is good.

dont get me wrong i think that he is great but like Sheik and Fox can be a little to cheap and in the hands of a top player it can really piss me off I play as DK and Link mainly so i like to take my time with the match if what you say is true on the whole tier thing some characters are just better than everyone else If thats what your saying than i totally agree

 

[DRaGZ]

I think Falcon's main problem was that he just had to get really close to make effective use of a lot of his attacks, which puts him in danger. Aside from the massively disjointed hitbox of his knee, stomp, and up tilt, almost all of his moves required you to get fairly close to hit properly. His speed can get him close, but he was still in danger, especially from one-frame attackers like Fox, Falco, and Marth.

But that's off-topic, isn't it?

 

[MookieRah]

But that's off-topic, isn't it?

Yeah, but it's intelligent, so we'll let it slide XD.

 

[Pendragonslayer]

I found the analysis an incredibly interesting way to look at tiers, and I honestly hope the game turns out very similar to the way you described it .

And then I saw your posts in the thread. It made the topic lose a decent amount of credibility. You can put me on your ignore this but I do not mean it as a flame. You are coming across very defensive, even flaming people, and seem to not be willing to accept that someone disagrees with your essay. I'm sure you've seen very intelligent posts that you disagree a bit with in other topics that led to discussions. Shouldn't this topic be about getting people to see your idea, comment on what they liked and didn't like, and then discuss what they thought about it? Insulting people (rather than considering that they might have a point, seeing it from their point of view, and THEN defending) makes it look like you were hoping this thread would be filled with people saying "You are brilliant and I love you." I'd rather not accuse you of that, so I'm more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just maybe tone it down a bit, man

Anyways, about the essay. It's very speculative, so we all know that the game may or may not turn out like this. Even though the "3 stat" method of looking at tiers is an oversimplification, it may turn out to be an incredibly helpful oversimplification (like the Melee tier list was). If someone ever takes the time to make a triangle-tier graph (with the center-of-mass "tier positions"), I would love to take a look at it and analyze it. I honestly wish that devs would do analyses like this when designing games; it's very enlightening.

 

[DRaGZ]

Well, in terms of what he's actually saying in the essay, I think that would be the best case scenario, but it's not too easily going to happen, nor do I really want it to happen. I want balance as much as the next guy who's tired of seeing the same four characters pwn tournaments, but I don't want a rock-paper-scissors dealie, I just want everyone to be equally viable, forcing wins to come down to skill.

But, then again, that's the best case scenario, which I don't think will happen. I think it'll be one-dimensionally tiered, like with most games that don't have a rock-paper-scissors mechanic consciously built into them, but it'll be less of a hurdle to cross. Tiers are fine. It's the gaps between them that matter.

 

[5150]

well that's what im saying. if the game is balanced enough we might see certain types of characters beating other types. and imagine what that would do for the crew battle and teams.


BTW

i will be editing my post tomorrow or late tonight. i was wrong in thinking recovery could be ignored. the new trait will be "defense" and will include other things as well.

 

[DRaGZ]

I don't think certain types of characters beating other types of characters would be a good idea. I think it'd be much better if any characters could realistically beat any character, with the factor of variability being how well a player can use his character. Of course, characters would have certain weaknesses, but a good enough player should be able to compensate.

For instance, theoretically, Bowser is obviously slow yet powerful, so a speedy character like Fox could take him to town. However, give him range and superarmor, and bam, you've got some moves that'll help fight against Fox's speedy attacks. Another example, Samus has range, while Falcon needs to get in close to attack. Falcon's speed helps him dodge and speed past Samus's projectiles before she can spam them too much while Samus's melee attacks have enough knockback to keep Falcon away to keep up a ranged assault but not enough to depend on melee attacks for the win. (of course, this is all theoretical, mind you, I'm aware the characters don't exactly work this way)

See what I mean? No character necessarily defeats the other, but they have ways to play their strengths and focus on an opponent's weaknesses to win.

That's a lot more interesting than a rock-paper-scissors deal.

 

[xeonoex]

I agree with 5150.

And he's right about the scrubs too. All the 07 people with 5000 post kinda seem like spam to me...
There is no reason to post tier don exit in a topic that says DO NOT POST HERE IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN TIERS at the top.

And Halo 1 > 2 or 3. But Shadowrun > than Halo 1 by a little bit IMO.

~

I honesty don't like the idea of the depth tiers. I like the counter style but full counter characters kinda sucks. You compared it to RPS.
Lets put this in a tourney setting.

Normal rules, 2/3, counter picks and all.

First match one player calls a double blind pick due to wanting an obvious disadvantage from picking his character first. They both pick.

P1 picks Fox and P2 picks Dedede.
The match starts up and Fox doesn't have the pure strength to kill Dedede. He wins with 2 stocks.

P1 counterpicks Jigglypuff.
Dedede doesn't have the speed to get through Jiggly's proper spacing, or the control to avoid getting rested. Jiggly wins 3 stocks.

P2 counterpicks Marth.
Jiggly can out control Marth because his large disjointed hit box. She connects a few solid combo's and mind games him to break spacing a bit but to no avail. P1 loses, 1 stock.

Compare that to RPS.

1 - Random.
P1 - Scissors
P2 - Rock

2 - P1 counter picks
P1 - Paper
P2 - Rock

3 - P2 counter picks
P1 - Paper
P2 - Scissors

P2 wins because he won the first pick.

~

That could be basically what it boils down to. While it wont be directly correlated to counterpicking in RPS, it seems to much rides on the first random select. It seem we will be worrying more about mindgaming our first character choice than the actual fight.

I say advanced techniques balance the game. Slow characters are speed up, bad control becomes better, and the weaker ones have a better chance to use their few power attacks since you must get the right time for them. But all of this isn't given, you must work to be able to do it, it takes lots of technical skill, experience, and mindgames. There will alway be proper counter picks, as there should be, but the set shouldn't ride as much on the first match up.

Sure with advanced techniques Fox and Falco could dair to shine, but how good would Ganon or Bowser be with out theirs? I say they were a balancing factor.

Also, a character should never lack an aspect, For example Ike can't be with out a proper combo move, or against a fast character he would always be hit before he could kill. He just needs to not excel it speed, have limited speed moves, but they should be able to properly combo into kill moves. Just as Metaknight should not lack power moves or he'll never finish of Bowser. He just has to keep his offense on until he can use his proper kill move.

A good example of that would be a Falco vs. Peach match up. Peach is considered the biggest Falco counter, but the matchup is still fairly even. A good Falco's offense never lets up on the pressure. Let your guard go for a second and you're dead, but if Peach land a single dsmash it could be over if you can't dodge the turnip because of his crap recovery. Falco has the offensive speed to beat Peach but Peach is fairly balanced in most aspects, though lacking speed, and she is more of a defensive character. That is the proper tier balance between different character types, not just MARIO > KIRBY.

Wow that was longer than I thought it would be. Someone better read it.

EDIT: lol everyone was just saying what I was saying but in less words. Well this could help the noobs at least. But I added a little more at the end I guess.

I just thought about it and if it was too countery we might be able to take stocks into account. In the example i used P1 had 3 total stocks and P2 had 3 even though P2 won one more. In the event of a tie a blind pick match goes on with the victor of the total matches getting stage counterpick and 1 extra stock or something like that.

Also I'm hoping Brawl gets balanced patched every year or something. Just don't remove any tactics plz.

 

[Sensai]

@ 5150, original post: Very very interesting read. Thanks. Very well thought out. I'll keep my eye on this, as it's intriguing.

I'd contribute to the conversation, but you guys are way above me...I'm not a statician (spelling, sorry). You guys have it all thought out anyways.

Very interesting...

 

[thesage]

I wish we could just make a giant matchup chart cause matchups is what really matters in a tournament. Fox is a higher tier than Falco, but Falco is a counter to Fox....

Of course this is much harder to do accurately as Phanna has shown...

 

[Relentless16]

no offense but the game isnt even out yet maybe wait a year or 2?

i rememeber when people cried about melee so dont worry so much it'll be fine

 

[Smooth Criminal]

As much as I dislike the way you handle some of the people on these forums, I can't say that I do not like the idea of a multi-dimensional tier listing. Your essay was very, very compelling and lays out the groundwork for compiling all sorts of data for competitive play.

Now if the AR will work for Brawl like it works for Melee, this would make your work not only that much easier but also that much more accurate.

Great stuff, 5150. I'm actually looking forward to seeing you elaborate on this.

Smooth Criminal

P.S. And Sensai still lives? OMG.

 

[5150]

I wish we could just make a giant matchup chart cause matchups is what really matters in a tournament. Fox is a higher tier than Falco, but Falco is a counter to Fox....

Of course this is much harder to do accurately as Phanna has shown...

falco does not counter fox so i will ignore this post.

no offense but the game isnt even out yet maybe wait a year or 2?

i rememeber when people cried about melee so dont worry so much it'll be fine

no one is crying about anything.

@ 5150, original post: Very very interesting read. Thanks. Very well thought out. I'll keep my eye on this, as it's intriguing.

I'd contribute to the conversation, but you guys are way above me...I'm not a statician (spelling, sorry). You guys have it all thought out anyways.

Very interesting...

OMG i cant believe i got sensai here. thats incredible. <3 sensai.

 

[xeonoex]

thesage, I think match-up charts seem inaccurate because of the play styles. It can only show the general matchups, but too many people have too many ways of playing for it to hold truth.
The tier list represents match ups good enough, only the few major outleers of the tiers really need to be listed along with the actually list to be about accurate. Actual counters are usually for the players themselves to be discovered through experience.

But I still like having one because if you are have trouble with a specific character it can help point you in the right direction, and possibly more important, tell you who not to use.

Overall I think Phanna's list is accurate if you don't take it as sure match-up, which I never viewed it as.

 

[Xsyven]

The data is 2 dimensional... in a gray, 3 dimensional case.

I mean, I see what you're doing there, the data is displayed in a 3D model, but it could have just as easily been 2D instead of the whole 3D thing. If not easier.

 

[SSJ4Kazuki]

i will be editing my post tomorrow or late tonight. i was wrong in thinking recovery could be ignored. the new trait will be "defense" and will include other things as well.

Waaah!






Lol jk. NOW your theory is taking shape, I don't even mind that the other variables are missing anymore, this just makes a whole lot more sense. Recovery was probably the only other factor I cared about that made it look so oversimplified.
I'm sorry for crapping up your thread.

So ya, sorry for crapping up your thread. </concede>

 

[Limey]

I don't think certain types of characters beating other types of characters would be a good idea. I think it'd be much better if any characters could realistically beat any character, with the factor of variability being how well a player can use his character. Of course, characters would have certain weaknesses, but a good enough player should be able to compensate.

For instance, theoretically, Bowser is obviously slow yet powerful, so a speedy character like Fox could take him to town. However, give him range and superarmor, and bam, you've got some moves that'll help fight against Fox's speedy attacks. Another example, Samus has range, while Falcon needs to get in close to attack. Falcon's speed helps him dodge and speed past Samus's projectiles before she can spam them too much while Samus's melee attacks have enough knockback to keep Falcon away to keep up a ranged assault but not enough to depend on melee attacks for the win. (of course, this is all theoretical, mind you, I'm aware the characters don't exactly work this way)

See what I mean? No character necessarily defeats the other, but they have ways to play their strengths and focus on an opponent's weaknesses to win.

That's a lot more interesting than a rock-paper-scissors deal.

Personally, i think this idea is a great way for characters to be balanced. I mean, it's unevitable that after a few months of Brawl, people will find the better characters and a tier list will develop, and it'll grow and change over the years, but the ideas in this post are what i'd love to see.

 

[MookieRah]

I don't think certain types of characters beating other types of characters would be a good idea.

It always happens. It's not so much Nintendo wants it to happen, just that some character types lend them to beating others and getting beat by others. If they are basing characters by this kind of archetypal system then you can bet that will happen. It's no different in other fighting games, there will be character counters.

 

[Lunaretic]

A very interesting thread, and an excellent read. It's certainly a valid point that Brawl looks to be less technical than melee, however, we've been given a lot of additional skill-pieces to perfect, so it may come down to player making use of the 'standard' balance items to a much finer degree than they ever were in melee. That said, it also gives a Sakurai&co. a very fine handle on balance compared to melee, as when you know the skills/techniques it becomes fairly easy to extrapolate out the possible uses assuming perfect or near perfect play, even if the QA team will never reach that point.

An example here being the roll, this may have been an item that helped flatten out the tiers more in Melee, in the event Wave-dashing had not been discovered. The roll is a per-character event, and is controlled directly by the development team, thus is another item that (likely) got balanced, even if only to a minor degree, considering the time/etc. put into melee compared to brawl or other major competitive fighting games.

 

[Blue sHell]

Hah, awesome 5150.

I remember about last year I made a little mental list of characters into three groups similar to yours, but instead of "control" I had those characters you speak of under the catogory of "stoppers" which basically means a playstyle based on making the opponent do less and you overwhelming them with certain "stopper" moves. Samus is a perfect example of a stopper, and Fox's shine after aerials to avoid getting grabbed is also a stopper. But now that I think about it "control" is a better way of putting it.

Knowing this, the more and more I learned about brawl the more I saw that Sakurai was basically making characters almost into playing cards where he didn't want to raise a certain aspect about the characters too much in fear of unbalance. This is how I broke it down in my head:

EXAMPLE<======= STFU ITS AN EXAMPLE <============= WARNING

BOWSER
Power: 8
Speed: 3
Control(changed to control for the sake of you understanding): 4
Total: 15

METAKNIGHT
Power: 3
Speed: 6
Control: 6
Total: 15

It seemed to me that Sakurai was trying to give everyone a balanced amount of things to work with and not give any certain character any more power, control, or speed that they didn't need. Don't think for a second that this is failsafe though. At any given moment a move given to a character by Sakurai which he thought would make the character overall improved might be useless once advanced players learn the game more. For example Sakurai thought giving Link UpB in Melee would be his saving grace in the fact that not only was he an outstanding control character but he has some power through some moves too... but after players got brighter overtime, UpB's usefullness was VERY VERY lowered and was just considered a good surprise kill, which in term dropped Link in usefullness altogether because UpB seemed to be given to him as.. you know.. THE MOVE.

============================================

In Brawl, some characters are going to be really really good. They're going to go over the supposive 15limit that I used in my example because people know how to exploit cerrtain things. I COMPLETELY know why you think Peach will be possibly Top next game because in all reality anyone that knows what to look for could see that she has power, speed, and control in huge huge huge amounts(float canceling still in DSmash still in(it doesn't matter that it doesn't kill anymore, if you know how to play Peach you'd know why)).

============================================================================================

Dude, what I propose is that you and a couple of other people that know what they are talking about put their foot down and follow through on your idea for making Brawl's tier list in the form of measuring they're area covered between the 3 elements. It REALLY woulnd't be that hard. SERIOUSLY.

What I'd do(throw in your suggestion if you have a better idea) is find the average percentage at which characters kill amounce all the characters. Lets say that percentage is 100% for the sake of making this example easier to comprehend. To measure strength all we'd do is see how far from this average percent that the character kills. If lets say Mario kills at exactly 100% then he would have medium strength(I'd make the same chart you did but I'm lazy after typing all this). Ike killing at about 60 percentage would have an extremely high rating in strength. And so on.

For speed we measure the average speed of killer and combo moves and do the same.
And for control it'd be alot more tricky, $hi-t. Um, I guess we could determine how comboable or useful they are and give a rough estimate.

Overall this way of making the game's next tier list would lower complaints from "zOMG no Tires" people. And make it a more realistic chart to look at. Better than the estimated(well estimated, but estimated nonetheless) tier list we have for melee.


But overall you have to realize that survivalability seems to be a HUGE part of this game too. Some people's recoverys suck and some characters like Bowser live forever.
Even in Melee people debate that if it wasn't for Falco's crappy recovery that he'd take the number1 slot. Surviving is a big deal. And I'm not sure if difference in fall speed is too spaced out next game like it was in Melee(lets hope it was like Melee), then that too makes a big difference. You can't place fall speed and survivalability under the three elements I've stated so I'd suggest if you do plan on furthering your ideas that you really consider these things.

that was all directed toward 5150. If you feel like commenting on it go right on ahead, but please think before you type. Thankyou.

PS: Even those I do respect your ideas, you are being really rude to those that don't, dude.

5150 I directed a post on page 10 toward you and you've seemed to completely look past it. I think you overlooked it due to the fact that it was the last post on page10 and someone posted about 2 seconds after me and thus completely hiding my post.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm...this is an interesting essay 5150. Hmmm...I like it. But I don't agree with the part about being able to predict the winner of each match-up scientifically. That's a little repressing, is it not? I think that the winner of the match will be decided just like it is now, by who has the better skill, and who knows more about each character. It does make sense as to why Sakurai made all the characters different though, and the tier list is very...thought provoking. Nevertheless, the winner will not be decided scientifically, but by who uses their character better.

 

[Hydde]

Hmmm...this is an interesting essay 5150. Hmmm...I like it. But I don't agree with the part about being able to predict the winner of each match-up scientifically. That's a little repressing, is it not? I think that the winner of the match will be decided just like it is now, by who has the better skill, and who knows more about each character. It does make sense as to why Sakurai made all the characters different though, and the tier list is very...thought provoking. Nevertheless, the winner will not be decided scientifically, but by who uses their character better.

what he means is a way to predict it with a higher % of succes than in Melee.

In games like melee you cant predict 100% what will happen anyways.

 

[5150]

The data is 2 dimensional... in a gray, 3 dimensional case.

I mean, I see what you're doing there, the data is displayed in a 3D model, but it could have just as easily been 2D instead of the whole 3D thing. If not easier.

yes i corrected my first post for the most part. it is simply 2d. not 3d at all. its just openoffice doesnt like to make it on a 2d plane.

5150 I directed a post on page 10 toward you and you've seemed to completely look past it. I think you overlooked it due to the fact that it was the last post on page10 and someone posted about 2 seconds after me and thus completely hiding my post.

no it was just hella long and i addressed it by saying i was going to add a "defense" trait later.

Hmmm...this is an interesting essay 5150. Hmmm...I like it. But I don't agree with the part about being able to predict the winner of each match-up scientifically. That's a little repressing, is it not? I think that the winner of the match will be decided just like it is now, by who has the better skill, and who knows more about each character. It does make sense as to why Sakurai made all the characters different though, and the tier list is very...thought provoking. Nevertheless, the winner will not be decided scientifically, but by who uses their character better.

not quite.

what he means is a way to predict it with a higher % of succes than in Melee.

In games like melee you cant predict 100% what will happen anyways.

bingo.

 

[5150]

sry for double post but i just updated first post with the new trait, new graphs, removed all references of "3d" or "volume", and added a small glossary with the really complex/new terms.

 

[DeuceBlade]

I guess this is what people do with their lives when there is a delay.

 

[5150]

I guess this is what people do with their lives when there is a delay.

OOORRRRRRRR when they are high.

oh btw i will be organizing a tier council or w/e and inviting certain respectable people i know to start and mess around with this idea and start assigning values to characters and see how accurate this gets to our current tier list.

 

[MookieRah]

I don't think that defense should be labeled as such, because just thinking about it that way doesn't make sense. I'm thinking referring to it as survivability or avoidance would work better. The shielding, rolling, and dodging are significant, but not nearly as important as recovery and the ability to get out of combos. While these are "defensive" attributes I would place them more on the fact that they are preventing being hit as opposed to being able to deflect damage more which is what the word defense usually implies.

 

[5150]

I don't think that defense should be labeled as such, because just thinking about it that way doesn't make sense. I'm thinking referring to it as survivability or avoidance would work better. The shielding, rolling, and dodging are significant, but not nearly as important as recovery and the ability to get out of combos. While these are "defensive" attributes I would place them more on the fact that they are preventing being hit as opposed to being able to deflect damage more which is what the word defense usually implies.

i would like to throw out that PERSONALLY my playstyle, or build, is labeled "dodgy", THATS how much i love to dodge. dodging is huge in melee and is super effective. granted it isn't important as recovery or the ability to get out of combos, but it is still a big element. and, to me, defense is the only truly all-encompassing word that describes what is going on with all of these elements the abillity to DEFEND your stock. but if label is the only thing we are arguing then we are in pretty good shape.

 

[DrewB008]

shielding, rolling, and dodging are pretty significant i'd say, im going to address mookierah and 56k in this post because this is what makes g&w so bad, his shield is awful, his spot dodge and roll are pretty bad too, but his recovery isnt nearly so bad. dk is similar, he has a good recovery, but terrible shield so he gets hit through it a lot. neither of the traits of survivability or defense ability influence a character's quality as much as the other 3 sections do, but an average can be reached between them like 5150 proposes, so i think its good so far

 

[shortwanabelaker]

5150 I directed a post on page 10 toward you and you've seemed to completely look past it. I think you overlooked it due to the fact that it was the last post on page10 and someone posted about 2 seconds after me and thus completely hiding my post.

ur adding.. not figuring out the area, ur whole theory breaks down when u add

 

[choknater]

this would be useful for noobs.