• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Brawl+ General Tier Discussion

colored blind

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Purdue/West Lafayette
Sheik is OMGWTFBBQ tier. Just sayin'.

But seriously, if it's just the [Marth/Squirtle/Fox/Kirby/MK] tier, that's cool with me. They all seem to balance and counter each other pretty well in B+.

Other characters that seem above average and totally viable: Pikachu, ZSS, Falco, Luigi, Snake, Sheik, and probably more that I just don't have any experience against. I don't care if I'm not talking about the tier list whatever which is the topic of this thread, I just really want to express my happiness with the balance that seems to be going on here.
 

Shadic

Alakadoof?
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
5,695
Location
Olympia, WA
NNID
Shadoof
Every char has flaws. Some more then others. In order for a lowered tiered char to win the player must be better. Thats how it's supposed to be.
Uh, what? We're looking for a balanced game. If, for example, it was common knowledge that Metaknight is far better than Donkey Kong, I'd expect something to be done about it, rather than say "Whatever! Get better!"

Yes, I'm talking about tournament-level play.
 

colored blind

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Purdue/West Lafayette
He's saying that we won't end up with a completely balanced game. What I would like, however, is for players to constantly have feedback, and the WBR to release 'patches' every so often based on that feedback which have been playtested by the WBR themselves. That way a 'tier list' is constantly, slightly shifting, and we achieve a greater balance, kind of like what Blizzard does with Star/Warcraft.
 

Roxas215

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,882
Location
The World That Never Was
Uh, what? We're looking for a balanced game. If, for example, it was common knowledge that Metaknight is far better than Donkey Kong, I'd expect something to be done about it, rather than say "Whatever! Get better!"

Yes, I'm talking about tournament-level play.
Yea were aiming for balance. Not every matchup 50-50
 

Swordplay

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,716
Location
Chicago
Yea were aiming for balance. Not every match up 50-50
This is the most important thing to realize is that balance =/= 50 50 math ups.

We are striving for a diverse counterpick system in which every character has a place.





In all honesty, this thread should not exist yet. I'm not even going to dignify myself to associating with B+ tiers. However I do think its important that a central thread to talk about this topic exists so newbs to B+ stop making the thread over and over. Hopefully this thread will serve this purpose.
 

Swordplay

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,716
Location
Chicago
..........Philly Shadic understands that.


let me draw you a scenario.

If I play metaknight 1000 times against a person of equal skill with all characters who chooses random, we should split near 50-50. This takes into account not 1 but ALL match ups.


Metaknight shouldn't score 600-650 out of the random match's compared to say Ganon's 300. In that scenerio, Metaknight is blatantly overpowering in not 1 matchup but across the board.

In B+ we should strive for better results than that. If one character is blatantly overpowering, he/she should be nerfed. Like wise, if a character blatantly sucks, he/she should be buffed. If it's close, who cares.


The hard part is where to draw the line and call it "close enough." Thats unfortunately where opinions come in.

Bottom line: Nobody cares about individual match ups unless they are worse than 75:25 or 80:20. What matters is the overall smash scene.

Furthermore:
What? I never said the game didn't need to be balanced. I said you don't have to nerf a char just because this char is better then another one.
The italics and Bold kind of contradict each other, that is unless the italics is talking about smash on the whole scene and the bold is talking about individual match ups (Which nobody cares about) LOL I guess I'm having trouble following your argument, you'll have to explain better because if a character IS better on the overall smash scene in the scenario I ran in the beginning of this post, then they need to be addressed and THAT IS BALANCING THE GAME.
 

matt4300

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
821
Location
USA-AL
No

There are reasons all around if you think from a more practical stance then a fictional world, no offense man. If you really want I'll check this topic after I brush my teeth and finish getting ready for bed, but the reasons are all already here, just gotta be logical.
I am being logical... I dont ever think this game will be perfectly balanced, or that falcon will every be able to fight on par with falco or meta no matter how many buffs we give him. You guys are doing a great job and balance is MUCH better than its ever been. I'm just saying that the nerfs need to be more prominent. I have seen even just in this thread people saying that marth was overnerfed ... yet hes still considered one of the best. How can you be over nerfed if your still one of the best chars in the game? Sounds like he needs to be nerfed more to me. Thats logical.. and I also mean no offence to you guys your still doing a great job and I trust your logic. If I really thought I was wrong or illogical I would tell you. Capes made me take back my words a few times.But, I have thought this since the balanceing started.

Uh, what? We're looking for a balanced game. If, for example, it was common knowledge that Metaknight is far better than Donkey Kong, I'd expect something to be done about it, rather than say "Whatever! Get better!"

Yes, I'm talking about tournament-level play.


This is what im talking about. Don't tell me it would hurt balance to nerf the better chars into the unplaceable catagory that most chars are in. It is very possible. Theres just so many people that dont want this to happen.

He's saying that we won't end up with a completely balanced game. What I would like, however, is for players to constantly have feedback, and the WBR to release 'patches' every so often based on that feedback which have been playtested by the WBR themselves. That way a 'tier list' is constantly, slightly shifting, and we achieve a greater balance, kind of like what Blizzard does with Star/Warcraft.

yeh pretty sure this has been the general concensus ^_^


Yea were aiming for balance. Not every matchup 50-50

We can tell. Just playing the game its already much more balanced. The chars are to different to get a 50-50 in just about every case. More than 1 30-70 match up on a char like falcon on lucas, marth, or pika and someone needs to be fixed. It just so happens that falcon is somewhere in the un placeable, but marth and pika are 2 of the better chars. Nerfing marth and pika while still haveing a terrible match up with lucas makes better balance... but geh... you guys already know this. I must just be really bored right now to start this ****. I'm done and gone.

What? I never said the game didn't need to be balanced. I said you don't have to nerf a char just because this char is better then another one.
Not because hes better than another one but becuase hes better than LOTS of them wich we all know who these chars are. You can have metaknight in low tier and he will still be better than falcon but bowser will **** him. Why would someone take the time to learn 2 chars in the unplaceable teir when they are gonna have atleast 3 in the "good chars" catagory that covers all the chars counters? Thats how you get games like melee and brawl where everyone plays 10 or so chars and the rest are forgotten.. I just think that people are to afraid to nerf the good chars to hard... when really they could be nerfed alot and still be playable like the rest of the cast.

Lol we always seem to see eye to eye SP... what you are saying is exactly what im trying to convey
 

Thunderhorse+

Smash Ace
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
700
Location
peein' in all there buttz
This is what im talking about. Don't tell me it would hurt balance to nerf the better chars into the unplaceable catagory that most chars are in. It is very possible. Theres just so many people that dont want this to happen.

...

We can tell. Just playing the game its already much more balanced. The chars are to different to get a 50-50 in just about every case. More than 1 30-70 match up on a char like falcon on lucas, marth, or pika and someone needs to be fixed. It just so happens that falcon is somewhere in the un placeable, but marth and pika are 2 of the better chars. Nerfing marth and pika while still haveing a terrible match up with lucas makes better balance... but geh... you guys already know this. I must just be really bored right now to start this ****. I'm done and gone.
I'm not going to say too much here, because I think this thread is rather silly at this point and time, even if we're no longer discussing straight tier lists, but I will say this. Why do we have to dumb down the top? Why can't we, say, continue to buff the middling characters until they are on par with the top, rather than nerfing the bottom to be with the cluster of unplacables. Sure it would be more work, but the result would be relatively the same, except the top characters don't lose options and tactics and the middling characters gain options and tactics.
 

Swordplay

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,716
Location
Chicago
Lol we always seem to see eye to eye SP... what you are saying is exactly what im trying to convey
Lol seems so. I agree with you. on maybe 98% of your post.


The solution thus far has been to buff bad characters instead of nerf good ones. Its possible that there has been too much buffing and not enough nerfing.

But I don't think its because people are afraid to over buff. I think its because people are afraid of changing established characters. Its a big deal considering constant change is a reason people stay away from B+ and wait till gold.

Infact the post that follows yours is an example.

Why can't we, say, continue to buff the middling characters until they are on par with the top, rather than nerfing the bottom to be with the cluster of unplacables. Sure it would be more work, but the result would be relatively the same, except the top characters don't lose options and tactics and the middling characters gain options and tactics.
People don't want to change what is established.......Which is unfortunate because thats where I believe the real progress can be made. I'll simply reply to thunderhorse saying that I'd rather nerf 10 charactes than buff 26 Lastly, there does become a point where you radically change bad characters from over buffing in attempting to reach that top level. We've seen it happen before and its not something that is enjoyed as it is especially noticable in the transition from VB to B+
 

Roxas215

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,882
Location
The World That Never Was
Like i said before. Chars are better then others simply based off movesets. All the buffs/nerfs in the world wont change that.

No matter how much u buff yoshi he will never be as good as mk and thats facts.
 

matt4300

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
821
Location
USA-AL
I'm not going to say too much here, because I think this thread is rather silly at this point and time, even if we're no longer discussing straight tier lists, but I will say this. Why do we have to dumb down the top? Why can't we, say, continue to buff the middling characters until they are on par with the top, rather than nerfing the bottom to be with the cluster of unplacables. Sure it would be more work, but the result would be relatively the same, except the top characters don't lose options and tactics and the middling characters gain options and tactics.
Thats fine to. I'm all for it , but like you said it would be more work than the other way around...

Like i said before. Chars are better then others simply based off movesets. All the buffs/nerfs in the world wont change that.

No matter how much u buff yoshi he will never be as good as mk and thats facts.
I whole heartedly dissagree with everything in this post... If I knew how to code I could make yoshi 10 times better than meta. I know what codes do what, and wich codes have been made ... with that knowledge I can assure you meta would not even have to be nerfed. But not everybody would be happy with what I come up with... wich is where this whole issue of balance starts to have problems ... Like me and SP said; not everybody wants to see there char nerfed or to see that amount balance for that matter. Ive talked with people that would be pissed if fox and marth werent top teir. Theres alot of fear that goes along with messing with these staple chars and there staple moves because there are so many poeple that play this game, and in some cases theres money on the line.
 

The Immortal Sir NZ

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
153
Location
San Diego, CA
I'm not going to say too much here, because I think this thread is rather silly at this point and time, even if we're no longer discussing straight tier lists, but I will say this. Why do we have to dumb down the top? Why can't we, say, continue to buff the middling characters until they are on par with the top, rather than nerfing the bottom to be with the cluster of unplacables. Sure it would be more work, but the result would be relatively the same, except the top characters don't lose options and tactics and the middling characters gain options and tactics.
Sounds good, I would much rather buff up the low/ bottom tiers instead of nerf the top tiers.
If we just make every character low powered/low kill options or whatever makes them low tier, sure we have a balanced game, but we also have a boring and/or tedious game.
 

Thunderhorse+

Smash Ace
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
700
Location
peein' in all there buttz
People don't want to change what is established.......Which is unfortunate because thats where I believe the real progress can be made. I'll simply reply to thunderhorse saying that I'd rather nerf 10 charactes than buff 26 and there does become a point where you radically change bad characters from over buffing in attempting to reach that top level. We've seen it happen before.
As I said in the Falco topic, conservatism is overrated. Though in the end it just comes down to personal taste.

Like i said before. Chars are better then others simply based off movesets. All the buffs/nerfs in the world wont change that.

No matter how much u buff yoshi he will never be as good as mk and thats facts.
Simna's Ness build would like to have a word with you.
 

Roxas215

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,882
Location
The World That Never Was
Thats fine to. I'm all for it , but like you said it would be more work than the other way around...



I whole heartedly dissagree with everything in this post... If I knew how to code I could make yoshi 10 times better than meta. I know what codes do what, and wich codes have been made ... with that knowledge I can assure you meta would not even have to be nerfed. But not everybody would be happy with what I come up with... wich is where this whole issue of balance starts to have problems ... Like me and SP said; not everybody wants to see there char nerfed or to see that amount balance for that matter. Ive talked with people that would be pissed if fox and marth werent top teir. Theres alot of fear that goes along with messing with these staple chars and there staple moves because there are so many poeple that play this game, and in some cases theres money on the line.
My posts was speaking in terms of buffs/nerfs at a reasonable level. If yoshi was ever buffed to be as good as mk then the coders went overboard.
 

Swordplay

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,716
Location
Chicago
I seem to be outnumbered here...........


All matt and I are saying is that its easier to nerf 10 characters than buff 26.


Your welcome do to it your way as long as you get there in the end though.







O and philly, your completely wrong. If we wanted, we could make Yoshi better than MK. Maybe Yoshi would enjoy a 1hko move.

JK JK but seriously, We've dealt with some TERRIBLE move sets before in Link and Ness. If we wanted to buff yoshi "reasonably" we could do it and it wouldn't be considered overdone as long as Yoshi still had a number of bad matchups to counterpick him
 

matt4300

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
821
Location
USA-AL
My posts was speaking in terms of buffs/nerfs at a reasonable level. If yoshi was ever buffed to be as good as mk then the coders went overboard.
Which is why you would nerf meta... If any char was buffed to meta level ... the coders went over board... whats that say about meta? Nerf him.

Yoshi would need to be buffed meta would need nerfs. Thats how balance works. Thats not to say yoshi needs buffs because he has a hard time with meta. But buffing him wouldent make him broken and god knows nerfing meta wont make him suck.

Your not gonna tell a brawl+ link main that nothing can be done with a bad moveset.Especially one that spent weeks working on him.


"conservatism is overrated."

thats going in my sig @_@
 

Swordplay

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,716
Location
Chicago
For a strange reason I feel compelled to respond based on pride. Previous post was suppose to be my last but......
Your not gonna tell a brawl+ link main that nothing can be done with a bad moveset.Especially one that spent weeks working on him.

He plays Ness Link Bowser and Samus........

I can assure you Matt4300 knows much more about "bad movesets" than you do philly.....Perhaps more than me or anybody.
 

Roxas215

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,882
Location
The World That Never Was
Which is why you would nerf meta... If any char was buffed to meta level ... the coders went over board... whats that say about meta? Nerf him.

Yoshi would need to be buffed meta would need nerfs. Thats how balance works. Thats not to say yoshi needs buffs because he has a hard time with meta. But buffing him wouldent make him broken and god knows nerfing meta wont make him suck.

Your not gonna tell a brawl+ link main that nothing can be done with a bad moveset.Especially one that spent weeks working on him.
Except that mk has already been nerfed HARD. Nerfing him any more is just a spit in the face to the very few mk mains in b+. Seriously there is no reason for any mk main in vbrawl to even want to play mk in brawl+ Every single char in the game besides him as gotten at least one buff.

Don't get it wrong the nerfs that mk received was needed. But seeing the fact that even after those nerfs people are still complaining and whining about how he is broken(which he is not) just showcase what i said about chars movesets making them better then other chars.

Mk is completely beatable in b+ His weight is now a legit flaw. If your losing to mk then "dare i say it" GET BETTER.

Seriously if the wbr just give in to people crying about balance this game is going to be too easy to play. I for one love to go against top tier chars with my lower tiered one(i main peach in vbrawl and i play ivy in brawl+ who i believe is bottom 5)


Vbrawl was clearly unbalanced. B+ narrows that gap tenfold. The wbr should be focused on getting this thing to a gold release. Thats never going to happen if all people do is cry about their main not being good. I believe every char is viable as of now. But of course u need legit secondaries(and maybe even 3rd's) to cover matchups.



As far as link. His moveset wasn't bad(it wasn't terribly good but i mean you acting like it was horrible). It was his recovery that was horrible. The addition of hitstun helped link out more then most of the cast(Same for zss)

You can't simply say(i want this char nerfed because he is better the char i play with)
Thats stupid.

You should already have the mindset that u need to play better then the other player when going against top tier chars.

Simna's Ness build would like to have a word with you.

Like i said i was talking about buffs/nerfs in a reasonable sense. Sinma's ness was stupid. I was ****** with him and i never played ness a day in my life. I swore i did fair like 6 times. He went from bottom 10 to like top 5 in one update lol.
 

Swordplay

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,716
Location
Chicago
1st of all Links movest WAS bad. he had the moveset of a midweight but the physics and recovery of a heavy weight. They didn't match and it was a BAD moveset.


2nd with statements like "
I for one love to go against top tier chars with my lower tiered one
" I am considering you a lost cause because you are stating you LIKE THE EXISTENCE OF TIERS!!!!!!!!! Tiers are UNBALNCED!! So you like an UNBALANCED GAME !!!!!??????????


3rd I enjoy playing MK in B+ because unlke VB, its actually a challenge to win!!

This goes out to everyone
4th and most importantly, the reason the game is easy is because you keep buffing characters. BUFFS MAKE CHARACTERS EASY TO PLAY. if you want to make characters HARDER to play and thus the GAME harder, NERF CHARACTERS!!!!!!!!!
 

Rkey

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Stockholm
When mentioning bad movesets, don't forget all the things the hackers can already do, and did you guys forget about phantom wings code? Did you see phoenix mario? Unless, youtube it.

Is not the goal for brawl+ to balance the game out so much that there wont be a single character that is useless? Who says that this is not possible?

Everyone A lot of people is, as said, obsessed with a "tier-list", but I have a feeling we wont need one for brawl+. Even after the gold release, there will still be patches to even things out. And just because everyone is about just as good, you wont be able to play anyone at anytime (as you could in vBrawl... mk -.-). There is still matchups, and I'm looking forward to a real rock-paper-scissors matchup ^_^
 

Roxas215

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,882
Location
The World That Never Was
1st of all Links movest WAS bad. he had the moveset of a midweight but the physics and recovery of a heavy weight. They didn't match and it was a BAD moveset.


2nd with statements like "I enjoy going up against top tier characters with low tiers" I am considering you a lost cause because you are stating you LIKE TIERS!!!!!!!!! Tiers are UNBALNCED!! So you like an UNBALANCED GAME !!!!!??????????


3rd I enjoy playing MK in B+ because unlke VB, its actually a challenge to win!!

This goes out to everyone
4th and most importantly, the reason the game is easy is because you keep buffing characters. BUFFS MAKE CHARACTERS EASY TO PLAY. if you want to make characters HARDER to play and thus the GAME harder, NERF CHARACTERS!!!!!!!!!
You name me one fighter JUST ONE that don't have tiers. Even games like powerstone have tiers. TIERS WILL ALWAYS EXIST. There is no stopping that. If you actually think this game wont have tiers your lying to yourself. There is not a single competitive game in existence that don't have tiers. Some chars are just simply better then others.

Also i said mk mains. Not people who like to play mk. There is absolutely no incentive for a mk main in vbrawl to want to play him in brawl+ NOT ONE.

Also you just contradicted yourself on link. The physics of the game and his recovery is what made link horrible. Not his moveset. Same thing could be said to captain falcon. The physics of brawl is what made falcon a horrible char. With the new engine in brawl+ you see how falcon is now.


I kinda see why all the other fighting communities hate the smash community.
 

Swordplay

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,716
Location
Chicago
You name me one fighter JUST ONE that don't have tiers. Even games like powerstone have tiers. TIERS WILL ALWAYS EXIST. There is no stopping that. If you actually think this game wont have tiers your lying to yourself. There is not a single competitive game in existence that don't have tiers.

Also i said mk mains. Not people who like to play mk. There is absolutely no incentive for a mk main in vbrawl to want to play him in brawl+ NOT ONE.

Also you just contradicted yourself on link. The physics of the game and his recovery is what made link horrible. Not his moveset. Same thing could be said to captain falcon. The physics of brawl is what made falcon a horrible char. With the new engine in brawl+ you see how falcon is now.


I kinda see why all the other fighting communities hate the smash community.
1) You don't understand Links problem. I assure you, the community of Link mains understand him better than you. Link didn't kill fast enough for his poor physics and even more importantly, highly punishable moveset. Ask any Link main and they will tell you the same. I won't respond to this point again because no matter how many times we Link mains such Matt4300 and myself say "Link mains know Link better than you," People who have dedicated a few hours of day training with him to fight the likes of Marth MK and Snake you seem to shrug it off so I will ignore future responses to this.

2) I don't expect tiers to be gone, I expect them to be less than they are and for continuous improvement as we move towards gold.

3) No game has ever been hacked to the extent B+ has. The possibilities are endless and so is the potential. Name me one fighter that has been hacked to the extent B+ has.

4) From what I have heard there have been games that came close-----VF 4 fans tell you tiers don't mean ****, We are hacking the game, we can get closer than predecessors.



there is no need to use the "lol Sworplay expects a game without tiers" card. I'm not that stupid though apparently you think I am.


Furthermore: you continue to treat me as if I am new to the scene and don't know anything about "physics" or "momentum" when infact I have been around the scene for a very long time and know just as much as you do.
 

Rkey

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Stockholm
You name me one fighter JUST ONE that don't have tiers. Even games like powerstone have tiers. TIERS WILL ALWAYS EXIST. There is no stopping that. If you actually think this game wont have tiers your lying to yourself. There is not a single competitive game in existence that don't have tiers. Some chars are just simply better then others.

Also i said mk mains. Not people who like to play mk. There is absolutely no incentive for a mk main in vbrawl to want to play him in brawl+ NOT ONE.

Also you just contradicted yourself on link. The physics of the game and his recovery is what made link horrible. Not his moveset. Same thing could be said to captain falcon. The physics of brawl is what made falcon a horrible char. With the new engine in brawl+ you see how falcon is now.


I kinda see why all the other fighting communities hate the smash community.
Swordplay, you're not alone anymore:

How can you tell that brawl+ will have tiers, can you see into the future? Yes, not a single competetive game to date that doesn't have tiers. You are forgetting that this game is patched and patched and patched and...

Also: Tiers is based on mathcups, right? The one with the most ammount of good matchups is the highest tier, correct? Well, maybe some characters will ahve a larger ammount of good matchup than others, but as long as they can be countered and all the characters have at least some meaning ("this character" is bad, but does counter "this character" better than most of the cast), I believe the game is till ballanced.


Well, playing MK because he is awesome? Let me tell you my story:

I was, without looking at the tier list, trying to find my main in vBrawl. I looked for a while, and then I thought that MK was pretty cool and wanted to play him. When I saw his position in the tier list, I dropped him.

Now that he is actually not God tier, I'm thinking of playing him again, because now it is a challange instead of just a walk in the park. I am pretty sure I'm not the only one thinking like this.


Ok, so you are saying that people hate me and Swordlink and other guys on smashboards. So? I really don't see a reason to care about what some guy in "whatever country" thinks about me if I'm playing brawl+ with my friends here in Sweden and we all enjoy it.
 

bleyva

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
511
Except that mk has already been nerfed HARD. Nerfing him any more is just a spit in the face to the very few mk mains in b+. Seriously there is no reason for any mk main in vbrawl to even want to play mk in brawl+ Every single char in the game besides him as gotten at least one buff.
but if MK is still top tier, it should continue. trying to cater to the few people who will main MK in B+ doesnt seem like a legitimate reason to keep the game unbalanced.

i think the people who are in charge of this project need to realize that for people who main MK, Marth etc vBrawl will always be the more attractive choice for competitive play.

i agree with Matt and Swordplay. something should be (and could be) be done about characters that are already known to be above the rest. thats just my opinion.
 

Rkey

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Stockholm
but if MK is still top tier, it should continue. trying to cater to the few people who will main MK in B+ doesnt seem like a legitimate reason to keep the game unbalanced.

i think the people who are in charge of this project need to realize that for people who main MK, Marth etc vBrawl will always be the more attractive choice for competitive play

i agree with Matt and Swordplay. something should be (and could be) be done about characters that are already known to be above the rest. thats just my opinion.
True dat, and I don't think I have more to say than that actually ^_^
 

bleyva

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
511
True dat, and I don't think I have more to say than that actually ^_^
thats just the way it is. if i wanna play MK or snake competitively, vBrawl will naturally look more attractive for all advantages provided. if i wanna play CF or Samus, B+ is obviously more appealing.

nothing can be done about that, and it shouldnt distract from efforts to balance B+ to the greatest possible extent.
 

Rkey

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Stockholm
thats just the way it is. if i wanna play MK or snake competitively, vBrawl will naturally look more attractive for all advantages provided. if i wanna play CF or Samus, B+ is obviously more appealing.

nothing can be done about that, and it shouldnt distract from efforts to balance B+ to the greatest possible extent.
Well, that goes for people who play to win, not people who play to have themselves a challenging and fun game. It's a lot more fun to play MK in brawl+ than in vBrawl, at least to me.

But yeah, for the competitive players, you are very correct. But isn't it a bit cowardly of them to do so, running away from the real challenge? :)
 

matt4300

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
821
Location
USA-AL
Well, that goes for people who play to win, not people who play to have themselves a challenging and fun game. It's a lot more fun to play MK in brawl+ than in vBrawl, at least to me.

But yeah, for the competitive players, you are very correct. But isn't it a bit cowardly of them to do so, running away from the real challenge? :)
I would rather play the game that is fun not the one were my char is the best... and I am a tourney player melee and brawl. Its not fun playing link in melee and loseing my first match to a marth and haveing to go play freindlys in a corner... you could tell me " should have played marth" well then why am i there? im no longer haveing fun... We have the power to change this game and balance the **** out of it... but if moneys on the line poeple will say anything to keep there chars the best (marth fox?) This needs to be stoped in order to have a well balanced game. If you want the money you should have to work for it and not pick the best char.... all that gets us is metabrawl...
 

Roxas215

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,882
Location
The World That Never Was
1) You don't understand Links problem. I assure you, the community of Link mains understand him better than you. Link didn't kill fast enough for his poor physics and even more importantly, highly punishable moveset. Ask any Link main and they will tell you the same. I won't respond to this point again because no matter how many times we Link mains such Matt4300 and myself say "Link mains know Link better than you," People who have dedicated a few hours of day training with him to fight the likes of Marth MK and Snake you seem to shrug it off so I will ignore future responses to this.

2) I don't expect tiers to be gone, I expect them to be less than they are and for continuous improvement as we move towards gold.

3) No game has ever been hacked to the extent B+ has. The possibilities are endless and so is the potential. Name me one fighter that has been hacked to the extent B+ has.

4) From what I have heard there have been games that came close-----VF 4 fans tell you tiers don't mean ****, We are hacking the game, we can get closer than predecessor.



there is no need to use the "lol Sworplay expects a game without tiers" card. I'm not that stupid though apparently you think I am.


Furthermore: you continue to treat me as if I am new to the scene and don't know anything about "physics" or "momentum" when infact I have been around the scene for a very long time and know just as much as you do.
Im not saying i know more about link that u or shadic. Im saying the way you worded your posts seems like your putting movesets and physics as being the same thing. Im not treating you like anything. Im simply stating my opinions. Maybe im not doing it in the kindest way but thats just how i am. Nothing personal. It's not like im bashing you personally.

Tiers are already less then they are. I dont think there is a single matchup in this game right now that is 70-30 imo(of course nothing can be said as fact until we get a gold set)

Yes u right no game has been hacked to the extent of brawl. But this also falls into another argument i had in another topic. Sometimes it seems like the coders buff chars just because they have the power to do so. Not because they need it. Chars don't need to be buffed simply because they have problems against certain chars. This is where matchups comes into play.

Since mk is a sticky subject here let me talk about him. Snake is the most even matchup against mk in brawl. I truly believe snake ***** mk in brawl+. Snake has the best defensive game out the whole cast. And while he did receive a few nerfs i think the engine compliments snake very well. Snake already had minimal hitstun in vbrawl. In brawl+ snake truly has some devastating combo's. Also like i said before mk's weight is now a legit flaw thanks to histun. You can kill mk reliably around 95-110% from the center of the stage. Get a smash attack in while he's near the ledge and you can kill him even earlier.

Lets go to diddy. He's also a char that could hold his own against mk in vbrawl. In brawl+ i think he is a true counter to mk. Diddy's on stage game is completely ridiculous. Even without his nannerz he would be high tier. With them and diddy is a monster. Only thing keeping diddy balanced is his horrible recovery(which mk can have a field day with) If diddy stays on stage and racks up the damage with the nannerz i dont see how diddy can lose to mk. Also not to mention uthrow to dair with diddy is legit.

I also think zss beats mk. The addition of hitstun helped out her offensive game TONS. And she is still one of the best spacers in the game. Side b will give mk plenty of problems and i have landed 5-7 hit combos on mk with her. She can actually combo into fair and with her buffed fsmash a simple dsmash to fsmash will kill mk around 100%.

Like i said i dont think mk is broken at all. He is just a noob char who can be picked up easily. That doesn't mean he needs to be nerfed more then he already is. It simply means the opponent needs to learn how to fight him.

And yes games have been close to not needing a tier list. But the fact that it didn't reach that point says something. I think guilty gear is the only fighter where every single char has won a tournament at least once. That don't mean their isn't a tier list. It simply means every char has the tools to win in the right player hands. And this is what b+ needs to be aiming for.



Well, playing MK because he is awesome? Let me tell you my story:

I was, without looking at the tier list, trying to find my main in vBrawl. I looked for a while, and then I thought that MK was pretty cool and wanted to play him. When I saw his position in the tier list, I dropped him.

Now that he is actually not God tier, I'm thinking of playing him again, because now it is a challange instead of just a walk in the park. I am pretty sure I'm not the only one thinking like this.
Im sure there are other people that thinks like this. I simply stated the vbrawl mains that have been playing their char for over a year have no incentive to play mk in brawl+ as mk offers nothing new unlike every single other char in the game who have at least received one buff. And yall talking about nerfing mk even more?





but if MK is still top tier, it should continue.
No it shouldn't top tier and broken are 2 different things and this is what i think yall are getting confused.


I would rather play the game that is fun not the one were my char is the best... and I am a tourney player melee and brawl. Its not fun playing link in melee and loseing my first match to a marth and haveing to go play freindlys in a corner... you could tell me " should have played marth" well then why am i there? im no longer haveing fun... We have the power to change this game and balance the **** out of it... but if moneys on the line poeple will say anything to keep there chars the best (marth fox?) This needs to be stoped in order to have a well balanced game. If you want the money you should have to work for it and not pick the best char.... all that gets us is metabrawl...
wrong. WRONG!

While balance is a very important aspect in the overall brawl+ process tournament play is just as important. The wbr should not nerf chars simply because link(just using him as a example) isn't the best.

I hate when people act like mk is the only char of winning tournaments in vbrawl

snake
mk
wario
falco
diddy
marth
ddd
ic's

All those chars are viable and very capable of winning a big tournament. Yes mk over dominates mid-level play but this is where the balance part comes in.

There is a fine line between casual and competitive play and i don't want to see brawl+ sacrifice competitive play because of the casuals.
 

Rkey

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Stockholm
I would rather play the game that is fun not the one were my char is the best... and I am a tourney player melee and brawl. Its not fun playing link in melee and loseing my first match to a marth and haveing to go play freindlys in a corner... you could tell me " should have played marth" well then why am i there? im no longer haveing fun... We have the power to change this game and balance the **** out of it... but if moneys on the line poeple will say anything to keep there chars the best (marth fox?) This needs to be stoped in order to have a well balanced game. If you want the money you should have to work for it and not pick the best char.... all that gets us is metabrawl...
I forgot about the money, I hope it wont hinder brawl+ to become the game it could

Edit: Thanks Philly, now you started making sense. I like that :)
 

Strong Badam

Super Elite
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,560
a reasonably balanced game would mean that 50-75% of the characters are tournament viable.
it would take years and years to make every character perfectly balanced with each other, and frankly that would be boring. the counterpick system wouldn't even exist.
 

matt4300

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
821
Location
USA-AL
Im not saying i know more about link that u or shadic. Im saying the way you worded your posts seems like your putting movesets and physics as being the same thing. Im not treating you like anything. Im simply stating my opinions. Maybe im not doing it in the kindest way but thats just how i am. Nothing personal. It's not like im bashing you personally.

Tiers are already less then they are. I dont think there is a single matchup in this game right now that is 70-30 imo(of course nothing can be said as fact until we get a gold set)

Yes u right not game has been hacked to the extent of brawl. But this also falls into another argument i had in another topic. Sometimes it seems like the coders buff chars just because they have the power to do so. Not because they need it. Chars don't need to be buffed simply because they have problems against certain chars. This is where matchups comes into play.

Since mk is a sticky subject here let me talk about him. Snake is the most even matchup against mk in brawl. I truly believe snake ***** mk in brawl+. Snake has the best defensive game out the whole cast. And while he did receive a few nerfs i think the engine compliments snake very well. Snake already had minimal hitstun in vbrawl. In brawl+ snake truly has some devastating combo's. Also like i said before mk's weight is now a legit flaw thanks to histun. You can kill mk reliably around 95-110% from the center of the stage. Get a smash attack in while he's near the ledge and you can kill him even earlier.

Lets go to diddy. He's also a char that could hold his own against mk in vbrawl. In brawl+ i think he is a true counter to mk. Diddy's on stage game is completely ridiculous. Even without his nannerz he would be high tier. With them and diddy is a monster. Only thing keeping diddy balanced is his horrible recovery(which mk can have a field day with) If diddy stays on stage and racks up the damage with the nannerz i dont see how diddy can lose to mk. Also not to mention uthrow to dair with diddy is legit.

I also think zss beats mk. The addition of hitstun helped out her offensive game TONS. And she is still one of the best spacers in the game. Side b will give mk plenty of problems and i have landed 5-7 hit combos on mk with her. She can actually combo into fair and with her buffed fsmash a simple dsmash to fsmash will kill mk around 100%.

Like i said i dont think mk is broken at all. He is just a noob char who can be picked up easily. That doesn't mean he needs to be nerfed more then he already is. It simply means the opponent needs to learn how to fight him.

And yes games have been close to not needing a tier list. But the fact that it didn't reach that point says something. I think guilty gear is the only fighter where every single char has won a tournament at least once. That don't mean their isn't a tier list. It simply means every char has the tools to win in the right player hands. And this is what b+ needs to be aiming for.





Im sure there are other people that thinks like this. I simply stated the vbrawl mains that have been playing their char for over a year have no incentive to play mk in brawl+ as mk offers nothing new unlike every single other char in the game who have at least received one buff. And yall talking about nerfing mk even more?






No it shouldn't top tier and broken are 2 different things and this is what i think yall are getting confused.

Do you see what you just did? You just stated meta counters and ALL of them where in the top chars everyone listed, the chars that should be nerfed. Its like saying if you wanna beat meta you have to play one of the good chars... that is very melee/brawl/unblanced.... The oppenent doesnt need to learn how to fight meta because that wont work with the unplaceable chars ... he needs to learn how to pick in the top 10? seriously..


I'm know that there are more viable chars than meta in brawl and more than marth/fox in melee.. but there still only a handfull that are played in tourney. One of Brawl+s goals is to make every char viable... and when its this obvious to see the best chars every char is not viable... only these obvious to 15 or so are. It may be to a much less extent in brawl+ right now but its still very much there... go watch youtube brawl+ channles like chibos or smks... I rarely see anyone out of the top 15 other than red bandits zelda... if its already happening this quick imagine when we have a gold? the teirs will be established and everyone will ***** these top 15 or so... and nothing will have been acomplished on the balance front...

Im being alittle harsh on that one, but if the already noticeably best chars arent nerfed or the other 24 or so char arent buffed this is whats gonna happen again... for the 4th time
 

Rkey

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Stockholm
a reasonably balanced game would mean that 50-75% of the characters are tournament viable.
it would take years and years to make every character perfectly balanced with each other, and frankly that would be boring. the counterpick system wouldn't even exist.
Why not 100%?
 

Roxas215

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,882
Location
The World That Never Was
Do you see what you just did? You just stated meta counters and ALL of them where in the top chars everyone listed, the chars that should be nerfed. Its like saying if you wanna beat meta you have to play one of the good chars... that is very melee/brawl/unblanced.... The oppenent doesnt need to learn how to fight meta because that wont work with the unplaceable chars ... he needs to learn how to pick in the top 10? seriously..
All of those were just examples of how mk isn't broken. If a matchup isn't 70-30 then i don't see the problem. Like i said yall are under the impression that every matchup should be 50-50 and thats not the case.

How about u name some chars that u think aren't viable? I don't see how everyone here is complaining about mk when chars like squirtle exists.

Also since u think those 3 chars i listed were mk counters(which zss certainly isn't. Being able to hold you own and being a counter are 2 different things) Then what the hell is the problem if the best char in the game(which mk isn't) have counters?

Why not 100%?
Just as Strong_Bad said. The counterpick system wouldn't exist.
 

Strong Badam

Super Elite
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,560
well there has to be some chars that aren't tourney viable
otherwise people can't brag about using low tiers. =)

plus balancing 40+ (roy, dr. mario, young link, etc.??) to make all of them tourney viable would take a long time... time better spent going to tourneys and developing the metagame -_-
 

matt4300

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
821
Location
USA-AL
All of those were just examples of how mk isn't broken. If a matchup isn't 70-30 then i don't see the problem. Like i said yall are under the impression that every matchup should be 50-50 and thats not the case.

How about u name some chars that u think aren't viable? I don't see how everyone here is complaining about mk when chars like squirtle exists.

Also since u think those 3 chars i listed were mk counters(which zss certainly isn't. Being able to hold you own and being a counter are 2 different things) Then what the hell is the problem if the best char in the game(which mk isn't) have counters?


Just as Strong_Bad said. The counterpick system wouldn't exist.
read my last post agin...

Meta was an extreme case and good to use as an example... I think squirtle needs more nerfs to. The problem isent that the best chars have counters its that the best chars counters are in the best chars... wich means that you need to play in the high/top tier to compete. Which goes against one of the goals of brawl + in the first place... the problem is there ARE 70-30 matchups but none of the good chars have them... the good chars are the 70 part.

now I need to sleep... but to reiterate my point...

Their are obviously a hand full of chars that are better than the rest of the cast... if there is to be balance these chars need to not be so obviously better ... Now whether than means buffing everyone eles or nerfing them doesnt matter. Something just needs to be done, or its gonna be round 4.

Hopefully the when tournys are played further down the line and we have a gold ... this will all be figured out and the patches will fix it... Though its my belief that the more poeple we have playing the harder it will be to fix things.
 

CountKaiser

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
1,370
Location
In space
Simna's ness brings up an interesting point. Is it possible to overbuff a character?

I mean, think about it. Ness may have been top 5, but did that break him? Was he still beatable?

At some point, a line needs to be drawn on where to stop the buffs.

Also, Matt4300, you said that Ness had bad moveset syndrome. How so? What about his moveset was so bad? Is it still bad?
 

matt4300

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
821
Location
USA-AL
Simna's ness brings up an interesting point. Is it possible to overbuff a character?

I mean, think about it. Ness may have been top 5, but did that break him? Was he still beatable?

At some point, a line needs to be drawn on where to stop the buffs.

Also, Matt4300, you said that Ness had bad moveset syndrome. How so? What about his moveset was so bad? Is it still bad?
So far the line on buffs is only drawn for chars that shouldnet be high tier like ness. I think he was beatable... very beatable. For some reason ness shouldnt be as good as marth though. >_>' no his moveset is not bad now ... hes in the unplaceable catagory with the other chars that arent obviously the best. He has plenty of good and bad matchups. Like any balanced char should. I think he does need one or two good buffs more though (more power on his bat, pk fire still needs tweaking, mabye bigger hitbox on his utilt,some tweaking to his dsmash to connect more often on the second hit) nothing to much unless they were to suddenly take the balance the other 26 or so chars route .. then I could give a few more good buffs to him.
 
Top Bottom