Official 4BR Tier List v1.0 - Competitive Impressions

[Shady Shaymin]

The interesting thing about smash is that unlike many other competitive games, this game's roster is more than just a template of hitboxes, frames and specs. Many of these characters are, whether we like to admit it or not, projections of our childhood and imagination to which we subconsciously attribute emotion and personal attachment to. In any game where your are required to dedicate a certain level of effort and time investment to a character, people will naturally choose characters who they can identify with when picking a main. What to do with this information, I don't know. But we know it to be true, so do with it what you'd like.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Really you can just pair Greninja with any character that does decently against Sheik and you're golden.

+. The set of the new Smash Champ.

Who else really does 'good' against ? My best guesses are . But people like to think also stands a chance or example.

 

[outfoxd]

Just a reminder to everyone, and [because they're there in front of me] some of those on the last page ( Chainz , CHIEf , Jalil , Johan ).
That this is the reality.

You can say that it's not your character holding you back but yourself (which is almost always true, but that neglects that a character with more options enhances every part of your game mentally and will help you get better at the game faster).
But if you aren't going to tournaments.... your character loyalty virtually means nothing.
And in an even more crude tone, the likelihood your opinion on these character's capabilities mean very little too.

Sol is an exceptional player, tempered under the scolding heat of one of the most competitive smash regions in the US (frequent 100 man locals is something even NY/NJ and Socal struggle with).
And he has vision with his character as well, because he's been directly involved in the reality of what he's doing.
Furthermore the option spread and contrasting abilities of this character is unique within the cast. Yes even when considering your mid/low pick, if that character reflects your best set of skills then they're likely your best choice to remain with (until you feel you've exhausted the limits of these skills).

There are surely other examples, and perhaps every player can argue their snowflake is another Little Mac or [arguably] Robin. But you enjoying them and wanting to stay with them is a choice you need to realise is an objectively poorer choice for MOST people to logically take.

A potentially clearer analogy similar to the one from Johan...
If you're an amazing student and get through final high school exams with comparably 95-99th percentile grading, you have near limitless options in your future through tertiary studies, but you will still need to continue to work your *** off to achieve any such possibility.
You could become a doctor, a lawyer, and astrophysicist, possibly get a scholarship at Cambridge University and get to sit in a lecture with Stephen Hawking or something.
However, you still have a choice, and the choice you take is your own and you will have to live with it. Many people would prefer to go for their passion (teaching, music, the arts in general, or in this newer world: competitive gamer), maybe they do not anticipate being able to handle the workload and responsibilities necessary to become a doctor [a ****ton]. People can often regret these decisions because they're virtually locking themselves into something and going down a path they can't just flip flop over from another to.
Either way, you're a brilliant person and can achieve in most areas you put your mind to. If you want to work just as hard as the math-nerd string theorists do but with the strings of a guitar, who knows what the result could be [and if no one ever so brilliant wanted to dedicate themselves to the such things the world would be a much sadder place indeed].

Fortunately Smash is a much fairer microcosm than the real world.
Just like Stephen Hawking is unlikely to tell Kanye West he's wasted his life (and vice versa) due to their relative successes (but we all know who's had a larger impact on the world), a tournament going player is not going to tell a Little Mac main to give up without reason. The reason usually being their own frustrations, their own losses and generally their imaginations have been exhausted (for the time being at least). These players do NOT get upset at the act of people telling them to stop disadvantaging themselves (unlike the response we see saying this to players who don't go to tournaments), because those players aren't naive and know what they're getting themselves into.
Until you've been through these conditions yourself you're not only misleading others on merits of your decisions, but also yourself.
Just like how a Sheik player isn't allowed to complain about things being hard, neither is the low/mid tier player (this is how it is in essentially every scene I've been connected to).
Either way, through participation in competitive environments both types of players are able to understand the quintessential struggle of improvement and are able to relate and share similar feelings and experiences. Just like how someone who spectates a sport (watches streams sometimes) and perhaps kicks a ball around (plays for glory) does not by itself give them an understanding of the athlete's condition.

As a liberal arts advanced graduate parts of this speaks to me and hurts me in the heart places.

 

[Kofu]

Story time.

I have a friend who mains Sheik. He's a very good player, ranked no. 1 in his region. He's honestly capable of doing well with pretty much any character he wants. Regardless of his skill and success, he's still upset about the various nerfs Sheik has gotten (mainly to BAir but also in a general sense how her damage output compared to Brawl was neutered, and that the airspeed increase she got wasn't enough to compensate). His profile quote for online play is #Buff Sheik (probably a little wryly).

I don't really think he feels that his choice of character is limiting him. Like I said, he could probably use anyone at an excellent level if he so chose. Instead, I think he feels like the character's weaknesses are unfairly imposed. Given that release Sheik was better than the character we have now (as far as I know; the only "good" alteration I'm aware of is the change to DTilt) he kind of has a point. The developers went out of their way to make Sheik's main weaknesses (low damage output and trouble KOing) more apparent.

I think every player has moments where they feel that their character has unfairly imposed weaknesses and limitations. As a humorous example, most (all) characters would benefit from a Luma. Others wish they had some of the grab followups or movement specs that help certain characters stand out. But every character is going to have weaknesses and strengths, and those are what make the game interesting.

I've used Game & Watch since Melee and don't plan to stop. Yet, at the same time, some of his problems really bug me. A lot of it depends on the character I'm fighting. But he has clear limitations that will ever prevent him from being a real threat at the top level. He gets strung out by Sheik very hard and can't properly contest needles aside from crouching. When I fight a skilled Sheik player, I feel like Villager and even Mewtwo give me a better chance against her, even though my skill level with them seems far less than what I have with Game & Watch.

I've considered picking up a top (or very high) character to get better results but so far none of them have really clicked with me or what I've wanted. Sheik and Diddy are the closest but both have their issues. Will I ever find the character that can help me bring out my best and get the best results? Possibly not. But I'll keep playing the game, because I like Smash, and in the meantime I'll keep trying to push myself and my characters to be the best.

 

[Megamang]

I wouldn't call his footstool combos gimmicks. He is a solid character, and I think he should have already been on Zero's list. But I know that it is hard to make a list, since it feels like whatever you do, you are excluding someone. If anything, heavy footstool combos, ESPECIALLY ones that start with a non foostool opener, will only get stronger.

 

[outfoxd]

Story time.

I have a friend who mains Sheik. He's a very good player, ranked no. 1 in his region. He's honestly capable of doing well with pretty much any character he wants. Regardless of his skill and success, he's still upset about the various nerfs Sheik has gotten (mainly to BAir but also in a general sense how her damage output compared to Brawl was neutered, and that the airspeed increase she got wasn't enough to compensate). His profile quote for online play is #Buff Sheik (probably a little wryly).

I don't really think he feels that his choice of character is limiting him. Like I said, he could probably use anyone at an excellent level if he so chose. Instead, I think he feels like the character's weaknesses are unfairly imposed. Given that release Sheik was better than the character we have now (as far as I know; the only "good" alteration I'm aware of is the change to DTilt) he kind of has a point. The developers went out of their way to make Sheik's main weaknesses (low damage output and trouble KOing) more apparent.

I think every player has moments where they feel that their character has unfairly imposed weaknesses and limitations. As a humorous example, most (all) characters would benefit from a Luma. Others wish they had some of the grab followups or movement specs that help certain characters stand out. But every character is going to have weaknesses and strengths, and those are what make the game interesting.

I've used Game & Watch since Melee and don't plan to stop. Yet, at the same time, some of his problems really bug me. A lot of it depends on the character I'm fighting. But he has clear limitations that will ever prevent him from being a real threat at the top level. He gets strung out by Sheik very hard and can't properly contest needles aside from crouching. When I fight a skilled Sheik player, I feel like Villager and even Mewtwo give me a better chance against her, even though my skill level with them seems far less than what I have with Game & Watch.

I've considered picking up a top (or very high) character to get better results but so far none of them have really clicked with me or what I've wanted. Sheik and Diddy are the closest but both have their issues. Will I ever find the character that can help me bring out my best and get the best results? Possibly not. But I'll keep playing the game, because I like Smash, and in the meantime I'll keep trying to push myself and my characters to be the best.

I can understand. It took me nearly a year to find Rosalina wasn't just out of pragmatism but actually felt right with my play. It helped when i started thinking about Luma like a can. Also, DH wants upairs like Rosa but by the Gods does hers work better.

Finding parallels may help other would be searchers.

 

[Nobie]

A while back, someone mentioned that there are some really bad matchups in this game, citing Ganondorf vs. Meta Knight as a 10:90.

Interestingly, Ito (Meta Knight main) actually has it as 30:70. Still really bad, of course, but a long way from absolutely unwinnable.

Though this is probably more a lesson in how everyone uses these numbers differently, and it's up to actual discussion to get to what people really mean.

 

[CHIEf]

I go to tournaments. I need to go to more, but I rest my case.

The reality is that people need to simply figure out what they're doing wrong and adjust - like a good player. How much that helps will vary for each matchup, but don't be so quick to blame a character for losing.

Can anyone confidently say that anyone besides the top ~10 is a waste of time? This metagame has more to flesh out than people realize - whether because they lack the tournament experiences or character knowledge. Bayo and Corrin came out just a month ago. Everyone - even ZeRo I'm sure - has a lot to learn about the game.

TL;DR Tier lists should be taken with a grain of salt this early into the current meta.

 

[BananaBake]

CHIEf has a point. Obviously the FIRST official tier list won't be 100% accurate, because, well, it's the first. It's missing two characters that came out literally two days after the list did. heck, even Melee is still trying to figure out the mid-tier's placement, BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BEEN BRAVE OR SKILLED ENOUGH TO TAKE THEM ALL THE WAY. Melee has been around since 2001, and is still figuring out the character's placement, and has only 25 (26 is sheik and Zelda count as different), while Smash 4 has been out not even two years and has 58. Sure, I can't just disregard the list entirely, because that's practically saying all characters are equal, I'm just saying WE SHOULDN'T BE SO SERIOUS AT THE MOMENT ABOUT IT. Smash 4 is a recently finished game, and we ALL are still trying to figure out the game, so of course, we're at some disadvantages at the moment, but once we LEARN AND ADAPT, we'll be able to overcome it

 

[Emblem Lord]

This is the way it should be.

I don't understand people who want to win but stick to characters who aren't suited to win.

You're going to put hundreds of hours of playtime into a character just to go to a tournament and get Sheik'd by a player who may even be worse than you? Really?

It's like going to work in a really uncomfortable suit, because it's your favorite and you like the color, and sitting there for 8-10 hours just bearing it because hey, it's a really nice suit.

Screw that. Just wear something really comfortable and do your work like a badass.

Pick a ****ing Top Tier! It feels so good.

This man shall be hence forth known as...

SolidProphet

 

[Megamang]

An interesting, and im my opinion good, thing about smash is that a better player can usually win with more than half the cast. Everyone has had that moment where they play someone for the first time, and you naturally bust out your main. What do you do if you win, rather convincingly? Unless you are hardcore training, or extremely dedicated to your main, often you will switch to another character. Smash rewards lots of things, and many of those things are consistent across the cast. If you can force someone to roll out and punish the roll, you will do well with any character that can do both of those things. Of course, the best choice might be the character that can force the situation the most often, or the character that can punish the hardest when the situation comes up.

The frustrating thing about the current meta, is that it is dominated by a jack-of-all-trades speedster. Shiek is probably the best at forcing the roll, due to her oppressiveness, and an optimal shiek will punish the roll among the hardest in the game, given a skilled player. This is a crude example, but kind of shows what I am trying to get at.

The idea of her being dominant in many attributes can be summed up with the MU that many mid-tiers face against her. Ask a greninja player why he has trouble with shiek, or where he thinks he can edge the matchup in his favor, and the problem becomes evident: 'She is better at everything'. Of course, this isn't true in the simplest sense. Greninja's fair does more damage, and has more range. But, trying to formulate a gameplan around that? Then you see that the Shiek player has a better tool to contest you with, than you have to fight her with.

I'll speak more about the character I know, since I don't have much more input on greninja from a players' point of view. I've had some great games against Shiek. It can be a rewarding and fun match where the character with better CQC tries to fight through a wall of projectiles, using her superior burst movement and frame data to make as much from that when she gets in as she can. She has better kill setups and gimps, megaman has better raw kill power throughout his moveset. But, upon seeking a reprieve from the zoning onslaugt, the shiek throws a wayward needle. It hits. After a few of these, she realizes that she doesn't have a need to do any of the above matchup, instead just force the approach and shut it down with her better options.

And again and again. Everyone has trouble with something. A 'balanced' top tier is a nightmare for various reasons. Of course, the best answer is to outplay the player, and that is possible and reasonable at most levels.

This kind of became a rant, more than I wanted it to, so I will get at what I was going for with the next questions. These aren't trying to lead to a point, just legitimate questions I have in my quest to beat the oppressive queen.

What type of playstyle does Shiek struggle with the most? What type of player do we see have the most success against Shiek? Are there any (non shiek) players who think she has a losing MU, if so whom, and why?

I found Sol's little mac vs shiek analysis video incredibly interesting, when he says shiek is a linear character. I find her not to be, but from the eyes of a great Mac she is. Is this due to the way Mac plays his neutral/footsies? She has options, but they boil down to the same thing against Mac, why does he care if she is spacing fair into ftilt vs dtilt vs jab vs grab, pivot Ftilt beats it all!


I wonder if she will prove to have losing MUs in the end, and we are just pessimistic because the best players choose shiek, and she looks even more dominant. Perhaps a smash64 approach will help, with powerful SDI to negate 'guaranteed' combos.


This post is now huge against my intentions, since I like typing far too much.

 

[Shaya]

CHIEf
Well, apart of the point is that as long as you have a path you can keep forging, it doesn't matter what you do.
But if a wall exists, just because we're talking about Smash here, it is of little loss to choose another path.
Now the question here is whether that wall is individual or just a real limiting factor which exists for everyone.

We as human beings will assume those walls are near universally applicable if nothing exists to show us otherwise (that's why status quo is such a ***** and why one of the two most unpopular candidates in US history are going to become the next US president *cough delegates and non-preferential voting systems aren't democracy cough* and why pragmatists often state generational shifts is the only way things change).
A person can be happy to chip away at that wall producing incrementally larger holes until something gives, or they can come in with a whole new idea that wasn't previously considered - pushing that wall further.

One must acknowledge such conditions exist, otherwise you're missing something very important. And more likely than not, this is due to not having reached the wall or relative stepping stones yet; so you cannot blame those on a [relatively] further point in their journey for doing something logical. Again, fortunately in Smash, it's almost guaranteed such a switch up is of little loss and nearly of complete gain in the medium and long terms.

And as we've seen from balance patches and DLC, it's not even that difficult to continue or start a new path once inspiration comes along. The intangible "imaginative battery" can become recharged and spur you on out of no where again as well (monthly Marth urges intensifies)

 

[Megamang]

The wall analogy reminds me of SC2 casts with Tastosis, where they often joke about a player overcoming a mathematical disadvantage by 'trying really hard' or 'getting angry' or 'his fans supporting him enough'.

"He was down 0-3 in the set, but then he got really mad and brought it back 4-0!"

 

[NairWizard]

Hypothetical situation.

You play Megaman. Your local scene is dominated by a ZSS, with whom you've gone even in friendlies on many occasions. You are confident, going into your first tournament, that you're going to do super well. Top 3, possibly 1st.

First round comes up, you play against a Sheik. You barely win first match, because he goes in a lot and you manage to score uppercuts and pivot grabs, but 2nd and 3rd match, he decides to needle camp you hard, and you lose two close games. You're knocked down into losers bracket and then lose to another solid player (Rosalina or something) in a similarly close match. The ZSS player goes on to win the tournament.

You can't help but wonder as you sit there for the rest of the tournament, watching WF, then LF, and then GF (which goes to two sets!)... what if you weren't playing Megaman? What if your opponent weren't playing Sheik? Could you have won the tournament? Could you have placed top 4 at least? That could have been you up there, if only....

You think about the thousands of matches that you've used Megaman in and you feel a little doubt. Was it really worth dedicating that much of your time to a character just to get Needled out?

And when this happens at a regional, in a stacked pool, or at a national... just a very intense feeling.

Until you've been in that situation, it's hard to see why "character loyalty" comes at a price, or to fully relate to that price.


True character loyalists like Sol who push forward despite this price should be respected and appreciated, of course, but they do so knowing that they are entitled to nothing special and that their losses result from their own commitments.

 

[Y2Kay]

Just a reminder to everyone, and [because they're there in front of me] some of those on the last page ( Chainz , CHIEf , Jalil , Johan ).
That this is the reality.

You can say that it's not your character holding you back but yourself (which is almost always true, but that neglects that a character with more options enhances every part of your game mentally and will help you get better at the game faster).
But if you aren't going to tournaments.... your character loyalty virtually means nothing.
And in an even more crude tone, the likelihood your opinion on these character's capabilities mean very little too.

Sol is an exceptional player, tempered under the scolding heat of one of the most competitive smash regions in the US (frequent 100 man locals is something even NY/NJ and Socal struggle with).
And he has vision with his character as well, because he's been directly involved in the reality of what he's doing.
Furthermore the option spread and contrasting abilities of this character is unique within the cast. Yes even when considering your mid/low pick, if that character reflects your best set of skills then they're likely your best choice to remain with (until you feel you've exhausted the limits of these skills).

There are surely other examples, and perhaps every player can argue their snowflake is another Little Mac or [arguably] Robin. But you enjoying them and wanting to stay with them is a choice you need to realise is an objectively poorer choice for MOST people to logically take.

A potentially clearer analogy similar to the one from Johan...
If you're an amazing student and get through final high school exams with comparably 95-99th percentile grading, you have near limitless options in your future through tertiary studies, but you will still need to continue to work your *** off to achieve any such possibility.
You could become a doctor, a lawyer, and astrophysicist, possibly get a scholarship at Cambridge University and get to sit in a lecture with Stephen Hawking or something.
However, you still have a choice, and the choice you take is your own and you will have to live with it. Many people would prefer to go for their passion (teaching, music, the arts in general, or in this newer world: competitive gamer), maybe they do not anticipate being able to handle the workload and responsibilities necessary to become a doctor [a ****ton], or perhaps they didn't and later on wish they went for something that more suited them rather than people's expectations. People can often regret these decisions because they're virtually locking themselves into something and going down a path they can't just flip flop over from another to.
Either way, you're a brilliant person and can achieve in most areas you put your mind to. If you want to work just as hard as the math-nerd string theorists do but with the strings of a guitar, who knows what the result could be [and if no one ever so brilliant wanted to dedicate themselves to the such things the world would be a much sadder place indeed].

Fortunately Smash is a much fairer microcosm than the real world.
Just like Stephen Hawking is unlikely to tell Kanye West he's wasted his life (and vice versa) due to their relative successes (but we all know who's had a larger impact on the world), a tournament going player is not going to tell a Little Mac main to give up without reason. The reason usually being their own frustrations, their own losses and generally their imaginations have been exhausted (for the time being at least). These players do NOT get upset at the act of people telling them to stop disadvantaging themselves (unlike the response we see saying this to players who don't go to tournaments), because those players aren't naive and know what they're getting themselves into.
Until you've been through these conditions, not only are you misleading others on merits of your decisions, but also yourself.
Just like how a Sheik player isn't allowed to complain about things being hard, neither is the low/mid tier player (this is how it is in essentially every scene I've been connected to).
Either way, through participation in competitive environments both types of players are able to understand the quintessential struggle of improvement and are able to relate and share similar feelings and experiences. Just like how someone who spectates a sport (watches streams sometimes) and perhaps kicks a ball around (plays for glory) does not by itself give them an understanding of the athlete's condition.

Wait, where do we disagree again? It seems like we're saying the same things. For the most part it seems like we're on the same page about this.

 

[Shaya]

You're apart of everyone but just so happened to say something on page 140 that spurred the point forward~
Something something "I'm not there yet but I realise" is a good spot to be in.

 

[Trifroze]

I consider Nair into Down B more BS for ZSS than her boostkick stuff since players are starting to know how to DI it.

ZSS' nair to down b being janky is a bit farfetched in my opinion, considering it's really easy to just outright avoid that. If you're at around 40-60% and close to the ledge, you can just focus on not getting hit by this particular ~25 frame SHFF action. Even in the case that you do get hit by it, you can avoid the meteor hitbox with proper DI in most cases since it gets overlapped by the other hitbox, meaning that if you stay close enough to ZSS with upwards or towards DI, she can't do a short enough flip jump to get the required spacing for the meteor.

Although one thing that many ZSS players probably don't know about is that you can slow down your forwards momentum considerably when you initiate flip kick by doing it with a backwards flick of the c-stick while holding forward on the control stick. It lets you manipulate your spacing for those extra 7 frames of startup on flip kick, and of course lets you use the attack much deeper offstage since this way you won't spend flip kick's entire cooldown drifting towards the blastzone at 2897483948 miles an hour.

As for actual jank ZSS has, I think it's fairly agreeable that rage bnb combo is stupid, but other than that, the bnb combo is fine. All it does is 34% (sometimes 40%) damage fresh provided the opponent knows how to DI it. I've seen Mario and Sheik do more damage from single conversions at low percents, and while I haven't labbed those characters enough to say whether those conversions are inescapeable or not, I'm pretty sure they are. Aside from all that, flip jump is a really freaking good move, but I wouldn't call it jank (like I wouldn't call needles or TSRK such).

I'd personally leave this sort of bs/honest labeling to a minimum though. People can have a ton of different views on what does and doesn't count as such, and categorizing things in this way in itself is really unproductive. It just seems like a way for people to justify and reinforce their frustration by developing some sort of norms about unfair and fair instead of learning to deal with those things and overcome them. When it comes to the word "honest" there's probably some "I'm a better person cause I play a fair character" pretentiousness in there as well. This is not to say that if something is wrong you should just deal with it, but that you should deal with it and/or attempt to change it, not cry about it in a bandwagon and hope it eventually makes something better.

 

[C0rvus]

Man, I kinda envy the character loyalists. I struggle to think of my favorite anything. Even my favorite color kinda fluctuates between blue and green, but lately I've been really warming up to yellow and purple. What's up with that? It legit bothers me.
At release, I was super into Robin. He was one of the characters I wanted in the game. Played him for a bit, he was alright, but he didn't really click. I played him on and off, started figuring him out. Put up a couple results, but his MUs against common dudes like Mario and Fox really made it hard to enjoy him.
I've been all over the roster. (Played Ness, Toon Link, Wii Fit Trainer, Donkey Kong, Palutena, Pikachu, now trying Corrin, Diddy, and Rosalina) I'm not sure if I liked Robin because he suited me or if I just really liked FE: A. I always feel like I'm getting closer, maybe Robin is my main. I don't know. Character selection is really pretty simple. I've received good advice from all over, but I feel no passion for any character or play style. Maybe I should just do commentary or something. I do like this game, don't get me wrong.

Edit: Oh geez, this was an off topic ramble. Uhh... Mewtwo is high tier. He's got everything you need, except results at the moment (barring some nice regional stuff from Mew^2 and Blue). He's a glass canon that works, and he's super good at footsies.

 

[BananaBake]

Man, I kinda envy the character loyalists. I struggle to think of my favorite anything. Even my favorite color kinda fluctuates between blue and green, but lately I've been really warming up to yellow and purple. What's up with that? It legit bothers me.
At release, I was super into Robin. He was one of the characters I wanted in the game. Played him for a bit, he was alright, but he didn't really click. I played him on and off, started figuring him out. Put up a couple results, but his MUs against common dudes like Mario and Fox really made it hard to enjoy him.
I've been all over the roster. (Played Ness, Toon Link, Wii Fit Trainer, Donkey Kong, Palutena, Pikachu, now trying Corrin, Diddy, and Rosalina) I'm not sure if I liked Robin because he suited me or if I just really liked FE: A. I always feel like I'm getting closer, maybe Robin is my main. I don't know. Character selection is really pretty simple. I've received good advice from all over, but I feel no passion for any character or play style. Maybe I should just do commentary or something. I do like this game, don't get me wrong.

Edit: Oh geez, this was an off topic ramble. Uhh... Mewtwo is high tier. He's got everything you need, except results at the moment (barring some nice regional stuff from Mew^2 and Blue). He's a glass canon that works, and he's super good at footsies.

My advice for picking a main, is that when you play them, everything you do should feel natural, not like you have to force yourself to press the buttons EDIT: Yeah Mewtwo is doing better

 

[Y2Kay]

Man oh Man, mewtwo is legit good. He's just so scary now! Pre-patch he'd use to really struggle in neutral against characters like and who could enter his space fast and wouldn't let him charge shadow ball, but now he has the specs to actually mount an aggresive attack on opponents if he wants/needs to, which really is a game changer. At first he was really only able to shine if you gave him the space to setup his defensive options, but I believe now he's capable of taking on anyone in the cast. But the flipside is he can get bodied by anyone in the cast too if he gets too careless and greedy.
He really does feel like a top tier trapped in a low tier's body sometimes...

Bah, everyone knows this by now (hopefully). I'll probably bring more Mewtwo info to the table tomorrow, since I'm pooped out for today.

 

[ReRaze]

Man, I kinda envy the character loyalists. I...

Hmm try this, Just main random for the time being, over time you might find a character that makes you say "yes!" when you get him/her/it, (at least moreso than others). That is probably the character for you.

On another note, what's the general opinion on Bayonetta right now? is she bad or....
I've seen threads talking about banning her at the next apex (which I'm not sure whether serious or not but nonetheless found funny).
I mean sure you don't see Bayonetta winning every single tournament but she's been causing quite a stir (shoulda seen MVD's face when he died for throwing a banana at 0%), especially considering the amount of time she was out, what happens when people optimize her at least to the same level of development as shiek? Would shiek still be better? Is there any counterplay to Bayonetta yet that holds for at least the viable characters in the cast?

 

[Luco]

Man, I kinda envy the character loyalists. I struggle to think of my favorite anything. Even my favorite color kinda fluctuates between blue and green, but lately I've been really warming up to yellow and purple. What's up with that? It legit bothers me.
At release, I was super into Robin. He was one of the characters I wanted in the game. Played him for a bit, he was alright, but he didn't really click. I played him on and off, started figuring him out. Put up a couple results, but his MUs against common dudes like Mario and Fox really made it hard to enjoy him.
I've been all over the roster. (Played Ness, Toon Link, Wii Fit Trainer, Donkey Kong, Palutena, Pikachu, now trying Corrin, Diddy, and Rosalina) I'm not sure if I liked Robin because he suited me or if I just really liked FE: A. I always feel like I'm getting closer, maybe Robin is my main. I don't know. Character selection is really pretty simple. I've received good advice from all over, but I feel no passion for any character or play style. Maybe I should just do commentary or something. I do like this game, don't get me wrong.

Edit: Oh geez, this was an off topic ramble. Uhh... Mewtwo is high tier. He's got everything you need, except results at the moment (barring some nice regional stuff from Mew^2 and Blue). He's a glass canon that works, and he's super good at footsies.

Sometimes, but sometimes it's hard too. The other day I got my worst smash 4 tournament placing ever, and I was sitting there wondering if my love for my characters really did anything for me in a scene that's really about 'being the best'. (Thankfully looking back on things I can tell my losses were mostly because of my mis-spacings and questionable decisions, but even then who knows how much easier it would have been to avoid those if I were using Sheik or Cloud?) Sometimes I'm not sure if I can justify using lower-tiered characters when I have a very real possibility of being/becoming the best player in my scene. If character loyalists get to that stage, this decision tends to rip them apart.

In other words, sometimes committing too hard is foolish, even though popular media tells you to have conviction and stick true to your guns, Mikoto Misaka's lvl5 lightning powers might just not be so effective against Touma Kamijo's lvl0 magic-nullifying right hand and she should really just grab a gun.

It takes a lot of commitment to something you can't really justify to dedicate yourself to a couple random characters (let's face it, if you're like me you just feel too emotionally attached to the characters to ever let go of them. What the hell even is that??)

 

[Pancracio17]

Some people say is a good CP because of his grab game and being small and floaty, though im not actually sure about this.

Btw, bayo will never be brawl MK level, never.

 

[C0rvus]

Sometimes, but sometimes it's hard too. The other day I got my worst smash 4 tournament placing ever, and I was sitting there wondering if my love for my characters really did anything for me in a scene that's really about 'being the best'. (Thankfully looking back on things I can tell my losses were mostly because of my mis-spacings and questionable decisions, but even then who knows how much easier it would have been to avoid those if I were using Sheik or Cloud?) Sometimes I'm not sure if I can justify using lower-tiered characters when I have a very real possibility of being/becoming the best player in my scene. If character loyalists get to that stage, this decision tends to rip them apart.

In other words, sometimes committing too hard is foolish, even though popular media tells you to have conviction and stick true to your guns, Mikoto Misaka's lvl5 lightning powers might just not be so effective against Touma Kamijo's lvl0 magic-nullifying right hand and she should really just grab a gun.

It takes a lot of commitment to something you can't really justify to dedicate yourself to a couple random characters (let's face it, if you're like me you just feel too emotionally attached to the characters to ever let go of them. What the hell even is that??)

I think this is partially what has happened to me. I went to college, and the scene I have access to is small, and I am one of the best players here. I got second place at an event with solo Robin. Lost in Grands to a Mario. I guess I felt like I could do better. I also felt like there were expectations and a reputation I had to uphold. I floundered around a lot. I still place well (top 3 almost every time) but it's such a small pond, it means nothing.

I cannot say I've ever been THAT attached to a character. In fact, I think I lack connection to characters to the point where my interest is changed so easily. I watch a good player win with Duck Hunt, and I think it would be cool to do the same. Watch Dabuz's incredible walling and knowledge of his character, and think, wow I wish I was that good. Most good players at work get me interested.

People always say play everyone until one of them clicks, or figure out who you want to play the most, or play who you have fun with or suits your style, or choose Sheik and don't worry about it. I have fun with different characters on different days, and I feel like I can play however, maybe I haven't gotten far enough into the game to figure out where my preferences lie. I cannot even determine a general preference from other games. I'm about take that last piece of advice because I'm at my wit's end.
I apologize for mucking up the thread with my incoherent babbling. I think knowing yourself is a very important part of succeeding in anything you do. And I'm stuck in a rut.

In an attempt to stay somewhat relevant to the thread, I find that Bayonetta feels more like a Melee top tier. When you get hit by her, your best bet is to attempt to mix up her expectations through DI and SDI rather than just escape. Just played like a half hour of Melee, and when you get hit, you usually get hit again and again and again until your opponent kills you or messes up. This is what Bayo may become. Adjust your mentality accordingly I guess? Just an observation.

 

[JediLink]

Would MUs like vs and vs be considered -3? I'm not very knowledgeable about Melee MU specifics and couldn't find matchup numbers from reputable sources, so please correct me if my understanding is wrong. I'm also not too familiar with the worst MUs of the 3 official Brawl high tiers despite having played Brawl competitively. Shame on me. =(

Falcon Sheik -3? Jesus, no. Sheik has better moves in neutral but Falcon has much better mobility. Sheik can tech chase and edgeguard, but her weight and fall speed is perfect for getting air wobbled to rest and her recovery is almost as exploitable as Falcon's. Slight advantage to Sheik cause she's a better character overall, but Falco and arguably also Fox are worse matchups.

ICs Peach is pretty bad though. Peach can apply safe pressure, split the climbers effectively, and once they're separated she's one of the best at killing Nana very quickly. Theoretically Fox could be considered just as bad as Peach since he can do all of the above as well (Mango vs Nintendude at G3 comes to mind), but the big difference between Fox and Peach is simply that Peach is easier to be consistent with. For an Ice Climbers to beat a good Peach, they have to play very smart, and take every opening as far as possible. I don't know if I'd call it a -3 because I don't super well understand what that actually means but I think it says something that two of the best ICs players in the world, Fly Amanita and Nintendude, both have secondaries purely for Peach.

 

[Trifroze]

Man, I kinda envy the character loyalists. I struggle to think of my favorite anything. Even my favorite color kinda fluctuates between blue and green, but lately I've been really warming up to yellow and purple. What's up with that? It legit bothers me.
At release, I was super into Robin. He was one of the characters I wanted in the game. Played him for a bit, he was alright, but he didn't really click. I played him on and off, started figuring him out. Put up a couple results, but his MUs against common dudes like Mario and Fox really made it hard to enjoy him.
I've been all over the roster. (Played Ness, Toon Link, Wii Fit Trainer, Donkey Kong, Palutena, Pikachu, now trying Corrin, Diddy, and Rosalina) I'm not sure if I liked Robin because he suited me or if I just really liked FE: A. I always feel like I'm getting closer, maybe Robin is my main. I don't know. Character selection is really pretty simple. I've received good advice from all over, but I feel no passion for any character or play style. Maybe I should just do commentary or something. I do like this game, don't get me wrong.

Edit: Oh geez, this was an off topic ramble. Uhh... Mewtwo is high tier. He's got everything you need, except results at the moment (barring some nice regional stuff from Mew^2 and Blue). He's a glass canon that works, and he's super good at footsies.

I think you always need to compromise something to pick a really clear favorite and go with it. People are too complex to find one character, playstyle or personality wise, where everything just perfectly clicks, as they will sooner or later find flaws with whatever they're focusing on and see other candidates being stronger in those areas. As such, establishing favorites is more of a decision than it is an honest observation, forcing yourself on a certain path for other reasons such as wanting to build a stronger identity or because once upon a time you really liked this one thing and now you want to build up on the dedication you already put in. To maintain something like a favorite character over a long period of time just because of the character itself seems unrealistic to me because of how dynamic the world is; you're probably just willingly ignoring other options or you're really just basing your opinion on past efforts and events you created by yourself. Whatever is fine, but obsessing over things like that I think is just causing unnecessary trouble for yourself. I don't think it's all harmony for character loyalists.

I'm going with ZSS because I like her playstyle and feel enjoyment just from the mechanics of using her, but the design and character itself is good too. It's hard to dislike a silent bounty hunter type with so much (well made) canon to back it up as well. But in the end that's all, yet I'm completely content with the choice and see no reason to switch away, and I don't have to spend time thinking about all the things I'll lose if I switch away from her someday. What matters and what you should take seriously is the overall game itself.

 

[NairWizard]

I think you always need to compromise something to pick a really clear favorite and go with it. People are too complex to find one character, playstyle or personality wise, where everything just perfectly clicks, as they will sooner or later find flaws with whatever they're focusing on and see other candidates being stronger in those areas. As such, establishing favorites is more of a decision than it is an honest observation, forcing yourself on a certain path for other reasons such as wanting to build a stronger identity or because once upon a time you really liked this one thing and now you want to build up on the dedication you already put in. To maintain something like a favorite character over a long period of time just because of the character itself seems unrealistic to me because of how dynamic the world is; you're probably just willingly ignoring other options or you're really just basing your opinion on past efforts and events you created by yourself. Whatever is fine, but obsessing over things like that I think is just causing unnecessary trouble for yourself. I don't think it's all harmony for character loyalists.

The phrase "people are too complex" made me read this passage mistakenly, as though it were about real-life romantic relationships, but by God, does it fit.

 

[Megamang]

It should be somewhat reassuring to everyone that we see even top level players floundering on their character choice. Nairo thinking about a different character for shiek (god please don't be shiek) and Anti's general attitude on his Mario choice comes to mind, but i am sure there are many others. Then you have Zero, who says I want to be the best, so he picks the best. Practical, pragmatic, easy. Jealousy abounds...

 

[ARISTOS]

I don't know if this was linked before but I think it's an interesting look into why seems to be faltering as of late. I also think it's a bit salient in regards to , though I think Bayo has a very key advantage over Ryu (the ability to burst out of disadvantaged states, though only as long as you haven't used ABK).

 

[RonNewcomb]

Really its just needles ruin so much, dont even make sense (the decision to make them transcendent is on par with making MK's sword transcendent. Pure, terrible dumb game design) promote degenerate gameplay, and provide a really really easy way for players to, as you put it, Shiek someone. Bleh.

How does transcendent make it better than worse? Trans projectiles will make the zoners trade hits, rather than the first needle nullifying the other's projectile and the rest of the needles scoring clean hits? Especially with lightweight chars whom really can't trade often. Trans attacks make trade comboes possible: heavyweights want to trade with a lightweight's papercut because they recover faster than if they hit the lightweight clean. Heavyweight endlag > lightweight hitstun.

On another note, what's the general opinion on Bayonetta right now? Is there any counterplay to Bayonetta yet that holds for at least the viable characters in the cast?

I still maintain Toon Link beats Bayo. He has lots of projectiles, disjoint, small, floaty, distance grab, kill throw -- all the things she hates.

 

[Solfiner]

One of the most important parts of picking a character is definitely how well it clicks with you. Pretty much the only reason why ZeRo still has a Diddy (and because Diddy is still very good of course.)

 

[Megamang]

RonNewcomb

Transcendent needles are annoying in clutch situations. Basically, at high % situations, she can always punish you for landing, popping you into the air, giving her access to her insane pressure/punish game, or just doing it again. If you could throw out a hitbox and stop the single needle, it would be weaker. I guess full needles would be stronger, but again they could be stopped with a hitbox (which would stay out and cancel more needles, if it were strong enough).

I guess there are situations where trading is nice, but needles reach so far and are so versatile at being charged that I find shieks I play usually can force a situation where you don't get the trade, such as just walking up -> PP back and punish you for SH to try and stuff her fair.

 

[webbedspace]

One of the most important parts of picking a character is definitely how well it clicks with you. Pretty much the only reason why ZeRo still has a Diddy (and because Diddy is still very good of course.)

He's once said that he refuses to do Sheik dittos because "it's too volatile", which I assume means they come down to last-stock-last-hit more often than most matchups.

 

[thehard]

Wow, the thread got intense, but I really enjoy that kind of discussion. My 2 cents is that all but a few (relatively speaking) players play for fun at the end of the day, or to prove something to themselves/win on their OWN terms (for instance, I was just watching a SoCal weekly and K9 opted not to take a stock when Mr. ConCon paused because that's how he rolls.) The "pick a top tier" mantra is good advice but maybe not applicable to most people here and perhaps even in the wider Smash community. And I think it's mostly because we're all ~college-aged people who can't always invest tons of resources into our hobbies/don't want to lose focus on other lifey things and on an emotional level, want to keep fun things fun and non-stressful. Unfortunately we're not at the point where even supremely talented competitive Smashers can always make a living out of it, which also discourages complete dedication, but that IS changing, which is great!

Our top player chose to play EVO without using custom moves and by defeating Mr. R with Diddy Kong, suboptimal things (to him) that he was proud of anyway.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Character loyalty is a double edged sword.

You could be the stubborn guy who refuses to adapt or the guy who wins due to people not knowing what the character is capable of.

While top tiers are fundamentally better, we need character loyalists to push the metagame forward or else half the roster will simply go unexplored and any potential they have will simply disappear.

Ya need both honestly.

 

[Dre89]

Picking a lesser character then complaining about top-tier mains is like deciding not to edgeguard and complaining about people who do.

For some reason character choice is the only context in competitive play where handicapping yourself is admired rather than considered stupid. No one admires people who pick bad stages or decide not to edge-guard because of some honour principle or because they find it more fun.

But picking a lesser character is effectively doing the same thing, but for some reason it's admired and some of these people feel they have the right to criticise others who chose not to handicap themselves.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Picking a lesser character then complaining about top-tier mains is like deciding not to edgeguard and complaining about people who do.

For some reason character choice is the only context in competitive play where handicapping yourself is admired rather than considered stupid. No one admires people who pick bad stages or decide not to edge-guard because of some honour principle or because they find it more fun.

But picking a lesser character is effectively doing the same thing, but for some reason it's admired and some of these people feel they have the right to criticise others who chose not to handicap themselves.

Because picking a character isn't that simple.

Lesser characters can grow, and evolve into greater characters if explored.

Not edge guarding when you can is just ignoring basic parts of gameplay.

I get what your saying and agree that people should stop complaining, but picking a lesser character isn't an objectively bad thing. Could be your winning ticket.

 

[Shaya]

Well, the other part of the general spiel:
are you hoping for or pretending there's something that is not there?

Originally today, I was going to post about how Falco is probably one of the worst characters in the game despite everything you think is an alright. And that's because having a completely dysfunctional kit is not remedied by having a good move or two (like forward and down tilt). He has ground moves which can out button other characters but close to nothing else in terms of ability to force that dynamic while at the same time is barely rewarded for it.

To expect there's significantly more potential there coinciding with putting people down for giving up the dream early or moping about with "what a shame, with that attitude this character will never be proven to definitively suck be a lot better than current perceptions!" (not every bad character will experience nail-in-the-coffin anecdotes like Shulk did) does not belong in competitive discourse.

Not denying potential may exist or that optimization, new ideas, or an astounding high level player will never come along or that it ISN'T WORTH TRYING ANYWAY. But even when you have the likes of Reflex playing (and winning with) Pokemon Trainer in Brawl there was never a strong belief that the character(s) still weren't awful.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Being a character loyalist to Diddy Kong so far has worked out greatly.

I advice you all to play DKC2 and to become a Diddy main. Life feels much better afterwards.

EDIT: Seriously tho, play any character you like but pick a secondary who is a Top Tier. It's not all that hard to do. Just pick that specific character when you are losing to someone badly, and see how you do instead in the next set. Why keep frustrating yourself?

 

[Nobie]

Well, the other part of the general spiel:
are you hoping for or pretending there's something that is not there?

Originally today, I was going to post about how Falco is probably one of the worst characters in the game despite everything you think is an alright. And that's because having a completely dysfunctional kit is not remedied by having a good move or two (like forward and down tilt). He has ground moves which can out button other characters but close to nothing else in terms of ability to force that dynamic while at the same time is barely rewarded for it.

To expect there's significantly more potential there coinciding with putting people down for giving up the dream early or moping about with "what a shame, with that attitude this character will never be proven to definitively suck be a lot better than current perceptions!" (not every bad character will experience nail-in-the-coffin anecdotes like Shulk did) does not belong in competitive discourse.

Not denying potential may exist or that optimization, new ideas, or an astounding high level player will never come along or that it ISN'T WORTH TRYING ANYWAY. But even when you have the likes of Reflex playing (and winning with) Pokemon Trainer in Brawl there was never a strong belief that the character(s) still weren't awful.

When discussing Falco's neutral, I, and I'd like to believe most people discussing Falco, don't have very many illusions about the character. Is he as good as Fox? Certainly not, nowhere even close (though I still think Falco has a decent Fox matchup). Is his neutral so amazing that any other character would want to trade theirs for his? Most top tiers (and high tiers) would prefer to stay as they are.

However, I do believe that Falco has the tools, dysfunctional or otherwise, to win fairly reliably, and that good tilts are simply a part of this. Just because another character is clearly better in a number of ways doesn't mean that the character in question cannot do anything or that their moves are bad. I know that this is all in relative terms, but to bring it back to the RPS = Neutral analogy, I feel like any character that can properly play RPS, regardless of how many other characters can throw out super rocks or whatever, is someone who has a fighting chance. It's not about the hidden potential of the character so much as thinking that a character is never completely out of the running. I don't like the idea of the actual merits of other characters are downplayed and denigrated unnecessarily, even when there are superior choices.

Super bad matchups suck, and most people rightfully would prefer to avoid them or just not have to play them (bracket luck, all of the players of that character are inexperienced in your area, switching characters, etc.). Someone who's tired of getting demolished has all the incentive in the world to eke out every advantage they can. That's why we use our preferred controller with our preferred control scheme. That's why we counterpick stages.

That being said, I think at some point when we talk about the idea of "competition," to what extent is it "winning the tournament" or is it "proving you're the best?" I don't mean that in a scrub sort of way where one guy played "more honorably," but more referencing the fact that I've seen some people complain that their character has "too many even matchups."

It's one thing to have a bad matchup that incentivizes you to switch to another character, but when your character does fine against the rest of the cast but that's still not enough, you want the character who just stomps on everyone else, there's this kind of disconnect between the two sides of competition. I'm not saying that those who want to do everything in their power to have the best "stuff" are wrong for doing so. If you want to win it all and your character goes 60:40 at least with everyone else, then of course the odds fall in your favor by choosing that character. But just the idea that even matchups aren't good enough just gives me a rather confused feeling.

EDIT: As an aside, one of the notable indicators for me that Mewtwo's buffs have done wonders for the character is the fact that Diddy Kong went from being utterly disappointed with the character to now championing M2's viability.