Balance patches are spoiling us

[b2jammer]

A good meme can beat any b2jammer.

I'll stop.

Fine, I'll throw one in: A good Smash can beat any Brother.

 

[AaronSMASH]

So, just checking...you'd prefer the game to be as it was when it came out, right?

Not forever, but for now yes.

 

[NewZen]

Just gonna state my views on the Balance Patches:

Yeah, they really have been hit or miss (Nerfing characters such as and who literally needed everything but a nerf in anything is beyond me...), but at the same time, they keep a game's competitive viability standing, regardless of whether or not some/most characters are not tournament viable. Hell, after reading the cancer that was AaronSMASH's posts, take it from someone who plays without customs-she isn't winning any tournaments any time soon, no matter who the hell is good with her. It's because as a character, she lacks the tools necessary to hold her own in higher level play, and that's just the way it is unless she gets buffs that outright change her up.

Regardless of whether people do or don't think these Balance Patches are necessary only need to remember one thing-it's still a fighting game, and in order to make sure things are fixed, you have to patch things. Whether they are actual fixes to characters or pointless nerfs is up to the developers, but in the case of Sakurai and his crew, they could at least give us patch notes so we're not left with placebos/misinformation...

 

[Divemissile]

If this game had no balance patches, it would be brawl 2.0, where everyone figured out the best character at release (Diddy), spam him, and would kill the biggest perk this game has going for it which is character diversity.
PLUS, patching in a youtube upload and tournament mode is gonna be HUGE.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure the general smash community wouldn't like a repeat of competitive Brawl. At all.

 

[HFlash]

Not forever, but for now yes.

That is the most ambiguous response ever. Either you want them, or not. MAKE UP YOUR MIND *Insert FailFish*

 

[AaronSMASH]

That is the most ambiguous response ever. Either you want them, or not. MAKE UP YOUR MIND *Insert FailFish*

There's nothing ambiguous about it. I've stated I support balance patches after we get a chance to see how the meta developed and if some characters really do need help or just have an unappealing playstyle or high skill floor.

 

[HFlash]

@ A AaronSMASH "After we get a chance to see how the meta developed," how many nationals do you need to see that Ike, Falco, among other characters need some buff to keep up with the likes of Shiek, Diddy, and other top tiers. Pre-Apex, the appalling amount of memes and articles written up kind of personified how much of an outlier Pre-nerf Diddy was compared to the rest of the cast.

 

[AaronSMASH]

@ A AaronSMASH "After we get a chance to see how the meta developed," how many nationals do you need to see that Ike, Falco, among other characters need some buff to keep up with the likes of Shiek, Diddy, and other top tiers. Pre-Apex, the appalling amount of memes and articles written up kind of personified how much of an outlier Pre-nerf Diddy was compared to the rest of the cast.

More than we have seen. There aren't enough people spending enough time to have thoroughly verified whether one character or another needs help.

I'm glad they'be decided to work on balancing the game, I just don't like the obnoxious attitude people have about them. Demanding that this character or that one be nerfed because "op" or "low tier". It's pathetic and really pointless.

People are more willing to give up on a character if others have tried that character and claim that it can't be played competitively just because THEY can't find success with it.

I am sure some characters do need help. There's no doubt about that. But these people will try to say that only 5 or 10 characters are competitively viable and that is absurd. Especially since people are just now realizing that customs aren't necessarily a bad thing and can add a lot to the game. I'm sure some customs will stand out and break the game in some way but we should start finding out and tossing them so we can have the rest to help characters that people think need it.

 

[Divemissile]

More than we have seen. There aren't enough people spending enough time to have thoroughly verified whether one character or another needs help.

I'm glad they'be decided to work on balancing the game, I just don't like the obnoxious attitude people have about them. Demanding that this character or that one be nerfed because "op" or "low tier". It's pathetic and really pointless.

People are more willing to give up on a character if others have tried that character and claim that it can't be played competitively just because THEY can't find success with it.

I am sure some characters do need help. There's no doubt about that. But these people will try to say that only 5 or 10 characters are competitively viable and that is absurd. Especially since people are just now realizing that customs aren't necessarily a bad thing and can add a lot to the game. I'm sure some customs will stand out and break the game in some way but we should start finding out and tossing them so we can have the rest to help characters that people think need it.

look at the tournaments. Who do you see who regularly are in the finals? Sheik and Rosalina. If a character is regularly seen in the finals of many tournaments, then they're likely overpowered. There's tons of people playing this game. I doubt all of them are just playing low tier characters wrong. They aren't. Low tier characters are just infierior to the higher tier characters. Now stop talking like you know what you're saying, because you probably don't.

 

[AaronSMASH]

look at the tournaments. Who do you see who regularly are in the finals? Sheik and Rosalina. If a character is regularly seen in the finals of many tournaments, then they're likely overpowered. There's tons of people playing this game. I doubt all of them are just playing low tier characters wrong. They aren't. Low tier characters are just infierior to the higher tier characters. Now stop talking like you know what you're saying, because you probably don't.

Is that your evidence? Whose playing in the finals? Lol. And I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about? Have you ever actually seen a meta develop in any game or are you just an angsty teenager mad that he's bad at samus?

 

[Gawain]

Is that your evidence? Whose playing in the finals? Lol. And I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about? Have you ever actually seen a meta develop in any game or are you just an angsty teenager mad that he's bad at samus?

You can't seriously be arguing against tournament results across multiple countries hahaha. That's just denial.

 

[Pyr]

At this point, there is no way Aaron is anything other than a troll or someone who deserves none of the response he's getting.

 

[Divemissile]

Is that your evidence? Whose playing in the finals? Lol. And I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about? Have you ever actually seen a meta develop in any game or are you just an angsty teenager mad that he's bad at samus?

if someone were to be secretly overpowered, we'd know by now. You can look at many tournament results, and see similar characters on top. Are you really trying to argue against numerous results of tournaments?

 

[AaronSMASH]

You can't seriously be arguing against tournament results across multiple countries hahaha. That's just denial.

So you think that because you see sheik and luma have success in tournaments that means they are overpowered?

A much more valid explaination is that they are more commonly used because they aren't as difficult as other characters.

More sheiks/rosalumas in tournaments means higher likelihood you will see them in the finals.

So yea... I'm not arguing with results. I'm arguing with that flawed logic.

They win therefore they are OP. Pls nerf so I don't suck anymore.

if someone were to be secretly overpowered, we'd know by now. You can look at many tournament results, and see similar characters on top. Are you really trying to argue against numerous results of tournaments?

Secretly overpowered? Seriously your reading comprehension is attrocious. I'm saying many characters you claim are not viable and "could never possibly beat a high tier no matter what" might actually be viable in spite of your infinite wisdom.

Again, just because you are bad with a character doesn't make it "impossible" to compete with. You know game and watch is actually pretty successful in Japan? That's the example you gave. So either there are no good sheiks in Japan OR you are, well, just crying because you're bad.

 

[Wintropy]

I don't think there are any characters that indisputably can't beat a top-tier opponent. I don't believe this game has any 100:0 matchups.

That said, while it's definitely possible, it's excruciatingly difficult in some circumstances and you're just handicapping yourself for minimal results.

I know it's possible that a top Default!Palutena could beat a top Sheik, though it'd be maybe one out of ten matches. Not viable in a competitive sense, where consistency and results are the order of the day.

In response to OP: no, I don't think they're spoiling us. I'd rather a game that keeps the meta fresh and dynamic than one where top-tiers remain on top forever and bottom-tiers are stuck being terrible for the rest of the game.

 

[Gunla]

Please don't feed any trolls; let them think what they want to and let us carry on.

If they continue, so will infractions.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

I don't think there are any characters that indisputably can't beat a top-tier opponent. I don't believe this game has any 100:0 matchups.

I'm starting to think customs-off Rosalina vs. Ganon is pretty close.

 

[Snackss]

I'm starting to think customs-off Rosalina vs. Ganon is pretty close.

What about customs off for Ganon but on for Rosalina?
Not like that would happen.

 

[Wintropy]

I'm starting to think customs-off Rosalina vs. Ganon is pretty close.

Oh, there are definitely 80:20 matchups (Olimar / Captain Falcon says hi), maybe even 90:10. Hell, I wouldn't dispute the notion that there may even be 95:05 matchups.

I have yet to see definitive proof that there are totally, physically unwinnable matchups in this game. They could well exist, I just haven't seen any evidence for it.

On the note of balance patches, I think it definitely helps in that respect. I remember a time when Palutena / Diddy was near-unwinnable. It's still not easy, but the soul-rending terror has been neutered in the most recent patch. If every character in the game at least has a chance against their opponent, however theoretical, I think it's doing well.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

Oh, there are definitely 80:20 matchups (Olimar / Captain Falcon says hi), maybe even 90:10. Hell, I wouldn't dispute the notion that there may even be 95:05 matchups.

I have yet to see definitive proof that there are totally, physically unwinnable matchups in this game. They could well exist, I just haven't seen any evidence for it.

On the note of balance patches, I think it definitely helps in that respect. I remember a time when Palutena / Diddy was near-unwinnable. It's still not easy, but the soul-rending terror has been neutered in the most recent patch. If every character in the game at least has a chance against their opponent, however theoretical, I think it's doing well.

Well, "unwinnable" is a pretty subjective term. Even a 55:45 MU is technically unwinnable for the 45 character if both players are equally skilled and no external forces sway the outcome of the match. For most character-balance discussions, the assumption is that all players are equal. For an inferior character to have a chance against an equally-skilled superior character, the only option is to outperform as far as I can tell.

 

[cot(θ)]

Well, "unwinnable" is a pretty subjective term. Even a 55:45 MU is technically unwinnable for the 45 character if both players are equally skilled and no external forces sway the outcome of the match. For most character-balance discussions, the assumption is that all players are equal. For an inferior character to have a chance against an equally-skilled superior character, the only option is to outperform as far as I can tell.

That's a huge misinterpretation of how matchups work and what the matchup numbers mean. A match is essentially a big continuous sequence of RPS - both players choose options simultaneously and the outcome leads to a new game situation which both players must respond to with another decision. Due to the nature of simultaneous decision making, it's always possible for the disadvantaged player to win through luck (except when the MU is 100:0 - this means one player can use a strategy that will win 100% of the time without needing to guess his opponent's next move). A 55:45 matchup means that through the natural course of continuous RPS, if both players are playing the matchup well, the 55-character will win 55% of the time, and the 45-character will win 45% of the time. Even if the 55-player is playing optimally, he cannot avoid the possibility that the other player may also play optimally, and win 45% of the time.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

That's a huge misinterpretation of how matchups work and what the matchup numbers mean. A match is essentially a big continuous sequence of RPS - both players choose options simultaneously and the outcome leads to a new game situation which both players must respond to with another decision. Due to the nature of simultaneous decision making, it's always possible for the disadvantaged player to win through luck (except when the MU is 100:0 - this means one player can use a strategy that will win 100% of the time without needing to guess his opponent's next move). A 55:45 matchup means that through the natural course of continuous RPS, if both players are playing the matchup well, the 55-character will win 55% of the time, and the 45-character will win 45% of the time. Even if the 55-player is playing optimally, he cannot avoid the possibility that the other player may also play optimally, and win 45% of the time.

In a 55:45 MU as they are defined now (and as you are defining them), the character with the superior options is going to win the game more than 55% of the time as far as I see it. The RPS analogy only holds up until a character has an option with no real counterplay. So the game becomes Rock, Paper, Scissors, Needles.

But even without needles, let's assume the RPS analogy holds up. If you have a 55% to win an outcome once, then the other person has a 45% chance to win. That's true and totally reasonable. In a game of sudden death, a lot of characters probably have a 45% chance to win against Sheik.

But over the course of a game, if you have 100 engagements with a 55% chance to lose each one, the end result is much more likely to align with the statistical probability than if it was just 1 engagement.

Taken to its extreme, if you had a million engagements with a 55% chance to win each one, the chances of you losing the majority of the engagements in the end is astronomically small. Does that make sense?

 

[AaronSMASH]

That's a huge misinterpretation of how matchups work and what the matchup numbers mean. A match is essentially a big continuous sequence of RPS - both players choose options simultaneously and the outcome leads to a new game situation which both players must respond to with another decision. Due to the nature of simultaneous decision making, it's always possible for the disadvantaged player to win through luck (except when the MU is 100:0 - this means one player can use a strategy that will win 100% of the time without needing to guess his opponent's next move). A 55:45 matchup means that through the natural course of continuous RPS, if both players are playing the matchup well, the 55-character will win 55% of the time, and the 45-character will win 45% of the time. Even if the 55-player is playing optimally, he cannot avoid the possibility that the other player may also play optimally, and win 45% of the time.

In a 55:45 MU as they are defined now (and as you are defining them), the character with the superior options is going to win the game more than 55% of the time as far as I see it. The RPS analogy only holds up until a character has an option with no real counterplay. So the game becomes Rock, Paper, Scissors, Needles.

But even without needles, let's assume the RPS analogy holds up. If you have a 55% to win an outcome once, then the other person has a 45% chance to win. That's true and totally reasonable. In a game of sudden death, a lot of characters probably have a 45% chance to win against Sheik.

But over the course of a game, if you have 100 engagements with a 55% chance to lose each one, the end result is much more likely to align with the statistical probability than if it was just 1 engagement.

Taken to its extreme, if you had a million engagements with a 55% chance to win each one, the chances of you losing the majority of the engagements in the end is astronomically small. Does that make sense?

Both valid points but what people seem to be ignorant of is the fact that many matchups will change with the skill levels of the competitors. This is true for many, if not most, competitive games.

A great sniper might lose to a great bull-pup/CQC user most of the time while an elite sniper might win against a CQC player of the same skill level by a large margin.

I chose to use that example instead of the thousands of these same scenarios I could point out in League, DOTA, starcraft, SF, you name it.

A year from now, if the best of us continue competing, we will likely look back and realize how poorly even the very best of us played.

This time next year, that ZeRo may very well be able to 2 stock 2 game the ZeRo of today with G&W while today's ZeRo uses sheik.

 

[cot(θ)]

In a 55:45 MU as they are defined now (and as you are defining them), the character with the superior options is going to win the game more than 55% of the time as far as I see it. The RPS analogy only holds up until a character has an option with no real counterplay. So the game becomes Rock, Paper, Scissors, Needles.

No. If an option has no real counterplay, it is a 100:0 matchup.

But even without needles, let's assume the RPS analogy holds up. If you have a 55% to win an outcome once, then the other person has a 45% chance to win. That's true and totally reasonable. In a game of sudden death, a lot of characters probably have a 45% chance to win against Sheik.

But over the course of a game, if you have 100 engagements with a 55% chance to lose each one, the end result is much more likely to align with the statistical probability than if it was just 1 engagement.

Taken to its extreme, if you had a million engagements with a 55% chance to win each one, the chances of you losing the majority of the engagements in the end is astronomically small. Does that make sense?

That's not what I said. I said a 55:45 matchup means that over the course of all RPS situations constituting an entire game, the chance of the better character winning is 55%. That's what a 55:45 matchup is. It's composed of a multitude of different scenarios, and the better character's chance to win each of them is on average, going to be slightly over 50% (adjusted for the amount of benefit the character gains from each "win" and a multitude of other factors, but you get the point). But that's not the number we're talking about with the matchup number. The matchup number describes an entire match, not the average of all individual scenarios that can play out in the match. That's why we regard a 55:45 matchup as close, and not as a total blowout.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

That's not what I said. I said a 55:45 matchup means that over the course of all RPS situations constituting an entire game, the chance of the better character winning is 55%. That's what a 55:45 matchup is. It's composed of a multitude of different scenarios, and the better character's chance to win each of them is on average, going to be slightly over 50% (adjusted for the amount of benefit the character gains from each "win" and a multitude of other factors, but you get the point). But that's not the number we're talking about with the matchup number. The matchup number describes an entire match, not the average of all individual scenarios that can play out in the match. That's why we regard a 55:45 matchup as close, and not as a total blowout.

The only scenario in Smash where a matchup is so close that the accumulation of exchanges doesn't add up to more than a 10% differential is a ditto as far as I'm concerned. At the very least, they are much, much rarer than what is being implied here.

Similar to what Aaron said, we have to make assumptions that a character is being played optimally in order to make definitive statements about competitive balance. If a character is being played optimally and it's better than another character being played optimally, I don't think there's such a thing as a 55% chance to win until other factors come into play. Those other factors can be stage counter-picks, match-up experience, physical and mental condition, what-have-you. If a character relies on its opponent making a mistake in order to win, then we are assuming sub-optimal play. Put another way, let's assume in a Ganon vs. Sheik match, the Sheik doesn't make a single mistake. Do you still think there's a 30% chance for Ganon to win, even if he plays perfectly?

 

[RayNoire]

Two things:

1: This community needs to be more respectful of dissenting opinions. Like, a lot more.

2: I keep hearing "If X plays perfectly, what can Y do?"

"Playing perfectly" is usually thought of as using your safe options all the time and never getting hit. But safe options are never completely safe; they just can't be punished on reaction. Ganondorf is a read-based character who only really needs one read to enter his top-tier advantage state and lead into a kill. He's usually not aiming to punish to begin with.

There is no way to "play perfectly" and avoid being read. In fact, you're less likely to be read if you don't play "perfectly."

Sheik being hard to hit by Ganondorf when she plays "perfectly" doesn't need to be fixed. Mewtwo getting hit about 3 Mewtwos away when he turns around does.

Basically, use more specific examples, and stop calling people trolls when they disagree with you.

 

[Gawain]

The only scenario in Smash where a matchup is so close that the accumulation of exchanges doesn't add up to more than a 10% differential is a ditto as far as I'm concerned. At the very least, they are much, much rarer than what is being implied here.

Similar to what Aaron said, we have to make assumptions that a character is being played optimally in order to make definitive statements about competitive balance. If a character is being played optimally and it's better than another character being played optimally, I don't think there's such a thing as a 55% chance to win until other factors come into play. Those other factors can be stage counter-picks, match-up experience, physical and mental condition, what-have-you. If a character relies on its opponent making a mistake in order to win, then we are assuming sub-optimal play. Put another way, let's assume in a Ganon vs. Sheik match, the Sheik doesn't make a single mistake. Do you still think there's a 30% chance for Ganon to win, even if he plays perfectly?

I just wanted to comment on your last point, but this type of comparison is pointless. If both players are playing perfectly then they arent to be doing much in the match because at the right range EVERYTHING is punishable from a perfect shield. Fighting games work on the premise that there is a counter to every option.

 

[cot(θ)]

I just wanted to comment on your last point, but this type of comparison is pointless. If both players are playing perfectly then they arent to be doing much in the match because at the right range EVERYTHING is punishable from a perfect shield. Fighting games work on the premise that there is a counter to every option.

No - please read RayNoire's post above yours and try to really understand it. The definition of "playing perfectly" needs to include the concepts of human reaction time and simultaneous decision making. "Perfect" play doesn't imply superhuman capabilities.

 

[Gawain]

No - please read RayNoire's post above yours and try to really understand it. The definition of "playing perfectly" needs to include the concepts of human reaction time and simultaneous decision making. "Perfect" play doesn't imply superhuman capabilities.

Im not invested in this discussion, nor was i replying to that guy. The person I was replying to was taking about a hypothetial perfect game and I was explaining why that is a mundane point to make when talking about fighters. Thats it.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

Im not invested in this discussion, nor was i replying to that guy. The person I was replying to was taking about a hypothetial perfect game and I was explaining why that is a mundane point to make when talking about fighters. Thats it.

I've actually been very careful about not using the word perfect. What I'm referring to when I say "optimal" is the highest achievable level of play within the lifespan of a game. It may not assume perfection, but it also doesn't assume mistakes like unsafe or punishable commitments.

A "read" is only effective if you have the requisite tools necessary for the counterplay. In many instances, a character simply does not. There is this assumption here that a completely safe approach is some kind of mythological impossibility, but it's really not. Some characters don't have the frame data to punish safe moves even on powershield, which is why they are safe. Worse yet, some characters have no reason to approach at all, and can force approaches from a character without safe options. It may not make the match-ups literally impossible because of the human limitations @ cot(θ) is referring to, but it does make the chances much more drastically skewed in one character's favor than these MU ratios would suggest. That's really the bottom line of what I've been getting at this whole time.

 

[Gawain]

I've actually been very careful about not using the word perfect. What I'm referring to when I say "optimal" is the highest achievable level of play within the lifespan of a game. It may not assume perfection, but it also doesn't assume mistakes like unsafe or punishable commitments.

A "read" is only effective if you have the requisite tools necessary for the counterplay. In many instances, a character simply does not. There is this assumption here that a completely safe approach is some kind of mythological impossibility, but it's really not. Some characters don't have the frame data to punish safe moves even on powershield, which is why they are safe. Worse yet, some characters have no reason to approach at all, and can force approaches from a character without safe options. It may not make the match-ups literally impossible because of the human limitations @ cot(θ) is referring to, but it does make the chances much more drastically skewed in one character's favor than these MU ratios would suggest. That's really the bottom line of what I've been getting at this whole time.

Alright, makes sense, I just misinterpreted what you were saying then. Also this sentence "A "read" is only effective if you have the requisite tools necessary for the counterplay." is something that I don't think enough people understand. You gotta have the speed to be able to respond and you gotta have the tools to put the enemy in a position that you can even get good reads. Agreed completely on this.

 

[shinyskarmory]

I think the most important thing that some people are forgetting in this discussion is that the level of skill isn't fixed, and neither is the meta.

For example, the top level of play is indisputably Zer0 in Sm4sh; in Melee it's PPMD/Armada/M2K/Mango/Hbox/Leffen. But that doesn't mean that the top level of play will stay there. Ken used to be the top level of play in Melee and he's not anymore.

As the best players get better, the meta will evolve. The best options before get worse as people figure out ways to deal with them. There may be bad options that get better as people figure out new ways to use them.

But right now, in this moment, if some completely new player walked up to you and said "I'm getting into competitive Sm4sh, who's the most important character for me to learn to play/learn to play against?", what would your answer be? It'd be Sheik.

Essentially, that's what a tier list is best for: informing players which characters are perceived to be strongest, and by extension driving the development of the meta as people will focus on learning the matchups that are perceived to be more important.

But tier lists do have an unintended drawback. In an ideal world, everybody would play the character they enjoy most and have an equal opportunity for success. In practice, the characters viewed as high tier have their metagame development drastically accelerated, putting them into a "fully developed" state much more quickly while low tier characters tend to stagnate and develop very slowly if at all.

(It's worth noting here that low tier and high tier perceptions, while not always perfect, are usually fairly accurate. Sometimes we miss a diamond in the rough like Melee ICs/Jiggs, sometimes a character can initially appear much stronger than they actually are like Little Mac. But most of the time we get it right.)

This is where patches come in. 99% of the time, if a character is perceived as weak by the community, they probably are weak. Weak characters get comparatively weaker over time because they attract much less new blood and meta development then strong characters. Giving weak characters buffs not only makes them objectively stronger, it also helps kickstart their metagame development. Similarly, nerfing strong characters encourages those players to either develop their metas more or spend time experimenting with other characters and furthering their metas. This is beside the obvious other benefits of adding more content and removing game breaking bugs.

Patches are good for any competitive game so long as they aren't too frequent. For a fighting game like Sm4sh, where each character has plenty of moves to use, the time between patches should be 1-3 months so that people have time to develop their characters in between patches.

 

[Raijinken]

I think the most important thing that some people are forgetting in this discussion is that the level of skill isn't fixed, and neither is the meta.

For example, the top level of play is indisputably Zer0 in Sm4sh; in Melee it's PPMD/Armada/M2K/Mango/Hbox/Leffen. But that doesn't mean that the top level of play will stay there. Ken used to be the top level of play in Melee and he's not anymore.

As the best players get better, the meta will evolve. The best options before get worse as people figure out ways to deal with them. There may be bad options that get better as people figure out new ways to use them.

But right now, in this moment, if some completely new player walked up to you and said "I'm getting into competitive Sm4sh, who's the most important character for me to learn to play/learn to play against?", what would your answer be? It'd be Sheik.

Essentially, that's what a tier list is best for: informing players which characters are perceived to be strongest, and by extension driving the development of the meta as people will focus on learning the matchups that are perceived to be more important.

But tier lists do have an unintended drawback. In an ideal world, everybody would play the character they enjoy most and have an equal opportunity for success. In practice, the characters viewed as high tier have their metagame development drastically accelerated, putting them into a "fully developed" state much more quickly while low tier characters tend to stagnate and develop very slowly if at all.

(It's worth noting here that low tier and high tier perceptions, while not always perfect, are usually fairly accurate. Sometimes we miss a diamond in the rough like Melee ICs/Jiggs, sometimes a character can initially appear much stronger than they actually are like Little Mac. But most of the time we get it right.)

This is where patches come in. 99% of the time, if a character is perceived as weak by the community, they probably are weak. Weak characters get comparatively weaker over time because they attract much less new blood and meta development then strong characters. Giving weak characters buffs not only makes them objectively stronger, it also helps kickstart their metagame development. Similarly, nerfing strong characters encourages those players to either develop their metas more or spend time experimenting with other characters and furthering their metas. This is beside the obvious other benefits of adding more content and removing game breaking bugs.

Patches are good for any competitive game so long as they aren't too frequent. For a fighting game like Sm4sh, where each character has plenty of moves to use, the time between patches should be 1-3 months so that people have time to develop their characters in between patches.

Perfectly stated.

Tiers create feedback loops (I don't think it's possible to rationally object to this) influencing character development rates. Take Smashboards' own Character Rankings page. Now, this isn't a tier list, it's a popularity chart based on reported usage in tournaments that meet certain Smashboards-defined and user-entered standards. However, it DOES follow certain trends.

The top twelve characters on the list are widely considered some of the, if not the, best in the game, particularly when you factor in the game's lifespan and patches (Sheik's popularity only recently overtook Diddy's when hoohah got nerfed, for instance, but he had a much longer reign). There's a sharp usage drop between Captain Falcon (memetically awesome and also pretty straightforward to learn and use) and Mario (Mr Nintendo himself). From there on, it's a pretty steady downward slope through characters who are solid (as most in Smash4 are) with sizable fanbases (Villager, Megaman, Kirby), characters with very large NA fanbases (Little Mac) regardless of success, characters with smaller fanbases (the Fire Emblem characters, Wario, Kid Icarus characters, DK), down to even less popular characters (Samus, Zelda, Doc), and finally culminating in DLC characters (new) and Miis (for a very long time not even allowed in tournaments, and still rarely played for "fear" of being cut if the customs "fad" ends).

Some of that can be explained by popularity, or ease of use, or rulesets, or newness. The rest, not so much. Charizard has virtually overtaken Pikachu as Pokemon's mascot in the US as most kids who grew up playing Pokemon are grown up and look nostalgically back on their first starter Pokemon. Yet he's near the bottom of the list, and is almost solely known for being an okay-ish counter to Sheik due to rock smash. Tons of players love Metroid Prime, and most who do don't like Other M, but Samus is significantly lower on the tier list.

For any character from a popular series to appear so low, and to not have ruleset or availability justifications, there has to be a perceived weakness. While some players will be character loyalists, and gradually develop Zelda' or Doc's or Brawler's metagames, there's only so much high-level play that can have happened in 124 recorded tournament appearances versus 1646 recorded tournament appearances.

Hopefully with customs and EVO and balance patches, we'll see more characters get some recognition (the commentators kept remarking on how Brawler is considered high-tier but very few players aside from Dapuffster use him). Even if a buff or nerf gets reverted later, simply changing characters to pique people's interest can lead to interesting results (for a non-Smash example, see the long streak of buffs on the virtually-unplayed at pro level Juggernaut in culminating in his utter dominance for a few months once his strength was realized in Dota 2). That sort of prodding is great for metagame development as long as the developer does it right. But that's an entirely separate debate.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

When I see results like Evo's it does show that the patches did help but there is more that could be done patch wise.

The diversity at evo, was pretty dang good in the top 32, and even the top 8.

At this point, it is only spoiling us if we complain over trying to learn.

 

[LightLV]

I just want to point something out that blew my mind

In Smash 4, Diddy won the grand final match, tournament dominated by shiek, mario, rosalina ect, most of which using minimal customs

In Melee, HUGS made it into top-8 using Samus. Those matches were the hypest in both smash games IMO

As for the balance of this game, it's really not even worth debating, the top-5 are still so far ahead of the others that they choke the roster out.

 

[Ruff]

I heard once a wise man said that a necessary evil is sometimes needed to balance out the world

 

[Tenretsujin10]

I just want to point something out that blew my mind

In Smash 4, Diddy won the grand final match, tournament dominated by shiek, mario, rosalina ect, most of which using minimal customs

In Melee, HUGS made it into top-8 using Samus. Those matches were the hypest in both smash games IMO

As for the balance of this game, it's really not even worth debating, the top-5 are still so far ahead of the others that they choke the roster out.

There's plenty enough character diversity, top 8 character roster at Evo: 2 Sheiks, 2 Diddy Kongs, 2 Rosalinas, 1 ZSS, 1 Pacman, 1 Wario, 1 Pikachu, 1 Mario, and 1 Ness. I'm not gonna count Ally playing Marth mainly because he got dumped on.

 

[jet56]

i also think the diversity was just fine at evo.

the biggest thing i noticed in this game is that the top tier characters all have a solid spacing tool, strong aeriels, and good grabs and follow-ups. i think the reason they are so high up there, is because of the fact that the game is still more or less defensive.

think about it, their is almost no shield-stun, so throwing up shield is typically safe, however you get more lag when no one hits your shield and you want to drop it, then if someone were to hit it and you could use an out of shield option or shield grab. but the top 5-10 characters on the roster can empty jump, cross-up, or grab to punish, then use their aerials to juggle. and they can also use their shield against all the characters who don't have those strong options. just something i observed.

 

[Tenretsujin10]

Good frame data, good grab follow ups, or just good combo game. Without those, your character can't dream of being a top-tier. Even though Marth has been my favorite character in the entire Smash Series, he sucks in Smash 4. Saddening, but oh well.

 

[jet56]

ik i feel ya. i main little mac, and has amazing frame data, but he has almost no grab follow ups and his combo game can be DI'ed out of. not to mention you have to bear hug your opponent to grab in the first place. and almost none of his moves are safe on shield, and he's supposed to dominate the neutral game. and they nerfed his side-b recovery because of too many b*****s complaining about him on for glory. (yeah im ranting but i need to get this out. > ) anyway, yeah, balance patches i feel change too much and we have had too many, if they are going to patch something, make the shield regeneration slower (seriously, that S*** charges way to fast), and add a little more shield stun, so tilts are more or less safe for the entire roster.

in regards to marth, he runs into the same issue, you shield then use a out of shield option or grab, and abuse his long ending lag. the patch i mentioned above would help him tremendously, since he has a good shield pressure game.

wow im whining for another patch. i guess i am spoiled.