Brawl - More balanced than Melee? Lie or truth?

[Banee]

Okay, here is the original point made by ColinJF (the point i'm arguing for, it wasnt my original idea but one I agree with which I feel he put well):

Balance is a measure of the decentralisation in the game.

Balance isn't a ratio. Games aren't 50% balanced or 70% balanced. You'll notice I didn't say anything about 100% balance. I merely made a comparison between Brawl and Brawl+.

If those four characters are really only the only viable characters in melee (which is not the case) then the game might as well have had just four characters, and when comparing it to another game, if the other game has more than four viable characters than the latter game is more balanced.

Whether a game is balanced is a very different question from whether development time was well spent ((i.e. whether it was well developed). If only 20% of the characters in the game are viable, we would say it was not well developed, because a lot of development time was wasted. But if that game had 100 characters, then there would still be 20 viable characters, which is a solid number, and we would say the game is quite balanced (and certainly more balanced than a game with four characters, to use a comparison).

A lot of development time can be wasted on poor characters and yet the game can still be balanced. They are completely different concepts. For example, in Pokemon DP there are hundreds of pokemon that don't see much use, but there are still ~50 staple pokemon who for the sake of approximation we would call the viable ones. Fifty is a pretty solid number, so the game is balanced, regardless of how many non-viable pokemon there are.

Now that I have clarified that, you may want to read my original post again.



This was my reply to another poster giving a hypothetical to help prove this point:

Suppose their are 2 hypothetical games: Smash 4 and Smash 5. Both games have the exact same physics, dynamics, and stages as Melee. In smash 4 their are 4 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, and Fox. They have the exact same movesets as they do in melee. In Smash 5, their are 5 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, Fox, and Yoshi. Again, with the exact same movesets as in Melee.

Now, obviously, these 2 games are identical in every conceivable way except one includes Yoshi. Yoshi is worse than the other 4 characters in every way and is thus not viable. Therefore, as Yoshi is not viable, no one who cares about competition will play him. This means that any tournament involving Smash 5 will be exactly the same as any tournament involving Smash 4. Thus, they are equally balanced.

I think this proves what the above poster is saying in that the number of un-viable characters in a game has no impact on balance. Now, as he said, if you want to discuss wasted development time in that they wasted time creating movesets for a character that will not be played (Yoshi), thats an entirely different issue. However, the fact still remains from a competitive perspective the games are mirrors of one another.

This was you're reply to me, a fair argument:

Because he said that Smash 5 would be just as balanced as Smash 4. In his mind, balance is only important when it comes to the characters who are considered the Tops, the ones with about an equal chance of winning at the top.

Balance is apparently only important to the small number of the highest echelons. The fact that the rest would be unplayable is besides the points in his mind. In fact, he claimed they would have nothing to do with the balance of the game.

And this is still all relying on the flawed argument that in Melee, only 4-5 characters were usable, which is just not true. Only 4-5 characters were spammed at tournaments, doesn't mean everyone down to didn't Link stand a pretty good chance at winning.

Of course there'll always be such a thing as a balance/imbalance between the most tourney-viable characters, doesn't mean that's all balance is about.


This was my reply, which you never addressed (in a reasonable manner):

I suppose it was my fault for not clarifying. But I was strictly speaking of only the top echelons of balance. That is, the very best players against the other very best players.

To use your terminology from a reply to another person, Joe Smoe simply doesnt matter in the balance i'm speaking about. Sure he can use Yoshi and put himself at a severe disadvantage due to the glaring flaws in the character of Yoshi, but he'll have no impact on the top echelons of the tournament unless he is some smash savant who is simply much much better than everyone else. In which case, he would be even better using a stronger character.

As a result of this, the fact that Yoshi is not viable is completely irrelevent. It doesnt matter at all at the top levels of play. No one will use Yoshi, atleast successfully, at the top levels of play (again, unless they are somehow so much better than everyone else they can overcome the Yoshi handicap). Therefore, in my hypothetical 2 games, the top end of tournaments will be exactly the same in either game. Perhaps the lower rounds will be affected somewhat, but they have no impact on the top levels of play. And, as the top end results are exactly the same, we can say the games are equally balanced. Atleast, in regards to the best against the best.

I'll clarify and note again one thing, i'm not talking about the specifics as they are in melee and in brawl. In my hypothetical the 4 characters in Smash 4 are relatively balanced. The 5th character in 5, Yoshi, is strictly inferior to the others in every capacity (thus unviable).

The overall point is that the existence of an additional element that is entirely unusable in a competitive manner (except as an extreme handicap, I suppose), is irrelevent when speaking of competitive balance.

Oh, and

What part of "People who know about these things have defined game balance, you're just a random person" is too Spanish for you to understand?

What people have defined this? I would like a source for this claim.

 

[Yuna]

Your so-called arguments are still flawed. We're not talking about tournament balance. We're talking about game balance.

If Smash 4 and Smash 5 are perfectly identical, but Smash 5 has 1 more character that's unviable compared to Smash 4, then Smash 5 is obviously less balanced. Even when there's more than just 5 characters whereof only one is useless.

Smash 6 has 8, 4 of which are around the same and Top Tier, the rest Mid, they can compete but not win tournaments.

Smash 7 is just the same, only Yoshi is now useless. The others are exactly the same, only Yoshi cannot possibly win, ever. The balance is obvious worse in Smash 7. I cannot see how you could possibly disagree with this. Because in Smash 6, Yoshi stood a better chance in tournaments.

In Smash 4, every single character in the game is balanced (we're assuming), in Smash 5, 4 are and one is not. Obviously, the balance is worse here, also in a from a tournament standpoint, because in tournaments in Smash 4, 100% of the characters could win, in 5, only 80%.

This is why it's harder to balance a game the more characters are added. You can't just explain away bad balancing with "Well, if they're un-viable in tournaments, then who cares?".

Again, your original premise still fails.

 

[Banee]

Your so-called arguments are still flawed. We're not talking about tournament balance. We're talking about game balance.

This is where we part ways and you're replies have no bearing on what i'm saying. I've said it over and over, I am talking about competitive balance only. Were not even arguing over the same thing.

Now of course, thats off topic to the overall point of the thread (though I would argue vaguely related). But all of my responses and my argument were not about the main topic, but the topic i've been emphasizing over and over, competitive balance. Which is also what the original person I quoted was arguing about.

In Smash 4, every single character in the game is balanced (we're assuming), in Smash 5, 4 are and one is not. Obviously, the balance is worse here, also in a from a tournament standpoint, because in tournaments in Smash 4, 100% of the characters could win, in 5, only 80%.

Since this is on topic, i'll respond to it. This was addressed by the original poster, which I reposted in my previous reply. Competitive balance isnt a ratio. Go check out the first italicized portion of my last post.

 

[Yuna]

This is where we part ways and you're replies have no bearing on what i'm saying. I've said it over and over, I am talking about competitive balance only. Were not even arguing over the same thing.

Now of course, thats off topic to the overall point of the thread (though I would argue vaguely related). But all of my responses and my argument were not about the main topic, but the topic i've been emphasizing over and over, competitive balance. Which is also what the original person I quoted was arguing about.

Of course Yoshi being useless is still relevant to Competitive game balance! In Smash 4, 100% of all characters are viable, in Smash 5, only 80% of them are! While the internal balance between the Top 4 is constant, the overall balance of the entire game is not.

In Competitive play, Smash 5 has less of a ratio of Competitively viable players. Let's now talk about this in a wider sense, not just 4 characters + 1 but 4 characters 8 1. In Smash 6, 4 are the Top and 8 are the Mid. In Smash 7, 4 are Top, 7 are Mid and 1 is Useless. Which one is more balance competitively between 6 and 7? 7! Because in 6, the Yoshi could still stand a chance of winning.

Since this is on topic, i'll respond to it. This was addressed by the original poster, which I reposted in my previous reply. Competitive balance isnt a ratio. Go check out the first italicized portion of my last post.

Competitive Balance = Competitive Balance. We're not talking about a game like Smash 4 and Smash 5 where it's a bit gray. We're talking about Smash 3 (or in my hypothetical example, Smash 6 and 7).

There are more than just 4 Tops and 1 Useless.

 

[Banee]

Of course Yoshi being useless is still relevant to Competitive game balance! In Smash 4, 100% of all characters are viable, in Smash 5, only 80% of them are! While the internal balance between the Top 4 is constant, the overall balance of the entire game is not.

In Competitive play, Smash 5 has less of a ratio of Competitively viable players. Let's now talk about this in a wider sense, not just 4 characters + 1 but 4 characters 8 1. In Smash 6, 4 are the Top and 8 are the Mid. In Smash 7, 4 are Top, 7 are Mid and 1 is Useless. Which one is more balance competitively between 6 and 7? 7! Because in 6, the Yoshi could still stand a chance of winning.
.

You're absolutely right, we would say competitively Smash 6 is more balanced than Smash 7. That's because in Smash 6 the sum of viable (that is to say, character who have an impact on the environment) is greater than that of Smash 7. Their are 12 (4 top, 8 mid) viable characters in Smash 6, while only 11 (4 top, 7 mid) in Smash 7. Thats what i've been arguing for.

The point of contention is that i'm saying if Smash 6 had more characters (lets say Smash 6 had 15 characters while Smash 7 had 12). Smash 6 is still competitively balanced better because their are more variation that impact the top level of play (12 viable characters as opposed to 11 in Smash 7), and thus more diverse tournaments. However, from a ratio perspective Smash 6 is LESS balanced than Smash 7, as only 80% of the cast is viable whereas in Smash 7 92% of the cast is viable. None the less, Smash 6 WILL have a more varied high end metagame. Which proves my point that the number of un-viable characters has no bearing on balance, because the number of pointless factors (that is to say, the un viable characters) is irrelevent when determing competitive balance.

Note of clarification: In my hypothetical, even with more characters Smash 6 still has 4 top and 8 mid tier characters (with the rest falling in the low category).

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Way to retcon yourself.

According to your first hypothetical scenario, Smash 4 and Smash 5 would be equally balanced even though Smash 5 had one more character which was not useless.

 

[Banee]

Way to retcon yourself.

According to your first hypothetical scenario, Smash 4 and Smash 5 would be equally balanced even though Smash 5 had one more character which was not useless.

Thats more of a clarification error. I assumed Yoshi was considered not viable by most. I should have probably said "Yoshi is not viable in this hypothetical game." I simply assumed it would be understood. Which is why I picked Yoshi (to my understanding, largely considered the bottom of the bottom tier).

 

[Yuna]

Thats more of a clarification error. I assumed Yoshi was considered not viable by most. I should have probably said "Yoshi is not viable in this hypothetical game." I simply assumed it would be understood. Which is why I picked Yoshi (to my understanding, largely considered the bottom of the bottom tier).

Non-viable characters still play a role in the overall balance-issue, despite what you think. This is where you're still very wrong. Even when talking about Competitive balance. One unviable character makes one more notch on the "imbalance"-post, no matter how much you try to explain it away with Wall of Texts that pretty much wind up just being drawn-out ways of saying "In my opinion...".

And what about the many posts since my first post counter-arguing you where I said "Yes, the internal balance between the tops will be the same, but it's not just about the tops, now is it? What about these others examples, bla bla", to which you replied "You're wrong, I've used logic! You're using only opinion! You're wrong!"?

I said nothing new in my 2nd to last post, which you magically agreed with all of a sudden. Try reading the posts you reply to once in a while.

 

[Banee]

Non-viable characters still play a role in the overall balance-issue, despite what you think. This is where you're still very wrong. Even when talking about Competitive balance. One unviable character makes one more notch on the "imbalance"-post, no matter how much you try to explain it away with Wall of Texts that pretty much wind up just being drawn-out ways of saying "In my opinion...".

And what about the many posts since my first post counter-arguing you where I said "Yes, the internal balance between the tops will be the same, but it's not just about the tops, now is it? What about these others examples, bla bla", to which you replied "You're wrong, I've used logic! You're using only opinion! You're wrong!"?

I said nothing new in my 2nd to last post, which you magically agreed with all of a sudden. Try reading the posts you reply to once in a while.

First off, point me to the post where you gave those specific examples of Smash 6 and Smash 7 in the same way, giving numbers of the viable characters.

Secondly, the rest of you're post is just a long, drawn out way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong." Again, you have provided no argument to my counter-argument. You simply dismissed it as an opinion, despite the facts and logic used in it.

I think i'm done arguing with you. Its just going in a circle wherein when you no longer have an argument you just arbitrarily claim i'm wrong.

Again point me to an argument I wrote off, as you're claiming I did.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Who cares what Random #192 thinks? We care what people with actual insight think. Have you been to the Back Room? Have you seen what people are saying there?

I loled at this. Many back roomers actually have the opposite opinion than yours, Yuna :D

 

[Zankoku]

Banee: I have a real problem stomaching your logic, and here's why. You're counting balance in terms of pure numbers, completely disregarding certain elements of the game because, in your logic, they are "irrelevant."

I'm pretty sure most of us are looking at "balance" as a fraction of viable choices rather than the number. Because, see, with your examples, Game A with 4 selectable viable characters would be less balanced than Game B with 5 viable characters out of 10 selectable. But that seems wrong. I see Game A as more balanced because all players have pretty much been given an equal chance at winning regardless of initial choices, while in Game B half of the possible initial choices are not viable in a high-level competitive environment. 4/4, I believe, seems more balanced than 5/10. Why would you disregard those other 5? And how would that make Game B any more balanced than Game A, which from what I can tell would be practically perfectly balanced?

 

[One_With_Sumthing]

I've hear somewhere that since there's no more L-cancelling, heavyweights are now somewhat viable. Surely, that's a sign of higher-balanced-ness?
Also, it's not approximately 20% of the characters that will be expected to win matches they participate in. i.e. marth vs bowser in melee seemed a lot more unbalanced than marth vs bowser in brawl.

 

[Razor]

depends on your definition of balance.

if you think balanced means that there are more usable characters that can compete, then it's brawl. everyone's recovery is much easier to use, it's harder to kill, and the game relies more on spacing than pure tech skill. every character has at least one good kill move so it's definitely easier to pick up characters in brawl.


if you think balanced means that everyone's got dirty a$$ mutherfcuking ways to gimp and kill each other, then it's melee. it was soooo easy to die in melee that everyone had plenty of ways to kill each other both with simple moves or creative edgeguarding. the top tier spacies got ***** so easily off the edge. everyone had dirt on them. pure skill in melee was easier to identify and had more of an influence which allowed a lot of low tiers to actually compete. i'm pretty sure everyone has a story where they got ***** by some pro's ness or mewtwo and could tell they were outright better at the game regardless of character.


that being said, i think brawl and melee will both end up being as "balanced" or "unbalanced" as each other because as long as there are pros, there are the fanboys who will want to emulate them thus making the game more overloaded to the top of the tier list.

 

[Kikuichimonji]

I've hear somewhere that since there's no more L-cancelling, heavyweights are now somewhat viable. Surely, that's a sign of higher-balanced-ness?
Also, it's not approximately 20% of the characters that will be expected to win matches they participate in. i.e. marth vs bowser in melee seemed a lot more unbalanced than marth vs bowser in brawl.

If anything, I think lack of L-canceling HURTS heavy characters. Link's dair lag was manageable if you L-canceled it. Now you just can't let it happen, ever. Heavy characters save more frames by L-Cancelling than do other characters.

 

[Yuna]

I loled at this. Many back roomers actually have the opposite opinion than yours, Yuna :D

Panda, we're not talking about whether Brawl or Melee is more balanced at the moment. I agreed a long time ago that it's a bit too soon to determine that and I will wait 6 more months or so before making a definite judgment. And I'm beginning to be swayed towards that Brawl might be more balanced than Melee... but again, that's not what the discussion at hand is about.

The discussion at hand is what the definition of balance is... and whether Smash 4 or Smash 5 (and 6 vs. 7) in our hypothetical examples is more balanced. Bannee claims that Smash 4 and Smash 5 are just as balanced as each other.

Smash 4 = Sheik, Marth, Fox, Falco (only characters). Sheik counters Marth, Marth counters Fox, Fox counters Sheik, Falco counters Fox, gets ***** by Marth and goes equal against Sheik (hypothetically)
Smash 5 = Exact same, only now we also have Yoshi. Yoshi gets ***** by all of the former 4.

According to Banee, Yoshi is irrelevant and should not count towards balance all of a sudden because, apparently, the only characters important to the balance of the game is the highest echelon. According to Banee, both games are just as balanced as the other.

Do you agree with this? Do many in the SBR agree with this definition of balance?

 

[Yuna]

Since this is on topic, i'll respond to it. This was addressed by the original poster, which I reposted in my previous reply. Competitive balance isnt a ratio. Go check out the first italicized portion of my last post.

This was your reply to my first post where I brought up Smash 6 and Smash 7. You didn't quote the part of my post where I talked about them, but this was your only reply to the matter at hand.

You have just said that if a game has more un viable characters than another game, despite equal number of viable characters, its less balanced. You offer absolutely no evidence or argument for this point.

Here is an earlier post in which you're say I'm wrong when I claim that a game is equally balanced as another if the number of viable characters is the same (or in your words: A game with less unviable characters than another is not less balanced).

 

[darkNES386]

In regards to the current topic of discussion:

I agree with Yuna that we can not simply analyze the strongest characters in the game and forget about the rest. Whatever will be the equivalent of the sheik/bowser melee matchup is important too. I believe that there are too types of "balance." The less likely with a fighting game like this will be the rock/paper/scissors. The other type of balance is the gap between the strongest character and the weakest character which brings us back to Yuna's point:

We can't only look at the top characters.

 

[zzzzzzzzzz]

First off, point me to the post where you gave those specific examples of Smash 6 and Smash 7 in the same way, giving numbers of the viable characters.

Secondly, the rest of you're post is just a long, drawn out way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong." Again, you have provided no argument to my counter-argument. You simply dismissed it as an opinion, despite the facts and logic used in it.

I think i'm done arguing with you. Its just going in a circle wherein when you no longer have an argument you just arbitrarily claim i'm wrong.

Again point me to an argument I wrote off, as you're claiming I did.

you are just stubborn, you are wrong and you are trying to redefine what game balance IS its already been decided so relax. and you are saying that in competitive balance (which i never knew existed) that un-viable characters would have no impact on balance, but balance is look at as a whole regardless of situation. because is has to be consistent with reality, in reality anyone can win and these un-viable characters remain selectable. so its more like the odds of these characters winning. saying no one would choose them is clearly not a fact, and this is what your logic is based on. and this is why your wrong.

 

[nitnit]

I said that the gap between the tiers has become wider partly because the gap between The Good Ones and The Bad Ones is much greater now, not that the any tiers have been defined yet.

That's the problem, there are no known gaps between tiers when we don't have a tier list now. My metagame remark that you replied to with "blah blah blah" explains this more thoroughly.

Who cares what Random #192 thinks? We care what people with actual insight think. Have you been to the Back Room? Have you seen what people are saying there?

If Random #192 gives a highly logical and well thought out opinion, then I'd much rather hear that than a high ranking player or person with a lot of posts go "OMG MARTH R GUD"

Also, no, I haven't seen the smash back rooms since they're blocked off completely. For all I know you guys are having a wild cyber-sex orgy. I can understand not allowing everyone to post, but there's no reason to keep it hidden. If your best information is in there, why block that off from the masses if you're trying to educate them? Seems rather counterproductive.

Blah blah blah

This exemplifies the reason why I cannot take you seriously and enjoy arguing with you, even if a lot of the blind masses here still think you're omniscient.

No I didn't. Lying is very unbecoming. I used the terms "bigshot" and "reliable" and "have played the game extensively", which translate into:
People who've played Smash (and Brawl) a lot and know what game balance is all about, not someone who's new to the game and who probably doesn't even know how to begin judging a game's balance

Incorrectly and randomly calling someone a liar is much more unbecoming than not lying. You just earlier said who cares about Random #192. What if this random member actually has a very extensive grasp of game knowledge? Maybe he's a long time lurker? Just because someone wins a tournament doesn't mean they understand the game's balance.

No, I don't. Because Ganondorf really, really sucks now, Marth's become better in some cases and Mewtwo vs. Fox wasn't quite that bad a matchup in Melee, really because Mewtwo had some sweet combos on Fox.

This is all highly debatable since we haven't established finished metagames for the brawl version of any characters.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

More balanced? Definitely. Without a doubt. In fact, it's improved significantly in the balance department as of this point.

Balanced? No. Not at all. But at least it's not Melee-imbalanced.

 

[Gindler]

Brawl is far more balanced. All I know is Yoshi was pretty bad in melee (even though I used him I knew he was so easily gimpd) and even though they nerfed his best move yoshi is on an even playing field now. and now every character can beat every other character and don't say that was possible in melee. Ever hear of a little thing called Pichu?

And yes Yoshi does matter, whoever said he doesn't is trying to make melee look less balanced, cause melee had alot of horrible matchups, yoshi vs. anyone with an attack and pichu vs. anyone that can hit hard. Sure it was a great game but I just couldn't help but feel I was out matched all the time, and no I wouldn't tier hop because I'm not a fair weather kinda guy.

 

[Yuna]

That's the problem, there are no known gaps between tiers when we don't have a tier list now. My metagame remark that you replied to with "blah blah blah" explains this more thoroughly.

Yoshi, Ganondorf and Samus vs. everyone else.

If Random #192 gives a highly logical and well thought out opinion, then I'd much rather hear that than a high ranking player or person with a lot of posts go "OMG MARTH R GUD"

Yeah, like that happens a lot. And when has a "high ranking player or person" said "OMG MARTH R GUD!" or something like that in this thread?

Marth is very good. I could tell you why and why Yoshi couldn't possibly win against him.

Also, no, I haven't seen the smash back rooms since they're blocked off completely. For all I know you guys are having a wild cyber-sex orgy. I can understand not allowing everyone to post, but there's no reason to keep it hidden. If your best information is in there, why block that off from the masses if you're trying to educate them? Seems rather counterproductive.

I'm not in charge, ask the mods.

This exemplifies the reason why I cannot take you seriously and enjoy arguing with you, even if a lot of the blind masses here still think you're omniscient.

Because I crushed your yapping without substance? You said a lot of inane stuff to which I replied "Blah blah blah".

Incorrectly and randomly calling someone a liar is much more unbecoming than not lying. You just earlier said who cares about Random #192. What if this random member actually has a very extensive grasp of game knowledge? Maybe he's a long time lurker? Just because someone wins a tournament doesn't mean they understand the game's balance.

You did lie. Either you lied or you're incapable of comprehending basic English because you claimed I said things I never said.

Why are you even bringing up Random #192 again? I'm talking about people who've played the game a lot and have insight into the game and game balance in general here. Someone who's new would most probably not have such an insight.

And random person #192 usually doesn't have interesting things to say. If they do, I'll gladly listen. What I meant with"random person #192" is that you and others often say "People agree with me! Just look at this guy!" to which I reply "Umm... that guy just said 'I think it's this way' without even providing much proof (if any)... he's also a random guy who from the looks of his post knows very little about game balance/Competitive gaming/whatever we're talking about".

Random #192 is to signify someone completely random and who from the looks of it knows very little. This is opposed to "Reliable person #192" who is known to be right and have insight and always researching their facts.

If Reliable posted something and Random posted something claiming Reliable is wrong and I myself had not looked into the subject extensively enough to know who's right or wrong, I'd assume Reliable is right and Random is wrong.

This doesn't mean I automatically disregard the opinions of everyone who isn't Reliable (because very few" Reliable" people actually go to these boards (as in the Brawl Boards). I'll read and judge each post separately regardless of who wrote it. If Random #192 says something profound, then whatever. If Reliable #192 says something I totally disagree with, I'll give them a piece of my mind.

What it comes down to is people claiming "A lot of people agree with me"... when those "lots of people" are very unreliable and many of them have said stuff like "Sonic is Top Tier!", "ZOMG! Peach's Final Smash is too good!" and "Look at this 10-hit combo!" vs. the people on the other side who've proven themselves to know a lot about the game either through sheer experience or by actually posting and being right time and again.

This is all highly debatable since we haven't established finished metagames for the brawl version of any characters.

"We can't discuss anything because nothing's been finalized!" - Then why are you even here? From what we know insofar (and by now, we know plenty), Ganondorf suck, Marth is quite good (and he has received some buffs on top of his nerfs). The matter of Top vs. Bottom is debatable, though.

Brawl is far more balanced. All I know is Yoshi was pretty bad in melee (even though I used him I knew he was so easily gimpd) and even though they nerfed his best move yoshi is on an even playing field now. and now every character can beat every other character and don't say that was possible in melee. Ever hear of a little thing called Pichu?

Say what?

Pichu is pretty much the only character in Melee no one was able to do well with because, well, Pichu just sucked... a lot. But then again, he was the worst character in the game. The fact that there is a clear worst doesn't mean anything else is clearly better balanced.

Also, everyone can win against everyone now? Yoshi and Ganondorf vehemently disagree. What's Ganondorf going to do against half the cast? He can't approach anymore, he can't combo anymore (like the deadly grab-combos) and his recovery is still gimpable. What's he gonna do against the mega-campers? He's gonna die!

 

[Gindler]

Yuna have you ever fought against a good yoshi in brawl? I agree with you that Ganon gets ***** in brawl but I've done pretty well in tournies with yoshi, beaten many snakes and many MKs (reguarded as the best in the whole game) and have come oh so close to beating the tourney winners in my area. Ask any Olimar player and they'll tell you how nasty Yoshi's pwn them.

As far as you saying melee yoshi was pretty useless I'll agree with you, everyone thinks he sucks now with no DJC but now he's an edgeguarding character while in melee he wasn't really an anything character.

And yes I'm pretty sure Yoshi will stay at most Low tier in brawl because no one uses him, they can't get over the fact that he was impossible to use in melee so they just carried that over to brawl, and no offense but I think you're stuck in that mindset Yuna, and sorry if that offended you I'm not here to make enemies just to state MHO's

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I keep hearing that there is now a general consensus on what the tiers are, but I never hear what they actually are. Can anyone tell me?

 

[Fawriel]

Yoshi wasn't unusable in Melee... he was pretty capable offensively if you were good enough, like, say, Fumi. He had nice combos, damage-dealing abilities and some good KO moves, too, at least in the PAL version...
Just, yeah. The recovery is a joke, of course. "Don't get hit" and whatnot.

Just what I think. I vanish again now.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna have you ever fought against a good yoshi in brawl? I agree with you that Ganon gets ***** in brawl but I've done pretty well in tournies with yoshi, beaten many snakes and many MKs (reguarded as the best in the whole game) and have come oh so close to beating the tourney winners in my area. Ask any Olimar player and they'll tell you how nasty Yoshi's pwn them.

Were any of these Snakes or Meta-Knights any good?

Anyone can spam their good moves, but if they don't know how to play the game for real, they can still get gimped by combos, edgeguarding and simple mindgames. If they're just spamming mindlessly, all you have to do is get through their camping and then crush them.

Maybe you're just a good Yoshi and they were very bad Snakes and Meta-Knights. You come close to beating tourney winners "in your area"? What area is this? Were any of said tourney winners actually good?

Also, there's such a thing as "bad matchups". Yoshi might have good matchups against some but if he's got one bazillion nasty ones, he'll be low tier.

Picking a Top Tier character does not ensure you'll win if you don't know how to play them properly.

As far as you saying melee yoshi was pretty useless I'll agree with you, everyone thinks he sucks now with no DJC but now he's an edgeguarding character while in melee he wasn't really an anything character.

D-tilt, Dsmash, DJC-edgehogging, Dair, off-stage Bair. Look them up. What does he have now that's magically a lot better for edgeguarding?

And yes I'm pretty sure Yoshi will stay at most Low tier in brawl because no one uses him, they can't get over the fact that he was impossible to use in melee so they just carried that over to brawl, and no offense but I think you're stuck in that mindset Yuna, and sorry if that offended you I'm not here to make enemies just to state MHO's

The tiers are not based on how many people use a character, the tiers are based on how good he characters actually are. How many people used Mario and Doctor Mario? Yet they were ranked higher than, say, Link (who was spammed) and Pikachu (who was also spammed)(though most of these spammers were Casual players or just plain bad).

I can name 4 really good Links off the top of my head. Can you name 4 Marios or Doctor Marios? Or 4 really good IC's for that matter?

Yoshi could be used... he just couldn't win. And in most cases in Brawl, he still can't. Even if he can be used competently, the others can just be used a lot better.

 

[orintemple]

Omg SBR hurry up with that tier list so everyone can just STFU

Yoshi is important cause he beats Olimar.... yeah...

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Were any of these Snakes or Meta-Knights any good?

I don't want to get involved in this argument, but Yuna, if you saw some guy making this exact same argument you would call him out on it. Saying, "Well the reason you won those matches is because every opponent you ever faced sucked," is a stupid rebuttal.

 

[Yuna]

I don't want to get involved in this argument, but Yuna, if you saw some guy making this exact same argument you would call him out on it. Saying, "Well the reason you won those matches is because every opponent you ever faced sucked," is a stupid rebuttal.

He said "My Yoshi have beaten Meta-Knights and Snakes, who are supposedly Top Tier material". My rebuttal: ("Tiers aren't everything, individual skill still trumphs tiers) "Were these good players?" (because if they'd been good, they'd most probably won).

It comes down not only to how good the players are overall but also how well they know the matchup.

 

[orintemple]

I don't want to get involved in this argument, but Yuna, if you saw some guy making this exact same argument you would call him out on it. Saying, "Well the reason you won those matches is because every opponent you ever faced sucked," is a stupid rebuttal.

But what if its true...?

 

[sagemoon]

This is an interesting topic. I wouldnt say that brawls the most balanced game, but I do think that its more balanced than melee. What made melee so imbalanced was that there were so many gimp kills and true combos that all it took was a good player to know these and perform them. Kinda like a programmed robot. It took skill, but after about 2 years in the competitive scene it just seemed like 2nd nature to predict how i'm gonna die after i get grabbed.

In brawl there are characters with infinates (DDD infinite chaingrab against certain characters wtf? or IC infinates). There are characters with obviously good (or you could even say broken) hitboxes (snakes f-tilt lol). But in the end what really makes up this game is strong counterpicks.

At the last tournament I had to face a snake in the finals, as pit. It was hard to win in this match up because of snakes survivability and pits lack of ability to KO. Later, I heard that a Toon Link beat this guy in the finals of a different tournament. But Toon link is a really easy matchup for pit because of multiple things pit can do. So basically it sets up a triangle. Pit beats TL TL beats snake and snake beats pit. Now add the rest of the cast and theres so many options and styles with all the counterpicking. A good enough player will eventually find his way around a certain counterpick, but then again, theres so many fights to build, that an equally skilled opponent can build up the match up much easier.

Theres also "low tier" characters that counter the "high tier" characters. Has anyone seen all the socal tournaments where Wario players are ****** snake players? Not to mention a link player took 4th here in washington. Weird huh? The tiers can be listed from whoever has the least bad matchups and the most good matchups. But none are invincible, they all have bad matchups. I see the dominant person of brawl in the future being good with multiple characters and having many counterpicks up his sleeve.

I'd say with this taken into consideration, brawl is more balanced. Not to mention the fact that theres a lot more variation in characters used in the tournaments. You just have to look at the game a little more than one dimensional. Eventually counterpicking will become a big part of the metagame in my opinion.

 

[SuperRacoon]

I realise that I am posting a little late in this thread, and I acknowledge my newness to this forum. However, after 200+ game play hours of SSBB, I am confidant in making the statement that Brawl is as balanced if not more so than Melee. The steep learning curve for many of Brawl's characters seem to obscure that fact from ardent melee players. For instance, Link appears to be a very poor match-up against Marth. However, Link's standard A takes high priority over Marth's tilts. Also, with a SHAD, Link can set up for a variety of attacks very easily. Keeping the boomerang in flight also helps negate the obvious natural advantages that marth has over Link. I could spend all day giving you more examples, but it's really not worth my time.

 

[Dojo]

He said "My Yoshi have beaten Meta-Knights and Snakes, who are supposedly Top Tier material". My rebuttal: ("Tiers aren't everything, individual skill still trumphs tiers) "Were these good players?" (because if they'd been good, they'd most probably won).

It comes down not only to how good the players are overall but also how well they know the matchup.

Well would that not be the same case for melee?
"My Yoshi have beaten Meta-Knights and Snakes, who are supposedly Top Tier material".

Obviously he was a more skilled player then the Mk's and Snakes he played at the time, from your view, because you stated "Tiers aren't everything, individual skill still trumphs tiers"

In this case if the 2 players had been even at the same skill level the MK or Snake would more than likely have won because they are without a doubt towards the top of the tier list with more opportunities to win.

But in melee, this was pretty much the same case. If you were to see a good Yoshi at the same skill level as a good Marth, Fox, Falco, etc. your probability of winning was very slim because of the more opportunities/range/combos/ko moves/etc. given to those characters.

To try to compare the balance of these 2 games to clarify which is, in fact, more balanced is very difficult and you may never get that answer. There are so many differences to these games its its inbelievable. Some characters were buffed, many were nerfed, new strats must rise, new matchup tactics must be made. It's all new and veryy difficult to say which is more balanced. Both games in my opinion were/are very fun and we still have much to learn.

It's still too early for questions of this calibur. Melee had roughly 7 years to evolve into the fast-paced exhilarating game we all loved and knew about. Brawl hasn't been given that chance yet and most of the old-schoolers dont want to give it that chance. Nobody knows what AT's, strategies, glitches, are still in this game to make it faster/better/more balanced.

So some characters have no shot of winning. It's very few.
Melee was pretty much the same case. Except very fewer. But in ratio there were also less characters.

In reality what does it matter? Both games are **** fun to play. I've made my transition over to brawl mainly so that if/when it does begin evolving into what it should be I'll be ready for it. I placed 5th at my last tourney behind Texas' current top players so I'm doing ok for myself. Melee i joined kind of late in and had trouble making a name for myself mostly in part due to my age and location. But this game is just as fun and in my opinion just as balanced as melee was.


So yeah I've thrown in my 2 cents.

 

[nitnit]

I have to agree with dojo on practically every point. In hindsight, this thread is completely pointless. Look out though, your statements about the game not being developed yet may get replied to by Yuna with "blah blah blah", since when I made this point that's the exact response I get. He'll then go on to justify it saying that "blah blah blah" trumps your statement. Don't worry though, the people in the back room that he continues to worship all disagree with him anyways. No wonder so many people think he's some sort of smashboards god!

Seriously though, people need to stop comparing Melee to Brawl... I swear, it seems at least 20% of the threads in this board are about Melee or Brawl being superior, when, like Dojo said, we should simply focus on developing Brawl.

 

[Zankoku]

I have to agree with dojo on practically every point. In hindsight, this thread is completely pointless. Look out though, your statements about the game not being developed yet may get replied to by Yuna with "blah blah blah", since when I made this point that's the exact response I get. He'll then go on to justify it saying that "blah blah blah" trumps your statement. Don't worry though, the people in the back room that he continues to worship all disagree with him anyways. No wonder so many people think he's some sort of smashboards god!

Oh, shut up. Yuna's quite one-sided about a lot of things, and I don't think anyone really agrees with him on several of his points, but you don't have to go and dedicate a huge paragraph to him just because he cut your quote.

Seriously though, people need to stop comparing Melee to Brawl... I swear, it seems at least 20% of the threads in this board are about Melee or Brawl being superior, when, like Dojo said, we should simply focus on developing Brawl.

In this board? No, this board seems more oriented toward techniques and tricks found about Brawl, and then the occasional stupid thread about someone's opinion on "combos," and this monster of a thread that everyone needs to throw in their two cents into.

 

[Dojo]

Well everybody that is a member of these boards is actually entitled to that two cents whether it may be invalid, stupid, or whatever.

 

[Demon Kirby]

Well everybody that is a member of these boards is actually entitled to that two cents whether it may be invalid, stupid, or whatever.

But you should know that sometimes it's best to keep those two cents to yourself.

 

[Dojo]

But you should know that sometimes it's best to keep those two cents to yourself.

Agreed. Sometimes I just prefer not to. This was one of those times. xD

 

[Lavos]

This is an interesting topic. I wouldnt say that brawls the most balanced game, but I do think that its more balanced than melee. What made melee so imbalanced was that there were so many gimp kills and true combos that all it took was a good player to know these and perform them. Kinda like a programmed robot. It took skill, but after about 2 years in the competitive scene it just seemed like 2nd nature to predict how i'm gonna die after i get grabbed.

...Maybe you should have found better people to play, or gotten better yourself. If your opponents were killing you and it felt mechanical, you couldn't have been changing your patterns much or reading theirs well. This all sounds more like a personal problem than a game wide problem. I mained Ganondorf and I never felt that gimp kills or combos were imbalanced at all.

In brawl there are characters with infinates (DDD infinite chaingrab against certain characters wtf? or IC infinates). There are characters with obviously good (or you could even say broken) hitboxes (snakes f-tilt lol). But in the end what really makes up this game is strong counterpicks.

At the last tournament I had to face a snake in the finals, as pit. It was hard to win in this match up because of snakes survivability and pits lack of ability to KO. Later, I heard that a Toon Link beat this guy in the finals of a different tournament. But Toon link is a really easy matchup for pit because of multiple things pit can do. So basically it sets up a triangle. Pit beats TL TL beats snake and snake beats pit. Now add the rest of the cast and theres so many options and styles with all the counterpicking. A good enough player will eventually find his way around a certain counterpick, but then again, theres so many fights to build, that an equally skilled opponent can build up the match up much easier.

I agree here, Brawl has a much larger emphasis on counter picks than Melee. I don't think that makes the game more balanced though.

Theres also "low tier" characters that counter the "high tier" characters. Has anyone seen all the socal tournaments where Wario players are ****** snake players? Not to mention a link player took 4th here in washington. Weird huh? The tiers can be listed from whoever has the least bad matchups and the most good matchups. But none are invincible, they all have bad matchups. I see the dominant person of brawl in the future being good with multiple characters and having many counterpicks up his sleeve.

I'd say with this taken into consideration, brawl is more balanced. Not to mention the fact that theres a lot more variation in characters used in the tournaments. You just have to look at the game a little more than one dimensional. Eventually counterpicking will become a big part of the metagame in my opinion.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but Wario has been floating around the upper mid and high tier area of the list. He's really good. It's not the "low v.s high" that you seem to think it is. I'm also confused as to how you got the idea that the Melee pros were only good with one character and didn't have multiple counterpicks...

Right now, the reason for the huge character variety, is that people don't know any better. In early Melee there was a lot more variety than late Melee. Good options were harder to differentiate from bad ones, but as time went on, we figured out that Kirby, Roy, Pichu, G&W, Young Link, etc. weren't very good. They phased out of the metagame. The fact that you think current low tier character placing well means the game's more balanced shows a lack of foresight, to me. Do you really think that we're going to see low tier characters placing well in four years?

note: I didn't name specific characters at the end because I have no idea who's going to eventually find their way to the bottom. Link might end up being much higher than we both think he is.

 

[Kreyn]

I agree. Very straight foward. When you think about all the techniques found in brawl, it makes characters 10x better than others, tipping the balance. In melee, once you got all the pro stuff down, many characters can own.