Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
What about Robin?Pre-patch Kirby would be the worst character in the game. No throw combos or kill throw would remove a lot.
She would still have Levin Sword lolWhat about Robin?
The only low-tier who would of really befitted from no balances patch is King Dedede.SNIP
When you've been in fighting games long enough you'll be glad and pleasantly suprised to come out the other side of patch cycles with a game, and have the game still be even playable. A couple characters being unviable at the highest level means absolutely nothing to me.There is plenty of reason to deny it. I'd say the upper half of the characters in this game are in a good, balanced spot, but that doesn't mean things couldn't be further improved. There's absolutely no reason why characters like Ganondorf, Jigglypuff, Zelda, Roy, Bowser Jr, Kirby etc couldn't use more buffs. It wouldn't break the game in any way, we'd just have a larger list of characters to see competing in serious competitive play.
Also, it would be real sweet if 1111 base size Miis would get a ton of buffs too. I'd really like those characters to... Exist competitively speaking.
Without another balance patch, you can basically shave the bottom 12 or so characters from this games roster and lose nothing. As it is, they pretty much don't exist competitively speaking and most likely never will. That's far from the best that can be done. Patches imo are what make this the best Smash Bros game, without them I'm sure by now the meta would be mostly prepatch Shiek and Hoo-Ha. Marth would be garbage, Mewtwo would still be garbage, and a lot of low tier characters that we're actually substantially buffed like Kirby and Charizard would be even lower in the **** can than they already are.
Nah, Pacman too.The only low-tier who would of really befitted from no balances patch is King Dedede.
He would still have more air-speed, better Gordos against Megaman and a Hoo Hah kill confirm.
It's a bit of a tradeoff, his current NAir essentially creates a wall of death for edgeguarding or stopping foolhardy approaches. His edgeguarding is already very strong, though, so the old one would probably be more useful. Also worth noting is that they altered NAir's FAF so you can act out of full hop NAir before landing.I also wanna say Ganon's old nair was better. The one that wasn't basically a complete replica of Falcon's. The one where it was actually safe to just land the first hit. There's other low tiers who have had 1 or 2 things nerfed about them but unless your name is King Dedede or Jigglypuff, patches have been rather kind to low tiers...if anything, dlc nerfed their potential usefulness.
Not the best at using the calculator but from punching in the numbers into this: http://rubendal.github.io/Sm4sh-Calculator/index.html I was able to get this resultIt's a bit of a tradeoff, his current NAir essentially creates a wall of death for edgeguarding or stopping foolhardy approaches. His edgeguarding is already very strong, though, so the old one would probably be more useful. Also worth noting is that they altered NAir's FAF so you can act out of full hop NAir before landing.
What are the numbers for just landing the first hit of NAir pre- and post-patch, out of curiosity?
Brawl Dark Dive was probably worse; at around 40% quite a few chars could hit him directly out of it (Falco got a free spike).Not the best at using the calculator but from punching in the numbers into this: http://rubendal.github.io/Sm4sh-Calculator/index.html I was able to get this result
http://rubendal.github.io/Sm4sh-Cal...allSpeed=1.5&traction=0.045&useLandingLag=yes
I don't see anywhere where it allows input for the move to be an aerial and therefore a place to put the amount of landing lag a move would have. Just has a spot for what frame you'd land on. I put frame 8 since the hitbox comes out frame 7 I believe.
Current nair is -2 or -4 on shield drop (it got a new hitbox added when it was changed to be like Falcon's) and is -9 or -11 on OoS options. Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GaDXAPQJlz0AiIYSSOWFwy_dg04Rrq4a-YF9-VDOhZI/htmlview# From the calculations I did, the old nair ended up with a shield advantage of +9 without accounting for the landing lag which was 18 frames (it's 17 now). That makes it seem like it'd be the same as it is now (+9 - 18 = -9) and for all I know, maybe it is.
Course, that's all assuming a hit on shield when my main gripe with the move now is that it's unsafe on HIT and I'm not sure how to find out the numbers for that. Course, it's not the only move Ganon has that has that issue. RIP Melee Dark Dive (or even Dark Fists custom) and Wizard Foot.
Brawl Dark Dive was pitiful. It's bad enough that Falcon/Dark Dive are punishable on hit in every game since Melee if you tech the stage, Brawl Dark Dive was punishable at any percent since the final hit was so pathetically weak. May be a slight exaggeration but it was absolutely awful. Moves being weak on hit is fine, but when the point of the entire character is that everything is meant to be slow and powerful, having slow and weak moves thrown in there seems off and creates major issues for him. Nair is faster than fair, being his fastest front facing aerial but it's unsafe on hit when landing only the first hit. Wizard Foot has the most horizontal reach of any of his moves but it's punishable on hit until higher percents. I can understand that for the later portion of the move but the entire thing suffers from the issue early on. His recovery move only has a hitbox at the end, otherwise, he's relying on that grabbox and the ending hit to keep enemies away and it fails to do that well, stage tech or not.Brawl Dark Dive was probably worse; at around 40% quite a few chars could hit him directly out of it (Falco got a free spike).
To be fair with it being unsafe on hit, a lot of moves are at low percents, though Ganon's NAir is the only one off the top of my head that has that particular weakness for multi-hit aerials. Assuming the numbers are right for shield disadvantage, I'd guess it's around a 10-frame disadvantage depending on character weight, fall speed, and Ganon's rage.
I'd argue that Bowser ad DK were at the very least functional; especially the latter. They were just lacking overall.are the characters that got the most from patches. All of them were not functional at all.
I mean, Samus was missing hitboxes here and there and her kit was not cohesive whatsoever. They buffed Mewtwo in basically everything and gave Marcina some more power and remove lag here and there. DK and Bowser received the best kill confirms in the game while Charizard became a character.
PAC-MAN has been nerfed significantly since launch.What's even funnier is that in some parts of the early metagame, was considered a strong character, that even edged on/was in high tier in some lists. However, even though he kept getting little buffs, he slowly started to drop. That's funny to look at.
Personally, especially with smash, i feel that it's important that a game has "bad" or "joke" characters. You need to stop and consider that there are many different goals and playstyles people have; some people want to feel the thrill and satisfaction of winning with a "bad" character. It's not a bad thing at all for such characters to exist. I mean blah blah blah im gonna cite street fighter again lol. A bit ago there was a big tournament in Japan for third strike that was won by an Alex player. It was a really big deal because Alex is not a very good character at all. Why was it a big deal? Because it's a good story! Everyone loves to see an underdog win. There's a reason why stories like Rocky, etc are so popular. Beating the odds is exciting.I'd argue that Bowser ad DK were at the very least functional; especially the latter. They were just lacking overall.
---
To me, the reason they buffed Marth is mostly because he's a fan favourite in terms of competitive play; kinda like Fox. Marth has never been bad, and fans love him, so they likely wanted to address that after realising they didn't just tone him down, but realising they absolutely f***ing gutted him.
I'd also argue that if Brawl ever had patches, the character that would have gotten the Marth treatment in that game would have been Falcon. Admittedly, Falcon suffered mainly because of Brawl's mechanics, but he is also another fan favourite. Not surprising how much he was buffed in the transition from Brawl to Smash 4 at all.
There are a few characters that have usually always just been solid/strong characters in their all appearances; come to mind as the most notable ones, though also comes close too, and to a lesser extent (mainly because of Brawl) . Then we have more recent characters like and who have also stayed as strong characters, and again, kind of . Kind of shows you how well a character is designed if they can be consistently good.
Then we have the flipside, where characters like and who have been consistently bad in pretty much all appearances; heck, wasn't that bad in 64 and was great in Melee, so even she's had a better time than these two. To be fair, Ganon isn't totally bad in comparison to the rest of the cast in Melee, but he's pretty much unviable in most cases. These speak to me as characters that NEED a design overhauls, or are poorly designed overall. It's pretty sad really.
But that same underdog story can exist with an evenly balanced roster. Fighting games are player vs player - you don't need a character-based handicap for that story.Personally, especially with smash, i feel that it's important that a game has "bad" or "joke" characters. You need to stop and consider that there are many different goals and playstyles people have; some people want to feel the thrill and satisfaction of winning with a "bad" character. It's not a bad thing at all for such characters to exist. I mean blah blah blah im gonna cite street fighter again lol. A bit ago there was a big tournament in Japan for third strike that was won by an Alex player. It was a really big deal because Alex is not a very good character at all. Why was it a big deal? Because it's a good story! Everyone loves to see an underdog win. There's a reason why stories like Rocky, etc are so popular. Beating the odds is exciting.
Again, you're ignoring the demographic that likes the concept of joke characters. And it's not about everyone "being willing to be that low tier hero". The whole point is that it's NOT everyone. Also I think that if you think the nost important point of balancing is that all characters are viable VS. an overcentralized meta (e. g. The only strategy that beats the best thing in the game is to use the same strategy) then you are more than slightly deluded. If a game isnt overcentralized + is fun to play and watch, the game is a successful one. I think smash 4 has more than proven its merit in this wayBut that same underdog story can exist with an evenly balanced roster. Fighting games are player vs player - you don't need a character-based handicap for that story.
Tbh, I think joke characters in games like Smash *aren't* helpful. People are often attached to characters before they ever know how strong they are. Not everyone is willing to be that low tier hero, either. And if they are, they typically need another character before they're "allowed" to be competitive.
The people below me basically have it down. Even not taking the character themselves into the equation, it sucks when a character that fits your playstyle most is bad.Again, you're ignoring the demographic that likes the concept of joke characters. And it's not about everyone "being willing to be that low tier hero". The whole point is that it's NOT everyone. Also I think that if you think the nost important point of balancing is that all characters are viable VS. an overcentralized meta (e. g. The only strategy that beats the best thing in the game is to use the same strategy) then you are more than slightly deluded. If a game isnt overcentralized + is fun to play and watch, the game is a successful one. I think smash 4 has more than proven its merit in this way
I mean those games still have their potemkins, their lucky chloes... And im not saying that ganon/puff specifically *are* joke characters (well puff totally is), and theres even some real merit in ganon as a cp character. And thats kind of its own topic. Amazing Tekken players have lost to mid level lucky chloes because of unfamiliarity in matchup.The people below me basically have it down. Even not taking the character themselves into the equation, it sucks when a character that fits your playstyle most is bad.
And I think Smash 4's balance is good. But having a very balanced roster is amazing, and many fighting games do have that these days (Guilty Gear, Tekken, etc.).
On top of that, the demographic of people who like joke characters probably won't ignore a game like Smash just because their character of choice is, say, mid tier. Typically you can still find reward from extra effort without your character being complete trash.
That's usually why some of the best low tier mains don't believe their character *is* a joke character.
Tekken's not really a good comparison. Lucky Chloe may be one of the worse if not the worst in the game but she's not comparable to characters like Ganon or Puff in Smash 4. Lucky Chloe is much closer to the rest of the Tekken roster in terms of power level. Ganon and Puff have a lot of lopsided MU's that aren't in their favor and are nowhere near the power level of the top and high tiers in Smash 4.I mean those games still have their potemkins, their lucky chloes... And im not saying that ganon/puff specifically *are* joke characters (well puff totally is), and theres even some real merit in ganon as a cp character. And thats kind of its own topic. Amazing Tekken players have lost to mid level lucky chloes because of unfamiliarity in matchup.
Consider also how slippery of a balancing slope so many characters have in this and other games. a slight angle change on mks uair meant the difference between a top 5 character and a top 20 one. Puff is widely hated in melee for his slow + abusive nature of the exploiting the game's mechanics. One small oversight with frame data gave blazblues kokonoe an infinite block string into an unblockable super. i take myself back to my initial point. If the game doesnt have an overcentralizing tactic, the game is most likely a successful one.
And just as an aside, gotta manage your expectations a bit. there's over 50 characters in this game, one of them has to be the 50th
It's still *a* comparison and i dont believe it is one without meritTekken's not really a good comparison. Lucky Chloe may be one of the worse if not the worst in the game but she's not comparable to characters like Ganon or Puff in Smash 4. Lucky Chloe is much closer to the rest of the Tekken roster in terms of power level. Ganon and Puff have a lot of lopsided MU's that aren't in their favor and are nowhere near the power level of the top and high tiers in Smash 4.
Mobility alone gives every character in Tekken a fighting chance as it's almost universal. You have a few special cases like characters with wavedashes or Alisa with her ridiculous back dash but if you as a player have decent movement then a large majority of the MU's are manageable no matter who you play.
What's wrong with his fast fall?I think zard could use another balance patch to give him an actual FF
No there is not lmaotheres even some real merit in ganon as a cp character
As a game?I would like to pose this question however. People arguing that ganon/puff/etc are overly bad, do you think that the game is a worse game because of their existence? That the game's balance is significantly adversely affected by their existence? That if they weren't in the game the game would be better?
We've been on this patch for more than a year and there is no universally recognized 1st. I don't see the need for a definitive last.And just as an aside, gotta manage your expectations a bit. there's over 50 characters in this game, one of them has to be the 50th
This is more obvious than relevant.I want to add that there's a difference between trash tier and simply being worse than other characters. Yes, there are characters that aren't great in both Tekken and Guilty Gear. But people are rewarded for their time sunk all the same. From what I've seen others say about Potemkin, actually, he's harder to play as you just start out... But he can be rewarding later on.
That's something you can't really say to a Puff main with a straight face.
Also, relevant af:
There was a problem fetching the tweet
I care very little about the patch discussion. I was talking about the idea of joke characters mostly; patches got thrown in.This is more obvious than relevant.
Of course people want to win with their favorite characters...having to pass up on a character you like in order to win with a tournament viable character can be disappointing for many. For example, ZeRo has even stated that if Shulk were top tier he'd main him. And it should be obvious to everyone how much he loves Xenoblade.
That said, dwelling on patches or strongly wishing for a patch to save your character is pointless.
EDIT:
Thinkaman put it best