Brawl+ General Tier Discussion

[CountKaiser]

Well, everyone religiously says that ness is fine. And frankly, he doesn't need much except for a few tweaks. I still want a stronger bat and non-clanking yoyos.

But getting back to my previous point, where do we feasibly draw the line for buffs?

 

[Rkey]

Just as Strong_Bad said. The counterpick system wouldn't exist.

Of course it would? I don't get this at all, to me tourney viable means that a character can do well in some matchups, not in all of them. Does it mean anything else to you?

 

[Revven]

I just want to facepalm a thousand times after skimming through this thread.

1. A complete tier list cannot be drawn at this current time. The metagame needs to develop first of all and it won't get anywhere until we get this game finished.

2. What matt4300 is talking about is something we're not going to be doing. If you plan to compete, you better have a secondary to handle all of your bad match-ups. This game isn't going to be 100% balanced, the WBR set a goal months ago and that goal was to make everyone at least viable. At least meaning at the bare minimum. Viable usually means they don't have a ton of 30:70 match-ups or are not like Captain Falcon from vBrawl. There's chances that we may help a character out if they are doing horrible and have proven to have terrible match-ups all ranging in the 30:70 area. But, I for one believe that right now, we don't have this problem (however that may be because it is a blur as someone mentioned earlier on in the topic).

The point is, you won't be able to compete with one character alone unless you play a character you know is good and actually can get inside characters like Fox and Meta Knight. I play 3 characters, knowing that I can't compete with just DK alone. The counterpick system still has to exist. Balancing should never consist of giving a bad character new moves using Plan Zero.

It's threads like these that get this sort of discussion started. I don't like it, personally, because it shows what people expect from this project (*cough* matt4300 *cough*) and shows how much you don't understand about how long it would take to completely abolish the counterpick system so you could play as your favorite character in a tournament and win. The fact of the matter is, we're not going to be in beta for years, if we find someone dominating in such a way that MK has been in vBrawl we will go right ahead and nerf said character and release the newer version at some point in time. It'll be stuff like that you'll see getting changed once the game is finished. Or fixing a character who has 30:70 match-ups as I said earlier.

You won't be seeing everyone in the high tier/top tier... that is trying to push for too much even if most of the cast we all feel right now are high tier, it may not be as it always seems.

If you want a completely balanced roster, you try and do it yourself when you have no match-up data.

3. This thread no longer consists of discussing tiers, it needs to be closed.

 

[matt4300]

I just want to facepalm a thousand times after skimming through this thread.

1. A complete tier list cannot be drawn at this current time. The metagame needs to develop first of all and it won't get anywhere until we get this game finished.

2. What matt4300 is talking about is something we're not going to be doing. If you plan to compete, you better have a secondary to handle all of your bad match-ups. This game isn't going to be 100% balanced, the WBR set a goal months ago and that goal was to make everyone at least viable. At least meaning at the bare minimum. Viable usually means they don't have a ton of 30:70 match-ups or are not like Captain Falcon from vBrawl. There's chances that we may help a character out if they are doing horrible and have proven to have terrible match-ups all ranging in the 30:70 area. But, I for one believe that right now, we don't have this problem (however that may be because it is a blur as someone mentioned earlier on in the topic).

The point is, you won't be able to compete with one character alone unless you play a character you know is good and actually can get inside characters like Fox and Meta Knight. I play 3 characters, knowing that I can't compete with just DK alone. The counterpick system still has to exist. Balancing should never consist of giving a bad character new moves using Plan Zero.

It's threads like these that get this sort of discussion started. I don't like it, personally, because it shows what people expect from this project (*cough* matt4300 *cough*) and shows how much you don't understand about how long it would take to completely abolish the counterpick system so you could play as your favorite character in a tournament and win. The fact of the matter is, we're not going to be in beta for years, if we find someone dominating in such a way that MK has been in vBrawl we will go right ahead and nerf said character and release the newer version at some point in time. It'll be stuff like that you'll see getting changed once the game is finished. Or fixing a character who has 30:70 match-ups as I said earlier.

You won't be seeing everyone in the high tier/top tier... that is trying to push for too much even if most of the cast we all feel right now are high tier, it may not be as it always seems.

If you want a completely balanced roster, you try and do it yourself when you have no match-up data.

3. This thread no longer consists of discussing tiers, it needs to be closed.

Oh... wow... I really didnet know that... Since this whole balance thing started with the old (failed) forum I kinda thought everyone was shooting for pretty good balance... I dont remeber the AT LEAST part. Hmmm... I kinda feel betrayed... mostly by myself for haveing such high hopes of a solid couterpicking system where every char is more than ATLEAST viable, and a hand full of chars werent just plain better than the rest... lol what have I been debateing?
I wonder if SP knows this... ive been around and followed the project since it began fall last year, and dident fully understand the goals. How many others are thinking what I thought? Ive already seen a few in this thread.

ohwell... I'm still gonna go for gold with link bowser samus and ness even though they have some terrible matchups and none of them are considerd the good chars. There just "fine"

Yeh this needs to be locked

 

[Rkey]

Falco400 comes crushing down with ruthless logic and experience. Thanks.

 

[Strong Badam]

everyone being "tourney viable" would be pretty good balance, the **** are you talking about?
@ matt

 

[matt4300]

everyone being "tourney viable" would be pretty good balance, the **** are you talking about?
@ matt

Yeh it would be ... but as of right now the current build thats not the case... if you go to a tourny with a set of falcon,bowser, and ivy... chances are your gonna lose. Probley to a set of Diddy,kirby,marth.

"Atleast" tourney viable is like saying good enough, or meh... the atleast chars are gonna get ***** by the obvious best. does that sound like pretty good balance?

Falco400 comes crushing down with ruthless logic and experience. Thanks.

No falco came down on me with clarification... but it was pretty ruthless lol. I am glad I'm not still under my previous impression... Now I can stop wondering why kirbys not nerfed yet

seriously though falco400 you guys need to put that on the nightly build site ... I'm not jokeing I know a good bit of people that had the same idea I did. You will get alot less complaints from testers.

 

[Strong Badam]

yes, it does. at least tournament viable is better than the balance in vbrawl or melee or mvc2 or street fighter 3rd strike.
good enough.

 

[grim mouser]

Unless Falcon/Bowser/Ivy counter Diddy/Kirby/Marth, no, you won't win. The point is to allow characters to be tourney viable, and to require sencondaries and counterpicks. You could, say, main Falcon, and then second (e.g.) Falco. If Falco covers your main's weaknesses, Brawl+ mission accomplished.

 

[matt4300]

yes, it does. at least tournament viable is better than the balance in vbrawl or melee or mvc2 or street fighter 3rd strike.
good enough.

Yeh... guess thats why I dont play any of those anymore... I own Virtua fighter 4, SF4, and soulcalibur4... I guess im a balance *****.Yeh, there are tiers but there not nearly as all powerfull as most fighters. As SP said earlier none of those games have been hacked like brawl+.

Unless Falcon/Bowser/Ivy counter Diddy/Kirby/Marth, no, you won't win. The point is to allow characters to be tourney viable, and to require sencondaries and counterpicks. You could, say, main Falcon, and then second (e.g.) Falco. If Falco covers your main's weaknesses, Brawl+ mission accomplished.

Why would I main falcon when I could dominate with falco? Falco probley covers falcons bad matches and has more favorable matches with the chars falcon is good against. With my mains I have a long range, mid range, shortrange, and power char... im trying to cover my bases while still enjoying the chars.... but if i substituted my longrange samus for falco, my midrange link for toon link, my shortrange ness for luigi, and my power bowser for wario. I would probley be doing much better and win much more... but I wouldnet want to play the game because i dont like those chars. I dont like any of the current good chars.

 

[Strong Badam]

ehhh i always thought the counterpick system was kind of dumb. i'd rather use 1 char and have his match-ups decent enough to where, even if its disadvantageous, i could just win based on player skill, than have to pick up 1 or 2 more chars just to cover his weaknesses.
but w/e

 

[Revven]

Yeh it would be ... but as of right now the current build thats not the case... if you go to a tourny with a set of falcon,bowser, and ivy... chances are your gonna lose. Probley to a set of Diddy,kirby,marth.

"Atleast" tourney viable is like saying good enough, or meh... the atleast chars are gonna get ***** by the obvious best. does that sound like pretty good balance?

Like I said, I said the bare minimum would be viable. If the character is proven to still be doing quite ****ty in a lot of his/her match-ups, we will obviously review them and find out what's wrong based on the data the mains of that character provide. If there's no data to work from, obviously we go through it with the mains just as we have been doing as of recently AND with you Link guys.

There's not enough match-up data to make a conclusion on a lot of the cast and that's because Brawl+ is still changing. You can start whining about your characters still being **** when they are proven to be after Gold and some tournaments go by or we feel that character isn't done yet before Gold. I don't know about you but, I don't think we said we were done with Bowser or Captain Falcon.

The point to it all is this: if the character can compete and has a set of match-ups where he is successful and a few bad match-ups here and there they are good. If the character can compete but has several horrible match-ups, we buff him in his areas that may need to be better than they are currently.

Just because we set the minimum to viable doesn't mean we won't fix them if they are having a LOT of trouble. It just means that if we feel we can't cover anything else without any SOLID match-up data, we leave them as what we have done to them so far and come back to them if they still need help and/or we have solid data on them from tournament matches.

You don't need to go all negative now just because Link, Ness, and Bowser may be felt as being "viable" (we certainly don't think Bowser is done yet) and may not be getting anymore buffs. Because the project is still going and we still have plans.

 

[matt4300]

Like I said, I said the bare minimum would be viable. If the character is proven to still be doing quite ****ty in a lot of his/her match-ups, we will obviously review them and find out what's wrong based on the data the mains of that character provide. If there's no data to work from, obviously we go through it with the mains just as we have been doing as of recently AND with you Link guys.

There's not enough match-up data to make a conclusion on a lot of the cast and that's because Brawl+ is still changing. You can start whining about your characters still being **** when they are proven to be after Gold and some tournaments go by or we feel that character isn't done yet before Gold. I don't know about you but, I don't think we said we were done with Bowser or Captain Falcon.

The point to it all is this: if the character can compete and has a set of match-ups where he is successful and a few bad match-ups here and there they are good. If the character can compete but has several horrible match-ups, we buff him in his areas that may need to be better than they are currently.

Just because we set the minimum to viable doesn't mean we won't fix them if they are having a LOT of trouble. It just means that if we feel we can't cover anything else without any SOLID match-up data, we leave them as what we have done to them so far and come back to them if they still need help and/or we have solid data on them from tournament matches.

You don't need to go all negative now just because Link, Ness, and Bowser may be felt as being "viable" (we certainly don't think Bowser is done yet) and may not be getting anymore buffs. Because the project is still going and we still have plans.

See thats what I'm talking about! This is what I am hopeing for ... when you guys see how bad these top chars dominate over the links the nesses the yoshis (i personaly think yoshis great...) you will patch... wich is all I could want for balance, and what I have hoped for. As long as you guys don't just sit back with a sakurai face and say "good enough" We (balance whores) will be satisfied. In your previous post you made it sound like aslong as a char doesnt have like ten 70-30 matchups then there atleastviable. Which was kinda dismal looking to me..

But, just to clarify on my end... I wasent trying to bash my mains, or have a negative outlook on the whole project..Brawl+ is my favorite game ever at this point, and I think bowser is severly underated, and I can hold my own with link. I was just using examples of chars people seem to consider not to great.

 

[grim mouser]

ehhh i always thought the counterpick system was kind of dumb. i'd rather use 1 char and have his match-ups decent enough to where, even if its disadvantageous, i could just win based on player skill, than have to pick up 1 or 2 more chars just to cover his weaknesses.
but w/e

vBrawl MK? ;P

Seriously, though, this would basically require every character to be very balanced, which is very difficult. In Melee, lots of pros seemed to have only used one character, but they were generally high/top tier...

 

[Alphatron]

Match up wise, things look better than vbrawl, what with the tilt locks and chaingrabs being gone. Fox vs. Pikachu for example.

 

[Swordplay]

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.

NO WE ARE NOT!

We believe just like you that matchups should be between 30:70 and 70:30.

However, charters should have a balance of good and bad matchups. Its not right to have 1 character have consistently 40:60 matchups across the board while the other character consistently has 60:40 matchups.


@ Falco400.

WHAT!!! I'm SHOCKED!


This is all theory So its okay for ganon to have all of his matchups 40:60 if he has at least 3 matchups that are 60:40 in his favor because then he is worth choosing as a counterpick and thus viable?


I expected more from B+. Apparently I did not understand what you meant by "viable" To me, "viable" means every character is WORTH playing. but apparently, you are saying viable is every character CAN be played.


The thing is, when a few characters begin to dominate the game and a bad character doesn't counterpick any of the tops, THAT CHARACTER WILL ALMOST NEVER BE PLAYED Why? A. he doesn't counterpick any one good and B. he himself is not one of the high/tops


Your next post is better in line with what I thought B+ would be. I shall lay down my weapons and put down my arguments if I have to waiting for gold results in better balance from hardcore data. I don't mind waiting for balance, Even if I have to wait a year, I feel I was just provoked to talk about it in this thread at this time. I think overtime, you will see that what I said in the paragraph above to come true and things will happen.

 

[NeonTogepi]

The game's characters seem a lot more balanced, to me at least.

 

[Revven]

@ Falco400.

WHAT!!! I'm SHOCKED!


This is all theory So its okay for ganon to have all of his matchups 40:60 if he has at least 3 matchups that are 60:40 in his favor because then he is worth choosing as a counterpick and thus viable?


I expected more from B+. Apparently I did not understand what you meant by "viable" To me, "viable" means every character is WORTH playing. but apparently, you are saying viable is every character CAN be played.



The thing is, when a few characters begin to dominate the game and a bad character doesn't counterpick any of the tops, THAT CHARACTER WILL ALMOST NEVER BE PLAYED Why? A. he doesn't counterpick any one good and B. he himself is not one of the high/tops

Look, if the character needs help still they'll get it, but there is a point where they will stop receiving help is what I am saying. A character can't have clear 50:50 match-ups for every character, that's too much to spend on one character. Let me give you an example of such character: Donkey Kong (yes my main). While he may not directly counter MK, he certainly does well against Fox, Diddy Kong, Luigi, and etc. but for all I know those match-ups aren't in his favor. Should we buff DK if he goes 40:60 with all he top tiers? F no because he is ALREADY really good. He was already considered high tier in vBrawl, people will most certainly use DK if he is as good as he is now (which he will be). He is the perfect example of what some of us in the WBR want characters to be like: have clear weaknesses and disadvantages but, able to hold his own against the best.

DK will never get buffed to have a 50:50 match-up with MK because he doesn't need to be that good to compete! He is already good, so why would we buff him? That's the kind of character I'd personally model Bowser, Ness, Link, and etc. after. Get THEM to at least be able to do what DK can: hold his own.

I honestly don't know what made you think we were going for 50:50 match-ups for most characters in the game or what made you think that we would get everyone into high tier, that's almost (keyword, almost) impossible in the time we want to be done. There will always be mid tiers and low tiers, there will always be characters better than the others. Yes, buffs go a long way, yes with PZ we could change entire move sets. But changing move sets isn't what should be done, that's going too far.

You could say now from this post that I am saying that we want characters to be as close as DK is. But as I said, BARE MINIMUM, if we cannot get them to where DK is or in the "high tier" is viable... which as far as I'm concerned IS A GOOD GOAL.

Maybe you should wait before you blow your top off... seriously... it's a lot harder to BALANCE A GAME than you think it is.

I mean your example is a bit wonky. But 3 CPs and the rest being not in his favor wouldn't really be good no, he would receive help in that regard, at least enough so he can CP something like 10-15 characters. In my example, DK can already handle the people below him and he would have like 10 disadvantageous match-ups (assuming top tier is 10 characters) above him, should we buff him then? No! Because he already counters the characters below him (not 100% for fact but you get the idea).

 

[Mr.-0]

I just want to facepalm a thousand times after skimming through this thread.

1. A complete tier list cannot be drawn at this current time. The metagame needs to develop first of all and it won't get anywhere until we get this game finished.

2. What matt4300 is talking about is something we're not going to be doing. If you plan to compete, you better have a secondary to handle all of your bad match-ups. This game isn't going to be 100% balanced, the WBR set a goal months ago and that goal was to make everyone at least viable. At least meaning at the bare minimum. Viable usually means they don't have a ton of 30:70 match-ups or are not like Captain Falcon from vBrawl. There's chances that we may help a character out if they are doing horrible and have proven to have terrible match-ups all ranging in the 30:70 area. But, I for one believe that right now, we don't have this problem (however that may be because it is a blur as someone mentioned earlier on in the topic).

The point is, you won't be able to compete with one character alone unless you play a character you know is good and actually can get inside characters like Fox and Meta Knight. I play 3 characters, knowing that I can't compete with just DK alone. The counterpick system still has to exist. Balancing should never consist of giving a bad character new moves using Plan Zero.

It's threads like these that get this sort of discussion started. I don't like it, personally, because it shows what people expect from this project (*cough* matt4300 *cough*) and shows how much you don't understand about how long it would take to completely abolish the counterpick system so you could play as your favorite character in a tournament and win. The fact of the matter is, we're not going to be in beta for years, if we find someone dominating in such a way that MK has been in vBrawl we will go right ahead and nerf said character and release the newer version at some point in time. It'll be stuff like that you'll see getting changed once the game is finished. Or fixing a character who has 30:70 match-ups as I said earlier.

You won't be seeing everyone in the high tier/top tier... that is trying to push for too much even if most of the cast we all feel right now are high tier, it may not be as it always seems.

If you want a completely balanced roster, you try and do it yourself when you have no match-up data.

3. This thread no longer consists of discussing tiers, it needs to be closed.

My god THANK YOU!!!! I"ve been gone for just one night and the whole point of the thread is flipped upside down!!!! Thank you for resolving that debate. Now, if you people want to continue that debate, go make a new thread about it. I'ts already been said by two of the top developers in the game that it will NOT be superly over obsessed balanced. Go take it somewhere else. How do I change the title of a thread to Brawl+ General Character Ranking Discussion?

 

[Dan_X]

This is fruitless. Tiers are based on results, not speculation. We have very limited results, and the game is still consistently changing. We won't have a tier list for a couple of years... really. Only after Brawl+ has gone gold, and has a ton of tournament data backing it will we have a conclusive tier list. Even then certain people will discover awesome strategies with some unexpected character(s) and topple the tier list with them. Similar to how MK wasn't particularly amazing at first, Snake reigning supreme over him. As soon as people learned how great MK was, and started furthering his game, it became apparent that he is indeed the best character in the game.

 

[Swordplay]

For the last time I don't really want 50:50 matchups...........Thats too much to ask.
I just want to see characters have a GOOD amount of 40:60 and 60:40 matchups. And possibly hold thier own against a few top/high characters which makes them WORTH playing.


Falco400: You seem to UNDERSTAND THIS But think that I don't when infact I do. Since we both understand this why are we arguing? As per request of the thread maker, I'm going to wait till gold when I have hard data to bring my argument back up. I said that in my last post.



Gold is fine. People seem to realize that one of golds goal is to get data about B+ and not the absolute final version. I guess I'm waiting for for when + goes platinum. get it? Plus/Platinum

 

[Mr.-0]

Please no debate on that issue, SP. Any further posts about will be reported. That is not what this thread's purpose is. And Orca, I know, but this has changed to a very rough idea of the tiers. The goal has changed from a tier list to a generally agreed apon outlook on the characters. Simply three very rough tiers that will be updated quickly as B+ updates are this thread's new goal now. We no longer want an obsolete tier list, just an agreed upon outlook on who's good, average, and relatively bad. I think that the game has been around long enough for this, no?

 

[grim mouser]

No, because it's not the same game as it was a few builds ago.

 

[Shadic]

Please no debate on that issue, SP. Any further posts about will be reported. That is not what this thread's purpose is.

Oh blow off, this is a poorly timed TIER Topic, how could character balance not come into play?

Anyways, I think there's a bit of an issue with character balance if 80% of people out there can agree to the top 5 characters in the game.

 

[Mr.-0]

Than we'll change it. From where i'm standing now, I just got rid of one argument and spawned another. Plz do not disuss whether or not it's too early for this. I know that it's too early for a tier list but... come on. Three VERY rough tiers isn't so bad.

 

[grim mouser]

Top: Marth/Squirt/Kirby/MK/Fox
High: Most others
Low: Bowser

=P

*Joking about the high/low thing...*

 

[leafbarrett]

High: Whoever you're good with
Middle: Whoever you're meh with
Low: Whoever you're bad with

/topic

Seriously, what's the point of tiers? What does it matter what these "results" show? I don't care if everyone says my main (Lucario) belongs in suck tier. I also don't care if people say he's broken. It has no effect on how I play, and I don't see how it matters to anyone else either.

 

[grim mouser]

I've never known that. It doesn't seem to serve a purpose like it does in Pokemon.

 

[Mr.-0]

High: Whoever you're good with
Middle: Whoever you're meh with
Low: Whoever you're bad with

/topic

Seriously, what's the point of tiers? What does it matter what these "results" show? I don't care if everyone says my main (Lucario) belongs in suck tier. I also don't care if people say he's broken. It has no effect on how I play, and I don't see how it matters to anyone else either.

Tiers are a ranking of the characters in the game. Some people like to know where there character stands. what's wrong with that?

 

[bleyva]

Oh blow off, this is a poorly timed TIER Topic, how could character balance not come into play?

Anyways, I think there's a bit of an issue with character balance if 80% of people out there can agree to the top 5 characters in the game.

i agree with everything said here. balance seems to be a bit of a touchy subject for some people, so to create a discussion about tier lists before the game is finished and NOT expect some debate about balance is a little absurd.

 

[Mr.-0]

... Okay. But don't you think it's alittle absurd to debate about balance on that degree when two lead developers have already said that they don't plan on making it like that? It's like arguing about obama and saying that Mcain shoudl get the presidency after obama already won. Pointless.

 

[Seikishidan Soru]

For the sake of argument, let's say it is appropriate to try to establish such a list now.
How would you go about it without a match-up chart to begin with? You need much more solid content than a bunch of random opinions actually. Only a full analysis for each match-up, on the basis of matches played between players proficient with their respective characters, allows a sensible match-up chart that can lead to a tier-list. This can take a long time, and even when Brawl+ goes gold, it will still be too early.

I say actual discussion should wait for the game to go gold, and I wouldn't expect a solid tier-list before 1 or 1.5 years. Although in the case of this game, due to the counterpick system, the match-up chart is somehow more relevant than the tier-list that could derive from it.

 

[leafgreen386]

Please no debate on that issue, SP. Any further posts about will be reported. That is not what this thread's purpose is. And Orca, I know, but this has changed to a very rough idea of the tiers. The goal has changed from a tier list to a generally agreed apon outlook on the characters. Simply three very rough tiers that will be updated quickly as B+ updates are this thread's new goal now. We no longer want an obsolete tier list, just an agreed upon outlook on who's good, average, and relatively bad. I think that the game has been around long enough for this, no?

Your thread was useless. People made it useful. Deal with it.

/not a rant,just an observation
If its so clear cut and easy to tell even at this stage who the best are( MK, Marth, Fox,Kirby,Luigi,Squirtle,Diddy,ZZS,Snake,Falco,Pika,Rob,shiek... ) and that everyone eles is in a big blurry mash... Don't these chars that are obviously better than the blurry mash need to be nerfed into the blur? Isnet that what balance is? I have personally heard no plans of nerfing diddy,zzs,falco or pika at all. I know for a fact that all the chars i mentioned will have more good matchups then the big blur. Looks like before this goes gold the plussery is gonna need to **** those chars or there will still only be 15 or so chars that are played at all. (don't kill me Shannus,cape,falco ect...)

how does that make no sense? There pros outweigh there cons... thats why everyone agrees there some of the best. Yes, this is a game of matchups. Which means if a char has lots of favorable matchups then he is BETTER than the other chars. This is why nerfs and buffs are made. These chars suposedly have more favorable matchups then the rest of the cast.. sooo they are better. If we know they are better and we want a more balanced game they should be nerfed. I know that teirs will always exist, Ive been through this so many times since + started, but if we know for a fact wich chars are the best there should be something done to put them in with the chars we cant place (mid tier)

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.



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

Although SMK has mostly answered you, I feel I need to give my own explanation for this.

As you've mentioned, we currently have two primary groups of characters... those who are generally recognized as being in the upper half of the cast and those who are not. However, what makes these characters defined this way is only really based on a "feeling." Based on how easy they are to use for the general public, and how effective they are at higher levels, and just the general traits about the character that people recognize as being "good" or "bad." However, none of this takes into account specific matchups. While we may be able to say "this character is good because x, y, and z," we cannot say how much better they are than any other given character. This is the truly difficult part. Without extensive matchup data you can only do so much. You can only tweak a char until they "feel" right.

To an onlooker, it seems we have accepted two different standards of balance, one for "good" characters and one for "ok" characters. To a certain extent, this is true. We know what chars are good. We know what makes them good. But we don't know how good those attributes make them against random character #27. So what we're doing is trying to keep everyone "reasonably close" and buff chars to the point where they can be considered "viable," until we can obtain accurate data.

We certainly have the ability to nerf what makes a char "good." The problem is, in doing this, we could very easily end up making the char "bad" and thus in need of help. It's impossible to know exactly how much of an effect any given change will have on a char without extensive matchup data, and what is useful in what matchups, and how it is useful. It's very easy to give a random character that "feels" they are lacking a buff to one of their moves that gives them a new tool to compete with. However, what if this new tool does absolutely nothing to help the character in their problem matchups, and instead only shifts their advantageous matchups more in their favour? That isn't helping balance. It's hurting it. That's why we can't "just" nerf the good chars or "just" buff the weak chars. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Right now, the game "feels" relatively balanced. But that doesn't really mean anything. Everything we've been doing so far has been trying to get chars relatively close to each other in terms of power, and so far, it seems to be working. What makes it especially difficult is that people have different views of how certain chars should behave and how they should be buffed and/or nerfed. When it comes down to it, it's probably more accurate to say that the WBR is only currently trying to "streamline" characters right now, rather than "balance" them. Yeah, they all seem to play "well," but until we start having more tournaments with a consistent build and people get more matchup experience, we won't know how balanced the game really is.

I'm not sure what the other WBR members think about this, as we haven't discussed it in a while, but my idea for a release schedule of brawl+ goes something like this:
For the next couple months, the WBR will continue trying to "streamline" characters, until we feel we have an extremely solid cast worthy of a Release Candidate set. For the next 3+ months following, a number of very minimal changes will be made to this RC set each month, as specific balance issues get brought up. When these one month trial periods stop yielding new tweaks to be made, a Gold set will be released, which at first will probably be updated every three months or so, with updates gradually being made further and further apart to allow the metagame to stabilize and grow on its own, without constant changes. Eventually, small updates will be made no more often than once a year, if even. The balance tweaks made after Gold will be done to change the characters in as small of a way as possible, while specifically helping in matchups they need help in, and hurting in matchups they do too well in, without helping or hurting too much in places where they don't need to be helped or hurt in. In the event that something gamebreaking is found, depending on how extreme it is, an emergency patch may be released early to fix it, but don't count on "emergency" updates getting made just because a specific character is doing better than everyone else by a small margin. In cases like this, the metagame may just need more time to adapt to learning how to fight the character. Time is the only way you can truly find if something is balanced or not.

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.

While the top will undoubtedly receive very small nerfs to alleviate problems in some specific matchups, it is much more likely that lower tier characters will end up receiving several small buffs that allow them to be viable. People are generally a lot more receptive to buffs than to nerfs, and if balance could be achieved solely through buffs, it's all we would do. However, some characters (MK is an excellent example here) are at a level so far above everyone else before nerfs that trying to buff everyone up to MK's standards would be ridiculous, and result in a game that while is not broken in the sense of matchups, is broken in the sense of every character being obscenely powerful. Granted, in general, more powerful characters are more fun to play, as they have more options and therefore more depth, but after a certain point, it crosses the line into "too powerful" and actually results in less depth. It's a fine line, and trying to find it is certainly not an easy task, but I'd like to think that the characters currently considered "good" in brawl+ have not yet crossed it.

 

[bleyva]

edit: nevermind

 

[JCaesar]

If you guys wanna come up with a tier list, host (or attend) Brawl+ tournaments! The more results and data we have, the better understanding we will have of where characters stand, and the better we can balance the game.

And I don't mean wifi. Wifi is pretty worthless for character balance.

 

[Roxas215]

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.

Since i asked u to list in your opnion what the 70-30 matchups are and u didn't here's a list on all the 70-30 and higher matchups in vbrawl.(Thanks kaylo!)

**** Matchups (70:30 or higher):
*first character listed has the advantage
MK vs. Ike
MK vs. Ivysaur
MK vs. Ganon
MK vs. Falcon
MK vs. Samus
MK vs. Zelda
Snake vs. Falcon
Snake vs. Ganon
Snake vs. ICs
Snake vs. Zelda
DDD vs. Ganon
DDD vs. Wolf
Falco vs. Falcon
Falco vs. Ganon
Falco vs. Link
G&W vs. Falcon
G&W vs. Falco
G&W vs. Luigi
G&W vs. Zelda
G&W vs. Ness
G&W vs. Lucas
G&W vs. Falcon
G&W vs. Jigglypuff
ROB vs. Ganon
Marth vs. Falcon
Marth vs. Lucas
Marth vs. Luigi
Marth vs. Jigglypuff
Marth vs. Samus
Wario vs. Falcon
Wario vs. Ganon
Diddy vs. Ganon
Olimar vs. Falcon
Olimar vs. Ganon
Olimar vs. Zelda
Olimar vs. Jigglypuff
Olimar vs. Ike
Olimar vs. Link
Olimar vs. Samus
Kirby vs. Falcon
Kirby vs. Falco
Lucario vs. Ganon
DK vs. Falcon
DK vs. Lucas
ICs vs. Bowser
ICs vs. Ganon
ICs vs. Falcon
ICs vs. DK
ICs vs. Sheik
Pikachu vs. Fox
Pikachu vs. Falcon
Pit vs. Ganon
Peach vs. Ganon
Peach vs. Falcon
ZSS vs. Ganon
Samus vs. Ganon
Sheik vs. Ganon
Sheik vs. Fox
Lucas vs. Falcon
Wolf vs. Ganon

Borderline (as in, debatable or might be outdated):
*first character listed has the advantage
G&W vs. Ganon
Falco vs. ZSS
Fox vs. Ganon
Wolf vs. Jigglypuff
ICs vs. Kirby
DDD vs. Luigi
Marth vs. Ness
Olimar vs. Samus
Peach vs. Olimar
Pikachu vs. Ganon
Yoshi vs. Ganon
Yoshi vs. Squirtle
ZSS vs. ROB



Only matchups i see on this list that might end up being 70-30 imo is pit vs ganon an diddy vs ganom. Any other matchup is way more balanced in brawl+ then it ever was in vbrawl. Yes there are chars who are known to be better then others. That doesn't automatically make the matchup impossible to win. You want to buff chars in the blur range to compete with the chars in top tier? What would happen when a 2 chars from the blur range go against each other? You see where im getting at? Buffs like these are unneeded,stupid,and a waste of resources that should be going to other options of the game.

Why do you think because a char isn't listed with other chars that he/she wont be played? There are mains(pros) for every single char in the game for vbrawl. Even horrible chars like falcon,ganon,and link. Just because said char isn't as good as the top tier ones won't make people who like that char stop playing as them. If that was the case i would of quit peach along time ago.

ehhh i always thought the counterpick system was kind of dumb. i'd rather use 1 char and have his match-ups decent enough to where, even if its disadvantageous, i could just win based on player skill, than have to pick up 1 or 2 more chars just to cover his weaknesses.
but w/e

The counterpick system(not only chars but stages as well) Is a staple of the series and shouldn't stop now. Your kidding yourself to think you will run through a tournament with just one char. Matchups has and will always exists. Having a legit secondary is sort of mandatory for competitive play.(Unless you just play mk or snake in vbrawl)

Like i said before there is no 1(mk) char who is above all others in brawl+ the fact that we can even agree that there are about 10-12 chars by themselves in the top tier range is a accomplishment.

Falco400 basically restated what i already said in the previous pages. Maybe he did it in a nicer way. Maybe it's cause he has a plum name lol. Whatever i don't care. As long as people get it. Also leaf i like that outlook on the schedule. I have a couple of friends who refuse to play b+ because it changes so frequently. If we get a set and just let it sit for a couple months while we collect data and tournament results i feel like that will help.

 

[JCaesar]

Who made that list? I know it's not really important to this discussion but it kinda bothers me how wildly inaccurate they are about ROB's 70:30 and 30:70 matchups.

 

[PKNintendo]

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.




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.

Ness was not Bottom 10 bro/sis.
I don't support closing of this thread because I like to keep an open mind. But if it does close, please... whoever does it, don't end with something corny.

 

[Roxas215]

Who made that list? I know it's not really important to this discussion but it kinda bothers me how wildly inaccurate they are about ROB's 70:30 and 30:70 matchups.

I honestly don't know. I think a couple of those matchups are a little suspect myself. But the point still stands.

Ness was not Bottom 10 bro/sis.
I don't support closing of this thread because I like to keep an open mind. But if it does close, please... whoever does it, don't end with something corny.

Before the recent ness changes i dont think u can name 10 chars ness was better then. Especially considering how easy it is to gimp him along with no asl.

 

[PKNintendo]

I honestly don't know. I think a couple of those matchups are a little suspect myself. But the point still stands.


Before the recent ness changes i dont think u can name 10 chars ness was better then. Especially considering how easy it is to gimp him along with no asl.

Good god...


Okay. Ness was better than (IMO):
Falcon, Ganon, Sheik, Bowser, Yoshi, Ivy, Jiggs, Samus, Mario, Link and Sonic.

I may be wrong about a few (plus I may got flamed/shot down/owned) but saying Ness was bottom ten without any proof is just wrong.

Gimping? You've got to ******** be kidding me. You name gimping his recovery his main weakness? You play some pretty bad Ness. Ness weakness in vBrawl was his godawful grab release, subpar ground game and okay aerial game. He had next to no defensive game, and was mostly an offensive character.

asl?