Brawl - More balanced than Melee? Lie or truth?

[GimmeAnFSharp]

Thunder, not that good. Stop using it as an example of Pikachu's prowess!

Agreed. I highly doubt a Thunder would stop anything a good Snake player would even think of doing in the air, anyway.

All I can think of are offensive C4's, and those you don't even technically approach Pikachu.

I think I agree with the first post, mostly though- I see the difference of the best characters being much wider this time around, but I also see a lot more viable characters that are just below that. The last game had pretty much 5-and-a-half characters that you saw EVERYWHERE- Fox, Falco, Marth, Peach, Sheik, and the occasional well-played Samus. Now you see Snakes and MK's eating everything else, but you also have another 10 characters actually doing reasonably well otherwise.

So I agree but disagree. The few characters who do well are doing significantly better, but they're also much fewer- especially when you're considering 35 characters vs. 25.

 

[Fawriel]

With all this Brawl hate, I can't help but wonder what (if any) redeeming features it has... Anyone know?

Well, hey, almost all of the criticism the game receives comes from the competitive scene. Everyone else just seems to enjoy it. It IS pretty darn good if you're just looking to have fun with some Brawling, and the accessibility and netplay makes it more likely for you to find someone to play with. Hell, you could even say that the overpowered characters make it easier for you to find a challenge in a player who's technically worse than you. At least that's how I see it when I'm looking at it optimistically.
Technically, you should only really hate the game if you're in it for the competitiveness, or if you're displeased with the character representation, or if you're anal retentive about stuff like fairness and balance like I am.

I have to admit I actually enjoy playing it more than Melee because I'm just not all that fast with my fingers and I kind of never had anyone to play with before. Apart from the fact that I'll have a hard time maining Yoshi and PT and still winning anything, it's a lot better for someone uncompetitive like me. I just dislike it on a conceptual basis. The nerfing of Ganondorf and Samus shall not be forgiven, much less the lack of redemption for Mewtwo! *shakes fist*

 

[AlphaZealot]

Sigh...

Last warning.

 

[Fawriel]

Uh... I assume you mean a warning concerning off-topic discussion? I apologize.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Correct, but this topic is to popular to really stay on topic, evidence in, oh the last 100 pages. First 10-20 were pretty epic though.

I could either give mass warnings or just close a topic that hasn't progressed anywhere but down in the last 2-3 months.

 

[ConnorTheKid]

Brawl is unbalanced, eat a d¡ck

 

[IrArby]

I have revised my arguments for 5-6 always viable characters with Mid tier counter picks.

My new stance is that there are 2 always viable characters. The characters just below them have no more than one good matchup against those top two, or possibly 2 or less, decent matchups against both of them. A few mid tiers below them have one good matchup against the AVs (Always Viable) and between 1 and 3 decent matchups against those just below the 2 AVs.

High Tier Examples (no particular order).

R.O.B. vs. Snake isn't bad for R.O.B. but bad if he plays MK.

Marth is below both but doesn't have a terrible matchup against either of them.

I don't know if D3 can chain Snake but I'm guessing yes to certain %s. Snake still has the best ground game between the two making the initial grab difficult. Either way, I think MK would get the best of him since I'm pretty sure D3 can't chain him.

That leaves G&W whom, from what I gather, does well against both but doesn't draw even with either. I don't follow G&W though.

I would then put Wario, Lucario, DK, and maybe 2 others beneath them (High Mid tier) since they're not quite in the same league as the high tiers.

Don't ask me to sort anyone out below this point however.

 

[IrArby]

I have revised my arguments for 5-6 always viable characters with Mid tier counter picks.

My new stance is that there are 2 always viable characters. The characters just below them have no more than one good matchup against those top two, or possibly 2 or less, decent matchups against both of them. A few mid tiers below them have one good matchup against the AVs (Always Viable) and between 1 and 3 decent matchups against those just below the 2 AVs.

High Tier Examples (no particular order).

R.O.B. vs. Snake isn't bad for R.O.B. but bad if he plays MK.

Marth is below both but doesn't have a terrible matchup against either of them.

I don't know if D3 can chain Snake but I'm guessing yes to certain %s. Snake still has the best ground game between the two making the initial grab difficult. Either way, I think MK would get the best of him since I'm pretty sure D3 can't chain him.

That leaves G&W whom, from what I gather, does well against both but doesn't draw even with either. I don't follow G&W though.

I would then put Wario, Lucario, DK, and maybe 2 others beneath them (High Mid tier) since they're not quite in the same league as the high tiers.

Don't ask me to sort anyone out below this point however. So yea . . .

 

[JigglyZelda003]

@Irarby
what happend to Falco?

 

[Gishnak]

I read the past 10 pages or so, and didn't quite get what I wanted. Sorry to request a repetition.

Yuna, what is on your opinion on the overall balance of the two games compared? (every character included)

Then, what I'm more interested in, which game has a larger amount of tournament viable characters? Or similarly, which game has a more balanced play at a competitive level?

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, what is on your opinion on the overall balance of the two games compared? (every character included)

Melee is more balanced (still).

Then, what I'm more interested in, which game has a larger amount of tournament viable characters? Or similarly, which game has a more balanced play at a competitive level?

Despite folklore, Melee had more than 5 viable characters + maybe a few exceptions. It's just that very few people played anyone outside of these 4 (yes, 4, how often did you see Peach place high?!) characters.

The reason why MaSheFaFox took Top 5 so often was because the vast majority of Competitive smashers out there mained these.

Now, among the many more than 5 tournament viable characters, there was imbalance, yes. There were bad matchups, yes. But MaSheFaFox could still be beaten by these other characters save for spontaneously horrendous matchup like Falco vs. Ganondorf on Final Destination.

It was fairly even, but with obviously bigger gaps the further down you go.

Now with Brawl, you have the potential new Top Tier, High Tier and a huge Mid Tier. Now, depending on who you ask, everyone down to Mid Tier is viable. If you ask me, no one below High is viable. Why?

How viable is Mid, really? They really viable against the characters below them. And against each other. Against High and especially Top? Not so much. This is because the gaps in tiers are much larger this time around.

The Mids aren't bad. In fact, many of them are quite good. It's just that the Tops and Highs are just that much better (IMO). Thus, there is less balance. The Mids are really balanced... against each other. If the game had only had the Mids, then it'd be a pretty well balanced game... but it doesn't.

There's the Bottoms (totally useless), the Lows (less than totally useless), the Mids (usable), the Highs (**** good) and the Tops (not a snowball's chance in hell any Bottoms, Lows or a large chunk of Mid are going to win against them).

 

[Grunt]

this game wouldn't be as bad if they got rid of the newcomers. notice MK, Snake, D3 are all dominating.

 

[Gishnak]

In this case, let's say brawl is confined to high and top tier for tournament viability. (I understand that some mids can shine through, but let's just stick to the majority of players). That would include up to maybe 12 characters? Or would you say fewer?

Did melee have that many viable characters? And if it's not too much of a chore, who were the tournament viable characters in melee? Or where could I figure this out on my own?

 

[Yuna]

In this case, let's say brawl is confined to high and top tier for tournament viability. (I understand that some mids can shine through, but let's just stick to the majority of players). That would include up to maybe 12 characters? Or would you say fewer?

Did melee have that many viable characters? And if it's not too much of a chore, who were the tournament viable characters in melee? Or where could I figure this out on my own?

Everyone down to at least Ganondorf were viable IMO. Some would argue Link and Luigi were viable as well.

 

[Grunt]

Melee tourney viable:
10-14
Brawl tourney viable:
10-12
Melee total:
26
Brawl total:
35

 

[Gishnak]

Interesting. So both games seem to have a similar amount of tournament viable characters, which is what I think is the most important aspect of a balanced competitive fighter. Or, at least, a very important aspect to me.

Here's some food for thought: brawl's meta game is still developing and so more characters could be deemed "tournament viable" in a few years time. As I see it now, here is a list off the top of my head of tourny-viable brawlers:
mk, snake, d3, marth, wario, lucario, g&w, falco, wolf, olimar, dk, rob, pit.
That's 13 right there. Perhaps a few more could be added (fox, pikachu, ice climbers?)

Again, it's difficult to say because the game is still young.

Here's my, what I assume to be, my final question on the topic.

It seems that in melee, Marth, fox, and shiek had the step up on the rest of the cast.
In brawl, snake and metaknight.

Which game's top characters vary more in playability in comparison to the worst tournament viable characters?

As in, how difficult is it for the lowest ranked tournament viable character(s) in melee to defeat a marth/fox/shiek compared to the lowest ranked tournament viable character(s) in brawl to defeat mk/snake?

 

[Zankoku]

Low-ranked characters involve a test of skill to beat the top characters in Melee.
Low-ranked characters involve a test of lack of skill from the top characters to beat them in Brawl.

 

[4Serial]

that's confusing as hell but so true lol

In Melee it was hard to beat top tiers with a character like Link
In Brawl, no way in hell could Link beat MK or Snake unless they were really really dumb

 

[Gishnak]

If you are answering my questions, Ankoku, I fear you may have misunderstood me.

If by low-ranked you mean low tier, or anything not tournament viable, then I'm not interested in the feasibility of the characters. I am only attempting to discuss tournament viable characters.

If you meant low-ranked characters in the group of tournament viable cast, then we have another misunderstanding. You mention that in Brawl it involves a test of lack of skill from the top character for the lower ranked character to win out. I'm trying to speak hypothetically that both players are of high skill level.

So if a low-ranked character cannot beat the top character if the player of the top character is highly skilled, then I would classify this character as "not tournament viable."

Excuse my excessive use of the term "tournament viable."

 

[Zankoku]

In that case, at the top level of skill Mew2King/Meta Knight doesn't lose to any characters, therefore there is only one tournament-viable character. lol

But that's a terrible spectrum to look at.

 

[Gishnak]

*sigh*

I'm not asking about the very best or top player... Simply ones that wouldn't be referred to as "lacking skill."

 

[Dark Sonic]

Here's some food for thought: brawl's meta game is still developing and so more characters could be deemed "tournament viable" in a few years time.

Well, you could also argue that fewer characters could be deemed "tournament viable" in a few years as people get better with the top tiers.

For instance, Metaknight's dimensional cape glitch could be potentially game breaking, and Snake can already do some crazy stuff with his grenades, which will undoubtedly be expanded upon.

Again, it's difficult to say because the game is still young.

Not really.

Here's my, what I assume to be, my final question on the topic.

It seems that in melee, Marth, fox, and shiek had the step up on the rest of the cast.
In brawl, snake and metaknight.

You forgot Falco. Advantage on Fox, even with Marth and Shiek, he definately deserves to be up there.

Which game's top characters vary more in playability in comparison to the worst tournament viable characters?

As in, how difficult is it for the lowest ranked tournament viable character(s) in melee to defeat a marth/fox/shiek compared to the lowest ranked tournament viable character(s) in brawl to defeat mk/snake?

Well, Ganondorf had an even matchup against Marth, and (though I'm not sure how bad the matchup is) I know he could chaingrab Shiek pretty well.

On the other hand, Pit vs Metaknight doesn't seem that good, but I think he doesn't do that bad against Snake (provided he camps well)

I personally think that Ganondorf had an easier time

 

[Zankoku]

It won't work that way. If a (insert almost any good character here) loses to a Captain Falcon, and both are "skilled," who's to say it's not just the Falcon player being significantly more skilled? What if one knew how to abuse the matchup and the other didn't? Same with any other matchup. I'm quite sure a lot of people around are skilled with Meta Knight, so why will one place 4th and another place 9th? Just a difference of skill, or experience, or both, however slight it might be.

 

[Yuna]

Interesting. So both games seem to have a similar amount of tournament viable characters, which is what I think is the most important aspect of a balanced competitive fighter. Or, at least, a very important aspect to me.

Only Brawl has more characters, so here are more non-viable characters in Brawl. Also, the gaps between Top, High and Mid were closer than Top and High in Brawl. I mean, in Melee, characters from three different tiers could compete, in Brawl, only 2. That says something aswell.

Here's some food for thought: brawl's meta game is still developing and so more characters could be deemed "tournament viable" in a few years time. As I see it now, here is a list off the top of my head of tourny-viable brawlers:
mk, snake, d3, marth, wario, lucario, g&w, falco, wolf, olimar, dk, rob, pit.
That's 13 right there. Perhaps a few more could be added (fox, pikachu, ice climbers?)

What's to say there won't be less viable characters? What's to say we won't discover techniques and strategies that will make 3 characters God Tier and the only viable ones? These flights of fantasy are often quite subjective and biased.

It seems that in melee, Marth, fox, and shiek had the step up on the rest of the cast.

What happened to Falco?

Which game's top characters vary more in playability in comparison to the worst tournament viable characters?

As in, how difficult is it for the lowest ranked tournament viable character(s) in melee to defeat a marth/fox/shiek compared to the lowest ranked tournament viable character(s) in brawl to defeat mk/snake?

I just answered this in my previous post.

*sigh*

I'm not asking about the very best or top player... Simply ones that wouldn't be referred to as "lacking skill."

Why is this relevant? Who cares about mediocre players? How well mediocre players can do this and that does not reflect on the true depth of the game.

 

[Gishnak]

Sonic wave-

Regarding further metagame resulting in fewer tournament viable characters: I completely agree. I actually intended on mentioning that, but forgot to.

You say that brawl's metagame isn't young? It's easy to see a significant skill difference in tournament winning players from recent videos and videos of that same player (or other tournament winning players) just 2 months ago. I'm not a competitive fighting game expert, but I feel like brawl's metagame is still developing. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Yes, I forgot Falco. I don't know melee's competitive scene, that's why I've come to ask questions here about it. :D.

And as far as your final comment goes; thankyou, that was the type of answer I'm looking for.


Ankoku, it feels as if you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not trying to create an arguement, or prove anything. I only post to hear what proficient melee and brawl players have to say about this specific topic, because I don't know.
You don't need to argue semantics of where a highly skilled player falls. Yes, I understand that it's all about difference in skill. If you really want some sort of specific specification, let's say the top 200 brawl players and melee players in the world are who we are looking at.
I'm just trying to get a good idea of the imbalance between two characters when both players in most people's opinion are "good."
So as opposed to trying to dissect what I say, please do your best to see what I'm asking about and answer such. If you truly think I haven't provided a detailed enough question for you to adequately answer, please point out what you would like me to elaborate on.

 

[Zankoku]

I'm not sure whether you want real-world results, in which case all that will result is "well, Brawl is still young, so maybe it'll get better in the future," or statistical guesses on matchups, in which case all that will result is "well, Brawl is still young, so maybe we'll find more about some other matchups in the future."

Either way, it's very clear that Snake and Meta Knight are heavily dominant characters both in tournament results and theoretical matchups.

 

[Gishnak]

Only Brawl has more characters, so here are more non-viable characters in Brawl. Also, the gaps between Top, High and Mid were closer than Top and High in Brawl. I mean, in Melee, characters from three different tiers could compete, in Brawl, only 2. That says something aswell.

Yep, no arguing there. Personally, I'm just interested in viable characters.


What's to say there won't be less viable characters? What's to say we won't discover techniques and strategies that will make 3 characters God Tier and the only viable ones? These flights of fantasy are often quite subjective and biased.

Yep, if you read my most recent post, I mention that I forgot to add that. As a matter of fact, it looks like it is leaning toward this, unfortunately. :/


What happened to Falco?

Yes, I lack knowledge in melee. I simply went off the top tier specifications in melee.

I just answered this in my previous post.
Perhaps I am still missing something, or again failing at articulating. I'm asking about the difference in the lowest ranked tournament viable character at the top ranked ones. You sort of dabble on this topic in melee, but not this specifically. And in brawl, you say tournament viability stops at High, and continue to discuss Mid. This is not the question I asked.


Why is this relevant? Who cares about mediocre players? How well mediocre players can do this and that does not reflect on the true depth of the game.

O.o That's what I'm trying to say...
I was responding to Ankoku because he used m2k as an example. I don't care at all about mediocre players. Notice that I said best or top player, not players. I do care about the top players.

 

[Yuna]

O.o That's what I'm trying to say...
I was responding to Ankoku because he used m2k as an example. I don't care at all about mediocre players. Notice that I said best or top player, not players. I do care about the top players.

"I'm not asking about the very best or top player... Simply ones that wouldn't be referred to as "lacking skill.""

This indicates you'd settle for mediocre ones or at least ones who aren't among the top players in the world.

 

[Gishnak]

Only Brawl has more characters, so here are more non-viable characters in Brawl. Also, the gaps between Top, High and Mid were closer than Top and High in Brawl. I mean, in Melee, characters from three different tiers could compete, in Brawl, only 2. That says something aswell.


What's to say there won't be less viable characters? What's to say we won't discover techniques and strategies that will make 3 characters God Tier and the only viable ones? These flights of fantasy are often quite subjective and biased.


What happened to Falco?


I just answered this in my previous post.


Why is this relevant? Who cares about mediocre players? How well mediocre players can do this and that does not reflect on the true depth of the game.

"I'm not asking about the very best or top player... Simply ones that wouldn't be referred to as "lacking skill.""

This indicates you'd settle for mediocre ones or at least ones who aren't among the top players in the world.

-.- I think indicate is the wrong word. Perhaps you mean imply or infer, for it's possible we have different definitions of what players lack skill. Maybe I'll repeat myself again; all I'm trying to speak about is tournament placing skilled players. (At large tournaments, if you want to get picky.)

Regardless, I have a hard time believing that you didn't see what I was asking.

 

[illboyzeus]

If you do not play melee competitively, please do not try to use it as a basis for your argument for brawl. All it does is make you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about...

 

[Yuna]

"Players not lacking skill" =/= Very skilled players

I don't think anyone (or at least very few) would equate "Players not lacking skill" to "Very skilled players". The vast majority would just translate it into "Players who do not suck" = "Players of at least average skill".

And, really, in discussions like these, we assume the players involved are on that level.

 

[Gishnak]

If you do not play melee competitively, please do not try to use it as a basis for your argument for brawl. All it does is make you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about...

O.o

I'm severely confused. What argument about brawl am I trying to make? At one point, I just pointed out that perhaps brawl will get more interesting competitively, and forgot to mention that it might get worse. Someone else mentioned this, and I completely agreed. What am I missing here?

 

[Gishnak]

"Players not lacking skill" =/= Among the best players in the world

Because, really, in discussions like these, we assume the players involved are on that level.

Yes, ankoku, I agree. I did make that assumption. However Ankoku said:
"Low-ranked characters involve a test of skill to beat the top characters in Melee.
Low-ranked characters involve a test of lack of skill from the top characters to beat them in Brawl."

All I was trying to do was indicate to Ankoku that I wasn't interested in players who have a "lack of skill," and thus this post was not helpful to me.

 

[Yuna]

Yes, ankoku, I agree. I did make that assumption. However Ankoku said:
"Low-ranked characters involve a test of skill to beat the top characters in Melee.
Low-ranked characters involve a test of lack of skill from the top characters to beat them in Brawl."

All I was trying to do was indicate to Ankoku that I wasn't interested in players who have a "lack of skill," and thus this post was not helpful to me.

But that's the answer you are looking for. The only way for low ranked characters to win in Brawl is to just be that much better than the opposition.

Also, that was a bad way of saying it, as you said: ""I'm not asking about the very best or top player... Simply ones that wouldn't be referred to as "lacking skill."

That's kinda the opposite.

 

[Mighty_mo76]

Yuna, I love you... Wait, you're a Guy?! lol

Brawl is still young. Why the heated arguments? I guess if you have nothing better to do...

Nuff said.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yuna, you are a great debater and always spark interesting conversation, but arguing over word choice DOES NOT advance discussion.

The question is - which is less balanced? The difference between Brawl's #1 and #12 character, or melee's #1 and #12 character?

 

[Gishnak]

You know Yuna, you really amuse me sometimes. Only because I enjoy arguing...

Also, that was a bad way of saying it, as you said: ""I'm not asking about the very best or top player... Simply ones that wouldn't be referred to as "lacking skill."

That's kinda the opposite.

That's "kinda" the opposite you say? So anyone who isn't the best in the world is lacking skill? Do you honestly think that's what I meant when I said lacking skill? I'm a fan of taking things literally, but when it's so literal that it makes any discussion tedious and painful, it's not necessary.

And I already acknowledged that I explained it poorly. Why do you keep going back to this post to show how it isn't clear? I know it isn't. That's why I was trying to clarify it, not justify it.
Go argue with someone else, or feel free to try to answer someone that is simply trying to obtain knowledge from you without pointing out all of the flaws in his specific word choice.

Clearly The Halloween Captain could decipher my question. Did you not understand my question? Or did you understand, but choose to point out flaws in how I asked it?

In all honesty here, I came here just to ask your opinion, Yuna, nothing else.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Personally, I know nothing about melee gannondorf. However, I can tell you that Pit is a terribly annoying opponent for Snake and everyone else in the cast. If nothing else, Pit can hold his own in every level of play because of the opponent's likelyhood to become impatient and sloppy against Pit. Pit also has a lot against Snake in perticular - Pit's projectile is very spammable against Snake's tall frame, he can reflect all of Snake's projectiles, his air game is (of course) better, and his side-b probably out-prioritizes Snake's f-tilt. I can't say the last one for sure because I am not a Pit mainer.

I cannot say Pit has the same against GW or MK, and I don't know a thing about these matchups. I imagine Pit is at a disadvantage though.

Now we just need a little info on melee Gannondorf v. Fox, FALCO (since people care so much), Sheik, and Marth.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

snake can crawl under pits arrow, in fact anyone who ducks as low as Marth can just crouch to avoid it. you can test it for yourself if the arrow doesn't curve down it will graze marths head but do no damage. pit can't hold the arrow forever like link so he can't stall shot with it, angel ring is easily roll dodged the shield is fun because while its out you can push pit away and even off the stage. of the flying characters once he's out of jumps his flying is one of the easiest to gimp i think. G&W bucket eats pits arrows and G&W KO's better other than that idk anymore about that matchup since i don't use either of them.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Any good Pit can curve an arrow. While Arrows are cannot permanently be stalled, they fire more quickly than Link's, move faster than Link's, and can be held in place for enough time to time a shot. Angel Ring is never a fun attack. It can be roll-dodged. That does not mean it is easy to do this to a good Pit (not a scrub, but a player who actually strives to competitively improve.) There is actually not much reason for Pit to use a shield in a way that could mess him up like that, as he has two reflectors.

The point about GW I agree with, but gimpable? His recovery is about as gimpable as Snake's - Snake flies too high for anyone to hit him, and Pit has two extra jumps and a glide before worrying about his high reaching up-b which he can attack out of.

However, I am curious about the melee Gannondorf matchups, which I know nothing about. Does anyone have any info?