Balance patches are spoiling us

[LabrysXII]

I'm kinda neutral to all of this. Patches help, especially if we see huge problems in terms of overall balance. We'll also get glitches patched out among other things, plus some characters will get needed buffs. But if a game gets patched constantly, the meta will not develop as much, plus some characters will get unnecessary nerfs. Especially since people are more aware of how to handle the "Overpowered Character of the Week".

But if a game doesn't get patched, we'll see the meta develop. But we may see a gap between certain characters as the meta develops. In some cases, it'll be bad to the point where the gap between the characters is so high, why even bother trying to "git gud" with a lower tier when a top tier does everything that character does, but better? Smash 4 isn't as bad in that regard, but I'm just saying.

Personally, I'd opt for patches every once in a while. Some kinda balance between the two. Both extremes are risky in my eyes.

 

[PUK]

How do you know what is low tier when NOBODY, not a single person, has even come close to mastering any character?

Just say it. You want the game to be easier. Nothing wrong with that. It's an opinion.

I, however, am willing to invest time, practice and theory craft to get good rather than beg for my character to get buffed when neither I, nor anyone else, knows if any character actually needs a buff or if people just suck at the game.

Stop this lie. Some character, beyond their learning curve, have too much issues to be tournament viable. Zelda, Samus, bowser, DK, Palutena and a lot of other are crap compared to sheik, rosa, or ZSS. There is a lot of player, who play the game hours a day, and they reach this conclusion 6 month after release because beyond a stratospherical learning curve, bad frame data, no kill option, bad recovery, lack/no option in some situations are things that will cripple for ever a character.
I can master Zelda, and make her look amazing, but i will need a secondary for half the MU i will encounter in tournament where i live. It means i need to master 2 character to allow one to have results.

 

[Mr. Potatobadger]

No, what it seems like you (and a large portion of the community) want is for the more difficult characters or those characters that are less forgiving of mistakes be easier to learn and allow for sloppier play.

Dude. We just want the game to be fair.

Not a single character in the game can be considered "not viable" in tournament play because we have no way of knowing the full potential of any given character after only 8 months.

Look at Melee's earlier tier lists.

http://www.ssbwiki.com/List_of_SSBM_tier_lists_(NTSC)

Almost all of the top tier characters were up there since the very beginning. All characters that became top tier later on were pretty much never below half. That should say something. And this is back when we as a community didn't know nearly as much as we do now. Now that we know significantly more about Smash, It makes significantly easier to decide who is viable and who isn't.

This mindset has to change or the meta will never have the chance to fully develop.

You're right. The meta will never fully develop. Probably ever. Melee has been out for almost 15 years, and it's still changing.

All I see are people either complaining about "top tier" characters, complaining about characters being "low tier", or adopting the characters they see at tournaments because they don't want to put in the effort to, simply put, GIT GUD.

Look dude, I know where you're coming from, but this isn't true at all. There's tons of people trying to evolve the meta of characters that are considered "lower tier". For example, there are really good players out there that are trying their damnedest to make Marth viable again. Chances are you've heard of Mrb. E. That guy has made some top players go to work, because of how well he plays Marth. He did a stellar job againts M2K at Apex, and even beat him in an online tourney.

I'm going to Evo this year. (Couldn't go to CEO for reasons, even though I live really close to where it was held.) It's my very first (inter)national level tournament. Guess who I'm playing? Marth. I'm playing Marth, dude. Marth is pretty much ass in this game, and everyone agrees. There's no way in the world that I would win Evo, let alone with Marth. However, I've put a ton of work into playing Marth, and I don't care who you are, you will have to work to beat me when I play Marth. It won't be a cakewalk, but it certainly won't be easy. Chances are you will beat me, but I'm not gonna go down easily because I'm playing Marth.

There are so few players who are actually trying new things and trying to develop the meta that the competitive scene may just die off before we even get to see its potential realized.

As I said before, there are lots of people trying new things, and trying to develop the meta. None of us are really getting anywhere, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to your next post:

How do you know what is low tier when NOBODY, not a single person, has even come close to mastering any character?

People may not have "mastered" any character, but people have gotten really good with them. Like, really good. Melee has been around for a long time, but has anyone truly "mastered" a character? The game is still changing. What constitutes a someone having "mastered" a character?

Just say it. You want the game to be easier. Nothing wrong with that. It's an opinion.

Easier, huh?... I don't think easy is the right word... Buffing a character does not make the entire game easier. Buffing a character makes them more viable for winning tournaments. We use the word "viable", and not "easy" because certain a character might be "easy" to one person, but "hard' to another, simply because those 2 people have different play styles. Why would you state that someone wants the game to be easier.

I, however, am willing to invest time, practice and theory craft to get good rather than beg for my character to get buffed when neither I, nor anyone else, knows if any character actually needs a buff or if people just suck at the game.

When I read that, I read it in a stereotypical, cocky British accent. I've played as Marth and Lucina for well over 1000 hours combined on my Wii U. That means I've played them for literally a month and a half. That means if I were to sit down and play as either Marth or Lucina for a month and a half straight with no breaks whatsoever, that's how long I've played them. If that doesn't show an investment of time, practice, and dedication to "getting good", then I don't know what does. It's not hard to tell what characters need a few bufffs.

 

[Tenretsujin10]

I'd rather see weaker characters get buffed than stronger characters getting nerfed. But I don't want this game to be riddled with constant balance patches that will create an everchanging meta game.

 

[Rikkhan]

This what I hate of the smash community, it's full of pipe dreams, like 90% of this community make bold statements like "samus is really good it's just underplayed" when a LOT of people are really trying to make low tiers viable or completely misinterpret things like tier list which only try to display the state of the CURRENT meta, it's not a thing set in stone and is prone to changes from patches or tournament data.

Other thing, I believe people are overestimating the value of competitive scene, Nintendo problably just take a quick look to see what is strong and what is weak and make some tweaks it's not that they really care about competitive. Probably Nintendo patch mindset goes like this: glicthes/techs > casual play >> competitive play, it will make sense because characters like samus, bowser, ganon, etc. in casual play are really good.

Patches are spoiling us? How? As others have said we don't have control over them, Brawl didn't have any patches and that game was barely competitive because it was full of crap, a few patches could have solved this and save that game from a lot criticism, heck even smash4 still carry the brawl stigma.

 

[Raijinken]

As a PC gamer for years, I must say, balance patches are excellent, and complaining that they "change the meta" too much is nothing but a loosely-disguised john.

I dunno about everyone else. I don't want the game to be "easier" from a play stance. Nor do I want it to be harder. I'm more or less completely satisfied with the game from a play and mechanical stance.

I just want tiers to actually vanish by virtue of total balance. Idealistic and impossible, but if we can get closer with each patch, I'll sacrifice any amount of character time investment for that. Of course, it also helps that I don't really "main," so my time investment is across the board and I'm not offended when my Hoohah gets nerfed, nor do I direct all of my anger at Sakurai when another patch goes by without Marth becoming useful again.

Besides, the meta changes way too slowly if balance patches don't force it along. How many Diddys do you think we'd be seeing now if Hoohah hadn't been nerfed? Even if secretly Mii Swordfighter or Zelda is the best character in the game, in a static game state it would most likely be decades before someone would bother investing that much time into a "trash" character in order to risk a major tournament on proving a point.

A downside to competition in a static game state is that people flock to the safest ways to win. And when that safest way is static, the rest of the game is slow to change. And that's boring.

 

[Mr. Potatobadger]

As a PC gamer for years, I must say, balance patches are excellent, and complaining that they "change the meta" too much is nothing but a loosely-disguised john.

I dunno about everyone else. I don't want the game to be "easier" from a play stance. Nor do I want it to be harder. I'm more or less completely satisfied with the game from a play and mechanical stance.

I just want tiers to actually vanish by virtue of total balance. Idealistic and impossible, but if we can get closer with each patch, I'll sacrifice any amount of character time investment for that. Of course, it also helps that I don't really "main," so my time investment is across the board and I'm not offended when my Hoohah gets nerfed, nor do I direct all of my anger at Sakurai when another patch goes by without Marth becoming useful again.

Besides, the meta changes way too slowly if balance patches don't force it along. How many Diddys do you think we'd be seeing now if Hoohah hadn't been nerfed? Even if secretly Mii Swordfighter or Zelda is the best character in the game, in a static game state it would most likely be decades before someone would bother investing that much time into a "trash" character in order to risk a major tournament on proving a point.

A downside to competition in a static game state is that people flock to the safest ways to win. And when that safest way is static, the rest of the game is slow to change. And that's boring.

Very, very well said.

 

[Kaladin]

@ A AaronSMASH Listen, buddy. Do you honestly believe that if someone mastered, say, Ganon, they could beat someone who mastered Sheik? The reason frame data is prevailent at touranments is not because it's more forgiving of mistakes. It lets you do things. Frame data+mobility= stuff that's safe on shield, easy frame traps, kill confirms from grabs, etc whereas someone like ganon has to rely on tech chases, punishes (the other guy screwing up) and reads to do well. Your entire argument is silly.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Not a single character in the game can be considered "not viable" in tournament play

Wrong. There are tons of characters that will never be viable at a top level unless the player has insane amounts of skill. For example, I play Robin. Robin's matchup against Sheik is like 10-90. Robin will never be viable as a solo main because he/she cannot beat Sheik at a high level. Robin players must have secondaries to cover this flaw. The same applies to other characters that get trounced by Sheik, like Ganondorf.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

 

[Raijinken]

Wrong. There are tons of characters that will never be viable at a top level unless the player has insane amounts of skill. For example, I play Robin. Robin's matchup against Sheik is like 10-90. Robin will never be viable as a solo main because he/she cannot beat Sheik at a high level. Robin players must have secondaries to cover this flaw. The same applies to other characters that get trounced by Sheik, like Ganondorf.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

This is so true I could cry.

While personally I'm all for secondaries, it's a bit of an unfortunate trend in essentially all competitive games (especially ones that don't undergo balance changes over time) that instead of having one's dedicated main and then a pocket counter/less-terrible matchup, players will simply invest the time in the safer character. Why would someone like Zero, who competes at a high level on a frequent basis and (at least as far as I know) basically uses that to make a substantial part of his living, spend hours and hours mastering anyone not likely to bring him victory, except maybe as a hobby? Make the character you like into your secondary, make the character that's good your main.

It's like trying to be an abstract artist for a living and doing engineering as a side job. Unless you're a savant abstract artist with the connections and skill to carry you along, you really can't afford to make anything more than a hobby out of it.

 

[Snackss]

We've had the game long enough to have a good idea what's going on. It's obvious that Sheik is on top while Zelda And Samus are, you know, definitely not. We have the frame data, we have plenty of results and matches people have gone through. There is no secret, barring some insane hidden tech, that will make those characters not bad. The idea that the meta will "develop" and that will somehow make everything better is and always will be absurd. Some characters will move up, but the game as a whole will still be unbalanced if there aren't any patches.

I don't understand the aversion to patches. When a game's meta "develops," do you really see it becoming more varied? Or do you just get Chun-li vs. Ken, or of course, Fox vs. Fox. Just because you know a character has weaknesses doesn't mean they'll go down in tiers or are suddenly weaker, it just means they aren't necessarily broken.

 

[RayNoire]

Hell, I've been incredibly unlucky with the patches so far. I mained Link when Jabgate happened, and in the last patch Mewtwo got a very valuable kill confirm heavily nerfed for no reason.

But I still want as many more stabs at balancing as the dev team is willing to give. It's pretty much exactly what I wanted when I played Brawl.

I understand Aaron's viewpoint in a vacuum, but as I said, you've got to play the low tiers, and play them against good people playing good characters. You'll quickly realize the bizarre weaknesses and design choices they often have don't come with the compensation you'd expect. They aren't just more "deep." If anything, their limited options make them more shallow.

The game still has a chasm of a divide between the haves and the have-nots. Now they can fix that. Let's support their attempts at doing so, even if mistakes are made.

 

[Storm Erion]

I just play Link because he's fun. I still play to win just as much as someone who might main Sheik, but I just do it with Link. Sure he isn't the best character, but he's fun to me, and I'd rather win with a character I enjoy than win with a character I don't really like the playstyle of.

I'll take balance patches as they come, but I'd play Link regardless of what happens to him.

I still stand by the notion that lower tiered characters should be buffed, though. I think it'd be nice if you'd see a lot more of the characters that go unplayed in tournaments, you know? It'd make things more fresh instead of seeing mostly the same characters (though Smash 4 is already better than the other games in the series at doing that).

It's not realistic, but I really think it'd be nice.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Note that insisting that characters X, Y, and Z are too bad to compete isn't really necessary to justify balance patches. When I see an obvious high tier like Palutena or decent characters like DK and Ganon thrown alongside guys like Samus and Zelda, I don't think it quite makes the point as well as it could be made.

 

[Divemissile]

If you hate balance patches, you'd absolutely despise project m. Holy crap, they buff/nerf characters based on feedback? Just let the meta develop guys. /sarcasm

 

[Mizzy Moe]

How do you know what is low tier when NOBODY, not a single person, has even come close to mastering any character?

Just say it. You want the game to be easier. Nothing wrong with that. It's an opinion.

I, however, am willing to invest time, practice and theory craft to get good rather than beg for my character to get buffed when neither I, nor anyone else, knows if any character actually needs a buff or if people just suck at the game.

why you talkin like your the smash god mr elitist?

 

[Roukiske]

First issue I have with balance patches is Nintendo's asinine way of changing things without telling us what. Second issue is that they happen too often. "Let the meta develop" like everyone says. Third, I don't really like how they are approaching the nerfs and buffs. They seem random. Some were good, some were unwarranted. It's almost like a gamble.

It would be nice and definitely a labor of love if they went and discussed some of their changes with the devs. Many, if not most games do that and it is really nice. Perhaps some nerfs we thought were dumb could make more sense if we got how the devs were going about it.

We just don't have information. I mean, would it kill to have a small write up of the ideas (not exact numbers, but those would be nice too) on the thought process of some changes? God forbid someone has to do 30 minutes of typing at Nintendo.

 

[outfoxd]

I do enjoy how it makes sticking with a weaker character less of a sinking ship dynamic. One of the reasons I've been sticking with DHD, waiting for a buff though it's unlikely with his relatively low popularity.

 

[NotAnAdmin]

I can say we Falco's have done nothing but study any and every option he can possibly use, what situations to use them and, how they work
Myself I know I've spent more than 300+ hours studying my mid tier bird. Ffamran, zCyRo, Zionaze, and BltzZ have I been in the Falco Boards pretty much since day one.
Between use we've probably had more hours thrown into Smash 4 than we could count.

The Smash community has had plenty of experience through studying the past games to know what to look for, and why a character is low/high tier.

 

[moofpi]

How do you know what is low tier when NOBODY, not a single person, has even come close to mastering any character?

Just say it. You want the game to be easier. Nothing wrong with that. It's an opinion.

I, however, am willing to invest time, practice and theory craft to get good rather than beg for my character to get buffed when neither I, nor anyone else, knows if any character actually needs a buff or if people just suck at the game.

This guy gets it. I like your attitude man. Melee's tier lists have been pretty set in stone for years now and now us Smash 4 babbys just want to spring into existence and realize our entire meta game within a year's time, which is ridiculous.

We can look at Brawl history for a better comparison of how our tiers may go. They were apprehensive about releasing a tier list too soon after release, but they did. They came out with a second one 4 months later. Then the next 5 months after that and so on, from 2008 to 2013. Their tier lists changed around a lot except for Meta Knight at the top and Ganondorf at the bottom (LOL at Ganon in his own G tier).

Each tier list has a small summary of why the changes were made as the years went on and upsets were made by dedicated mains placing high and how some high tiers were dethroned by new play styles of characters such as Diddy. It was actually a really neat read, I kind of wish there was a Brawl Documentary so I could know more about how their competitive scene went.

http://www.ssbwiki.com/List_of_SSBB_tier_lists_(NTSC)


tl;dr: We can look at history and see how temporary and fluid tiers really are for the most part. Rome wasn't built in a day. Especially when our game has the most characters of any game yet, a unique engine, and custom moves to make everything even more unknown. Balance patches or no, people will find ways to win with their character and they will have become a better player for it.

 

[Pyr]

No. That guy doesn't get it. At all. He's insanely arrogant and ideological in his views of character strengths and how he thinks other players think, along with why. You should not like his attitude. It is an extremely scrubby way to think.

 

[moofpi]

No. That guy doesn't get it. At all. He's insanely arrogant and ideological in his views of character strengths and how he thinks other players think, along with why. You should not like his attitude. It is an extremely scrubby way to think.

Top tiers are all well and good, but the conversations I have with people about anything under Captain Falcon on the tier list is like talking to a stone wall. "But ___ is garbage. Just pick a better character." is the gist of it. Nobody is willing to make better characters and it feels really lazy. Few people are willing to really learn their character's tech and match ups and have a very black and white view on this 8 month old game with over 50 characters that most people know nothing about. Sheik is nice and a deep character, but a lot of people look at her and kind of give up.

But hey, when Sheik wins Evo we'll get our nerf won't we.

 

[AaronSMASH]

Dude. We just want the game to be fair.




Look at Melee's earlier tier lists.

http://www.ssbwiki.com/List_of_SSBM_tier_lists_(NTSC)

Almost all of the top tier characters were up there since the very beginning. All characters that became top tier later on were pretty much never below half. That should say something. And this is back when we as a community didn't know nearly as much as we do now. Now that we know significantly more about Smash, It makes significantly easier to decide who is viable and who isn't.



You're right. The meta will never fully develop. Probably ever. Melee has been out for almost 15 years, and it's still changing.



Look dude, I know where you're coming from, but this isn't true at all. There's tons of people trying to evolve the meta of characters that are considered "lower tier". For example, there are really good players out there that are trying their damnedest to make Marth viable again. Chances are you've heard of Mrb. E. That guy has made some top players go to work, because of how well he plays Marth. He did a stellar job againts M2K at Apex, and even beat him in an online tourney.

I'm going to Evo this year. (Couldn't go to CEO for reasons, even though I live really close to where it was held.) It's my very first (inter)national level tournament. Guess who I'm playing? Marth. I'm playing Marth, dude. Marth is pretty much *** in this game, and everyone agrees. There's no way in the world that I would win Evo, let alone with Marth. However, I've put a ton of work into playing Marth, and I don't care who you are, you will have to work to beat me when I play Marth. It won't be a cakewalk, but it certainly won't be easy. Chances are you will beat me, but I'm not gonna go down easily because I'm playing Marth.



As I said before, there are lots of people trying new things, and trying to develop the meta. None of us are really getting anywhere, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to your next post:




People may not have "mastered" any character, but people have gotten really good with them. Like, really good. Melee has been around for a long time, but has anyone truly "mastered" a character? The game is still changing. What constitutes a someone having "mastered" a character?



Easier, huh?... I don't think easy is the right word... Buffing a character does not make the entire game easier. Buffing a character makes them more viable for winning tournaments. We use the word "viable", and not "easy" because certain a character might be "easy" to one person, but "hard' to another, simply because those 2 people have different play styles. Why would you state that someone wants the game to be easier.



When I read that, I read it in a stereotypical, cocky British accent. I've played as Marth and Lucina for well over 1000 hours combined on my Wii U. That means I've played them for literally a month and a half. That means if I were to sit down and play as either Marth or Lucina for a month and a half straight with no breaks whatsoever, that's how long I've played them. If that doesn't show an investment of time, practice, and dedication to "getting good", then I don't know what does. It's not hard to tell what characters need a few bufffs.

Better frame data = more forgiving = easier

It's ok man. Just admit you want the game to be easy and all characters should have.nearly zero end lag on all of their moves aside from the strongest.

I would rather have a fun challenging game that forces you to work to be good and win anything.

Just preference.

As a PC gamer for years, I must say, balance patches are excellent, and complaining that they "change the meta" too much is nothing but a loosely-disguised john.

I dunno about everyone else. I don't want the game to be "easier" from a play stance. Nor do I want it to be harder. I'm more or less completely satisfied with the game from a play and mechanical stance.

I just want tiers to actually vanish by virtue of total balance. Idealistic and impossible, but if we can get closer with each patch, I'll sacrifice any amount of character time investment for that. Of course, it also helps that I don't really "main," so my time investment is across the board and I'm not offended when my Hoohah gets nerfed, nor do I direct all of my anger at Sakurai when another patch goes by without Marth becoming useful again.

Besides, the meta changes way too slowly if balance patches don't force it along. How many Diddys do you think we'd be seeing now if Hoohah hadn't been nerfed? Even if secretly Mii Swordfighter or Zelda is the best character in the game, in a static game state it would most likely be decades before someone would bother investing that much time into a "trash" character in order to risk a major tournament on proving a point.

A downside to competition in a static game state is that people flock to the safest ways to win. And when that safest way is static, the rest of the game is slow to change. And that's boring.

That's a very good point. I would rather have an ever evolving game and no tier lists by virtue of the community sacking up and practicing instead of crying about low tiers. I already proved that Samus is completely viable and I promise you Marth is the same way it just takes time and hard work.

But if its absolutely necessary to make small changes to characters to get people to shut up and start practicing, then so be it.

I still think people are absurdly stupid to assume any given character isn't 'tournament viable' after the game had only been out for 8 months.

Wrong. There are tons of characters that will never be viable at a top level unless the player has insane amounts of skill. For example, I play Robin. Robin's matchup against Sheik is like 10-90. Robin will never be viable as a solo main because he/she cannot beat Sheik at a high level. Robin players must have secondaries to cover this flaw. The same applies to other characters that get trounced by Sheik, like Ganondorf.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Wrong. Incredibly, naively, absurdly wrong.

Sorry if you simply aren't good enough or dont have the time to practice a character but Robin can beat Sheik any time if you are actually good. So can DK. So can anyone in the cast.

People just aren't willing to put In the work. How long do you people think it took for the melee 'gods' to reach the level of mastery/parity that they have at the top levels of play? Not one year. Not two. Not even three.

Try harder instead of demanding that the game cater to YOU.

No. That guy doesn't get it. At all. He's insanely arrogant and ideological in his views of character strengths and how he thinks other players think, along with why. You should not like his attitude. It is an extremely scrubby way to think.

Oh, it's scrubby to think we don't need to make judgements based on our own biased and limited use of each character over the short life of this brand new game?

Interesting.

See, I think it's pretty scrubby and arrogant to claim that you have explored every option and mastered a character in 8 months and tested that character against every other character at the highest level.

But you know, to each their own.

 

[Kaladin]

Better frame data = more forgiving = easier

It's ok man. Just admit you want the game to be easy and all characters should have.nearly zero end lag on all of their moves aside from the strongest.

I would rather have a fun challenging game that forces you to work to be good and win anything.

Just preference.

First of all, cut the passively-condecending bull****. It's annoying, immature, and, frankly, no one wants to hear it.

Since we're talking meta/high level play, we will assume both players know how to capitalize. You claim that better frame data = more forgiving = easier. This comes from an obvious lack of understanding of the game/neutral. Frame data allows for superior frame traps and safe pokes in the neutral. There is no more forgiving or less forgiving, in high level play there is safe and unsafe. Unsafe will be punished. Safe will not. Frame data allows your character to play the game properly and effectively while avoiding punishes from the other guy. (Shiek fair to fastfall jab on shield) It makes the character strictly better, because it can actually do things, as opposed to characters with bad frame data that lack the tools/frame data to do what is necessary to win against a character with better frame data/better mobility.

It's not an issue of putting less effort in. It's being able to compete with superior frame data.

 

[Pyr]

Top tiers are all well and good, but the conversations I have with people about anything under Captain Falcon on the tier list is like talking to a stone wall. "But ___ is garbage. Just pick a better character." is the gist of it. Nobody is willing to make better characters and it feels really lazy. Few people are willing to really learn their character's tech and match ups and have a very black and white view on this 8 month old game with over 50 characters that most people know nothing about. Sheik is nice and a deep character, but a lot of people look at her and kind of give up.

But hey, when Sheik wins Evo we'll get our nerf won't we.

I played Luigi for Brawl's entire existence. I know this mentality because I had it. But, then, you have to ask yourself a simple question: Do you want to win the most possible? Or do you want to win with a specific character? If they don't match, you've got to question your motives as a competitive player and accept your character's weaknesses. If you can be humble, you can start to want buffs and nerfs objectively, which is not what the majority are capable of. Simply put: Do you want to put 1000 hours into something that might work out, or something that will work out? Saying that you might work out when you don't know that because the hundreds of thousands of Smash players agree, across all levels, that the character is booty is arrogant and a poor way to think. If your character is flawed, accept it. If they might need buffs to compete, accept it.

Buffs and nerfs won't be severe enough to negatively affect the players that play for their character and specifically for that. It's obvious. Nintendo hasn't been listening to outcry much at all, which is also clear. (See lack of changes nearly all the most-likely top 15s). So buffs/nerfs won't affect anything on a realistic level. That said, the mentality of "I can do well if I try!" is poor and will hold you back as a player.

 

[AaronSMASH]

First of all, cut the passively-condecending bull****. It's annoying, immature, and, frankly, no one wants to hear it.

Since we're talking meta/high level play, we will assume both players know how to capitalize. You claim that better frame data = more forgiving = easier. This comes from an obvious lack of understanding of the game/neutral. Frame data allows for superior frame traps and safe pokes in the neutral. There is no more forgiving or less forgiving, in high level play there is safe and unsafe. Unsafe will be punished. Safe will not. Frame data allows your character to play the game properly and effectively while avoiding punishes from the other guy. (Shiek fair to fastfall jab on shield) It makes the character strictly better, because it can actually do things, as opposed to characters with bad frame data that lack the tools/frame data to do what is necessary to win against a character with better frame data/better mobility.

It's not an issue of putting less effort in. It's being able to compete with superior frame data.

Incorrect again. If you think the neutral game is black and white/safe vs unsafe then you have a simplistic and incomplete understanding of the game. Do you see a punish on every single unsafe move in ever grand finals? No. You are omitting so much it makes me think maybe you're just being willfully ignorant.

But maybe you are some sort of God and have actually completely mastered all characters and made the perfect list of low tiers that couldnt possibly every compete in a tornament and MUST BE BUFFED. I guess that's possible.

I played Luigi for Brawl's entire existence. I know this mentality because I had it. But, then, you have to ask yourself a simple question: Do you want to win the most possible? Or do you want to win with a specific character? If they don't match, you've got to question your motives as a competitive player and accept your character's weaknesses. If you can be humble, you can start to want buffs and nerfs objectively, which is not what the majority are capable of. Simply put: Do you want to put 1000 hours into something that might work out, or something that will work out? Saying that you might work out when you don't know that because the hundreds of thousands of Smash players agree, across all levels, that the character is booty is arrogant and a poor way to think. If your character is flawed, accept it. If they might need buffs to compete, accept it.

Buffs and nerfs won't be severe enough to negatively affect the players that play for their character and specifically for that. It's obvious. Nintendo hasn't been listening to outcry much at all, which is also clear. (See lack of changes nearly all the most-likely top 15s). So buffs/nerfs won't affect anything on a realistic level. That said, the mentality of "I can do well if I try!" is poor and will hold you back as a player.

The mentality of "I can't get good with this character even though I played 1000 hours therefore he needs a buff to cater to me" is poor, childish, selfish, and quite frankly arrogant.

 

[Pyr]

The mentality of "I can't get good with this character even though I played 1000 hours therefore he needs a buff to cater to me" is poor, childish, selfish, and quite frankly arrogant.

Not even close to what I was referring to. Read again or something. You missed a lot of context. I don't expect you to, because being wrong is impossible with your mentality, but I digress. You can only play to win and play a specific character if the character is good. If they aren't, and you understand why, wanting specific buffs is natural. Again, played Luigi in Brawl. I'm a character loyalist. I just lucked out this game. Luigi is **** in 3 out of 4 games and he could of used buffs in those 3 because he isn't up to par.

If you want to play a character, remember that that character may never be good, in spite of your efforts, and that you wasted your time if that's the case. That's a fact, and a risk, you have to accept. The world won't reward the time and effort most of the time if you take that sort of risk. Real talk, you're wrong and your mentality is toxic to yourself. Don't have to put 10 years into a character to know they are hopelessly bad. (Pichu, Melee Kirby, Brawl Ganon, S64 Luigi)

 

[Snackss]

The mentality of "I can't get good with this character even though I played 1000 hours therefore he needs a buff to cater to me" is poor, childish, selfish, and quite frankly arrogant.

Nothing you're saying even makes sense. Nobody has that mentality. People have the mentality that characters should be buffed because, shockingly, they aren't very good. No amount of practice will make Sheik NOT destroy Mewtwo. No amount of practice will make Falco's neutral game not garbage. But obviously it's as easy as believing in yourself and practicing, that's why Nairo always wins tournaments with Robin and Zelda, right?

 

[AaronSMASH]

I played Luigi for Brawl's entire existence. I know this mentality because I had it. But, then, you have to ask yourself a simple question: Do you want to win the most possible? Or do you want to win with a specific character? If they don't match, you've got to question your motives as a competitive player and accept your character's weaknesses. If you can be humble, you can start to want buffs and nerfs objectively, which is not what the majority are capable of. Simply put: Do you want to put 1000 hours into something that might work out, or something that will work out? Saying that you might work out when you don't know that because the hundreds of thousands of Smash players agree, across all levels, that the character is booty is arrogant and a poor way to think. If your character is flawed, accept it. If they might need buffs to compete, accept it.

Buffs and nerfs won't be severe enough to negatively affect the players that play for their character and specifically for that. It's obvious. Nintendo hasn't been listening to outcry much at all, which is also clear. (See lack of changes nearly all the most-likely top 15s). So buffs/nerfs won't affect anything on a realistic level. That said, the mentality of "I can do well if I try!" is poor and will hold you back as a player.

Nothing you're saying even makes sense. Nobody has that mentality. People have the mentality that characters should be buffed because, shockingly, they aren't very good. No amount of practice will make Sheik NOT destroy Mewtwo. No amount of practice will make Falco's neutral game not garbage. But obviously it's as easy as believing in yourself and practicing, that's why Nairo always wins tournaments with Robin and Zelda, right?

That's exactly what you are both saying though. In 8 months if nobody has won a tournament with my character he must be bottom or mid tier!!!!

Get real. Just practice and shut up. Nobody needs buffs YET. Period.

Not even close to what I was referring to. Read again or something. You missed a lot of context. I don't expect you to, because being wrong is impossible with your mentality, but I digress. You can only play to win and play a specific character if the character is good. If they aren't, and you understand why, wanting specific buffs is natural. Again, played Luigi in Brawl. I'm a character loyalist. I just lucked out this game. Luigi is **** in 3 out of 4 games and he could of used buffs in those 3 because he isn't up to par.

If you want to play a character, remember that that character may never be good, in spite of your efforts, and that you wasted your time if that's the case. That's a fact, and a risk, you have to accept. The world won't reward the time and effort most of the time if you take that sort of risk. Real talk, you're wrong and your mentality is toxic to yourself. Don't have to put 10 years into a character to know they are hopelessly bad. (Pichu, Melee Kirby, Brawl Ganon, S64 Luigi)

You're comparing games that are a decade or more old with a game that hasn't been out for a year. Nobody had those games tier lists perfect in the first year. Period. You have no idea what you are talking about and YOUR MENTALITY is going to ruin this competitive scene.

Because of that mentality, instead of people getting better, they are on smashboards crying about how their favorite character needs buffs.

And I play a character because they are fun. I don't have to win a damn thing to have fun. Which is why I sit tight and get better every day knowing I'll have fun either way.

But you just keep on complaining. I'm sure Sakurai respects your 8 month old opinion and will be working tirelessly to buff your favorite characters.

 

[Pyr]

That's exactly what you are both saying though. In 8 months if nobody has won a tournament with my character he must be bottom or mid tier!!!!

Get real. Just practice and shut up. Nobody needs buffs YET. Period.



You're comparing games that are a decade or more old with a game that hasn't been out for a year. Nobody had those games tier lists perfect in the first year. Period. You have no idea what you are talking about and YOUR MENTALITY is going to ruin this competitive scene.

Because of that mentality, instead of people getting better, they are on smashboards crying about how their favorite character needs buffs.

And I play a character because they are fun. I don't have to win a damn thing to have fun. Which is why I sit tight and get better every day knowing I'll have fun either way.

But you just keep on complaining. I'm sure Sakurai respects your 8 month old opinion and will be working tirelessly to buff your favorite characters.

Ok. 2 things. 1: characters that have been proven to be good are better than characters that haven't. It's that simple. If Zelda is secretly top 25, go out and prove it. Until then, there is no way to know that she's good. There is no reason to think she is because her strengths and flaws, on a fundamental level, have been examined and compared to the characters that can do well. Thousands of man hours have shown that. If you can't accept that a character that isn't pulling results is probably a character that never really will, then you should really reconsider what you're doing in a competitive Smash scene.

2: I'm sorry if you think it's just mine. It's a play to win mentality. It's shared by basically every top level player in every game. Wanting to win is natural, and making it a goal is natural. Unfortunately, concessions have to be made on character choice. If you're a god at the game, but you can't pull results because the character you play is flawed/not optimal, then what are you, really? Someone who has set a self-imposed limit on themselves, that's who. You can't lie to people reading your posts and say "with enough time and effort it'll work!" It's cruel to the people who get their hopes up. The hard truth is that there are MANY who play a bad character with that mentality. How many of those people take anything important from other, top players? How many names are well known? A small handful.

You can play whatever for fun. I play Ganon for that reason. But remember which forum you're on. Which section, specifically. What the goal is: to win. The pipe dream of taking a major with Shulk is just that: a pipe dream. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong, though. You can't because you lack the ability to, but still. I mean, you can have fun and win at the same time. It just might not be with the cuddly character you're a fan of. If you're lucky, it is, or you can make it so.

And I'm not complaining. If anything, I'm hoping every patch that Luigi isn't hit. So, please stop pretending that the people who disagree with your views are also on the other side of a topic.

 

[AaronSMASH]

Ok. 2 things. 1: characters that have been proven to be good are better than characters that haven't. It's that simple. If Zelda is secretly top 25, go out and prove it. Until then, there is no way to know that she's good. There is no reason to think she is because her strengths and flaws, on a fundamental level, have been examined and compared to the characters that can do well. Thousands of man hours have shown that. If you can't accept that a character that isn't pulling results is probably a character that never really will, then you should really reconsider what you're doing in a competitive Smash scene.

2: I'm sorry if you think it's just mine. It's a play to win mentality. It's shared by basically every top level player in every game. Wanting to win is natural, and making it a goal is natural. Unfortunately, concessions have to be made on character choice. If you're a god at the game, but you can't pull results because the character you play is flawed/not optimal, then what are you, really? Someone who has set a self-imposed limit on themselves, that's who. You can't lie to people reading your posts and say "with enough time and effort it'll work!" It's cruel to the people who get their hopes up. The hard truth is that there are MANY who play a bad character with that mentality. How many of those people take anything important from other, top players? How many names are well known? A small handful.

You can play whatever for fun. I play Ganon for that reason. But remember which forum you're on. Which section, specifically. What the goal is: to win. The pipe dream of taking a major with Shulk is just that: a pipe dream. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong, though. You can't because you lack the ability to, but still. I mean, you can have fun and win at the same time. It just might not be with the cuddly character you're a fan of. If you're lucky, it is, or you can make it so.

And I'm not complaining. If anything, I'm hoping every patch that Luigi isn't hit. So, please stop pretending that the people who disagree with your views are also on the other side of a topic.

Can you not read or....

Yes, there are bound to be characters that can't win competitively in any major tournament. But guess what?

THE GAME IS 8 ****ING MONTHS OLD.

It is beyond ****ing ******** and arrogant to believe you have figured out which characters are best and which can't be used competitively.

Just sack the **** up man. Your lies are thinly veiled whining. And that's just a simple fact.

 

[Pyr]

Can you not read or....

Yes, there are bound to be characters that can't win competitively in any major tournament. But guess what?

THE GAME IS 8 ****ING MONTHS OLD.

It is beyond ****ing ******** and arrogant to believe you have figured out which characters are best and which can't be used competitively.

Just sack the **** up man. Your lies are thinly veiled whining. And that's just a simple fact.

I never said I figured it all out. You seem to think I have for some reason, which is silly. It's really rather obvious who the top half of the cast is, though. Fundamentally, picking anyone in the bottom half is a poor choice if your goal is to win something. There might be 1-2 gems in there, but you're likely wasting your time. If your goal is to have fun, then buffs, nerfs, and how good a character is becomes irrelevant.

If winning is not your goal, you should remember that when you attempt to post. You aren't like your audience here. And you should also stop pretending that, in this day and age of competitive fighters, that it still takes years to see that a bad character is bad.

More on topic: As I said earlier, I don't think that the Smash 4 balance crew is really listening to public outcry. I think they hold internal stats a lot higher. So, even if people whine en masse, it won't do anything.

 

[AaronSMASH]

I never said I figured it all out. You seem to think I have for some reason, which is silly. It's really rather obvious who the top half of the cast is, though. Fundamentally, picking anyone in the bottom half is a poor choice if your goal is to win something. There might be 1-2 gems in there, but you're likely wasting your time. If your goal is to have fun, then buffs, nerfs, and how good a character is becomes irrelevant.

If winning is not your goal, you should remember that when you attempt to post. You aren't like your audience here. And you should also stop pretending that, in this day and age of competitive fighters, that it still takes years to see that a bad character is bad.

More on topic: As I said earlier, I don't think that the Smash 4 balance crew is really listening to public outcry. I think they hold internal stats a lot higher. So, even if people whine en masse, it won't do anything.

So by that logic, only the people that win tournaments have fun if they also attend this board? Your logic.. flawless.

Sorry, but fun and failing to place in the top 8 at tournaments are not mutually exclusive even for the most competitive among us.

If that's how you feel then I feel sorry for you.

And it does, in fact, take longer than a year to figure any fighting game out old or new. People named Samus as an 'obviously' bad bottom tier character that needs help multiple times. But they are wrong as evidenced by the videos I posted.

So yea, we aren't even CLOSE to knowing even a vague idea of a true tier list. So save the crying for a couple years from now.

 

[Pyr]

So by that logic, only the people that win tournaments have fun if they also attend this board? Your logic.. flawless.

Sorry, but fun and failing to place in the top 8 at tournaments are not mutually exclusive even for the most competitive among us.

If that's how you feel then I feel sorry for you.

And it does, in fact, take longer than a year to figure any fighting game out old or new. People named Samus as an 'obviously' bad bottom tier character that needs help multiple times. But they are wrong as evidenced by the videos I posted.

So yea, we aren't even CLOSE to knowing even a vague idea of a true tier list. So save the crying for a couple years from now.

Not even close, bro. Not even close. If you aren't going to read the posts you're responding to, you shouldn't waste people's time.

 

[Tenretsujin10]

I never said I figured it all out. You seem to think I have for some reason, which is silly. It's really rather obvious who the top half of the cast is, though. Fundamentally, picking anyone in the bottom half is a poor choice if your goal is to win something. There might be 1-2 gems in there, but you're likely wasting your time. If your goal is to have fun, then buffs, nerfs, and how good a character is becomes irrelevant.

If winning is not your goal, you should remember that when you attempt to post. You aren't like your audience here. And you should also stop pretending that, in this day and age of competitive fighters, that it still takes years to see that a bad character is bad.

More on topic: As I said earlier, I don't think that the Smash 4 balance crew is really listening to public outcry. I think they hold internal stats a lot higher. So, even if people whine en masse, it won't do anything.

You know, although tier lists aren't set in stone, there is at least a general trend at where characters stand on that list. In melee Jigglypuff was considered crap before she was picked up by players like Mango and Hungrybox.

Before seeing character patches (aside from Diddy's Hoo-Haa before 1.0.6 and obvious bugs/glitches), the game should at least be explored more before jumping to conclusions. Heck, I agree with some slight buffs to "lower tier characters" so people will have more of an incentive to practice them. But I disagree with nerfing the higher/top tier characters. Toning down a character's strengths is a lot more negative than increasing it. Diddy didn't NEED those round 2 nerfs in 1.0.8.

Long story short, I would like the game to thoroughly be explored before seeing balance patches, and if anything buff a character rather than nerf it.

 

[Thinkaman]

Anti-patch is the new anti-vax.

The best part is how anti-patch types will insist they are the most competitively-minded, in exactly the same way that anti-vax types will insist they are medical experts.



Real talk: Every serious competitive game patches at least twice as frequently as Smash 4. The two most successful e-sports in the world patch more frequently than any other game.

 

[Tenretsujin10]

Anti-patch is the new anti-vax.

The best part is how anti-patch types will insist they are the most competitively-minded, in exactly the same way that anti-vax types will insist they are medical experts.



Real talk: Every serious competitive game patches at least twice as frequently as Smash 4. The two most successful e-sports in the world patch more frequently than any other game.

I hate comparing this game, Smash 4, to "successful e-sports games" like League of Legends. They are fundamentally different.

Looking at Kha'zix through the patch notes is really sad. They kept on changing his kit to cater to a different buildset and playstyle into the ground. If Smash 4 had the same level of patch notes as League did, man, would this game be bad.

I'm not entirely anti-balance patches, I just don't excessive balance patches.

Also, what League of Legends taught me. You can't make every character good.

 

[ARGHETH]

I hate comparing this game, Smash 4, to "successful e-sports games" like League of Legends. They are fundamentally different.

Looking at Kha'zix through the patch notes is really sad. They kept on changing his kit to cater to a different buildset and playstyle into the ground. If Smash 4 had the same level of patch notes as League did, man, would this game be bad.

I'm not entirely anti-balance patches, I just don't excessive balance patches.

Also, what League of Legends taught me. You can't make every character good.

Then I guess you're relatively happy with the style we've had now, with patches every few months mostly doing small things?

 

[Thinkaman]

I hate comparing this game, Smash 4, to "successful e-sports games" like League of Legends. They are fundamentally different.

Looking at Kha'zix through the patch notes is really sad. They kept on changing his kit to cater to a different buildset and playstyle into the ground. If Smash 4 had the same level of patch notes as League did, man, would this game be bad.

I mean, every Kha'zix change was 100% justified, even if it took them awhile to zero in on a comfortable identity for him. I played release KZ very heavily, because of how fundamentally busted he was. I'm not even a jungler, and it was free Elo.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's obvious to every League player that KZ's original kit was cancerous. High-damage ranged AOE poke + slow, high jungle sustain, damage reduction stealth on top of a leap with a reset, and a 5.7x AD assassination combo? Why would any team ever pick another jungler?

And of course, we saw that they didn't.

Also, what League of Legends taught me. You can't make every character good.

Erm, what?

League has literally spent the last 6 years teaching everyone else that this is entirely possible, and is the central secret to making a strong competitive game.


For the current patch window, of the game's 125 characters 114 have at least a 47% win-rate in ranked Gold and above.

Of those other 11:

• 3 are still consistently banned in draft mode, including Ekko, the single most banned character currently. All 3 are popular LCS picks. (The other two are LeBlanc and Azir)
• 2 (Gangplank and Urgot) are long-term flawed characters who are next up on the remake list.
• 1 is Kassadin, who has not repeatedly been a really obnoxious and negative influence on the meta-game every time he gets remotely viable, but is actually the second-most common first pick in NA LCS last I checked.
• 1 is Cassiopia, who has a top-5 win-rate in EU LCS.
• The others (Mundo, Elise, Lucian, and Syndra) are all still picked at LCS level currently. Lucian also remains one of the game's more popular characters.

If you look at only Platinum+ or Diamond+ matches, surprisingly little changes. Garen and Teemo fall down into the least-winning characters, but that's about it.

I don't want to sound like a fanboy here, but it's sort of obvious to everyone that 90% of League's characters are viable, as ranked and LCS results make very obvious. There really isn't a single character you can point to, to say otherwise.

 

[AaronSMASH]

Not even close, bro. Not even close. If you aren't going to read the posts you're responding to, you shouldn't waste people's time.

Sounds like you're admitting you were wrong. It's ok. We are all wrong sometimes. Nice try though.

Anti-patch is the new anti-vax.

The best part is how anti-patch types will insist they are the most competitively-minded, in exactly the same way that anti-vax types will insist they are medical experts.



Real talk: Every serious competitive game patches at least twice as frequently as Smash 4. The two most successful e-sports in the world patch more frequently than any other game.

I think maybe one person here said they were against patches altogether. And that person made no such claim.

Pushing for patches this early is like mixing together a cocktail of chemicals that most agree might do something and injecting willy nilly into a bunch of people with a disease we know very little about and hoping for a good outcome.