2013 Community Tier List

[FerrishTheFish]

All these people saying that Pikachu is better against spacies than Falcon ... The existence of knee, stomp, and nair disproves all your arguments (aside from Falcon's recovery being garbage). Spacies don't constantly whiff moves against Pikachu because he's a smaller target, smash attacks aren't more reliable anti-CC options than stomp/knee -> grab, and Falcon can totally combo and techchase spacies.

Get yo asses over to the Brawl boards, this here is Melee.

 

[CT_Emerl]

The tier list matters less the higher you go up in skill

it matter A LOT at low levels because a decent falco will prob beat a decent marth

but as u go up in skills it doesnt seem to matter as much

whoever plays better will win

exactly! A decent Link could beat a Master Ganondorf

 

[CT_Emerl]

The tier list matters less the higher you go up in skill

it matter A LOT at low levels because a decent falco will prob beat a decent marth

but as u go up in skills it doesnt seem to matter as much

whoever plays better will win

exactly! A decent Link could beat a Master Ganondorf

 

[Bones0]

exactly! A decent Link could beat a Master Ganondorf

I think you missed the whole point of what he was saying... A master of any character will almost always beat a "decent" player of any other character. Mango was saying that if you have a top tier vs. a low tier and they are both mediocre players, the top tier will usually win because they have more automatic or free stuff. As both players improve, the low tier can cover weaknesses better making the game more about strategy between the players as opposed to abusing easy stuff and gimmicks.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I think you missed the whole point of what he was saying... A master of any character will almost always beat a "decent" player of any other character. Mango was saying that if you have a top tier vs. a low tier and they are both mediocre players, the top tier will usually win because they have more automatic or free stuff. As both players improve, the low tier can cover weaknesses better making the game more about strategy between the players as opposed to abusing easy stuff and gimmicks.

Dare I say he's suggesting that Light Arrows are OP?

 

[EddyBearr]

Bowser is definitely the worst character in the game.

 

[Ringedge]

Bowser is definitely the worst character in the game.

I would argue Kirby and Zelda are both worst than Bowser but he is probably in the top 3/4 worst characters in the game.

 

[EddyBearr]

I would argue Kirby and Zelda are both worst than Bowser but he is probably in the top 3/4 worst characters in the game.

Zelda is definitely better. 4 well-spaced hits and you're done, plus success has been seen with several Zelda players (The Lake, Cosmo, Max Berger to a less active extent). She's bad, but not bottom tier.

Kirby has a winning matchup against Bowser, Roy, Zelda, and probably Mewtwo. Likewise, has many more tools, comparable recovery-to-survivability, and can gimp/space/play-neutral much better. Only issue is that no one outside of the Upper Midwest (alongside a few select others) has seen Kirby's higher level play or techniques.

 

[Armada]

Armada tried Fox, then switched back almost immediately.

I realized he would not be able to win after only been used for a few months. Back than people often did refer to Fox as "impossible" so I just found it so stupid.

Nowadays I don't wanna main Fox because with all the results I don't even need to prove how possible it is, all the Fox mains shows more than enough, he never was impossible by any means, it only becomes more and more clear that he is number one.

My Fox actually did become better than most people think. Westballz and Fiction really learned that after playing with me for hours (Westballz barely taking any games and Ficition not winning that many either).

M2k probably all in all won like 60% but we also played a lot on FD specifically because he wanted the practice. And he said he thinks my Fox could be tied for second best Fox.

I had one bad tournament (yes, the top 5 are also humans, other stuff can effect you) and the rest people ignore (I did stream quite a bit of this)

 

[1MachGO]

I realized he would not be able to win after only been used for a few months. Back than people often did refer to Fox as "impossible" so I just found it so stupid.

Nowadays I don't wanna main Fox because with all the results I don't even need to prove how possible it is, all the Fox mains shows more than enough, he never was impossible by any means, it only becomes more and more clear that he is number one.

My Fox actually did become better than most people think. Westballz and Fiction really learned that after playing with me for hours (Westballz barely taking any games and Ficition not winning that many either).

M2k probably all in all won like 60% but we also played a lot on FD specifically because he wanted the practice. And he said he thinks my Fox could be tied for second best Fox.

I had one bad tournament (yes, the top 5 are also humans, other stuff can effect you) and the rest people ignore (I did stream quite a bit of this)

Playing Fox isn't impossible, but a lot of Fox counterplay isn't impossible either. SDI'ing out of uthrow>uair, drill, and zero deathing/edge guarding Fox is really only something that the top echelon of players are doing somewhat consistently (you probably being the best example of a player who actually utilizes all of these skills). Top foxes such as Hax, Lucky, Silent Wolf, Colbol, etc. aren't just good because they use Fox, they have simply reached a level where the meta demands this counteryplay, and frankly, the effort is sorely absent from most floaty mains who are at their level.

PS. Please win Apex.

 

[Sempai]

Bowser is definitely the worst character in the game.

Spam UpB OOS and your already better than kirby.

People say "Thats all Bowsers got!" True, but at least he has something, what does Kirby have? Swallowcide?

 

[EddyBearr]

Spam UpB OOS and your already better than kirby.

People say "Thats all Bowsers got!" True, but at least he has something, what does Kirby have? Swallowcide?

-Bair/Fair/tilt walls/zoning
-An up-tilt that both combos and converts off many approaches (especially Fox approaches)
-Decent edgeguards
-Gimps
-Up-tilt combos (including kill combos on some characters and set-up edgeguard combos)
-Pretty good tilts overall
-A decent recovery when using rising aerial-jumps
-Multiple jumps alloting shifts in both height and falling speed for recovery & platform-game mix-ups
-An up-air that kills pretty well on a platform tech-chase (especially after an up-tilt) or after a few select combos
-Some tech-chase abilities (especially after a throw or an up-tilt)
-A pretty good jab reset iirc (definitely way better than Bowser's).
-The ability to cover an option on a tech-chase and return to neutral before the opponent can punish (Bowser has a pretty hard time doing this) thanks to relatively fast attacks
-A down air that's harder to meteor cancel than Ganon's and isn't realistically able to be teched
-A pseudo wall-of-pain that can lead into said down-air or an edgeguarding sequence
-A d-tilt with the right properties to set people up for more while edgeguarding
-A crouch that avoids most of what kirby can't crouch cancel until mid percents
-Plenty of character specific tech/strategies and/or mixups due to having more options that take less than 15 frames to initiate than bowser could dream of
-Legitimate access to wavedashing due to having an a 4-frame (same as Fox/Sheik) jumpsquat compared to bowsers 9 frames
-Normal landing lag that doesn't take 6 frames (takes 4 instead)
-A much faster "ramen noodle" as a result of said jumpsquat
-Faster overall
-A much better spot dodge (tied for best compared to Bowser's alone at worst [twice as long])
-Better rolls (Bowser is worst by a decent margin)
-Air-dodge more effective (while Bowser's is invincible 1 frame longer/better, it's gives him far less distance relative to how much hurtbox position has changed, especially given Kirby's means to do things afterwards much more quickly
-Pretty big grab range (just under Yoshi) compared to Bowser's 3rd worst in the game
-Faster and otherwise comparable grabs overall
-Access to jump-cancelled grab
-Knocked down by shine
-Not really combo food
-Access to plenty of great tools with swallow/copy.
--Short hop double falco laser
---Laser off-stage without dying / while being able to follow-up
--Short hop triple fox laser
--Sheik's needles off-stage without dying / while being able to follow-up
--Better at pills that Dr. Mario
-Kirby is not only much harder to projectile camp, but can projectile camp right back after a swallow (which isn't as hard to land as it may seem due to a large/weird hitbox and b-reversal)
-Many characters who don't have a special move worth copying can be put into bad situations (and I think even a few combos on some) from the swallow/spit (which also does like 15% damage (character dependent, 19% on bowser).
-Can throw caught items (Turnips/bombs) at about 200x the speed of Bowser (Bowser takes like 30+ frames to throw an item while grounded, no clue while in the air)
-3 (possibly 4) matchups that Kirby actually has an advantage in (including Bowser)
-And of course the swallowcide you mentioned
--Alongside ill-advised kirbycide throws

Against Bowser, you can just play extremely lame/respectful and he'll never stand a chance -- he basically requires that you roll towards him or shff(no-L) attack him in shield. Respect his shield/ledge-clinging, space his fair, and don't put yourself at risk for one of his very limited reads, and there's no reason to lose to Bowser with almost any character. You have to actually play a legitimate neutral game (though obviously Kirby's neutral is far weaker than the great majority of the cast.)

 

[FerrishTheFish]

snip

Bowser's upB oos and spaced fairs are better at the neutral game, his ftilt/bair are better at edgeguarding, his powerful utilt/uair/fsmash are better at KOing, his running grab range is acceptable. Those alone are better than all of those Kirby shenanigans combined. And let's not forget Bowser has his forwardB grab that can be initiated in the air.

Also, his <100% ledge attack is really good---stupidly good at edgeguarding spacies (which are arguably the only MUs that matter).

(Random cool thing about Bowser's grab: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VDgAZqSK2Q)

 

[EddyBearr]

Bowser's upB oos and spaced fairs are better at the neutral game, his ftilt/bair are better at edgeguarding, his powerful utilt/uair/fsmash are better at KOing, his running grab range is acceptable. Those alone are better than all of those Kirby shenanigans combined. And let's not forget Bowser has his forwardB grab that can be initiated in the air.

(Random cool thing about Bowser's grab: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VDgAZqSK2Q)

-Up-B OoS is only a thing if your opponent falls into it, a player can just not approach bowser terribly, and/or pay attention to footsies regarding up-B (and punish if they try to use it in neutral. Since bowser is such combo food, that punish is going to hurt). It doesn't really beat approaches like kirby's tilts or aerials (especially u-tilt).
-Bowsers spaced fair is basically his only option, and all of kirby's spacing options are only a little worse (I think better overall due to often having play games of rock-paper-scissors.)
-His ftilt and bair are definitely not better at edgeguarding than kirby's options, especially given follow-ups with dair - especially since bowser can't cover multiple options as Kirby sometimes can. Kirby can do almost everything Bowser can do (only lacks the ledge attack) only much quicker, much more safely, and with actual followups; Kirby also has more edgeguarding options and some options that are basically auto-death regardless of percent (swallow-survive, dair)
-His u-tilt is the only KO move listed that's realistic, which has comparable stats to Kirby's d-smash and u-smash.
--Bowser's bair is an okay kill move but takes a lot of set-up; Kirby's bair is a comparable kill move, but you can combo into kirby's bair and kirby can follow-up after his bair (or wall-of-pain it.) Plus, it's relatively safe in neutral.
-Kirby's grab range is still much, much better; likewise, Kirby will JC grabs at a distance, meaning 30 frames total, compared to bowser's 50 if dash-grab attempt (and kirby's grabs 3 frames sooner than Bowser's still); kirby also gets more off of grabs.
-Kirby has an aerial command grab with 2 options that does around 15% into positional advantage (especially since Kirby can move with it) or gaining a very good neutral tool (pills, lasers, needles)

Bowser's grab trick is nifty, but I'm not seeing Bowser getting a grab in the first place.

If you're going to tell me things like anti-airs, rock-paper-scissors approaches/defenses, decent zoning, exceedingly better stats overall, access to many more options, and a threat of KO or gimp off a relatively safe neutral action (EX: using an up-tilt when guessing they'll approach) are "shenanigans" then I'm just going to think you're not actually taking things into consideration.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I consider any option which does not have consistent application and success to be a 'shenanigan.'

Watch this set before you tell me Bowser can't get grabs, his ftilt/bair can't edgeguard, upB oos doesn't work, etc.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9NaIYFnVgY&t=07m38s

I can't see any Kirby main doing this to a player of Unknown's caliber.

 

[EddyBearr]

I consider any option which does not have consistent application and success to be a 'shenanigan.'

Watch this set before you tell me Bowser can't get grabs, his ftilt can't edgeguard, etc.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9NaIYFnVgY&t=07m38s

I can't see any Kirby main doing this to a player of Unknown's caliber.

U-tilt, bair/fair/tilt spacing, and all his gimps/edgeguards aren't "shenanigans" in that sense, then. Kirby's overall zoning game is relatively safe and tends to lead into chasing (and consistently help kirby acquire positional advantage), kirby's option coverage is easy to hit-confirm off of and is quite safe/effective, and his gimps/edgeguards are actually pretty free / almost guaranteed (sometimes rock-paper-scissors). If kirby's toolkit is loaded with shenanigans, then Sheik's toolkit has like 1 or 2 things, then everything else is a shenanigan as well.

I think almost everyone has seen that set, and I've indeed seen it. Unknown made many poor decisions and exemplified strong ignorance of what Bowser can do -- he didn't respect Bowser's options and got caught by them as a result. He kept repeating actions that didn't work or were just plain terrible options (d-smashing attempted sweet-spots resulting in getting grabbed, kept going for up-throw up-air, going straight towards bowser and not acknowledging that bowser can f-tilt or get-up attack [and trying to beat it], DI'ing the command grabs in [behind Bowser], Chose FoD.) I mentioned previously that Bowser can't really do anything when you play lame and respect him, which Unknown did not do. If you're gonna go in on Bowser and make technical errors like Unknown did, then Bowser's probably a lower mid tier. Lol.

The closest thing I can show you is Triple R (probably a little better than 300th at the game. Not top level by any means) having recurring, consistently close matches (including taking games) with Kels (the king of playing lame), but sadly we don't have Kirby mains who travel.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

snip

I agree Sheik basically has three options in neutral game vs. a competent opponent (needle, grab, and dash attack). But the number of options you have is not really important; what matters is that her options give her a great neutral game, even if everything else gets (wrongly) defined as a 'shenanigan' (many of her options have consistent application and success outside the neutral game). Honestly, tho, what they are called doesn't change their effectiveness, so I don't know why you are pushing this point.

The point of DJ Nintendo vs. Unknown is just to show examples of Bowser's options. You're right that Bowser can't do much when a player knows and respects his options. But frankly the same goes for Kirby. Kirby may have some safe options (I somewhat agree) and may have some effective options (I disagree), but even you have to admit they don't overlap very much---that's why everybody agrees he sucks.

I think you are vastly underestimating how Kirby's poor air speed, low weight, lack of moves with high kb, lack of a fast+invinc shield pressure escape option (among other things) severely hurt his game compared to Bowser. Bowser's upB is a better shield pressure breaker than anything Kirby has. Comboing Bowser out of grabs is much harder. KOing Bowser is much harder. Edgeguarding Bowser may be easier, but setting up an edgeguarding situation is harder. Etc.

The fact is that games are won when stocks are taken. Even if Kirby's options and option coverage are safer or more guaranteed, Bowser's options and option coverage require fewer successful executions on his part and fewer blunders on his opponent's part to get the KO. That, in a nutshell (and, I suppose, to my knowledge), is why Bowser is considered superior to Kirby.

 

[EddyBearr]

I agree Sheik basically has three options in neutral game vs. a competent opponent (needle, grab, and dash attack). But the number of options you have is not really important; what matters is that her options give her a great neutral game, even if everything else gets (wrongly) defined as a 'shenanigan' (many of her options have consistent application and success outside the neutral game). Honestly, tho, what they are called doesn't change their effectiveness, so I don't know why you are pushing this point.

Because they are relatively consistent and effective. A little less consistent/effective than Game & Watch options, but more consistent/effective than even DK or (and a little more effective than Link or Luigi) (though DK gets so much more out of it that he's significantly better, Luigi is punishing master, and Link is better in the long haul neutral and at finishing off.)

The point of DJ Nintendo vs. Unknown is just to show examples of Bowser's options. You're right that Bowser can't do much when a player knows and respects his options. But frankly the same goes for Kirby. Kirby may have some safe options (I somewhat agree) and may have some effective options (I disagree), but even you have to admit they don't overlap very much---that's why everybody agrees he sucks.

But they do interlap quite a bit. A good chunk of his options are both relatively safe and lead into something upon hit (or for some even without hit), be it stage positioning gains, chasing situations, combos, rock-paper-scissors scenarios, or ledge games (where kirby excels). Even if you respect Kirby, you still have to play a legitimate neutral game against him, as he has some options against you that beat some of your options against him. After he gets a hit in the neutral, he can confirm, cover, and and react to many of your options afterwards, leading to even more actually having to play against your opponent.

I think you are vastly underestimating how Kirby's poor air speed, low weight, lack of moves with high kb, lack of a fast+invinc shield pressure escape option (among other things) severely hurt his game compared to Bowser. Bowser's upB is a better shield pressure breaker than anything Kirby has. Comboing Bowser out of grabs is much harder. KOing Bowser is much harder. Edgeguarding Bowser may be easier, but setting up an edgeguarding situation is harder. Etc.

-Kirby/Bowser have effectively the same air-speed (while kirby has many more options and much greater coverage).
-I think you're over-estimating the importance of shield-pressure negations and over-estimating bowser's option. Bowser has to be hit with either something unsafe, or the opponent has to screw up. Matchup knowledge/respect negates unsafe options, and I don't think we should assume Westballz shield-pressure. If the opponent screws up, then the generic roll or shield-grab work as well as anything else (shield-grab gives kirby follow-ups in a better way than Bowser's up-B in general.)
-Comboing bowser out of grabs is harder, but grabbing Kirby is much harder, as Kirby ducks under most grabs, has a great-spot dodge, and just plain isn't huge; likewise, Bowser's combo-weakness from non-grabs greatly outweighs kirby's combo-weakness to grabs.

The fact is that games are won when stocks are taken. Even if Kirby's options and option coverage are safer or more guaranteed, Bowser's options and option coverage require fewer successful executions on his part and fewer blunders on his opponent's part to get the KO. That, in a nutshell (and, I suppose, to my knowledge), is why Bowser is considered superior to Kirby.

No, because Kirby gets way more kills and follow-ups than you seem to be thinking. Kirby gets gimps and edgeguard scenarios (and inevitable successes) pretty easily, he's better than a large majority of characters at gimping. Kirby's options and option coverages do not require blunders so much as it requires the kirby just putting in the inputs, and getting initations with kirby is pretty easy (probably middling. Little easier than Luigi or Samus, little harder than Doc or Pikachu.)

Bowser has more moves that will KO at 100%, but only a few of those still stand after you take into account knowing/respecting/taking-advantage-of Bowser. Even with knowing/respecting/taking-advantage-of Kirby, you're going to eventually eat a raw kill move (bair at about 120% bar awkward positioning) or eat something that sets you up to be killed (tech roll from a neutral bair got covered with a u-air kill at 90%, knocked off stage into kirby's relatively easy edgeguards.) And unlike Bowser, Kirby does a decent job of pushing opponents into a situation in which they might have to make an easily covered option. Likewise, Kirby can take stocks relatively easily at low percents (and push the opponent into scenarios where this is a realistic outcome). When it comes down to it, kirby kills in a different way, but I do think he takes stocks a little easier because of having the ability to manipulate the opponent through zoning and option coverage.

Kirby is, of course, still a bottom tier character, among the worst in the game, but definitely better than Bowser.

 

[Bones0]

I realized he would not be able to win after only been used for a few months. Back than people often did refer to Fox as "impossible" so I just found it so stupid.

Nowadays I don't wanna main Fox because with all the results I don't even need to prove how possible it is, all the Fox mains shows more than enough, he never was impossible by any means, it only becomes more and more clear that he is number one.

My Fox actually did become better than most people think. Westballz and Fiction really learned that after playing with me for hours (Westballz barely taking any games and Ficition not winning that many either).

M2k probably all in all won like 60% but we also played a lot on FD specifically because he wanted the practice. And he said he thinks my Fox could be tied for second best Fox.

I had one bad tournament (yes, the top 5 are also humans, other stuff can effect you) and the rest people ignore (I did stream quite a bit of this)

I don't doubt your Fox's skill level is through the roof along with your Peach's, but how much do you think maining Peach instead of Fox has held you back? I'm not trying to frame the discussion so that you feel like you're johning, but if people believe maining characters other than spacies hold them back, then surely that would be reflected in results. Can you honestly think of tournaments that you have lost as Peach that would have gone differently if you had mained a spacie from the start? While we're on the subject, I'd also be interested in hearing about your opinions on the capabilities and limits of characters further down the tier list (ICs, Samus, Ganon, Pikachu, etc).

 

[FerrishTheFish]

snip

Bowser's upB has invincibility on frames 1-4, the hitbox comes out on frame 5, hits all around him, and can get more invinc frames if he gets to the ledge. That is basically on par with Samus's upB oos and way, way, WAAAY better than Kirby's shieldgrab that comes out on frame 7, lasts until frame 8, and only covers in front of him. There is no comparison between Bowser's upB oos and Kirby's shieldgrab.

Kirby can duck under Sheik, Marth, Peach, and Falcon grab, but it's not like he has a Rest to punish missed grabs and it's not like those chars don't have other options. I don't think Kirby can duck under Fox, Falco, or Puff grab, and Fox in particular is going to destroy Kirby with uthrow uair (which doesn't work on Bowser).

Kirby's smaller hurtbox makes him more difficult to hit in the same sense that a 2lb. weight is more difficult to lift than a 1lb. weight. It's not a significant factor because good players won't have trouble with either---I know this because I main Puff, whose hurtbox is about the same size as Kirby's.

I recommend you don't discuss DK, Link, and G&W with me. I mained Link when I started playing and consistently placed top16 in AZ, my DK today is better than my Link back then, and I've beaten j00t in G&W dittos. G&W's laggy-as-balls options are not as good as DK or Link, and all three are better than Kirby by a wide margin, period.

You honestly think Kirby's neutral game is comparable to Luigi's or Samus's? Samus has great projectiles that are always available which combined with her high kb moves means she's harder to get in on AND harder to stay in on than Kirby. Luigi has far greater mobility, far better shield pressure, and has better followups after a hit. Both have combo-breaking nairs as well. Doc and Pikachu's neutral games are also far superior to Kirby's due to projectiles and mobility, and both have much better finishers (fair and usmash respectively) and better edgeguarding and gimps (cape and uair respectively).

All your character comparisons are whack as ****. I'm starting to think you're trolling.

 

[EddyBearr]

Bowser's upB has invincibility on frames 1-4, the hitbox comes out on frame 5, hits all around him, and can get more invinc frames if he gets to the ledge. That is basically on par with Samus's upB oos and way, way, WAAAY better than Kirby's shieldgrab that comes out on frame 7, lasts until frame 8, and only covers in front of him. There is no comparison between Bowser's upB oos and Kirby's shieldgrab.

The overall point I was making is that if you have a Sheik f-tilt your or a Fox up-smash it, both Bowser and Kirby are guaranteed the punish. Bowser's up-b out-of-shield is superior in-and-of-itself, but Kirby's standard-options far outweigh bowser's standard-options (kirby's roll, spot-dodge, shield-grab, wavedash out of shield). It's still give bowser an edge here, but I wouldn't consider it as important as you seem to be making it out to be.

Kirby can duck under Sheik, Marth, Peach, and Falcon grab, but it's not like he has a Rest to punish missed grabs and it's not like those chars don't have other options. I don't think Kirby can duck under Fox, Falco, or Puff grab, and Fox in particular is going to destroy Kirby with uthrow uair (which doesn't work on Bowser).

Bowser has a better matchup on Fox, yes. Kirby's duck avoids almost all projectiles and regarding attacks in general, my point earlier was that "what it doesn't avoid ends up usually being crouch-cancellable until mid-percents for kirby anyway." You end up being put into situations where you have to try to play a game where you either read Kirby's anti-approach option (tilts/shffls-out-of-shield especially), read kirby putting up a defense and hoping to counterplay, or read that Kirby will not cover it, allowing your attack to work. You end up playing a legitimate game where you can't just "respect" the options and basically avoid everything.

Kirby's smaller hurtbox makes him more difficult to hit in the same sense that a 2lb. weight is more difficult to lift than a 1lb. weight. It's not a significant factor because good players won't have trouble with either---I know this because I main Puff, whose hurtbox is about the same size as Kirby's.

It's not just about hitting it: It's about hitting it and also not getting crouch-canceled. The biggest difference between Kirby and Puff would be that Kirby is a mostly ground-based character.

I recommend you don't discuss DK, Link, and G&W with me. I mained Link when I started playing and consistently placed top16 in AZ, my DK today is better than my Link back then, and I've beaten j00t in G&W dittos. G&W's laggy-as-balls options are not as good as DK or Link, and all three are better than Kirby by a wide margin, period.

G&W: That's not exactly a strong source of merit. G&W's -options- are not as good overall, but his ability to compete in the neutral game -- space, zone, feint -- are superior to DK and Link's options in the neutral, was the point. Due to reasons beyond the neutral game, DK and Link are far superior overall.
Link: I co-main Young Link to this day, and while they're of course different, they're not that much different in neutral. As a result of my Young Link, I have a pretty solid Link
Top 16 AZ: That's not impressive, though. Lol. All that really signifies is that you have at least some clue how to play the game. AZ is my "secondary community" as I visit AZ regularly.
DK: That doesn't necessarily give you much understanding of DK. I reckon my 2014 DK could get past top 16 in 2011 AZ as well.

You assume I know nothing about all these characters, when I selected these characters in particular for comparison because of the contrary. In the neutral game, DK just gets slapped around, but when he does get in, he gets a pretty strong reward -- by comparison, in the neutral, Kirby generally is able to compete but gets significantly less than DK gets.

You honestly think Kirby's neutral game is comparable to Luigi's or Samus's? Samus has great projectiles that are always available which combined with her high kb moves means she's harder to get in on AND harder to stay in on than Kirby. Luigi has far greater mobility, far better shield pressure, and has better followups after a hit. Both have combo-breaking nairs as well. Doc and Pikachu's neutral games are also far superior to Kirby's due to projectiles and mobility, and both have much better finishers (fair and usmash respectively) and better edgeguarding and gimps (cape and uair respectively).

I stated that Kirby has an easier time getting initations than Samus/Luigi. By virtue of Samus' zoning, Samus is far better in neutral. I do think Kirby is slightly better than Luigi in the neutral, though Luigi's punish game is gargantuan. Shield-pressure and punish/combo game are not the neutral game, and getting-out-of-punish-game also is not neutral game -- you have to understand this. You keep bringing up points of what happens when one or another character is "going in" but not talking about what's happening when both characters are zoning and spacing for stray-hits or initations.

All your character comparisons are whack as ****. I'm starting to think you're trolling.

Tell me, where does your knowledge of Kirby meta come from? I've been thinking that you're ignorant of the character, and arguing against it by virtue of having not seen it (and by comparison, arguing in favor of Bowser simply because you have seen it in the DJN vs Unknown set).

 

[Armada]

I don't doubt your Fox's skill level is through the roof along with your Peach's, but how much do you think maining Peach instead of Fox has held you back? I'm not trying to frame the discussion so that you feel like you're johning, but if people believe maining characters other than spacies hold them back, then surely that would be reflected in results. Can you honestly think of tournaments that you have lost as Peach that would have gone differently if you had mained a spacie from the start? While we're on the subject, I'd also be interested in hearing about your opinions on the capabilities and limits of characters further down the tier list (ICs, Samus, Ganon, Pikachu, etc).

I think it have been holding me back a bit, in the future probably more and more. I honestly do think I have maxed out my char the most (of the good chars at least) and I have more MU experience vs everyone else in all the top 8 MUs than my opponents have (except for Peach ditto).

The thing many spacie mains decides to ignore is one very important fact, playing against spacies you have to play way more on point than vs any other char. You also play a "Rock paper scissor" that is never in your favor basically. Of course if you play vs an even opponent that will show eventually.

I do think if I mained a spacie from the start I would be better, I consider the gap big enough for that to be the case (combined with my general smash understanding which would help me).

Ganon should NEVER win a tournament, he is to bad.
Pikachu/Samus, I wanna say they can, but I don't think so. Like I don't think they have any impossible MUs, but winning tournaments is about being consistently better than you opponents all day in the long run. I don't see them run in to so many great players and keep doing that much better (like you have to do vs some of the MUs these chars have to play)

ICs: Most weird char in the game and the only one I feel like I don't understand at all, this char is so different and I have close to no knowledge, so can't say to much.

I think the game will become more and more Fox (mostly for sure) and some Falco/Marth. Single main any other char will be super though I think

 

[Armada]

Playing Fox isn't impossible, but a lot of Fox counterplay isn't impossible either. SDI'ing out of uthrow>uair, drill, and zero deathing/edge guarding Fox is really only something that the top echelon of players are doing somewhat consistently (you probably being the best example of a player who actually utilizes all of these skills). Top foxes such as Hax, Lucky, Silent Wolf, Colbol, etc. aren't just good because they use Fox, they have simply reached a level where the meta demands this counteryplay, and frankly, the effort is sorely absent from most floaty mains who are at their level.

PS. Please win Apex.

No, it's not impossible, the question is, how likely is it to keep winning some MUs that clearly is not in your favor (especially if we talk about NTSC, which I think is not nearly as good as PAL for many reasons).

And I will do my best to win =D

 

[Bones0]

I think it have been holding me back a bit, in the future probably more and more. I honestly do think I have maxed out my char the most (of the good chars at least) and I have more MU experience vs everyone else in all the top 8 MUs than my opponents have (except for Peach ditto).

The thing many spacie mains decides to ignore is one very important fact, playing against spacies you have to play way more on point than vs any other char. You also play a "Rock paper scissor" that is never in your favor basically. Of course if you play vs an even opponent that will show eventually.

I do think if I mained a spacie from the start I would be better, I consider the gap big enough for that to be the case (combined with my general smash understanding which would help me).

Ganon should NEVER win a tournament, he is to bad.
Pikachu/Samus, I wanna say they can, but I don't think so. Like I don't think they have any impossible MUs, but winning tournaments is about being consistently better than you opponents all day in the long run. I don't see them run in to so many great players and keep doing that much better (like you have to do vs some of the MUs these chars have to play)

ICs: Most weird char in the game and the only one I feel like I don't understand at all, this char is so different and I have close to no knowledge, so can't say to much.

I think the game will become more and more Fox (mostly for sure) and some Falco/Marth. Single main any other char will be super though I think

Thanks for your input. I'm surprised you think people have to play more on point against spacies than as spacies themselves. Most people would say the difficulty factor of using Fox and Falco is their main drawback because it's difficult to maintain consistency. I see tons more mistakes from spacies than floaties, and they tend to get punished way harder by any one mistake. That being said, it's obviously still Melee no matter what, so every character has situations that require insane precision.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

snip

I've played Taj's Kirby, seen Wobbles's and Mango's Kirbies---you haven't brought up anything I've never seen. I've also played two serious sets against Taj's Bowser (won both, so please try to twist that into proving how little I know about the character). This of course was back when Taj was still active in Melee singles.

It's not just about hitting it: It's about hitting it and also not getting crouch-canceled. The biggest difference between Kirby and Puff would be that Kirby is a mostly ground-based character.

Puff relies heavily on her ground game in the Sheik, Falcon, and Marth MUs, and any player who can't play around her CC runs the risk of CC-Rest with any char. Please explain to me how good players who have learned to play around Puff's CC will have trouble defeating Kirby's CC.

I stated that Kirby has an easier time getting initations than Samus/Luigi.

Your wording implied that Kirby has better approaches than Samus and Luigi. My response was that Samus doesn't really need to approach and Luigi's approaches are actually better thanks in part to his punishes skewing the risk/reward ratio more in his favor---this stuff has relevance to the neutral game. The ability to escape combos affects the risk/reward ratio for the opponent's approaches, which affects the neutral game.

I don't see how you can plausibly deny that the risk/reward ratio matters in neutral whilst simultaneously claiming that Kirby's neutral game is better than Bowser's due to CCing (a tool which at low %'s affects the risk/reward ratio of approaches) and MU advantages (which are based on the risk/reward ratios for the respective chars---otherwise, we'd all play the neutral game the exact same way in every MU).

You keep bringing up points of what happens when one or another character is "going in" but not talking about what's happening when both characters are zoning and spacing for stray-hits or initations.

That is a lie. Samus's projectiles and high kb moves? Zoning. Luigi's mobility? Zoning, spacing, baiting.

You end up being put into situations where you have to try to play a game where you either read Kirby's anti-approach option (tilts/shffls-out-of-shield especially), read kirby putting up a defense and hoping to counterplay, or read that Kirby will not cover it, allowing your attack to work.

If only there were some technique by which you could trick a slower or reactionary opponent into revealing his plans or prematurely putting them into motion and then use that to your advantage!
Oh yeah.
Dashdancing.

When you decide that the risk/reward ratio is only relevant when its relevance helps your argument, when you use unclear wording like 'initiations' then try to **** on me for not perfectly defining what the neutral game involves, when you draw ridiculous conclusions about certain characters and then accuse me of "assuming" when I call you out on them, you've made it clear that you'd rather score points than have an honest discussion.

 

[1MachGO]

No, it's not impossible, the question is, how likely is it to keep winning some MUs that clearly is not in your favor (especially if we talk about NTSC, which I think is not nearly as good as PAL for many reasons).

And I will do my best to win =D

I'm sad to hear that you hold some foreboding views about the meta but I guess its hard for me to perceive since I am not a top level player.

And I definitely agree that PAL is (overall) the more balanced game (though some of the changes are very questionable such as Marth and Ganon nerfs). It would be interesting if some PAL changes became the tournament standard through the memory card exploit in 20XX.

Thanks for your input. I'm surprised you think people have to play more on point against spacies than as spacies themselves. Most people would say the difficulty factor of using Fox and Falco is their main drawback because it's difficult to maintain consistency. I see tons more mistakes from spacies than floaties, and they tend to get punished way harder by any one mistake. That being said, it's obviously still Melee no matter what, so every character has situations that require insane precision.

I feel like spacies have to be perfect in execution and non-spacies have to be perfect in neutral/punish game. If floaties don't maximize their output during situational victories then spacies will just win in the long run since their neutral games are ridiculous.

 

[Bones0]

I feel like spacies have to be perfect in execution and non-spacies have to be perfect in neutral/punish game. If floaties don't maximize their output during situational victories then spacies will just win in the long run since their neutral games are ridiculous.

I agree spacies tend to have the edge in neutral, but I'm not sure I'd consider them ridiculous. Especially for Falco, if the opponent can deal with lasers properly, a lot of characters can kind of run over him. His amazing punish game is what really makes up for being so fragile, whereas Fox seems to make up for it by being able to win in neutral and access KO opportunities frequently (waveshines, usmash, uthrow uair, good edgeguarding tools like shine and high DJ).

I guess my original point, however, was simply this: If the spacie is on point in all aspects, the floaty must also be on point in all aspects. If the spacie isn't on point, the floaty has a good chane of winning even if they are also playing sloppy. A spacie can mess up any number of things and get killed even without the opponent capitalizing to the fullest. That includes tech skill of course, but also more strategic stuff like spacing with SHFFLs or missing DI. I don't think anyone can argue Peach and Puff are way less likely to die off of random mistakes than spacies, so it'd seem that spacies have to play more on point in order to win.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

...so it'd seem that spacies have to play more on point in order to win.

Spacies would probably still be top-tier if you don't do anything more technical than nair/drill-shines (which reduces the chances for them to die from a mistake, somewhat counteracting that death from a mistake would still be more likely). I'm actually kind of curious how good they'd be in that case.

Let's convince BORP to play Fox and see how good he gets with no tech skill.

 

[Bones0]

Spacies would probably still be top-tier if you don't do anything more technical than nair/drill-shines (which reduces the chances for them to die from a mistake, somewhat counteracting that death from a mistake would still be more likely). I'm actually kind of curious how good they'd be in that case.

Let's convince BORP to play Fox and see how good he gets with no tech skill.

Spacies would be top tier without L-cancelling? Jump cancelling shines? Dash dancing? Wavedashing?

You must be joking. They'd be mid tier at best, probably lower.

 

[john!]

I guess my original point, however, was simply this: If the spacie is on point in all aspects, the floaty must also be on point in all aspects. If the spacie isn't on point, the floaty has a good chane of winning even if they are also playing sloppy. A spacie can mess up any number of things and get killed even without the opponent capitalizing to the fullest. That includes tech skill of course, but also more strategic stuff like spacing with SHFFLs or missing DI. I don't think anyone can argue Peach and Puff are way less likely to die off of random mistakes than spacies, so it'd seem that spacies have to play more on point in order to win.

so let's summarize your argument...

- if spacie is playing well then floaty must play well too.
- if spacie is playing poorly then floaty has good chance of winning, even if they are playing poorly too.
- if spacie messes up, they are punished harder than a floaty that messes up.
- spacies must play more on point than floaties to win.

the logical conclusion to your main argument is that it's better to use a floaty than use a spacie, which (since the word "floaty" refers to such a huge range of characters and playstyles) is not only completely wrong, but barely even qualifies as an argument in the first place.

 

[Bones0]

so let's summarize your argument...

- if spacie is playing well then floaty must play well too.
- if spacie is playing poorly then floaty has good chance of winning, even if they are playing poorly too.
- if spacie messes up, they are punished harder than a floaty that messes up.
- spacies must play more on point than floaties to win.

the logical conclusion to your main argument is that it's better to use a floaty than use a spacie, which (since the word "floaty" refers to such a huge range of characters and playstyles) is not only completely wrong, but barely even qualifies as an argument in the first place.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion... The obvious solution is to just get good at playing on point with whatever you character you want at which point it's so much more about strategy than anything else. If we can all agree Fox beats Puff at high level and loses at low levels where Fox players make tons of mistakes and get punished with simple uthrow rest, then obviously there is some theoretical skill level Fox players have to achieve before they are on point enough to truly make it a winning matchup.

At various skill levels, the character who wins any given matchup fluctuates. This concept is especially obscure because low skill levels are not as clear as high skill levels. There are tons less upsets at high level than at low level where it seems like pretty much anyone can win depending on how their play styles happen to interact with each other. If we measure skill in years of experience, Fox may start to overtake Puff after 2 years or something, but once you reach the current meta (13 years), it's difficult to tell who wins a matchup because so few players are playing at a skill level of 13 years. There's no reason to believe Puff couldn't gain an advantage in the matchup in the future due to changes in the metagame, but people have a tendency to believe that whatever time period they are present in is the "peak" or close enough to it that the game is solved.

 

[john!]

Not sure how you reached that conclusion... The obvious solution is to just get good at playing on point with whatever you character you want at which point it's so much more about strategy than anything else. If we can all agree Fox beats Puff at high level and loses at low levels where Fox players make tons of mistakes and get punished with simple uthrow rest, then obviously there is some theoretical skill level Fox players have to achieve before they are on point enough to truly make it a winning matchup.

At various skill levels, the character who wins any given matchup fluctuates. This concept is especially obscure because low skill levels are not as clear as high skill levels. There are tons less upsets at high level than at low level where it seems like pretty much anyone can win depending on how their play styles happen to interact with each other. If we measure skill in years of experience, Fox may start to overtake Puff after 2 years or something, but once you reach the current meta (13 years), it's difficult to tell who wins a matchup because so few players are playing at a skill level of 13 years. There's no reason to believe Puff couldn't gain an advantage in the matchup in the future due to changes in the metagame, but people have a tendency to believe that whatever time period they are present in is the "peak" or close enough to it that the game is solved.

i don't believe that fox loses to puff at low levels. in fact, talking about the low-level metagame is worthless because the skills of a low-level player are essentially a subset of the current top-level metagame.

for example, i'm able to beat puffs of a higher skill level than me with fox, despite the fact that i have poor fox tech skill, and i'm able to do this because i've refined a certain aspect of my fox play (namely, camping like a little *****). a fox of my "skill level" who instead focused on tech skill would probably trash my fox but get uthrow -> rested or edgeguarded 4 times by the aforementioned puff due to his lack of patience and fundamentals.

your focus on tech skill and technical mistakes as the primary indicator of skill causes you to only consider players like "tech skill fox" and not players like me. the "low-level metagame" cannot be clearly defined because there is more than one dimension of skill in this game. your second paragraph touches on this, but i'm not sure that you're aware of the contradiction.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Spacies would be top tier without L-cancelling? Jump cancelling shines? Dash dancing? Wavedashing?

You must be joking. They'd be mid tier at best, probably lower.

Wow, I guess I'm doing nair-shine totally wrong because I was, like, actually doing an L-cancel between the nair and the shine, you know?

And I guess my techskill is just really sloppy because I was somehow pressing more buttons to nair-shine than to dashdance---weird, huh?

But if I'm to believe you, I think I may have revolutionized wavedashing; I should write a guide on it because my method is only about as technical as late nair-shine and I can do it with just 2 buttons!

... Seriously, please read stuff before you respond to it.

your focus on tech skill and technical mistakes as the primary indicator of skill causes you to only consider players like "tech skill fox" and not players like me. the "low-level metagame" cannot be clearly defined because there is more than one dimension of skill in this game. your second paragraph touches on this, but i'm not sure that you're aware of the contradiction.

^ This. There are playstyles and MUs that emphasize techskill less, such as the Puff MU. Puff has a ton of difficulty dealing with Foxes who stick with safe, low-tech options like lasers, dashdancing/platform camping, safe drill/nair-shines, uthrow-uair for KOs, etc. because they have equivalent or better risk/reward ratios than the high-tech options. I seem to remember Jman doing really well vs. HBox with those low-tech options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfirw1PjBBc

 

[Bones0]

i don't believe that fox loses to puff at low levels. in fact, talking about the low-level metagame is worthless because the skills of a low-level player are essentially a subset of the current top-level metagame.

for example, i'm able to beat puffs of a higher skill level than me with fox, despite the fact that i have poor fox tech skill, and i'm able to do this because i've refined a certain aspect of my fox play (namely, camping like a little *****). a fox of my "skill level" who instead focused on tech skill would probably trash my fox but get uthrow -> rested or edgeguarded 4 times by the aforementioned puff due to his lack of patience and fundamentals.

your focus on tech skill and technical mistakes as the primary indicator of skill causes you to only consider players like "tech skill fox" and not players like me. the "low-level metagame" cannot be clearly defined because there is more than one dimension of skill in this game. your second paragraph touches on this, but i'm not sure that you're aware of the contradiction.

I'm not sure where this discussion is going... You said I implied people were better off playing floaties than spacies, but nothing I said indicated that. The only thing you could have possibly misunderstood to mean that was me saying floaties are easier at low levels, but then I go on to say how low level meta is very random anyway because of the same reasons you explained.

Wow, I guess I'm doing nair-shine totally wrong because I was, like, actually doing an L-cancel between the nair and the shine, you know?

And I guess my techskill is just really sloppy because I was somehow pressing more buttons to nair-shine than to dashdance---weird, huh?

But if I'm to believe you, I think I may have revolutionized wavedashing; I should write a guide on it because my method is only about as technical as late nair-shine and I can do it with just 2 buttons!

... Seriously, please read stuff before you respond to it.

You said you'd like to see Borp play Fox without tech skill, and he doesn't L-cancel, DD, WD, etc. Obviously that's not what you meant, but if you weren't including DDing, WDing, or jump cancelling shines as being more technical than SHFFLs, what does that even leave out? Double shines? Oh wow, that's also just 2 button presses, what do you know? Sounds exactly like how Mango plays minus the occasional shorten, so ofc Fox would still be a good character...

 

[john!]

If we can all agree Fox beats Puff at high level and loses at low levels where Fox players make tons of mistakes and get punished with simple uthrow rest, then obviously there is some theoretical skill level Fox players have to achieve before they are on point enough to truly make it a winning matchup.

^ this is the part of your post i was taking about. fox does not lose to puff at any level of play unless their anti-puff game is much worse than puff's anti-fox game.

you are trying to imply that spacies mains don't have it any better off than any other mains because they worked harder to get to a level where their characters reign supreme, while at the same time claiming that "strategy matters so much more than anything else" at a high level. it's all ego protection and fallacious apologetics, all the time.

 

[Bones0]

^ this is the part of your post i was taking about. fox does not lose to puff at any level of play unless their anti-puff game is much worse than puff's anti-fox game.

you are trying to imply that spacies mains don't have it any better off than any other mains because they worked harder to get to a level where their characters reign supreme, while at the same time claiming that "strategy matters so much more than anything else" at a high level. it's all ego protection and fallacious apologetics, all the time.

If you don't think noob Puffs and Peaches are more likely to win vs. equally nooby spacies, then idk what to tell you. I've seen uthrow rest and CC dsmash demolish too many people to think floaties don't have it easier at low levels. I've had several floaty mains tell me the same. *shrug*

I'm not implying spacie mains have it better or worse in general. I'm saying that at some levels of play spacies have an easier time and at other levels floaties have an easier time. At low levels, this analysis is flimsy because there's no well defined meta, but at high level over the years we have seen the advantages fluctuate. (Or at least I have, but I guess you just see Fox beating Puff at every level of play so idk...)

 

[FerrishTheFish]

if you weren't including DDing, WDing, or jump cancelling shines as being more technical than SHFFLs, what does that even leave out?

It leaves out double-shines and waveshining (which basically leaves out shield pressure), shine oos, sh double laser, a few ledgestall shenanigans, also leaves out shield dropping, wavelanding, boost grab, ... My idea was to see how good spacies are without a lot of spacie-specific or advanced techskill. I include SHFFL -> shine because it's comparable to SHFFL -> jab/dashdance.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Fox is top tier with just Bair, SHL, Usmash and uthrow->uair

 

[the muted smasher]

Many people will disagree with me on this but I believe space animals are allow more mistakes in many cases than floaties.

If they miss space on a shield they lack the bail out shine option and really in many match-ups fox really doesn't have to nair shine to attack a shield safely. If he lacked shine he would low/space nair with jab pressure or dash dance which is very powerful and with his run is still very able to cover anything.

Also ffers can play more on reaction while everyone puts a lot into reaction time people who main ics luigi samus puff or who have You needs to focus more on being proactive and holding a space to be really to counter. Where they can simplly fall prey to 0-death combos from a fox who noticed them miss stepping.

This is a very real problem for ics.

Not counting their great recoveries off put by their better edge guarding game. Floaties sometimes have the chance to fix their mistake mid combo like if ics mess up a death throw vs ffers it often leads to a tech chase or a peach/sheik might be able to still get fox with a dash attack.

By ffers have more room for error in spacing and gain more for being able to adapt or change the pace.

But all I do as fox is moonwalk bair grab shine and wierd tech chase and platform pressure

 

[j00t]

G&W's -options- are not as good overall, but his ability to compete in the neutral game -- space, zone, feint -- are superior to DK and Link's options in the neutral, was the point.

You're ****ing high if you think G&W has a better neutral game than Link lol