Brawl - More balanced than Melee? Lie or truth?

[BigRick]

Seriously Brawl and Melee are both imbalanced games... so the thread should be renamed : ''Brawl - Less Imba then Melee???''

 

[Hitzel]

We don't know how to design a game. We still know what balance is and had he assembled a team of 20 good Smashers with insight into competitive play, balance and videogames in general (not saying I should've been one of them), trust me, Brawl would've been much more balanced.

You ever play Shadowrun? I was part of the beta test. We had Halo pros, Quake pros, and Counter-Strike pros on the beta test and on the dev team. Shadowrun is the most balanced and in-depth FPS on the 360. Not only that, but cross platform play between PC players and 360 players is 100% playable, something that was thought to be impossible. That's how well hiring talented gamers for testing works.

*Edit*

I'm agreeing with you, FYI.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

Tether recoveries seem like the stupidest **** I've ever heard of and they should hit edgehoggers off the edge. As it is they stink lots and anyone with a tether recovery needs to be ridiculous in other ways to be usable (IE Olimar).

Next, I think the biggest thing people are latching onto when they talk about balance is that there seem to be lots of high/top tier candidates. I mean, even if the low tier characters are REALLY low tier, if we have 10 characters that get used OFTEN in tournaments and 3 or 4 characters that are usable but more rare, I think that's a step up from Melee. But that's just my opinion, it can also be argued that Melee was better because even though there were only like five characters that came up frequently in tournaments, just about anybody COULD be used with some degree of success.

 

[Yuna]

You ever play Shadowrun? I was part of the beta test. We had Halo pros, Quake pros, and Counter-Strike pros on the beta test and on the dev team. Shadowrun is the most balanced and in-depth FPS on the 360. Not only that, but cross platform play between PC players and 360 players is 100% playable, something that was thought to be impossible. That's how well hiring talented gamers for testing works.

Did you misunderstand me? I'm all for hiring talanted gamers for beta-testing. In fact, I've argued for it. Others have said "Meh, Sakurai knows best!".

 

[Hitzel]

Did you misunderstand me? I'm all for hiring talanted gamers for beta-testing. In fact, I've argued for it. Others have said "Meh, Sakurai knows best!".

I understood, I was agreeing with you

 

[Yuna]

I understood, I was agreeing with you

Well then, you, the guys you beta-tested with and ShadowRun are living proof of that hiring talented gamers = Balanced game.

Now you guys who claimed otherwise, STFU (yes, I am indeed telling you to STFU).

 

[Dubyah8r]

Here's my thoughts on this and it falls into the "its too early to tell" slot. I think that most of the characters that people right now are saying are soooo good (i.e. Marth) are who we will soon be calling "noob characters" in about a year. It will take quite some time for people to try out everyone thoroughly and find the little quarks that make that character better. I seem to recall at the birth of Melee everyone thinking that Peach would be awful, that is until float-canceling came along and we realized the potential of her down smash... so give it time, I think that once people find which characters are the most effective, and not just easiest to use this will truly be a very balanced game.

 

[Yuna]

That was years ago when we were young and knew nothing about depth. We didn't purposely try to figure stuff out the way we do today! Brawl has been dumbed down. Everything's really easy to do. I doubt Sakurai put in a whole bunch of techniques that are hard to find since that goes against his new policy of "Everyone can do it". So unless we find a whole bunch of glitches that break the game, it won't change much.

 

[ComradeSAL]

OK, addressing various arguments against me in reverse order:

@Yuna: Calm down. I'm not participating in this discussion because I'm trying to prove you wrong. I'm participating because I find it interesting. Just because other people are trolling you doesn't mean I am. That said:

Have you ever heard of a game series called Guilty Gear XX?

...

Let's see... it's a game where everyone's balanced against everyone. Would you call it more balanced than a game where everyone's balanced against everyone except the Bottom Tier? Yes you would.

"Competitive Balance" - Balance between the highest tiered character =/= General Balance.

Yes, I own GGXX. It's an awesome game, where every fighter seems broken until you play another one. It also fits perfectly into my definition of a balanced game. Remember, my definition is: A game is balanced when you have a lot of fighters near the top. In the case of GGXX, there are a lot of fighters near the top, so it's an extremely balanced game. This example doesn't contradict my definition; it strengthens it.

Magic: The Gathering is not Smash. Magic the Gathering is also not balanced if there are a large number of cards that cannot compete with the rest.

I don't get the "X is not Smash" argument. Of course they're not the same. That doesn't mean that the concepts of balance don't apply from one competitive game from the next. Guilty Gear XX is not Smash. Does that prove your arguments wrong?

(PS: In the last few years, MTG has been an extremely balanced game. Just take my word for it).

Is Melee balanced? After all, the Top 4 had an equal chance to win against each other. It was really close! And people keep saying they only see the Top 4 at tournaments. Melee must be super-balanced!

For a fighter, four characters is not a lot of characters to be seeing at the top, so no, Melee is not as balanced as a game like Guilty Gear. Again, I don't see how this contradicts my definition.

You're not looking at it in the right statistical light, though. Yuna's point is still valid when he says that the balance is determined by the distance between EVERY character.

Your point about games A and B is somewhat of a strawman argument, as it would never happen in real life, and there's no fighting game like that to date. Applying logic like that to Brawl doesn't work when we know for a fact that balance is determined by the ability gaps between characters in both previous installments of the Smash franchise.

I don't think it's a strawman argument, as it doesn't take much imagination to see how this extreme example can be applied to less extreme real life scenarios. Take Pichu from SSBM. He was an almost totally worthless character, and from a competitive standpoint would not have affected the balance much at all if he had simply been removed from the game. In fact, that's exactly what Sakurai did!

At the very least, my example shows above all else that the most important elements of character balance are, in order:

1. The distance between the best character and the second best character.
2. The distance between the second best and the third best.
3. The distance between the third best and the fourth best.

...and so on. Once you get to the Mewtwos and Pichus of the game, the overall effect on game balance becomes minimal.

It should be noted that people like Chu-dat would often pull out low or even bottom tier characters like Y.Link and G&W for even the highest level tourney's when he felt that his IC's weren't up to it. This is because in Melee, no character was unplayable, no character was unbeatable and no match-up was impossible. Low tier characters can act as very reliable secondaries or even mains as many people are unfamiliar with the match-up.

"Going rogue" does indeed have its place in the overall balance of the game, but not too much. The reason why using underpowered characters can be strong is precisely because experienced gamers see them so rarely.

I can see where you're coming from with your points. The thing is that you can't just throw around scenarios to prove your point. For example, if I wanted to say that less distance from all characters would make a more balanced game I could do this.

Game A has 3 top tier characters that are near perfectly balanced. Game B has 20 somewhat balanced characters, like the difference between top tier and high tier.

Looking at the situation this way can put distance between all characters in a more favorable light.

From the sound of it game B would seem better, because there would be 20 characters near to the top compared to just 3 characters in game A. Again, I don't see how this contradicts my definition.

 

[Yuna]

OK, addressing various arguments against me in reverse order:

@Yuna: Calm down. I'm not participating in this discussion because I'm trying to prove you wrong. I'm participating because I find it interesting. Just because other people are trolling you doesn't mean I am. That said:

Yes, I own GGXX. It's an awesome game, where every fighter seems broken until you play another one. It also fits perfectly into my definition of a balanced game. Remember, my definition is: A game is balanced when you have a lot of fighters near the top. In the case of GGXX, there are a lot of fighters near the top, so it's an extremely balanced game. This example doesn't contradict my definition; it strengthens it.

It's also a perfect example of "my" definition. Everyone's close to the top instead of in Melee and Brawl where only a certain number of characters are while the others aren't. Especially in Brawl where the Top is leagues above even the Highs.

I don't get the "X is not Smash" argument. Of course they're not the same. That doesn't mean that the concepts of balance don't apply from one competitive game from the next. Guilty Gear XX is not Smash. Does that prove your arguments wrong?

"Poker is not Smash", "Chess is not Smash", etc. People use other competitive things that aren't even the same kind of things as Smash (videogames) as examples. This is stupid. Magic is a card game.

(PS: In the last few years, MTG has been an extremely balanced game. Just take my word for it).

If you use the right cards, yeah. You still can't use those really useless wants if you want to win.

What's more balanced, MTG or another game where all cards are balanced?

For a fighter, four characters is not a lot of characters to be seeing at the top, so no, Melee is not as balanced as a game like Guilty Gear. Again, I don't see how this contradicts my definition.

Do you know why tournaments were won predominately by the Tops + Marth and Sheik? Because those were the characters the top players played!

I mean, Peach didn't win any major tournaments, yet she's very close to them. Does she just get destroyed by them? No, there just weren't that many high level Peaches around. Because she has to work harder, so people instead pick Fox, Falco, NTSC Sheik or Marth.

The High Tiers can challenge the Tops. In fact, several of them have matchups in their favour. Why didn't we see many of them place high? People didn't play them.

Now, the question at hand is not whether either game is balanced, either. It's whether Melee or Brawl is moreso.

I don't think it's a strawman argument, as it doesn't take much imagination to see how this extreme example can be applied to less extreme real life scenarios. Take Pichu from SSBM. He was an almost totally worthless character, and from a competitive standpoint would not have affected the balance much at all if he had simply been removed from the game. In fact, that's exactly what Sakurai did!

The game is not overall balanced if a great number of the cast is rendered useless.

Stuff

I disagree and am too tired and cranky to elaborate on why.

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

From the sound of it game B would seem better, because there would be 20 characters near to the top compared to just 3 characters in game A. Again, I don't see how this contradicts my definition.

Ah, I must have misinterpreted what you were saying, then. To me, it sounded like your argument was saying that only the top tier balance matters and everything else is secondary. My apologies.

 

[crosser43]

ah, of course its true! but that doesnt mean there are no tiers. This is what the tier list will look

MIDDLE TIER: everyone

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

Everyone in Middle Tier? That would be an absolute pipe dream. The only feasible way for that to happen would be if every match was NO ITEMS! FOX ONLY! FINAL DESTINATION! Something we all know just isn't true (at least, I hope we all know.)

 

[Thinkaman]

I don't get it Yuna, I come into this thread to yell at the guy flaming Sakurai, and you start arguing with me... Multiple times in your topics, which are some of the few I make sure to read because they are informative (gasp!), you argue with people who come into threads supporting you, treating everyone as an enemy...

Look, I think your arguments are mostly sound, even if I disagree with the data that is the foundation. (I still think it is too soon to say Toon Link, Olimar, and Marth are "definite top-tier", and if you insist that I am a blind fool then there is no solution besides letting me learn the painful way over the coming months, right?)

I am not saying everyone has to like Smash Bros., or that you can't have opinions of Brawl and Melee that are different. If you want to think Brawl is the worst game ever, or a fantastic but highly unbalanced game, or the greatest thing on this planet, that's great. Make threads about your opinions and we can have quality discussions, like (for the most part) this thread. If you think dev teams need more or less player feedback, fantastic; I hope you get to host a roundtable about it at GDC. If you think tether recoveries are gimped, alrighty then; complain about them a bit, don't use them, whatever, I don't really care.

The line I drew where I actually got upset enough to argue with someone on the Internet over was where they argued that Sakurai and the development team did a substantially poor and lazy job. Rational people, including you Yuna, cannot seriously say that with a straight face. That isn't a challenge, that is me acknowledging that you have a brain. After all, if someone really did think a game was made poorly and lazily, why the expletive of their choice would they buy it in the first place?

Most these trolls are not like us, they haven't even played the game and have nothing to add to the discussion. We discuss the game, and avoid personal insults, both to ourselves and the people that made the game for us, whatever we may think of it.

As for Sliq, probably my favorite Jiggs poster, it's a shame that defending the creator of the game is considered "fanboyism"... but if he's going to randomly inject politics into Smashboards, it's for the best if he blocks me: I wouldn't want him to catch my Reaganomics cooties.

 

[I.T.P]

Yuna, you keep repeating the same incorrect statements that you've been saying from the start, and it pisses me off that you fail to listen to other intellectual posters and players.

the tops are not leagues over the highs, I have no idea where you got that from, Marth may be a good all around character, but none of his smashes kill as easily as luigis firepunch combo, or Lucas' Usmash, or Ikes Ftilt, or many other great moves in the game, yes he has comboability, but it can be avoided by forseeing it and airdodging correctly, yes he has edge guarding, but there are many things you can do against it, I see a character where one grab can get you from 0% to KO as much more annoying than a character which has a lot of good things, but none of them are ultimate or unbeatable, they're just good.

the way I see it, brawl has a humongous amount of balanced characters, which are divided into groups of potential, and also has a strong counter-pick sort of metagame, where knowing characters with diffrent styles will really help you out, and playing only your main character will leave you open to a big amount of counter pick downhill matches.

I see brawl as having around 10-12 top tier characters, 10-12 high tier characters,8-10 mid tier characters, and 5-7 low tier characters, which are underbalanced. the ones I'm apting for that category ATM, are gannon,Falcon,Yoshi,DK and maybe one more yet to be decided.

I also feel that mid tiers will have very good chances against tops, because of differing styles,ranges and tactics, and that ultimately a person playing 3 Mid tier characters, will have almost as good a chance of winning as one playing 3 Top tier characters.

you can disagree or agree all you want, but your arguments so far are baseless,repetetive, and lacking of variety of game experience.

also, I'm sure the tier list will get scrambled lots of times, but ATM my predictions for it are(in no particular order):

Top:
Luigi
Marth
Diddy
Meta knight
Pit
Olimar
PT
Zelda
DDD
Toon link
Wolf

High:
Peach
Zamus
Lucas
Ike
R.O.B
Snake
Mario
Wario
GaW
Ice Climbers
Falco
Lucario
Pikachu
Kirby

Mid:
Ness
Bowser
Fox
Sonic
Samus
Link
Shiek

Low:
Falcon
Gannon
Yoshi
DK
Jigglypuff

while Writing I felt diffrently for some character potentials, and ended up with a 11-14-7-5 formation. but that's my current feelings about character potentials.

also, aside from the low tier characters, the diffrence between mid and top is around the diffrence between high and top in melee, and between high and top is half that. that's how balanced this game feels to me.

and yes, there are easier and harder characters to play, so there are "Noob Characters"

 

[Yuna]

I don't get it Yuna, I come into this thread to yell at the guy flaming Sakurai, and you start arguing with me... Multiple times in your topics, which are some of the few I make sure to read because they are informative (gasp!), you argue with people who come into threads supporting you, treating everyone as an enemy...

I am not one to blindly agree with anyone who supporst me. If I see something I disagree to, I will reply to it. Even if we share the same views on certain things, we don't share the same view on all things. And there's no reason why I should give you special treatment just because I don't disagree with everything you say.

Especially not when I disagree vehemently with flaming someone simply for stating that Sakurai isn't perfect. He did not flame Sakurai. He did not simply state "Sakurai sucks!", he pointed out why he thinks so. Of course, it wasn't a long and articulate post but at least it wasn't a pure flame.

And he has the right to think that Sakurai isn't perfect. Because he isn't.

The guy thought they should've brought in capable Smashers to beta-test. You or someone else thought this is a bad idea, that Sakurai can do it all on his own... which he can't as evidence by the game we got. It's good, but it's not perfect. And it would undoubtedly have been better had he gotten better beta-testers.

Like that other guy pointed out, the team behind Shadowrun hired some very good FPS players. And now it's one of the most balanced and praised games on the market. Coincidence? I think not.

Look, I think your arguments are mostly sound, even if I disagree with the data that is the foundation. (I still think it is too soon to say Toon Link, Olimar, and Marth are "definite top-tier, and if you insist that I am a blind fool then there is no solution besides letting me learn the painful way over the coming months, right?)

I'm not insisting people are blind fools if they don't think those two have more potential than the majority of the cast. I insist the Dutch are fools for thinking Ike is broken while being unable to see Marth's, Toon Link's and Olimar's potential. They're not definite as in "It's the universal truth". But they're definitely among the top characters, which should be obvious (yet the Dutch can't even see that).

I am not saying everyone has to like Smash Bros., or that you can't have opinions of Brawl and Melee that are different. If you want to think Brawl is the worst game ever, or a fantastic but highly unbalanced game, or the greatest thing on this planet, that's great. Make threads about your opinions and we can have quality discussions, like (for the most part) this thread. If you think dev teams need more or less player feedback, fantastic; I hope you get to host a roundtable about it at GDC. If you think tether recoveries are gimped, alrighty then; complain about them a bit, don't use them, whatever, I don't really care.

The line I drew where I actually got upset enough to argue with someone on the Internet over was where they argued that Sakurai and the development team did a substantially poor and lazy job. Rational people, including you Yuna, cannot seriously say that with a straight face. That isn't a challenge, that is me acknowledging that you have a brain. After all, if someone really did think a game was made poorly and lazily, why the expletive of their choice would they buy it in the first place?

No one said they did a substantialy poor and lazy job. At least I didn't. I've time and again worded my posts very carefully.

They did not do a poor job. But they did not do a perfect job either. The impression I got was that we were flamed for simply criticizing them for the job they did, despite the fact that I just think they could've done a better job, especially if they'd gotten the right beta testers.

Most these trolls are not like us, they haven't even played the game and have nothing to add to the discussion. We discuss the game, and avoid personal insults, both to ourselves and the people that made the game for us, whatever we may think of it.

As for Sliq, probably my favorite Jiggs poster, it's a shame that defending the creator of the game is considered "fanboyism"... but if he's going to randomly inject politics into Smashboards, it's for the best if he blocks me: I wouldn't want him to catch my Reaganomics cooties.

It's not just defending him, it's implying that it's wrong to criticize him at all, which was the impression I got from you (or whoever it was who flamed us, I don't keep track, maybe it wasn't even you and if so, my replies weren't aimed at you).

 

[susu_atari]

Well, a few weeks ago people were saying that Olimar was bottom tier due to the lameness of tether recovery issues, but the fact that people have now realised that he's MASSIVE **** has turned him on his head.

Using Olimar I've managed cause over 100% damage on an opponent in a matter of seconds. If you get hit, though, you're going to feel it. On large stages, Olimar is unbeatable.

On small stages, however, Diddy Kong and Dedede are kings. Diddy Kong, due to his banana skins and Dedede due to the fact that he hits harder than any other character.

Ike and Toon Link seem to be excellent in any scenario.

One thing that is different, though, is that no character is completely useless (think Young Link and Pichu).

 

[I.T.P]

Well, a few weeks ago people were saying that Olimar was bottom tier due to the lameness of tether recovery issues, but the fact that people have now realised that he's MASSIVE **** has turned him on his head.

Using Olimar I've managed cause over 100% damage on an opponent in a matter of seconds. If you get hit, though, you're going to feel it. On large stages, Olimar is unbeatable.

On small stages, however, Diddy Kong and Dedede are kings. Diddy Kong, due to his banana skins and Dedede due to the fact that he hits harder than any other character.

Ike and Toon Link seem to be excellent in any scenario.

One thing that is different, though, is that no character is completely useless (think Young Link and Pichu).

that's part of what I was saying in my post, the worst in brawl are only around Melee's low tier level, and are still somewhat playable. Y.Link was ok in Melee though, you're underrating him.



also, Yuna, I'd like your reply to what I said.

 

[gooseman]

A thread about Brawl being balanced far beyond Melee?

Seriously, who didn't see this becoming a tourneyf@g ****storm? No really, lets get a show of hands.

 

[Thinkaman]

It's not wrong to criticize Sakurai, but the original post that ticked me off was certainly not a simple statement of "Sakurai isn't perfect". That's obviously true, else they wouldn't have to spend so much time balancing the game since it would have been perfect to begin with. I never argued that Sakurai or anyone is perfect or above criticism, but that was not what was said:

The sad thing is that this could have been so easily averted if Sakurai had gotten some decent beta-testers. You know, like, say, Halo.

This is the only comment in this thread that I object to. It would be another thing if he was voicing a similar argument to yours, advocating that perhaps a panel of experienced players could have sped up the process. However, I obviously do not read it as that at all.

The idea that the Grandia team are lazy and incompetent beta-testers is simply insulting. There is no way around it. They are not being compared to anything here, they are just being directly insulted. To say that Sakurai has in some way failed for using this team to beta-test his game is mind-blowing.

I think they did a fantastic job, unless we find an explosion of game crashing glitches in the next couple weeks or something equally absurd. Sakurai did what I believe to be a good job balancing a fighting game with 39 extremely unique characters. If you agree or disagree, alrighty. If you think a different QA testing methodology would have been more conductive, feel free to... I dunno; discuss it, email them about it?

However, the amount of work and time by many dozens of people should be appropriately respected. (Yuna in particular I am NOT accusing otherwise...) They did a "decent" job testing the game whatever your opinions beyond that are, and I think most people would agree that Sakurai balanced the game far better than MOST games on the market. (If you think otherwise, I suggest coming out from under your Guilty Gear and Starcraft rock and see how poorly balanced most games are.) Melee too was far more balanced than most people give it credit for; not offering the absolute pinnacle of equal options does not constitute massive unbalance in a game.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, you keep repeating the same incorrect statements that you've been saying from the start, and it pisses me off that you fail to listen to other intellectual posters and players.

I do not fail to listen to them. I just disagree with a few of them.

Have you not see my constantly conceede that I could very well be wrong, though?

the tops are not leagues over the highs, I have no idea where you got that from, Marth may be a good all around character, but none of his smashes kill as easily as luigis firepunch combo, or Lucas' Usmash, or Ikes Ftilt, or many other great moves in the game, yes he has comboability, but it can be avoided by forseeing it and airdodging correctly, yes he has edge guarding, but there are many things you can do against it, I see a character where one grab can get you from 0% to KO as much more annoying than a character which has a lot of good things, but none of them are ultimate or unbeatable, they're just good.

Which charcters are those, pray tell (one grab = 0% -> KO)?

the way I see it, brawl has a humongous amount of balanced characters, which are divided into groups of potential, and also has a strong counter-pick sort of metagame, where knowing characters with diffrent styles will really help you out, and playing only your main character will leave you open to a big amount of counter pick downhill matches.

It's about different styles. That's not counterpick. It's whether that character is better against whichever character you're facing than whoever you played before.

Name a few characters who have strong counters despite being Top/High.

I see brawl as having around 10-12 top tier characters, 10-12 high tier characters,8-10 mid tier characters, and 5-7 low tier characters, which are underbalanced. the ones I'm apting for that category ATM, are gannon,Falcon,Yoshi,DK and maybe one more yet to be decided.

And that's your opinion. I disagree, but I would never flame you for thinking the way you do.

I also feel that mid tiers will have very good chances against tops, because of differing styles,ranges and tactics, and that ultimately a person playing 3 Mid tier characters, will have almost as good a chance of winning as one playing 3 Top tier characters.

It's not about things being different. It's about whether those things are effective against the character you're facing. People seem to think Different = Win. It's like saying Yoshi is good in Melee because very few people have versed a good Yoshi.

Mid tiers could beat the tops/highs in Melee too. The matchups weren't favourable or always equal but they weren't impossible or even that hard.

you can disagree or agree all you want, but your arguments so far are baseless,repetetive, and lacking of variety of game experience.

Variety, schmariety. You're arguing the same thing as drk.peach, basically. "Variety/Creativity will make good characters".

Variety and creativity does not a good character make. A "different" style does not a good counterpick make. It's a good counterpick if the character you're using has a favourable matchup against he character you're versing.

also, aside from the low tier characters, the diffrence between mid and top is around the diffrence between high and top in melee, and between high and top is half that. that's how balanced this game feels to me.

and yes, there are easier and harder characters to play, so there are "Noob Characters"

It doesn't matter if a character is easier to play as if their potential is limited.

 

[Yuna]

"The sad thing is that this could have been so easily averted if Sakurai had gotten some decent beta-testers. You know, like, say, Halo."

I can see how that's insinuating they're incompetent (not lazy, though). I just interpreted it as "The beta-testers weren't suited for this job"... which they weren't.

I present to you Shadowrun.

 

[I.T.P]

I do not fail to listen to them. I just disagree with a few of them.

you are constantly repeating similiar arguments to those you've made in the opening statement of the thread, this implies that you are not listening to counter arguments, and are persistantly sitting on the same arguements over and over, instead of explaining them more thoroughly.

Have you not see my constantly conceede that I could very well be wrong, though?

while you have stated "I may be wrong" many times, you have not really taken the time to seriously consider the possibility of you being wrong, and you're merely enjoying countering every diffrent person with similiar statements

Which charcters are those, pray tell (one grab = 0% -> KO)?

Ice climbers offcourse, the specific demonstration I'm referring to wasn't uploaded to my account by void, but I have it. grab -> Dthrow desync nana Fair spike -> grab -> Dthrow Desync nana Fair spike -> grab -> Fthrow -> nana grabs -> Nana Fthrow -> Popo dash grab -> Fthrow -> Nana Dash grab -> Fthrow -> Popo Fsmash = shiek killed at 114% IIRC, a full 0%-KO inescapable combo. it is pretty hard to do though.

It's about different styles. That's not counterpick. It's whether that character is better against whichever character you're facing than whoever you played before.

Name a few characters who have strong counters despite being Top/High.

Try Pit/R.O.B against Marth, or Ike against Marth. very hard matchups for Marth because of being outranged or spammed with projectiles, Similiarly, Link or sonic vs Marth is very hard for marth as well, being out manvured and overly grabbed by sonic, or being spammed and outranged by link.

And that's your opinion. I disagree, but I would never flame you for thinking the way you do.

I never said you'd flame me, but failing to even try and listen to logic and experience from outside your own region is bad enough.

It's not about things being different. It's about whether those things are effective against the character you're facing. People seem to think Different = Win. It's like saying Yoshi is good in Melee because very few people have versed a good Yoshi.

Mid tiers could beat the tops/highs in Melee too. The matchups weren't favourable or always equal but they weren't impossible or even that hard.

be that as it may, the diffrences between tiers this time will be much smaller, and there are many capable characters that can deal with your illusion of "unbeatable top tiers". marth and toon link are indeed top tier material and are both great characters, but they're far from being "much better" than the rest of the cast, or even the rest of the top tiers IMO.

Variety, schmariety. You're arguing the same thing as drk.peach, basically. "Variety/Creativity will make good characters".

Variety and creativity does not a good character make. A "different" style does not a good counterpick make. It's a good counterpick if the character you're using has a favourable matchup against he character you're versing.

I'm not saying diffrent is better, but against specific characters, having a bigger range, or a diffrent playstyle can warrant a huge advantage.

It doesn't matter if a character is easier to play as if their potential is limited.

but who are you to say the potential is limited? the game has only been out for a month, as far as you know, there are millions of uses for the existing moves which haven't been found yet. listening to the reasoning of others is important.

 

[PityLord]

Azen won a tournament with Ike. Who were some of his opponents? Mew2King and Chillindude. Had they played before? Yes, they both had quite a bit. What characters? M2K Marth and D3, chillin Zsuitsamus. Now tbh, the current best melee player (skill being transferable), playing as his main, who is still widely aknowledged as being one of, if not the best, characters in the game, got 3-0'd by Azen's Ike. Does this mean Ike is top tier? That Marth isn't top tier? That Azen is much better than M2K? It is not really possible to judge what things like this mean for balance, other than at this point no 1 character is destroying everyone. The theory that Olimar is going to be ****, is still just a theory, because atm there are no olimars ******.

Yuna I kindly ask you to reply to this quote right here. It was on page 16 or something and you missed it.

So how come one of the best players in the Smash comunity got beaten using his MAIN from melee wich was LEAST changed from the other game and plays almost the SAME. Judging from all of that it seems almost impossible that he lost from your standpoint that the Top tiers now will **** even more.

My thought about this is that there will be tiers of course but there will ALWAYS be a way to figgure out how to beat certain character or counterpick a char/stage in order to suceed.

Plz answer this one. Im really curious.

 

[Fawriel]

I don't get it Yuna, I come into this thread to yell at the guy flaming Sakurai, and you start arguing with me... Multiple times in your topics, which are some of the few I make sure to read because they are informative (gasp!), you argue with people who come into threads supporting you, treating everyone as an enemy...
[etc.]

I don't get it, either.
I came into this thread simply throwing in a thought I had that was inspired by what I keep hearing about Windows, how they treat their fans better. I know that the latest Halo game got a lot of beta-testers from outside, which Sakurai could easily have done. Yet he didn't. That's all I intended to say. They could have gotten more and more qualified beta-testers by contacting players, putting them under one of Nintendo's famous embargoes, collecting their data and analyzing it. That is ALL that I meant to say. "Like Halo."

And then you come and drag on a discussion over several pages about how I'm apparently the incarnation of evil for suggesting that Sakurai could have done something to help a vital part of the game that has proven to be effective in the past.

I wouldn't even have bothered to reply anymore since Yuna did a good enough job elaborating on my point while I was away. But, despite what your frequent use of the sardonic "arguing on the internet" implies, you made this personal.
First, I find it pretty interesting how you immediately insult me after I have made a half-serious half-joking jab at some people whom you are not related to at all unless there's something you're not telling us, but when the great, respectworthy BRoomer Yuna ( no disrespect to Yuna ) argues your points, you act innocent like a lamb.
And then you attempt to fraternize with him, calling "people like that guy" trolls who don't contribute anything.
While apparently you are one of those who feel above arguing like children "on teh internetz".

Here's my constructive criticism to you: Remove that stick from your rectum. It's unsightly.

 

[Yuna]

you are constantly repeating similiar arguments to those you've made in the opening statement of the thread, this implies that you are not listening to counter arguments, and are persistantly sitting on the same arguements over and over, instead of explaining them more thoroughly.

Because I feel their arguments can be counter-argued using those arguments. The fact that I have already used them has no bearing if the person I'm arguing against is new to the hread.

while you have stated "I may be wrong" many times, you have not really taken the time to seriously consider the possibility of you being wrong, and you're merely enjoying countering every diffrent person with similiar statements [/quoite]
It depends on what they say, though.

Ice climbers offcourse, the specific demonstration I'm referring to wasn't uploaded to my account by void, but I have it. grab -> Dthrow desync nana Fair spike -> grab -> Dthrow Desync nana Fair spike -> grab -> Fthrow -> nana grabs -> Nana Fthrow -> Popo dash grab -> Fthrow -> Nana Dash grab -> Fthrow -> Popo Fsmash = shiek killed at 114% IIRC, a full 0%-KO inescapable combo. it is pretty hard to do though.

Are we talking about Melee or Brawl? Because I don't remember that being possible in Brawl. We're talking about Brawl's balance in comparison to Melee. What the ICs could do in Melee has absolutely no bearing on what they can do now since it's a new game. They do have a new chaingrab, however.

Try Pit/R.O.B against Marth, or Ike against Marth. very hard matchups for Marth because of being outranged or spammed with projectiles, Similiarly, Link or sonic vs Marth is very hard for marth as well, being out manvured and overly grabbed by sonic, or being spammed and outranged by link.

Outranged =/= Beaten

Ike is slow. What difference does it make if he can outrange Marth as long as the Marth is good enough not to whiff because of range get punished by a longer-reaching move?

Pits arrows = Not that good. Easy to jump/dodge and barely any knockback. R.O.B., can't say I've tried that a lot. I will.

Projectiles do not automatically mean Marth loses. A lot of characters do not have projectiles, yet they can win against characters who do. It's how good the projectile is that matters.

Sonic is fast, and? He can't combo well, KO well and I don't think he can even do much out of a grab. Grabs aren't really good if you can't do anything with them, especially not since grabs are dodgable if you spam them. Good players do not get grabbed that often.

I never said you'd flame me, but failing to even try and listen to logic and experience from outside your own region is bad enough.

I listen. Sometimes I just think people are wrong.

be that as it may, the diffrences between tiers this time will be much smaller, and there are many capable characters that can deal with your illusion of "unbeatable top tiers". marth and toon link are indeed top tier material and are both great characters, but they're far from being "much better" than the rest of the cast, or even the rest of the top tiers IMO.

Provide me with better examples, please.

I'm not saying diffrent is better, but against specific characters, having a bigger range, or a diffrent playstyle can warrant a huge advantage.

Yes, but it depends entirely on the matchup. You kept saying "Different = Better" (even if you didn't mean to).

but who are you to say the potential is limited? the game has only been out for a month, as far as you know, there are millions of uses for the existing moves which haven't been found yet. listening to the reasoning of others is important.

I'm not saying anyone's potential is limited. I'm saying it does not matter how creative you are if the potential you have to work with is limited.

As such, no matter how creative X-character is, Y-character will always be better if played equally creatively.

 

[Takuyo90]

The gap between The Good Characters and the Bad Characters is much larger now. Certain characters can combo, rack up damage and KO. Certain others can't do either very well. Certain chars can do two out of three, others only one of them.

Few characters can approach safely. Marth can do all of these things.

Lower ceilings will make vertical KO's even more important, especially with the new floatiness to screw up edgeguarding. Only a select few can KO well vertically.

Among other things...

hate the player not the game....



the levle of a character depends on the player. even if u put all characters on computer max lv and have them fight and the last one standing is the victor, that doesnt mean he relly is...



how about this....ur not a computer ....so dont worry about it.

 

[ComradeSAL]

It's also a perfect example of "my" definition. Everyone's close to the top instead of in Melee and Brawl where only a certain number of characters are while the others aren't. Especially in Brawl where the Top is leagues above even the Highs.

If the "tops" are leagues above the "highs" then Brawl would indeed be less balanced than melee (assuming the "tops" are a relatively small set).

"Poker is not Smash", "Chess is not Smash", etc. People use other competitive things that aren't even the same kind of things as Smash (videogames) as examples. This is stupid. Magic is a card game.

Both smash and magic are games that involve complex risk/reward systems to reward the player who is most skilled at the game. Because of that analogies between two seemingly different games largely hold. The guy from sirlin.net would agree; he uses chess/magic/starcraft analogies to talk about fighting games almost constantly. Really, "MTG is not smash" seems about as inane an argument as the "Brawl is not Melee" line of thought that you (rightfully) mock.

If you use the right cards, yeah. You still can't use those really useless wants if you want to win.

What's more balanced, MTG or another game where all cards are balanced?

Argument 1:
A basketball is a sphere. A perfect sphere is more spherical than a basketball.

MTG is balanced. A game where every card was balanced would be more balanced than MTG.

Argument 2:
Think of all the opening moves in chess that suck and aren't playable (for instance: moving your rook pawn up two spaces). Does that make chess an unbalanced game?

The High Tiers can challenge the Tops. In fact, several of them have matchups in their favour. Why didn't we see many of them place high? People didn't play them.

Fair enough. Maybe melee is more balanced than I thought.

Now, the question at hand is not whether either game is balanced, either. It's whether Melee or Brawl is moreso.

Yes, that is indeed the question. To compare the balance of the game, we should be looking at how many top tiers and high tiers (that can legitimately compete with the top tiers) there are; the low tier characters are largely irrelevant to the discussion. *THIS* is what I am trying to point out.

The game is not overall balanced if a great number of the cast is rendered useless.

Imagine two games. Game A has 5 perfectly balanced characters. Game B has 20 characters: 10 perfectly balanced, 10 completely unplayable. Which one is more balanced? This is what I am trying to get at.

I disagree and am too tired and cranky to elaborate on why.

Haha, fair enough. No one's forcing you to argue with me; the only discussions worth having are the ones you enjoy. ^^

 

[Yuna]

Yuna I kindly ask you to reply to this quote right here. It was on page 16 or something and you missed it.

So how come one of the best players in the Smash comunity got beaten using his MAIN from melee wich was LEAST changed from the other game and plays almost the SAME. Judging from all of that it seems almost impossible that he lost from your standpoint that the Top tiers now will **** even more.

My thought about this is that there will be tiers of course but there will ALWAYS be a way to figgure out how to beat certain character or counterpick a char/stage in order to suceed.

Plz answer this one. Im really curious.

I'll use the often used argument of:
It's still early.

Anyone remember when Ken first entered the scene? And he remained unbeatable for quite a long time because he played Marth in a way no one was used to Marth being played?

Azen's Ike, how many people had played Azen's Ike, really? Ike is a new character. Azen's Azen. Azen played Ike and did things M2K probably hadn't thought of. It's also a new game so even if Marth's pretty much the same, he's not exactly the same and the game mechanics are new.

They'd played a lot before but they're all still new to the game. Does this mean Ike will beat Marth easily on high levels? Mikey Lenetia won some tournament as Peach. Is she Top Tier because of this?

I'm arguing Theory Fighter, what two players who know their character and their opponent's character would be capable of in an evenly matched game. Of course, I might be wrong, but that's what I'm arguing.

So, how much did M2K know about Ike, specifically the way Azen played Ike? Answer this and we might have a conclusion to draw.

BTW, you know what M2K said after that tournament (I think it was after the tournament)? "Azen's Ike is amazing. Seriously play him!" in the same post as he listed who he thought would be among the Top characters... without mentioning Ike. Ike got a honorary mention as a character to watch out for. But he didn't think Ike was top tier material either.

 

[frankisvital]

Methinks Yuna needs his own subforum.

 

[Emblem Lord]

I think Brawl is slightly more balanced since there seem to be more characters viable for high tier and top tier.

That said, Brawl isn't a balanced game.

You get me?

Good.

 

[Samochan]

So how come one of the best players in the Smash comunity got beaten using his MAIN from melee wich was LEAST changed from the other game and plays almost the SAME. Judging from all of that it seems almost impossible that he lost from your standpoint that the Top tiers now will **** even more.

Well Azen plays really smart and he's not that far off from m2k from melee's standpoint, plus even if marth had little change there is still something to get adjusted to, while azen is known for playign about every character to very high level. It tells a lot how easily Azen can adjust to change and different styles. But it's not entirely unknown of that worse character wins over better character, chu counterpicks peaches with pikachu for example. And we still dunno how matchups themselves play part in this game. But the point here is, while the gap between Marth and ike might not be that wide, Marth is definitely easier to use and Ike with his slow attacks and everything needs to be played smartly and more carefully. Also the point here was that even when the gap is not humongous between marth and say, R.O.B, the gap is noteworthy between Marth and Bowser for example and even bigger when it comes to Yoshi.

To me it seems the actual balance from ssbm to brawl hasn't been changed at all, only the roster has gotten bigger and thus there are bit more characters that have abilities to win tourneys consistently, aka the top tiers and then seemingly a lot more high tiers as well. But I wouldn't call it balanced however, since we'd need to look at the % statistics instead and not the actual character numbers that win tournaments, cause we do have a bigger roster here. Since more characters are top tiers and more are high tiers, it might feel balanced cause more characters can compete but in reality it wouldn't be cause we still have equally as many bad characters that couldn't compete or win tournaments.

 

[I.T.P]

I will not answer to all that, because I'm tired, but yes, the combo I mentioned is a brawl combo. watch the "into the void" in my sigged youtube profiles to see that it's possible.

 

[PityLord]

I'll use the often used argument of:
It's still early.

Anyone remember when Ken first entered the scene? And he remained unbeatable for quite a long time because he played Marth in a way no one was used to Marth being played?

Azen's Ike, how many people had played Azen's Ike, really? Ike is a new character. Azen's Azen. Azen played Ike and did things M2K probably hadn't thought of. It's also a new game so even if Marth's pretty much the same, he's not exactly the same and the game mechanics are new.

They'd played a lot before but they're all still new to the game. Does this mean Ike will beat Marth easily on high levels? Mikey Lenetia won some tournament as Peach. Is she Top Tier because of this?

I'm arguing Theory Fighter, what two players who know their character and their opponent's character would be capable of in an evenly matched game. Of course, I might be wrong, but that's what I'm arguing.

So, how much did M2K know about Ike, specifically the way Azen played Ike? Answer this and we might have a conclusion to draw.

BTW, you know what M2K said after that tournament (I think it was after the tournament)? "Azen's Ike is amazing. Seriously play him!" in the same post as he listed who he thought would be among the Top characters... without mentioning Ike. Ike got a honorary mention as a character to watch out for. But he didn't think Ike was top tier material either.

Still M2K knew his character then anyone can know other characters so far. I agree that he wasnt used to Azens Ike. Still the way a player uses his characters advantages and works on his weaknesses will prevail over a player not doing so. M2K got taken by surprise I agree.

Since M2K didnt mention Ike as top char but still aknowledged him means that even though Ike may not be top tier or even high he HAS a chance of winning in the competetive enviroment. Just like every char so far. Its how you use the characters specific traits will define victory or loss.

Also on last note from me. You generally didnt reply to posts telling "I feel Brawl being more ballanced, where while playing Melee didnt feel that way" n stuff. I know its not backed up by anything but shouldnt we take acount on those things to?

[side note:] Holy **** how this debate went long. Been reading it from page 1 from 3 P.M till 10 P.M now .

 

[Yuna]

I will not answer to all that, because I'm tired, but yes, the combo I mentioned is a brawl combo. watch the "into the void" in my sigged youtube profiles to see that it's possible.

Then why does it matter? ICs could do it in Melee. But were they Top Tier? No.

They can no longer do it in Brawl... and this matters because... (in the sum of all things)?

Also on last note from me. You generally didnt reply to posts telling "I feel Brawl being more ballanced, where while playing Melee didnt feel that way" n stuff. I know its not backed up by anything but shouldnt we take acount on those things to?

Because there's nothing to say. It's their opinion. I have my opinion (which has started to sway). What am I going to say to those who simply say "This is how I feel. This is my opinion." without providing anything I can argue for/against?

Am I to say "You're wrong!" and then rant why my opinion is worth more? No, that would actually be rude (gasp!). So I "ignore" them. It's just opinion, after all. And as of right now, it's kinda hard to say "Your opinion is wrong!".

 

[PityLord]

Then why does it matter? ICs could do it in Melee. But were they Top Tier? No.

They can no longer do it in Brawl... and this matters because... (in the sum of all things)?


Because there's nothing to say. It's their opinion. I have my opinion (which has started to sway). What am I going to say to those who simply say "This is how I feel. This is my opinion." without providing anything I can argue for/against?

Am I to say "You're wrong!" and then rant why my opinion is worth more? No, that would actually be rude (gasp!). So I "ignore" them. It's just opinion, after all. And as of right now, it's kinda hard to say "Your opinion is wrong!".

Ok gotcha. Thx for the nice debate anyway. I cant read more anyways . To tired of it and only time will tell how it will turn out. I think in worst case scenario it will be just like melee in terms of tournaments.

 

[I.T.P]

it won't set their placement in the tier list, but it does drastically improve their potential, and thus makes the diffrence between them being in Mid-tier to being in high tier.

and I don't mean only that combo, I mean their entire frightningly painful grab game.

 

[Samochan]

Why do I keep seeing "balanced" spelled as "ballanced" way too often nowdays? X3

/off topic

 

[Yuna]

it won't set their placement in the tier list, but it does drastically improve their potential, and thus makes the diffrence between them being in Mid-tier to being in high tier.

and I don't mean only that combo, I mean their entire frightningly painful grab game.

It still doesn't matter? IC's were Mid-Tier, then they moved to High. Yes, and?

Is your point that the Brawl tierlist will most probably change overtime as well? No one's arguing that.

 

[RDK]

Ok gotcha. Thx for the nice debate anyway. I cant read more anyways . To tired of it and only time will tell how it will turn out. I think in worst case scenario it will be just like melee in terms of tournaments.

And what, may I ask, was wrong with Melee tournaments?

Why do I keep seeing "balanced" spelled as "ballanced" way too often nowdays? X3

/off topic

Once you've spent any great amount of time in the Brawl Boards, you'll understand that stupidity is the norm.