Character Balancing

[A6M Zero]

The transition from 64 to Melee, and for now Melee to what we know about Brawl is riddled by huge balance changes. Kirby went from awesome in 64 to crap in Melee, and Fox has gone up and now down from 64 to Melee to Brawl, they aren't the only characters that have gone through balance changes, let's take a look at some of them, impacts, and my opinion on it.



Characters all have their own strengths and weaknesses, styles and strategies that suit them very well. At the top of the tier lists are the characters who have competent or exceptional games in most or all of these categories. Fox is fast and deadly, many combo's and moves which could be considered "cheap", and a plethora of ways to play him. Falco has arguably the best approach, an annoying-as-hell short-hop laser, brutal combo's, ect. You get the idea.


Fox has undergone a number of changes, including his overall speed being reduced and some of his more deadly attacks (shine) being nerfed, and Peach's downsmash had been largely toned down in power. On the other end of the scale, Bowser and Mario have received buff's, becoming stronger and overall more dangerous characters.

MY OPINION:

In my opinion, I do not agree with how they carry out these character balances, in particular nerfs. I would much rather have each character have a powerful strength, a potent attribute that makes them deadly rather than have every character be balanced out. In short, I'd rather character's were buffed up rather than being toned down. Some characters like Fox needed to be slowed down air-wise, but why take away more of his attributes? The shine can no longer be as easily canceled, which is unneeded without wavedashing and a slower fall. In my opinion Peach was a perfect character before, powerful and a real contender, but still balanced with the other better characters. I don't think Peach needed to be changed at all. I like that Mario and Bowser received considerable buffs, in my opinion it was absolutely the right thing to do. Mario is the same all-around character, except better, and Bowser is the big strong fearsome beast he's supposed to be.


Character's should get better to compete, not have the competition get dumbed down for them. some balancing is fine, but don't take away almost everything that character has going for them.


It's much less balancing then it is shuffling around the tier list. They're doing a lot of overbalancing. Everyone give your opinions on Character Balancing, and PLEASE, PLEASE, try to keep it intelligent.

 

[InvincibleAgent]

Maybe they couldn't come up with enough buffs for the crappy characters like DK

 

[A6M Zero]

LOL, so true.

 

[Tobi-]

Because they needed to be balanced.

If both players had equal skill level, and it was Fox Vs DK, guess who would win? Fox.

Kirby needed to be buffed from 64. He was just way too cheap. Spammable Fsmash, Very easy spikes, auto-combos(drillkick), and what not.

Ness also had a spammable usmash and dsmash that was unstoppable unless they messed up.

If the character comes close to being cheap/broken/too strong they need to be nerfed. Even if they had some special "weakness", people would simply avoid whatever it was doing that, or better yet, just balance him out.

Really, it's not that big a deal. The changes are small and shouldn't effect you that much unless you are a fox player for like 5 years.

Besides, You could enjoy the brawl fox MUCH more once you're used to playing as him.

 

[A6M Zero]

...I am a Fox player for like 5 years...But I am looking forward to trying out the Brawl Fox, did you get an opportunity to play at E for All?

 

[Saor Gael]

I think it's possible some characters will get "overbalanced". I think that's why Mewtwo was so poor in Melee - they tried not to make him too good and instead made him crap. Maybe he'll be top-tier now.

However, given the lengthy development time of Brawl, and the delay, I have a lot of confidence that the characters will be more or less balanced. There will always be some who are slightly better, and some who are slightly worse. Poor DK.

 

[Sl1th]

I dont think the developers are making the games in terms of tiers. Tiers are put together by the top players. However these tiers probably influenced how the characters have been balanced. They see that top tiers are "broken" and need to be balanced. Fox was top tier and is being nerfed while bowser was lower tier and is being buffed. Their goal in these nerfs and buffs is to make Bowser competable with Fox.

 

[ecstatic]

I think that not nerfing characters would be more plausible if this was Melee 2, but it's not. One thing that I think we all (myself included) need to remember is that this is supposed to be a different game. Melee fox isn't supposed to be that much like Brawl Fox. Of course, that's not saying that they're supposed to be totally different, or uncomparable, either. In fact, to a reasonable level comparison between the two games is very acceptable. I believe the line has been crossed when people start going "OMG Brawl < Melee cause NO wavedash!"

(PS: I know things like this have been posted before, and that I was starting to get slightly off topic.)

 

[Syzygy]

Thing about nerfs is that the devs have no way of anticipating the metagame. They have no idea what exploits will come later in the game. For example, without the Shine, I think it's understandable that Fox and Falco would be above average, but still relatively balanced characters. The devs really had no idea that an attack called the "Refector" could lead to Waveshine Infinites and 15% Gimps.

That being said, at a casual level, with the possible exception of Shiek and Marth, all of the characters are pretty balanced. I have friends who will fight me to the death that Bowser is the most broken character in the game. Another argued that Mewtwo was above average and IC's were the worst in the game.

For casual players, Brawl will be balanced very nicely, I think. But there WILL be things that come up in the metagame that will break some characters. Just like what happened with Fox. 4 years ago, very few would say that Fox was a better character than Shiek and Marth. The metagame changes things. You can't expect an elimination of tiers. Testers will make sure there are no Marth Fsmashes or Chain Throws, in the game, but they will never be able to eliminate the WaveShines, the SHLs, the Float Cancels and so on. We'll break the game, that's just the way it has to be.

 

[Psydon]

Thing about nerfs is that the devs have no way of anticipating the metagame. They have no idea what exploits will come later in the game. For example, without the Shine, I think it's understandable that Fox and Falco would be above average, but still relatively balanced characters. The devs really had no idea that an attack called the "Refector" could lead to Waveshine Infinites and 15% Gimps.

That being said, at a casual level, with the possible exception of Shiek and Marth, all of the characters are pretty balanced. I have friends who will fight me to the death that Bowser is the most broken character in the game. Another argued that Mewtwo was above average and IC's were the worst in the game.

For casual players, Brawl will be balanced very nicely, I think. But there WILL be things that come up in the metagame that will break some characters. Just like what happened with Fox. 4 years ago, very few would say that Fox was a better character than Shiek and Marth. The metagame changes things. You can't expect an elimination of tiers. Testers will make sure there are no Marth Fsmashes or Chain Throws, in the game, but they will never be able to eliminate the WaveShines, the SHLs, the Float Cancels and so on. We'll break the game, that's just the way it has to be.

That is true...to an extent.

Take the Shine for example. It's meant to stop projectiles. So what's the point of repulsing close-range players? They didn't have to do that, and it would further emphasize the move's use as an anti-projectile. Take out that aspect and now you have no Shine. No 15% kills, no nothing. What's more, it forces Fox players to actually kill as Fox, and not with insane Shine combos.

"Run! Fly! Move boldly! For such moves are the essence of Fox." <- The Shine shouldn't exist.

And Fox would be mostly balanced without it, but Falco wouldn't be. You say testers are supposed to make sure there are no "Marth F-smashes". But in Melee we had Falco's Dtilt able to kill at less than 50%, and his all-powerful dair.

And we had Marth's F-smash.

And that weird stun effect of Marth's attacks.

And...you know what, just Marth in general.

And Falco's blaster.

And Fox's uair and U-smash.

And Sheik's ridiculous needles.

And Sheik's fair.

And Sheik's uair.

These aren't things skilled players create; these are things hard-coded into the game that the devs are fully aware of.

Just like they're aware of Pikachu getting Peach's old D-smash.

My point: There are plenty of simple things that can be done to balance characters (like replacing Marth with Metaknight, for example), but like many people say, the devs just don't think of these things. They test for glitches, not the potential brokenness of moves.

That's why I'm optimistic for Brawl. I hope that in the end it'll be more balanced than Melee, particularly after reading Sakurai call Smash a sport. That's a powerful statement, and in sports everything has to be fair.

 

[Gedennnnn]

The transition from 64 to Melee, and for now Melee to what we know about Brawl is riddled by huge balance changes. Kirby went from awesome in 64 to crap in Melee, and Fox has gone up and now down from 64 to Melee to Brawl, they aren't the only characters that have gone through balance changes, let's take a look at some of them, impacts, and my opinion on it.



Characters all have their own strengths and weaknesses, styles and strategies that suit them very well. At the top of the tier lists are the characters who have competent or exceptional games in most or all of these categories. Fox is fast and deadly, many combo's and moves which could be considered "cheap", and a plethora of ways to play him. Falco has arguably the best approach, an annoying-as-hell short-hop laser, brutal combo's, ect. You get the idea.


Fox has undergone a number of changes, including his overall speed being reduced and some of his more deadly attacks (shine) being nerfed, and Peach's downsmash had been largely toned down in power. On the other end of the scale, Bowser and Mario have received buff's, becoming stronger and overall more dangerous characters.

MY OPINION:

In my opinion, I do not agree with how they carry out these character balances, in particular nerfs. I would much rather have each character have a powerful strength, a potent attribute that makes them deadly rather than have every character be balanced out. In short, I'd rather character's were buffed up rather than being toned down. Some characters like Fox needed to be slowed down air-wise, but why take away more of his attributes? The shine can no longer be as easily canceled, which is unneeded without wavedashing and a slower fall. In my opinion Peach was a perfect character before, powerful and a real contender, but still balanced with the other better characters. I don't think Peach needed to be changed at all. I like that Mario and Bowser received considerable buffs, in my opinion it was absolutely the right thing to do. Mario is the same all-around character, except better, and Bowser is the big strong fearsome beast he's supposed to be.


Character's should get better to compete, not have the competition get dumbed down for them. some balancing is fine, but don't take away almost everything that character has going for them.


It's much less balancing then it is shuffling around the tier list. They're doing a lot of overbalancing. Everyone give your opinions on Character Balancing, and PLEASE, PLEASE, try to keep it intelligent.

If Peach had stayed the same in Brawl she would be doing an average of 40-50% per down smash. I don't think that would have been very balanced, but I don't agree with the Fox shine nerf either.

 

[Chaosblade77]

I disagree with the general point. The lesser characters should not be pulled all the way up to the top to compete with Fox and Marth, but an average middle ground needed to be found, and rigorous testing is needed to make sure that it is right.

Balancing characters is not easy unless every single character was the exact same speed, both attacking and moving, same jump height, fall speed, DI, dodging, priority, power, range, etc. There is so much to take into account. Really, I think the problem with balancing ends up on the people playing. Top characters are going to get nerfed, I was a Marth main and I know that Marth is going to be changed considerably, as much as I don't want it to happen. Fox had it coming. People who mained Bowser, Mewtwo, and other low tier characters will probably rejoice as their characters will be far better in Brawl than they were in the Melee, just like the previous transition.

 

[WarxePB]

Oh, there'll still be tiers, and characters with fast attacks like Fox, Marth and Sheik will still dominate them. It's the rule of any fighting game - the faster you can pull off attacks, the more likely you are going to win.
Sakurai is making an effort to balance the tiers out a bit, though - Meta Knight, who we all thought would be completely broken, has very little range and power, and Bowser has been considerably buffed. But the fact remains that, though it might be a bit closer this time, a skilled Fox player will still win more matches against an equally skilled Bowser player.

But I don't believe that the tiers will be too unbalanced. As I said in another thread, I believe that the highest-tier characters (Fox, Marth, MK) will be equivalent to the higher-tier characters like Peach and Falcon, while the lowest-tiers (DK, Wario?) will be no worse than Link or Luigi.

 

[Psydon]

I disagree with the general point. The lesser characters should not be pulled all the way up to the top to compete with Fox and Marth, but an average middle ground needed to be found, and rigorous testing is needed to make sure that it is right.

Balancing characters is not easy unless every single character was the exact same speed, both attacking and moving, same jump height, fall speed, DI, dodging, priority, power, range, etc. There is so much to take into account. Really, I think the problem with balancing ends up on the people playing. Top characters are going to get nerfed, I was a Marth main and I know that Marth is going to be changed considerably, as much as I don't want it to happen. Fox had it coming. People who mained Bowser, Mewtwo, and other low tier characters will probably rejoice as their characters will be far better in Brawl than they were in the Melee, just like the previous transition.

You're right that it takes a lot of testing to truly balance a competitive game, and in the end players will always find ways to kick sheer butt with their favourite characters, but there are plenty of things devs can do to help with the balancing process. It's all about first designing the move how you want, then playing with it and seriously asking yourself: what effect will this have on the game?

And you know what the irony is in that? We know Smash games are designed from a casual standpoint, yet Marth is overpowered at either a casual or competitive level.

Speaking of him, I sorta feel for you concerning changes to Marth (assuming he returns). I didn't like it when I heard that Samus, my main, was nerfed (she isn't that nerfed), but then, Samus was never, and has never been, overpowered in any way. I used to play as Marth a lot-I like Marth-and even then I still recognized that he is indeed too powerful. There's no argument to it; if he were to return for Brawl then he ought to be nerfed. Not nerfed to the extent of, say, Kirby, but still nerfed.

I'm happy for the idea that characters like Bowser are getting buffs. Really, in fighting games the "best" characters are always the fast combo-oriented ones. You'll see a million Xianghua players for every one Nightmare player in Soul Calibur. There's no sense in that; if everyone wants speed characters they should get nothing but speed characters, right? That's why fighting games need slow characters that can actually perform well, and if we get that in Brawl, huzzah!

 

[Brawler360]

Think about it. As long as the game is balanced why does it matter which way the characters go? I highly buffed Fox vs a buffed skilled DK will be the same thing as a lowly buffed Fox and a lowly buffed DK.

I don't see why you care as long as everyone is relatively equal.

 

[TaurToph]

I'm happy for the idea that characters like Bowser are getting buffs. Really, in fighting games the "best" characters are always the fast combo-oriented ones. You'll see a million Xianghua players for every one Nightmare player in Soul Calibur. There's no sense in that; if everyone wants speed characters they should get nothing but speed characters, right? That's why fighting games need slow characters that can actually perform well, and if we get that in Brawl, huzzah!

Isn't Bowser fast now?

 

[TheLongestShizzle]

To Psydon: Saus was overpowered in the N64 smash. I play as samus and always have also.

and on subject..

I dont really think there is anything to worry about with balancing. The best of the best ill rise to the top, I think anything is accomplishable with enough time and effort put into it.

and yeah thats just my opinion though =]

 

[Pegasus Knight]

(Disclaimer by Pegasus Knight: I am not 100% up-and-up on all there is to know about Melee. If I get a few details wrong, please bear with me and focus more on the theory at hand.)

Character's should get better to compete, not have the competition get dumbed down for them. some balancing is fine, but don't take away almost everything that character has going for them.

This is a topic I find particularly interesting. And in a 'world' (or game design in this case) meant to tolerate infinite power, you'd be absolutely right: Don't nerf; just buff everyone else as needed.

However, most competitive games have two criteria they need to balance; overall power level (no one thing should be too strong, or else it breaks the game's design intentions), and Fun.

Power Level: Is easy enough. Within the scope of Smash, we know what is powerful and what is not. This isn't just 'hitting strength', though that's part of it. Smash is intended to work within certain boundaries of 'powerful' and 'weak or pretty much worthless.' You need these boundaries to understand what a good character is, and what a bad one is. More importantly, the game is designed around these boundaries.

Going too far into the 'weak' category just means a character is a waste of development time. This is regretable but not truly a problem; you can just ignore that character, and the only ones who suffer will be those that enjoy that character from a personality/design/art standpoint.

Going too far into the 'strong' category breaks certain assumptions about Smash (or any other game, really). Let's take an exaggerated example and pretend Fox's Shine in Melee not only has 0-frame startup, but is an instant Star KO to anyone it hits. This insane example would negate lots of the game's design; survival techniques would mostly vanish, centered around "Avoid the Shine at all costs." Things like teching, recovery, etc. become irrelevant.

How do you fix that? Well, you could buff everyone else to have Shine copies of their own. That would be a balanced game, but it probably wouldn't be interesting, and wastes a lot of development time going into the game-theory behind things like recovery, DI, managing your attack lag, etc. Even stage layout becomes almost irrelevant.

That's purely an exaggerated example, but you can look at a few characters in Melee and see they are overbearingly powerful. Simply leaving them as is hurts the design-theory behind Smash, so universal buffing without nerfing isn't a cure-all solution.

Ultimately, nerfing overpowered characters allows other parts of the game's design to come through.


Then there is Fun. This is often, but not always, hand-in-hand with Balance. One definition of Fun is something that rewards the player for their skill, without feeling 'unfair' to a player who is willing to study the game and apply themselves to it.

To use Fox again, let's take Drillshining someone against a wall. As I understand it, this can be an unbreakable combo. (If that's wrong, please correct me; it's my understanding Fox's drillshine is a major, but not the sole, part of why stages with walls are tournament-banned) It requires some fast timing to do, but it's certainly within the realm of human skill and relatively plausible to set up in a match. Once you've got the drillshine going, it's pretty much a guaranteed kill. This is not Fun to the receiving player, because there's little they can do about it; both parts of the move are extremely fast and hard to avoid.

One solution is getting rid of walls, but that's a shame, it's a waste of a good terrain feature. Another solution is nerfing Fox's Shine, giving it a start-up delay.

While nerfing someone's favorite character will understandably irritate them, a mix of sensible buffs and nerfs (and a character could get both!) encourages a wider variety in gameplay, and lets us make more use of the things designed into the engine.

Not only that, but to ask a more pointed question: What does nerfing Fox accomplish? He was clearly one of the best (if not the best) character in Melee by a significant margin, challenged only by a few others. Are you really sure that they've toned him down from "Top Tier" to "lost everything he had going for him?" -- Playtest reports suggest he's gone from "Blatantly top tier" to "Pretty solid", from what I hear?

 

[A6M Zero]

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for actually making intelligent and opinionated posts, I'm genuinely astounded. Pegasus, I'd in particular like to make a reply to you. Unfortunately, I have to go, tomorrow I'll be sure to make another comment! Keep it up!

 

[Psydon]

Isn't Bowser fast now?

He's faster, but he's certainly not, overall, a superfast combo king.

I dont really think there is anything to worry about with balancing. The best of the best ill rise to the top, I think anything is accomplishable with enough time and effort put into it.

and yeah thats just my opinion though =]

Of course the best players will be the best; that has nothing to do with game balance. And on the subject of competition, making a fair game helps make a more interesting competitive environment.

If one or a few characters were noticeably overpowered, and quite a number of highly skilled players mained them, it would tempt people to do the same, no matter how they felt about other characters. Or, if those players simply beat the stuffing out of similarly-skilled players because of the insane strengths of their characters, it might provoke their opponents to abandon their current mains and main one of the overpowered character. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", no?

There are countless people who main Melee's 4 highest-tier characters, all of which are overpowered, for no reason than the fact that they are "the best characters". Players who don't use those characters and battle them find themselves facing what it immediately visible from the start: an unfair advantage.

Now, let's say, in Brawl, that beyond all our speculation, Sakurai and his team managed to create a game without any noticeably overpowered characters (I'm aware of all the weird buffs they made; bear with me here) and without any noticeably crappy characters. Players would be "free" to be whatever character they wanted, and perform well. We'd see a massive increase of variety in matches, which is saying something because there's already a great deal of variety out there.

 

[Masque]

I disagree with the general point. The lesser characters should not be pulled all the way up to the top to compete with Fox and Marth, but an average middle ground needed to be found, and rigorous testing is needed to make sure that it is right.

Balancing characters is not easy unless every single character was the exact same speed, both attacking and moving, same jump height, fall speed, DI, dodging, priority, power, range, etc. There is so much to take into account. Really, I think the problem with balancing ends up on the people playing. Top characters are going to get nerfed, I was a Marth main and I know that Marth is going to be changed considerably, as much as I don't want it to happen. Fox had it coming. People who mained Bowser, Mewtwo, and other low tier characters will probably rejoice as their characters will be far better in Brawl than they were in the Melee, just like the previous transition.

This man speaks the truth.

I was and will still be a Peach main, and I'm perfectly fine with her DSmash getting nerfed. It was admittedly overpowered, and I think the development team made a good decision. From what I saw in the E4All videos, the matches never had a clear-cut winner. In fact, I was actually pleased with what seemed to be a fairly well balanced game.

Also, Pegasus Knight has the right idea. Brilliant post, but too big to quote here. I agree wholeheartedly, though!

 

[General Diddy]

Every character should have certain strengths and weaknesses, but it should really balance out overall...

 

[SvartWolf]

I think that it's a good option, now that the game is online, to release patches and updates downloadable via wi-fi which ensure that the game gets balanced as the designers can see how the game outcomes, as an example, by error fox has a infinite combo? well, nerf it maintainig that combo but being imposible of make more than two or thre times in a row... Sonic the king of speed finds even more difficult to hit that bowser or ganondorf? changes some lag times and knockbacks and try to fix it..

games as starcraft have managed to make the three playable races amost exactly equal, buffing, nerfing, rebuffing the nerfed, re nerfing the buffings in a lot of patches, so when three different players choose a different race, everyone have a 33,3% chance of winning, and then, the skill of the player and mastery of the chosen race is what defines the winner, not the race itself...

oh, and like smash bros, Starcraft is a game that has a lot of years (ALMOST 10) and still it's well played via internet...

 

[Pegasus Knight]

For what it's worth, Chaosblade77 and Aeris have hit on an interesting point: It's possible to have perfect (or near-perfect) balance in a game; make it perfectly symmetrical. There are at least three games I can think of that do this: Pong, Space War, and Karate Champ.

Nobody plays them much anymore, except as part of a retrogaming kick they may be on. They're perfectly balanced; both players control identical characters. But this lack of variety results in a loss of Fun, and as a result it seems that the best practical solution is to go for Pretty Good Balance while allowing enough variety for Fun. Street Fighter 2 would be a good example of this.

The 'trade-off' is that we do gain some absolutes; that is, 'tiers.' There will be a best character and worst character. The best we can hope for is that the gap between them, and the characters in between, are pretty playable.

And, thank you to everyone who liked my earlier post. I know, it was long...but I'm glad you were willing to put up with that.

 

[Corax The Cold]

its a new game, duh its getting rebalanced, your idea wouldnt work and would make the game not fun

 

[slikvik]

Maybe they couldn't come up with enough buffs for the crappy characters like DK

LOL, so true.

uh...DK is actually a decent character in melee and received nerfs in brawl

 

[Dark Sonic]

I think that it's a good option, now that the game is online, to release patches and updates downloadable via wi-fi which ensure that the game gets balanced as the designers can see how the game outcomes, as an example, by error fox has a infinite combo? well, nerf it maintainig that combo but being imposible of make more than two or thre times in a row... Sonic the king of speed finds even more difficult to hit that bowser or ganondorf? changes some lag times and knockbacks and try to fix it..

While that idea has good intentions, it takes a lot of depth out of the characters. It punishes people for discovering and exploiting their characters strengths by nerfing them once they're dicovered. It rewards a character's problematic weakness by buffing them. I'm all for character balance, but at some point the balancing should stop so that we can actually learn how to use the characters they're trying to make for us. I personally would like to be able to learn my character inside and out, without having to worry about that time being wasted when the next patch comes out. If a tactic is truely broken (and I mean after maybe a year of testing, or more) then we'll simply ban it. The danger with patches is that developers can become more careless in what they change. After all, they can just fix it later, right? People also tend to ban things much more liberally when a game uses patches because if they'd made a mistake they think they can just fix it later. Buffing and Nerfing things should actually be as extreme as banning things, because it not only changes the gameplay for the character involved, but also for every character matchup against that character, and even for the player that had previously learned that character.

 

[Naota21t]

Like any other fighting game, there are going to be unbalances no matter how hard they try to balance out the characters. The main objective shouldn't be in making everyone perfectly balanced (since this is impossible), but instead to not make certain moves, or characters so far out of the norm that its blatantly noticeable to even the most novice of players.

When I play smash with some of my more casual friends, everyone can tell Marth, Peach and Sheik are several rungs above everyone else (I didn't include Fox and Falco because they're a lot more technical). So since the game is (unfortunately) aimed mainly towards the casual gamers, the obvious overpowered moves and characters are bound to change.

If your going to balance characters in a fighting game, theres obviously only two things that you can really do: Make them better, or make them worse. If you want a perfect (or as close as you can to perfect) balance, you MUST nerf and buff. For example: We all know how strong the top 5 are of the tier, and everyone else seems to fall behind. It wouldn't make any sense to just make everyone else as strong as the top 5, because that would be eliminating so many factors of the game. Smash is pretty much a glorified "King-of-the-Hill", so a huge part of the game is recovering, but that would be pretty much kicked to the curve if everyone was buffed. You'd see that matches would shorten and length, and it'd be a battle of whoever is faster and hit first.

So IMO the most obvious thing for them to do is to make the top half weaker, and lower half which is exactly what they seem to be doing. So far I believe they are balancing the game pretty well, with Metaknight being possibly the only character that needs a little tweaking. Fox got weaker, Bowser got stronger, so now they're closer. Of course the nature of fighting game dictates that one will be better then the other (in a 1 vs 1 match), but if they're at least close enough where the ratio of victory of one side is no more then 7:3 then its fine.

 

[Micahc]

You're never going to get a perfectly balanced game. Right now, talking about nerfs and buffs is a moot point. From what I've read, the engine and game play has changed to much. Characters are playing completely different from Melee. So What's the point complaining about Peaches crap down smash if her forward smash is her new killer etc.?

 

[rageagainst]

You're never going to get a perfectly balanced game. Right now, talking about nerfs and buffs is a moot point. From what I've read, the engine and game play has changed to much. Characters are playing completely different from Melee. So What's the point complaining about Peaches crap down smash if her forward smash is her new killer etc.?

You're right that its too soon to yell "omg bottom tier fox!!" since this is a new game, and gimpy fish made clear that just because a char plays differently doesn't mean their worse.

Though you're right that this is a new game, they are definately comparable so its safe to point out the characters' buffs and nerfs. Btw, they are trying to make things even, so don't be surprised if mid tier chars like Samus only get small buffs (because the higher tier chars are mostly nerfed). They apparantly thought samus beam cannon was overpowered and nerfed it. BUT they buffed her A move game to be similar to her N64 self.

The game is bieng done by hardcore smashers who have a BUNCH of time logged into playing smash. They are very aware of melee tier lists and what was broken in melee. That bieng said, Nintendo formost and will always make the game for the casual player. The testers will do their best to balance the game out from a CASUAL standpoint, but the metagame will often be unpredictable and reveal exploits and such.

There WILL be a tier list, but don't fret I feel it definately won't be as unbalanced as melee. There is a MUCH longer production time in this game, and the game devs didn't anticipate exploits from N64 to melee, now they do and they've played with the exploits (and took out wavedash) so they are much more keen to the metagame.

 

[smashbro29]

i just hope they make it balanced that tiers will matter so little no one will care

 

[Psydon]

i just hope they make it balanced that tiers will matter so little no one will care

Well, we all know that's not gonna happen.

The only reason tiers exist is competitive opinions. And no, that does not mean the opinions of pros. Read on.

If 100 tournaments are won by 100 Foxes defeating 100 Marios, it'd be pretty safe to say that, while the skill of the individual player will always matter the most in the end, Fox is, for whatever reason, generally a better character than Mario. When people like the BRoomers analyze the game and make scientific decisions, creating these tiers, it allows people to say: "[Character] is better than [character]! Look at the tier list; it says so!"

That's really all tiers do.

They don't mean anything; it's just that so many people who only want to use "the best characters" make tiers look like some sort of message from God that everyone should follow. That's why as soon as E4A ended so many people asked for a tier list; they wanted to know who "the best characters" were, so rather than test out each one for themselves they'd blindly obey whatever response they were given and main "the best characters".

Even if somehow Brawl was as balanced as could be, and not one character was overpowered, there'd still be a tier list, because people would still say that one character is better than the other.

I know nobody is going to even read this, let alone reply to it; I think I have some sort of negative stigma. And perhaps a few posts later somebody is going to make a long post explaining in a few paragraphs something I explained in a few sentences, and then somebody else will repeat everything I said, worded differently.

 

[Brawler360]

I am sure there will be tiers, but I think they won't be as drastically different as Melee. That is my hope, anyway.

 

[Itakio]

Well, we all know that's not gonna happen.

The only reason tiers exist is competitive opinions. And no, that does not mean the opinions of pros. Read on.

If 100 tournaments are won by 100 Foxes defeating 100 Marios, it'd be pretty safe to say that, while the skill of the individual player will always matter the most in the end, Fox is, for whatever reason, generally a better character than Mario. When people like the BRoomers analyze the game and make scientific decisions, creating these tiers, it allows people to say: "[Character] is better than [character]! Look at the tier list; it says so!"

That's really all tiers do.

They don't mean anything; it's just that so many people who only want to use "the best characters" make tiers look like some sort of message from God that everyone should follow. That's why as soon as E4A ended so many people asked for a tier list; they wanted to know who "the best characters" were, so rather than test out each one for themselves they'd blindly obey whatever response they were given and main "the best characters".

Even if somehow Brawl was as balanced as could be, and not one character was overpowered, there'd still be a tier list, because people would still say that one character is better than the other.

I know nobody is going to even read this, let alone reply to it; I think I have some sort of negative stigma. And perhaps a few posts later somebody is going to make a long post explaining in a few paragraphs something I explained in a few sentences, and then somebody else will repeat everything I said, worded differently.

The tier list is meant to show who places higher in tournaments often (or something along those lines). They are not meant for people to look at and say, "oh, well this character is better than that one."

I don't think people are going to "blindly obey" the new tier list for Brawl. First, everyone will try to find as much new stuff out about the game as they can, then once new tactics have been found, people will use them to their advantage in tournaments, and certainly if they are in a tournament they will want to use the best character. I guess my point is that you shouldn't look down on people who are using the best characters just because you don't think they've explored the game enough. There should be no shame in doing what ever it takes to win in a tournament match (I'm only looking at in-game stuff here XP not kicking your opponent's shins).

 

[TheJalapeno]

The way I think they worked is that they seemed to have over reacted. I mean considering how fast Fox is they wanted to tone him down, see? Maybe they went a little far, but that;s what they felt appropiate. I mean when I played, Fox felt slightly different, not alien, he was still Fox McCloud, but different-ish. However Mario who was grossly average received generous buffs because of his Average-ness. They over buffed and nerfed, think of Bowser.

 

[Yaya]

(Aargh, deleted, sorry, A6M forgets to sign off his brother's account.)

 

[A6M Zero]

Just about all of you make really good points, and I want to elaborate or clarify or respond on some of the things I said earlier.

I know we can't JUST buff all the bad characters, what I mean though, is I think the worse characters should be buffed slightly more than the good characters are nerfed. So far they are doing what looks to be a good job of balancing everything.

Jalapeño makes a good point, I DO think that Mario's become SLIGHTLY too strong, he went from an all around average character closer to an all around plain GOOD character in every aspect. I think Bowser was buffed about right, though.

Some of the characters are being SLIGHTLY over buffed, and some of the better ones aren't really losing MUCH in the large scale, but they are losing significant amounts of what made them that style of character, but again, it's a demo, and it remains to be seen what will be in the final game.


PS: This thread totally slaughters every other one in terms of intelligence. Had to mention that, keep it up.

 

[Mario77]

I just wana say you don't know for sure that Mario and others are as buffed or nerfed as much as some of you say, the people who played Brawl only got to play for a few hours total.

Also, Fox obviously needed to be nerfed, and since the OP is a fox main, of course he disagrees with him being nerfed....

Also... every good fighting game needs slow but powerfull characters, even if they are destined by default to be lower tier... they are still needed to give games for more diverse feelings when choosing different characters. So I am fine with Ike being extra slow yet extra powerfull, I still think that Bowser should be the slowest and most powerfull, but since he isnt, that most likely means he is not going to suck as much this round.

Complaing about a game being 'too balanced' is just lame lol. And I doubt this game is going to be 'too balanced'... if thats even possible...

 

[MajinNecro69]

As long as Mewtwo's back, and somehow gets buffed, I'll be happy :D Falco come back also! (with giant missiles from Star Fox Command XD)

 

[Psydon]

The tier list is meant to show who places higher in tournaments often (or something along those lines). They are not meant for people to look at and say, "oh, well this character is better than that one."

I never said what the tiers are meant for, I said what the people use them as. You're certainly right that the tiers are not meant to say "this character is better than this", but y'know what, reality is reality; countless players adhere to their listings as absolute levels of character ability.

I don't think people are going to "blindly obey" the new tier list for Brawl. First, everyone will try to find as much new stuff out about the game as they can,

The reason why people won't blindly obey the tier list is because when Brawl is released there'll be nothing to obey. XD No tier list is formed the moment a game comes out, after all. They'll be forced to actually play the game.

Edit: When the tier list is made, you'll see: it'll happen.

then once new tactics have been found, people will use them to their advantage in tournaments, and certainly if they are in a tournament they will want to use the best character.

And therein lies both the problem and my point. These people-the people who only obey tiers-can potentially switch mains around like crazy, rather than take a character that genuinely interests them and bringing out the best of that character. That's why I applaud people like Gimpyfish. He likes Bowser and, despite the Koopa King's weaknesses, found a way to pwn with him.

In my experience, I've mained Samus since my second match in SSB64, to this very day. I am fully aware of her strengths and weaknesses, and I am fully aware that there are characters who are faster, easier to combo with, and more powerful. I don't care; if Samus ended up at the bottom of the Brawl tiers (realistically that ain't happening, but you get my point) I'd still main her.

Because there's no such thing as "the best character"; there is only "the character used by the best player", and that's what people should strive for. They should win tournaments under their own strengths, not the strengths of a character. And if they happen to end up choosing a top-tier character? More power to them. As long as they don't get wrapped up in the illusion that their character is somehow "the best".

I guess my point is that you shouldn't look down on people who are using the best characters just because you don't think they've explored the game enough. There should be no shame in doing what ever it takes to win in a tournament match (I'm only looking at in-game stuff here XP not kicking your opponent's shins).

It's not about exploring the game; it's about the attitude. Perhaps that's why I made that horrible post in Cactaur's topic so long ago, 'cause I've met some people...well, I don't wanna talk about those people. In the end, people will play the game however they want and as long as they have fun, that's all that matters, regardless of what I believe, but their attitude can make a world of difference.

Now, to relate this back to Character Balancing, and finally get back on topic.

I agree, for the most part, with the TC, that they are indeed doing a good job of balancing Brawl and of giving each character a fighting chance. As it stands in Melee, the four "best characters" easily stand out as "the best", and we all know why. Even if some characters were still considered better than others in terms of how the strengths interact with the weaknesses (and as I've said before, people will always compare the characters regardless), as long as no characters are overpowered I think that's all the balance we really need.

The way I think they worked is that they seemed to have over reacted. I mean considering how fast Fox is they wanted to tone him down, see? Maybe they went a little far, but that;s what they felt appropiate. I mean when I played, Fox felt slightly different, not alien, he was still Fox McCloud, but different-ish. However Mario who was grossly average received generous buffs because of his Average-ness. They over buffed and nerfed, think of Bowser.

Yeah, this is where the aforementioned "most part" comes in. I agree with you; I think they went a bit too far with some of the buffs. SOME. I think some of the buffs (Link, Bowser) were very good choices, while some others (Peach, Pikachu) are just ridiculous and completely stupid.