nejiattack
Smash Rookie
Yuna always finds answers for everyone.
Anyways, if you mean balanced, does that mean the characters must be equal?
Anyways, if you mean balanced, does that mean the characters must be equal?
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
This is your opinion. How can you say that if you put all the training into Snake instead of Lucario that they would be better? Given that Snake is a better character overall the odds are higher that they would perform better with said character, but it's not absolute. Are you saying that Mango should of picked Fox to main in Melee? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't trade winning Pound 3 with Jigglypuff just for the sake of "Fox is the best character in the game".M2K's Meta-Knight might be ridiculously good. But his DeDeDe is better.
Sure, people can play Lucario as well as Azen can. But then how well would they play if they instead put all that time and effort into training as, say, Snake? Much better, I'd wager. Yes, people can play almost any character exceptionally well. It's just that some are that much easier to play exceptionally well as, making it ridiculously hard to beat them as lesser characters.
Think of it as exceptionally well (Ganondorf) vs. Amazingly brilliant (Snake).
I'm trying to say that just because they are the best characters, Someone can come along and win with another character, and probably not be able to win as well with said top tier characters. This is aimed at the people who pick up top tiers because they are easier to play as. I'm saying that you could possibly play BETTER with another character despite how much you practice with top tiers.Wait what? Are you trying to say "Just because they're the best does not mean the best players will play as only them"? This is a no-brainer.
It's a slightly hard matchup now. I was trying to point out how our perceptions did change. Before M2k mained Marth and started basically forcing people to pick Sheik to even stand a chance the matchup USED to be considered a counter. It wasn't until near the tail end of Ken's Melee career and M2k's upcoming Marth that people considered it a slight advantage to Sheik.Because Sheik isn't a friggin' Marth counter in Melee. It's just a slightly hard matchup. People throw around the word "counter" way too lightly. Also, the Tier List is not the end-all and be-all of tournament results. Sheik beats Marth but not by such a large degree anyone gets surprised when a Marth comes out victorious.
That you should stop trying to force everyone to accept your view which, by the way, is what most readers agree with to some extent (the majority). I agree with a lot of your points, just not to the extremes that you do. There are more Chu Dats, BUMs, etc. Or players that simply will do better with lesser complete characters for no reason at all.What does this have to with the above, anyway?
I agree to this for the most part. I just don't think that M2k won because his character potential was higher. I know you know that games aren't decided solely via character selection. So I don't know why you state that M2k won because his character's are better.Oh, I just thought of something. As you said, Azen rarely ever leaves any openings and makes it hard for his opponents to punish him. Now take a look at those M2K vs. Azen matchups. Whenever M2K left an opening, Azen got a little punishment off. Whenever Azen left an opening, M2K got a lot of punishment off. M2K ended up winning despite the fact that Azen left himself open a lot less.
In that one set, Azen played exceptionally well and more solid as compared to Mew2King, who left more openings. Yet who ultimately won? Mew2King because the potential of his characters were just better.
"Zelda vs. Snake. Blah, blah, Snake has a higher chance of winning. [sic] Even if you use Sheik, chances for Snake are much higher."Huh? Did I ever say that Sheik was better?
Sorry, I always mix you two up when I read the forums because:I didnt say that, Frostbyte did :V
In a perfectly balanced game, every single chacter will have an equal chance of winning. In a near perfectly balanced game, ditto, only not "exactly the same", "roughly the same" is good enough (case in point, Guilty Gear XX#Reload).Yuna always finds answers for everyone.
Anyways, if you mean balanced, does that mean the characters must be equal?
I'm sorry, what part of "statistical probability" was too Chinese for you to grasp? It's quite obvious I'm saying that it's statistically probable, not set in stone.This is your opinion. How can you say that if you put all the training into Snake instead of Lucario that they would be better? Given that Snake is a better character overall the odds are higher that they would perform better with said character, but it's not absolute. Are you saying that Mango should of picked Fox to main in Melee? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't trade winning Pound 3 with Jigglypuff just for the sake of "Fox is the best character in the game".
So the argument "Azen managed to get 2nd as Lucario once!" doesn't really mean much, hence, it's a moot point.I'm not going to argue tiers. There are real matchups that are just absolutely horrible regardless. But as you said Lucario isn't that BAD of a character. He is viable for tourney play.
This means bupkis and has no place in this discussion. Of course someone can win with a Low Tier given the right circumstances. Of course there are bad Top Tier players. Inconsequential to the discussion at hand.I'm trying to say that just because they are the best characters, Someone can come along and win with another character, and probably not be able to win as well with said top tier characters. This is aimed at the people who pick up top tiers because they are easier to play as. I'm saying that you could possibly play BETTER with another character despite how much you practice with top tiers.
Funny, many of us thought it was only a slight advantage way before that.It's a slightly hard matchup now. I was trying to point out how our perceptions did change. Before M2k mained Marth and started basically forcing people to pick Sheik to even stand a chance the matchup USED to be considered a counter. It wasn't until near the tail end of Ken's Melee career and M2k's upcoming Marth that people considered it a slight advantage to Sheik.
My views are based on fact. Most of other people's views are based on assumptions, guess-work and blind opinion.That you should stop trying to force everyone to accept your view which, by the way, is what most readers agree with to some extent (the majority). I agree with a lot of your points, just not to the extremes that you do. There are more Chu Dats, BUMs, etc. Or players that simply will do better with lesser complete characters for no reason at all.
Nobody said this either. I just said that M2k had an easier time winning than Azen because of his character's potential.I agree to this for the most part. I just don't think that M2k won because his character potential was higher. I know you know that games aren't decided solely via character selection. So I don't know why you state that M2k won because his character's are better.
It kinda is when so many people argue "No, we do not 'discover' anything, we 'create' it!" as they're clearly mistaken.For Yuna - I'll give you credit for pointing out that there are absolute limits to video games. Now its just about creatively reaching those limits, if the vocabulary is such a big deal to this discussion.
Says you. He does so poorly because his Pokémons just aren't that good. They don't suck, but they're hardly Top Tier material.However, I have played Pokemon Trainer for months now, and it seems like the primary reason he does so poorly is he's just too difficult to learn.
And? Prove his potential by actually pointing out how he's good, not how he takes more effort. What makes you think Pokémon Trainer is good?Most people have time to learn a main and a secondary well, while very smart, devoted smashers can learn maybe five characters at a tournament playable level. Pokemon Trainer requires at least three times as much effort to learn as any other character.
Whatever. Read above.Most people have not had time to master him in these short, five months since Brawl's release, or would rather choose the three different characters they want to main rather than be stuck with one very difficult character. Pokemon Trainer is harder to pick up than anyone else, which is why I'm waiting to see how he does in a year or two.
This means bupkis if the characters are programmed badly. As in, the characters are programmed in such a way that Pokémon Trainer's Pokémons have the disadvantage in the matchup, even if you frequently switch between the three.A transformation does not necessarily have the potential to beat MK or Snake, but rather, transformations have double (Zelda/Shiek) or even triple (Pokemon Trainer) the total possible matchups of any other character. Thus, it makes sence that at least one of these matchups would be at least neutral in every situation.
A character's metagame is defined as the total sum of its potential, meaning at the highest levels of play. Nobody cares about the "average" level of play because there are so many "less-than average to bad" players at tournaments they skew the results. Heck, "average" isn't even that good.Is the Metagame of any character at the level of its greatest player, or is it just determined by how the "average" above-average tourney goer plays the character? (yes, I'm aware of the oxymoron in the previous sentence).
SIn that one set, Azen played exceptionally well and more solid as compared to Mew2King, who left more openings. Yet who ultimately won? Mew2King because the potential of his characters were just better.
I guess I owe you an apology here. I was referring to you replying to my views, but you did not in fact say my view is false. You just state that it's simply not very probable. I am in no way saying that you should be accepting "Brawl is balanced" claims without any facts. So my bad.But does that mean I cannot argue against arguments I feel are inane/bad/inconsequential/inaccurate/whatever? Why must I stand by quietly and let people state how they think without being able to state what I think without being accused of not being open to accepting others' views?
How does this translate into "Pokémon Trainer beats Snake or at least fights him on even ground and has the potential to win major tournaments"?Stuff.
"I can beat people who are unfamiliar to the matchup" - I already invalidated this argument months ago. Assume the Snake player knows how to fight Pokémon Trainer.Also, PT often has the advantage of being more unpredictable than other characters. Most characters stick to one style, you learn how the opponent fights and can anticipate him quickly. When your opponent is PT, it becomes necesary to learn how your opponent fights with three different characters, which makes tha battle slightly harder to win and moves more difficult to anticipate.
Mew2King's character had an easier time winning than Azen's. Azen managed to hold his own but ultimately, he lost due to his character just not being up to shape. Of course, there's no guarantee he would've done better as a High Tier but it's clear that in that set, DeDeDe and Meta-Knight had an easier time winning than Lucario.Sorry to have to double quote, maybe you implied such. But I don't see how this translates to M2k had an easier time. So sorry for the misinterpretation.
It sounded a lot like you weer arguing the opposite was true, at least partially, going by what you said. I apologize if you meant the opposite.I'm largely off topic though. I believe as you do that Brawl is more unbalanced than Melee was. Your not really disagreeing with me, your just doing the "Well of course I knew that, I just don't really care about it because it doesn't matter for the thread discussion".
Bum rarely attended major tournaments, but all the tournaments he did attend he placed well at, in fact, I believe the lowest he has ever placed has been 4th or 5th. He has also won sets against the likes of PC Chris, Isai, and Chudat, and essentially forced M2K to use Marth. Every fast faller fears Bum's DK, that includes the upper echelon of talent. You may be ignorant of Bum's legacy, which I can't really fault you for, if you don't play on the East Coast, you would likely not here much about Bum.Did Bum go into the game an reprogram it? Because the programming was already there. All Bum did was discover how to best use it to his advantage.
I said this clearly in my last post:
Each character's potential has already been set from the moment the game was released. And since there will most probably be no patches or v 1.1s or whatnot to balance things out, it's never going to change.
Now, we can go and discover all we want. We might discover that Snake is actually Bottom Tier once we work out a way for 75% of all characters to infinite him (somehow). Does that mean the game's progamming just changed and that his potential just changed? No, our perception of those things changed, our knowledge of those things changed, but the game itself remains the exact same as it did before we discovered it.
This is why I say people don't create things when they play games, they discover (and other things, like "refine", "define", "make up", etc.) things. Also, as Frozenwave said, Donkey Kong was never a counter for the fastfallers (why do people throw around the term "Spacies" so much when things often apply to Captain Falcon as well?).
A counter implies a matchup where one side has a distinct advantage. Bum just worked out a really good way to combat the fastfallers as Donkey Kong. Now did Bum ever win any major tournaments over good fastfallers?
Lucario isn't that bad largely because Azen started using him and people took what he did and ran with it. And if Melee is any indication, yes, he will be able to. Maybe not with the worst character in the game, but likely with the top 10-15, and still make at least top 5-7 with likely every other character.In other words, yes, it is proof that you can't count out characters he wins with, but no, you can't use him The same holds true for Brawl. He took 2nd as Lucario but last time I checked, Lucario isn't really that bad. The game is also new and there are still ways to "pioneer" a way to play a character, so people have to adapt around it. Will Azen be able to still place 2nd as Low Tiers consistently or maybe even win major tournaments in the future? I think not.
But did he win against Spacies by a large margin? Because that's what a counter is, a matchup in which one side is statistically probable to win by a large margin.Bum rarely attended major tournaments, but all the tournaments he did attend he placed well at, in fact, I believe the lowest he has ever placed has been 4th or 5th. He has also won sets against the likes of PC Chris, Isai, and Chudat, and essentially forced M2K to use Marth. Every fast faller fears Bum's DK, that includes the upper echelon of talent. You may be ignorant of Bum's legacy, which I can't really fault you for, if you don't play on the East Coast, you would likely not here much about Bum.
In other words, you agree with me that no one created anything and all they did was discover/refine/define/change perceptions of things? We're pretty much in agreement on this, only you, for some reason, dislike the word "discovery".Stuff.
But again, that's just Azen. He is who he is. Now if others can do the same with "lesser" characters, then we'll take. But as long as only Azen and a select few others are able to take Lucario into the Top 10 (with only Azen placing Top 3), then Lucario isn't really that good (as of the current known metagame).Lucario isn't that bad largely because Azen started using him and people took what he did and ran with it. And if Melee is any indication, yes, he will be able to. Maybe not with the worst character in the game, but likely with the top 10-15, and still make at least top 5-7 with likely every other character.
Umm...hardest matchup=/=counter. Shiek was always and still remains the best choice against Marth. But many people interpret this as her being a Marth counter which was never true. It was blown out of proportion because Marth normally benefits from slight advantages on all of the high tier and top tier characters (he had 2 or 3 even matchups), so having a disadvantage threw Marth players off. It's not that M2K started maining Marth, it's that we realized there where much harder matchups than Shiek vs Marth, and that we were just exagerating.It's a slightly hard matchup now. I was trying to point out how our perceptions did change. Before M2k mained Marth and started basically forcing people to pick Sheik to even stand a chance the matchup USED to be considered a counter. It wasn't until near the tail end of Ken's Melee career and M2k's upcoming Marth that people considered it a slight advantage to Sheik.
Somebody give this man a medal.Reeeeeaaaaaaaaalllly getting tired of the blanket statement that pro's ignore low/mid tiers. People are not labeled ****ty because no one wants to use them, dont be stupid.
In a few months, not much will be different, unless we find a game changing tech which is unlikely.
Ivysaur sucks, LIZARDON isn't that good, and Squirtle is good. Combine all three and you have one very avoided character. >.>
so you admit that PT is an avoided character then, granted it's because u think he sucks but in the same respect, Bowser was an avoided character back in Melee and Gimpyfish was however able to make something out of him.....Ivysaur sucks, LIZARDON isn't that good, and Squirtle is good. Combine all three and you have one very avoided character. >.>
And yet look where Gimpy and his Bowser stand IIRC. By no means am I implying that Gimpy is a bad player, I'm just saying that Bowser still isn't that great of a character regardless. Any GOOD Bowser main will tell you this, even Gimpy himself.so you admit that PT is an avoided character then, granted it's because u think he sucks but in the same respect, Bowser was an avoided character back in Melee and Gimpyfish was however able to make something out of him.....
A large margin is not the only way to tell a counter. If Peach beats Ice Climbers 100 times to 0, but every game is a 1 stock victory, then Peach is still a counter character. However, Bum did in fact win many of the games by large margins, you should just search for Bum versus Isai on youtube. He was winning so badly one game, Isai literally just suicided his last stock because he recognized it was a hopeless effort.But did he win against Spacies by a large margin? Because that's what a counter is, a matchup in which one side is statistically probable to win by a large margin.
fine then ill just say BUM lolI love how everyone uses Gimpyfish as an example for tiers being skewed/not existing.
It's great.
Pray tell, how many tournaments have you seen Gimpyfish win as Bowser? Or even place Top 5? What did Gimpyfish manage to do with Bowser exactly? Place Top 10?so you admit that PT is an avoided character then, granted it's because u think he sucks but in the same respect, Bowser was an avoided character back in Melee and Gimpyfish was however able to make something out of him.....
It is impossible to have a matchup where a character beats another by 100 to 0, yet it's so close it's only a 1-stcoking. Because in order to be able to win 100 to 0, you have to have such an advantageous matchup you're at least statistically probable to 2-stock your opponent.A large margin is not the only way to tell a counter. If Peach beats Ice Climbers 100 times to 0, but every game is a 1 stock victory, then Peach is still a counter character. However, Bum did in fact win many of the games by large margins, you should just search for Bum versus Isai on youtube. He was winning so badly one game, Isai literally just suicided his last stock because he recognized it was a hopeless effort.
That wasn't the point of using Bowser as an example.Yuna and Smooth Criminal win.
Seriously, way to go and use Gimpyfish as an example, are you ****ing kidding me? When was the last time Gimpyfish said "Oh look at how good Bowser is" oh wait, he was too busy saying he sucks.
The result matters, not the way how that result came to be.That wasn't the point of using Bowser as an example.
The purpose was to show a good Bowser being used, that it is possible though improbable for Bowser to be used greatly, not that he was a great character.
Wait, isn't that what I said. I'm just clarifying since were in agreement here right? I think I deserve a medal too Smooth Criminal. lolReeeeeaaaaaaaaalllly getting tired of the blanket statement that pro's ignore low/mid tiers. People are not labeled ****ty because no one wants to use them, dont be stupid.
In a few months, not much will be different, unless we find a game changing tech which is unlikely.
Ivysaur sucks, LIZARDON isn't that good, and Squirtle is good. Combine all three and you have one very avoided character. >.>
On occasion, I do. The guy I usually play Brawl with on a day-to-day basis (I don't have a Wii; I had to sell it to help pay bills a little while ago) has finally conceded that Melee is the better game of the two and now we're playing that for hours on end. Before he was like, "ZOMG BRAWL IS SO AWESOME BECAUSE IT'S ACCESSIBLE AND N00B FRIENDLY, NO CLACKCLACKCLACKING INVOLVED." Because he had a preference, I thought I would just be the nice guy and play Brawl. After a earth-shattering Brawl match with GA's own Desu (he beat Desu's Brawl Samus with his scrubby-*** Metaknight---go figure), he loathes the game for what it is. Which suits me fine, really, because I enjoy playing Melee a LOT more.Smooth Criminal I thought you didn't play Brawl >_>;
Don't forget Magnum or Caotic.Um...
There's Reflex, KevinM, DJ Nintendo, Arash...
Smooth Criminal