Brawl is far more balanced than Melee. I mean in SSBM, I could go against a Fox or Falco and have immense trouble. Also, Pichu and Mewtwo were just... pathetic.
However, in Brawl, everything is a lot more balanced, although no game is ever PERFECTLY balanced.
Read my sig.
I see. So, from your experience, do you think that Fox, Falco, and Marth were dominating the tournament scene like MK and Snake are doing now?
I'm sorry, you must have missed it the first 29 times (in this thread alone) people said that even at the height of their dominance, Falco, Fox, Marth and Sheik (how could you
possibly forget Sheik)
never dominated the tourney scene the way Snake and Meta-Knight are dominating it at the moment.
Much lower tiered characters consistently placed high. In Brawl, there are literally tournaments where Top 5 consists of only Snakes and Meta-Knights.
The fact that mid is bigger now doesn't really mean much if the distance between each tier is greater.
Old, refuted 100 times over, everyone down to Ganondorf stood a chance of winning. Also, read my sig.
However, previously rubbish characters like Zelda and Peach are stronger. Not all new characters are completely overpowerful or underpowerful.
Gygados' posts are suddenly making sense. We're getting punk'd!
Snake and Metaknight...
What about Mr. Game and Watch? If people are seriously saying Brawl is unbalanced because of the dominance of Snake and Metaknight in tournaments, then they at least need to explain why other equally broken characters are not as successful.
Because Snake and Meta-Knight are the ones dominating the tourney scene the
most. G&W is close behind them. Also notice how I very often include G&W.
Exactly my point; he's just as good, but not picked as much. Therefore, to say Brawl has only two winning characters when an equal like GW is simply not picked as much, doesn't say anything about balance. If anything it's deceptive, making the illusion that there are only two characters that can win tournaments.
I'm sorry, what part of "The highs stand a prety good chance of winning" was too hard for you to grasp the 29,000 first times I and others say it? Just because we present Snake and Meta-Knight as the epitomes of brokenness to counter idiots saying "Fox, Marth, Sheik, Falco" doesn't mean we're saying "They're the only ones who could ever win".
But once you get down to Mid, it starts looking much bleaker while the Mids in Melee could all compete. We've been over this already. Tell me, are you suffering from early onset dementia or are you choosing to forget certain things on purpose to be able to repeat the same inane arguments I've alrady refuted 29 times over?
Whatever. The fact that even if we group more characters in each other, the number of viable characters will remain the same will not change. Try to prove that more characters are viable in Brawl,
that's the main point here.
My point has never been "Oh, only these tiers can compete", it's always been the number of characters which can compete and how distant each tier is from the ones above and below them. I often say "no one below High" because I don't want to have to name all of the characters in the presumed Top and High.
You've proven nothing of use, really.
People do care if a character is capable of placing well enough. That means they have some form of viability, if you can top you have a capability of winning.
Yes, but if we're gonna start talking about characters capable of placing "well enough", then Brawl still loses... horrendously. Tons of characters could "place well enough" in Melee. For one thing, Zelda doesn't even do that badly against the Tops and Highs (except against a few) despite being 7th worst.
Then how can we fault Brawl for lack of viability when it's been virtually the same as when Melee came out? In Melee Shiek, Fox, and Falco were dominating tournament with other character randomly popping up.
I'm sorry, what? What kind of idiotic revisinist history was this?! You were not around back then. You haven't even checked up on the facts. This is
simply not true.
In Brawl you can just replace Shiek, Fox, and Falco with Snake, Metaknight, and King Dedede.
DeDeDe? In what alternate universe? Gasme / Watch. And why are you purposely leaving out Marth? 4/26 vs. 3/39. I'd call that less balanced.
Hate to break it to you but the mids aren't that far behind in the ranking list from the highs.
In what alternate universe? Prove it (not that you can since I've looked at the rankings).
Along with that you can't prove that the skill level was so low that we should refute each individual tournament your not happy with. Locals or other events are bound to have a lower skill level compared to major tournaments, this is a fact. A listing to the placing and an online confirmation are required to use it as part of the list.
We could take a look at the vids produced. Or the names of the people present. Or the number of entrants. Or what kind of events they are ("Biweeklies").
There's a good reason why Peaches have been doing quite well in local and minor tournaments but
quite badly in larger ones.
How do you propose a standard to fix this then? You claim that bad players, even reference Dark.pch in this response, are going to win fights because everyone sucks worse. If so then what is the right solution? Not allow any tournament that goes weekly? Lower attendance? lower cash prize? what?
I'm sorry, I talked about not allowing tournaments to be held when? I'm talking about not counting the tournaments results from such BS "tournaments" as "biweeklies" (with, what, 20 entrants?) or at least not counting said results when talking about game balance.
Nice to see your making up results.
You exaggerate, I exaggerate. 14-20 wins vs. 3-5 wins. Gee, truly balanced. Everyone stands a chance. And the lower tiered onces can only achieve such wins at
minor and
local tournaments.
The only people who even have 20+ are Snake and Metaknight. all of the "highs" have at most, 14 by King Dedede, yet we have other like Donkey Kong who have 11.
Above.
I'm sorry, your English must be lacking. I
criticized people for swaying "Tudor is owning people!" when it was but close defeats and other such exaggerations!
Who's to say that Tudor didn't win by 1-stock margins or rather Samus isn't as bad as your making her out to be.
If she isn't that bad, then how come so very few people are even able to place well as Samus? Both tournament results and theory fighter dictate this. Bringing just one great Samus player out as "evidence" means bupkis.
After I posted a point about how the current tier list of Melee was bottom heavy and pointed out by looking at it, how blatantly obvious it is. You continued your recent tend of, "no ur wrong, lol." I said what was needed to be said, you've become more rude to people in this topic.
Again I say "So your word is law"?
"Melee's tier list is bottom heavy and it's blatantly obvious just looking at it". So because you say it it's true?
Why is it obvious?
How should the list be? And for
what reasons? How about you provide valid arguments for once?
A huge majority of the cast, 21/26 are in middle or lower. Sheik, Marth, and possibly Peach can easily compete with Fox and Falco, I'm not they are better or of equal in power to either of the spacies. I'm claiming that they are good enough to be in the same tier, as such other character should be position appropriately, after all a mid with 1-0 wouldn't make sense, as such everyone would move up one rank if they were high enough in their already positioned rank. (AKA, high bottom tier move into lower low tier.)
Only they aren't because there are quite a few characters in Mid, Lower and even Bottom who either have a pretty close matchup to those three or can even beat them. This is why Fox and Falco are in a tier of their own.
And you only just "proved" that Sheik, Marth and Peach should move up. You have in no way provided arguments for why the lower tiered characters should move up as well.
Thus your ignorant comment about bottom being mid makes you look more like you can't think on your own. I fail to see how hard it is to see how moving up from the bottom could magically make then jump to mid, when at most they could move up to lower low.
It's ignorant to demand actual arguments instead of blanket statements? I guess the SBR is full of ignorami.
I'll give you this: Some tiers need to be remodeled. But the number of viable characters to win or place well in tournaments
are not affected by this. Their chances of winning will still stay the same, even if we remodel the tiers a bit.
Thus, it's largely
meaningless to this discussion.
As for the recovery discussion: Fox, Falco, Marth and Sheik all had pretty "bad" recoveries. They weren't in any way stellar and they were all pretty predictable. All you have to do against Sheik is to edgehog her Vanish, walk up to the stage and then send her out again. All you have to do against Marth is throw projectiles at him or jump out and aerial him
or edgehog him
or lightshield edgehog to edgehopped aerial him.
Fox and Falco are easily edgehogged to prevent sweetspotting and then you just jump out and Nair/Fair/Nair their recoveries when they're forced to go high.
I'm just saying Fox's recovery wasn't really nerfed (up-B was nerfed but his fall speed was decreased). I'm no god of Smash.
. But seriously getting gimped all the time back then sucked and now gimping is hard to do on almost any character (except maybe link and Oli). Oh and no more uber deadly grab rest in teams really helps, now it's only semi-lethal.
