Official Character Competitive Impressions - Tourneys, Tiers, Theories, Tactics

[Y2Kay]

Why respond if you're not going to read what I said. You don't even know then why I think Link is better, so you say things I've already addressed.

Boi he's just playin' with u.

Toon Link's better mobility just makes him better at running away.

Um, not necessarily. Sure, the frame data is identical, but having better speed does matter. Link's air speed is just a travesty.

Tink is worse because most of his damage comes from JC bombs, but you can just not commit and shield whenever he has one on the ground. He has no way of threatening shields.

I think having a good grab range w/ threatening kill throws and a combo throw would be pretty threatening. He doesn't have ZSS levels of reward off of it, but it's still a factor. Being able to force shields and having a good throw game (better than Link's) at least demands your respect as an opponent

 

[C0rvus]

Why respond if you're not going to read what I said. You don't even know then why I think Link is better, so you say things I've already addressed.

Tink is worse because most of his damage comes from JC bombs, but you can just not commit and shield whenever he has one on the ground. He has no way of threatening shields.

Link doesn't lose to shields and patient play as hard because his projectiles are more about simply forcing approaches so he can punish them with his range.

Mentioning the better kill throw isn't that big of a deal seeing as Link has no troubles killing.

Toon Link's better mobility just makes him better at running away. It doesn't make him more threatening in CQC because they have similar frame data but Link has way more range and better damage on-hit. Link simply doesn't need to run away as much because his CQC is better and his punish range is much longer.

You make fair points but I still don't understand how Link beats shields. If his projectiles aren't as safe and his grab is still bad, does it make a difference? Even being able to hit a shield with a sword normal and not get punished for it is the same as doing it with a bomb. Neither accomplishes the task of punishing a player's shield.

Link definitely has the scarier grab at low to mid percents, though. It's a good thing he doesn't need to run away as much, because he can't run away from much.

 

[Y2Kay]

FYI guys, Hyuga the best toon link, is second in mexico.

Gotta respect the results

 

[Dre89]

FYI guys, Hyuga the best toon link, is second in mexico.

Gotta respect the results

I've seen some of his games and people don't play the match up properly. They dash and commit to stuff too much in neutral. You should be walking a lot in neutral to powershield anything he throws directly at you. You aggress when he throws stuff into space and he doesn't have the ability to quickly throw something directly att you. It's tedious but if you're patient there's very little damage he can do to you in neutral.

Boi he's just playin' with u.

Um, not necessarily. Sure, the frame data is identical, but having better speed does matter. Link's air speed is just a travesty.

I think having a good grab range w/ threatening kill throws and a combo throw would be pretty threatening. He doesn't have ZSS levels of reward off of it, but it's still a factor. Being able to force shields and having a good throw game (better than Link's) at least demands your respect as an opponent

His grab game isn't better, he just has a better kill throw. If you're not at kill percent then you don't have to fear his grab because it's risky and has horrible reward. His throws all do 7% and have no follow ups.

Link's grab range at least makes it safer to use on reaction to certain things like landings, and I'm pretty sure he has some folows ups at low percents too. Only good thing and Tink's grab is bthrow kills. Link's grab is a much more bread and butter tool that can be used more to rack up damage.

 

[Y2Kay]

His grab game isn't better, he just has a better kill throw. If you're not at kill percent then you don't have to fear his grab because it's risky and has horrible reward. His throws all do 7% and have no follow ups.

Link's grab range at least makes it safer to use on reaction to certain things like landings, and I'm pretty sure he has some folows ups at low percents too. Only good thing and Tink's grab is bthrow kills. Link's grab is a much more bread and butter tool that can be used more to rack up damage.

Tinks d throw does link into up tilt and up smash too, right?

 

[Dre89]

You make fair points but I still don't understand how Link beats shields. If his projectiles aren't as safe and his grab is still bad, does it make a difference? Even being able to hit a shield with a sword normal and not get punished for it is the same as doing it with a bomb. Neither accomplishes the task of punishing a player's shield.

Link definitely has the scarier grab at low to mid percents, though. It's a good thing he doesn't need to run away as much, because he can't run away from much.

Projectles still force people to approach though. Both characters do this. The difference is that Tink is designed to stop approaches with said projectiles, and do the brunt of his damage with bomb confirms. He was given good mobility so he can run away and set up walls a lot As a trade-off, his range and frame data suck. That means that if people get close to him, he's bad at punishing them.

Link basically trades that mobility for range and better damage on-hit. So his gameplan is simply to force approaches then punish them with his massive range. Now the reason why this trade-off ends up better for Link is that Tink's main source of damage comes from holding a bomb on the ground, and he has no other way of threatening you if you just play defensively and shield. So when he's on the ground with a bomb, you can just shield and he has no way of doing meaningful damage to you. You can then try to approach him when he's in the air or committed to something else, because even if he hits you with an arrow it does like 4% and he won't get anything else.

Link can do meaningful damage is easier because his kit is designed to punish people approaching him, when they're in some kind of commitment. His enormous grab ranges let him punish small commitments from very far away, and projectliles force those kinds of commitments because people have to approach him.

Tinks d throw does link into up tilt and up smash too, right?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't, unless it's on specific characters at 0 or something.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Why respond if you're not going to read what I said. You don't even know then why I think Link is better, so you say things I've already addressed.

Tink is worse because most of his damage comes from JC bombs, but you can just not commit and shield whenever he has one on the ground. He has no way of threatening shields.

Link doesn't lose to shields and patient play as hard because his projectiles are more about simply forcing approaches so he can punish them with his range.

Mentioning the better kill throw isn't that big of a deal seeing as Link has no troubles killing.

Toon Link's better mobility just makes him better at running away. It doesn't make him more threatening in CQC because they have similar frame data but Link has way more range and better damage on-hit. Link simply doesn't need to run away as much because his CQC is better and his punish range is much longer.

I didn't *literally* stop reading there, it was pretty much an hyperbole.

But: Bombs are not that easily avoided, they're difficult (maybe impossible? haven't really checked) to Powershield, that makes them bounce off your shield and create a falling hitbox you must avoid while Tink now has full control again. He may not be able to threaten your shield, but you can't fight back either. It is a bad thing when he's losing, making him fish for opportunities, but it makes it reaaaaally hard to approach him. Also, Tink won't be JC'ing all the time. he rather hold them until you approach, they're next to explode, or get rid of them by throwing them vertically (down to cover his landing, up to cover mixups). Link's has a similar utility for his Bombs, but for some reason his Bombs are more likely not to explode when hitting the ground.

A better kill throw is important too because if your projectiles lose to shields, then you are forced to use your anti-shield tool, Grab. Link doesn't get as much mileage as Tink with his grab.

I don't really feel like comparing even more specifics, because if one character is better than the other, I don't think it's this kind of black and white.

 

[Fox Is Openly Deceptive]

Fox Is Openly Deceptive you agree with Dre89 about Tink? I think your the best one to bring in this situation

Have you met Zan?
I'm kind of busy atm testing z-axis stuff, so this'll have to be short.

Does anyone else think Toon Link is really overrated

Some people think he's top 20, I think he's closer to low tier. He just does no damage. He loses to shielding and patient play. All of his meaningful damage comes from JC bombs, so when he's holding a bomb on the ground you don't have to commit anything and just shield it. He has no options when he has a bomb in hand other than his other projectiles which also lose to shield.

He has no real way of threatening shields because he has no shield eating moves and his grab is too risky given it has no reward. You don't have to care about getting grabbed until he can kill you with bthrow.

His frame data is also pretty bad for someone of his short range and light weight. I get that it's balanced around his projectile game, but it means he takes like 40% if he ever makes a mistake. Being gimpable just makes matters worse.

He has good stuff too like being fairly mobile and having decent kill set ups but I just don't see what he has against anyone who is patient and knows how to powershield. You just have so much leeway and time to download the player because his damage output is so low.

This wouldn't have anything to do with trying to get an answer to these posts, would it?
http://smashboards.com/threads/the-...-rules-q-a-thread.378930/page-9#post-20572019
http://smashboards.com/threads/isle...cial-skype-group.376731/page-30#post-20577702

But seriously though. You're not wrong in that Toon's low damage output is an issue and it is certainly true that he must approach shields and patient play differently from other members of the cast, but he doesn't outright lose to them because of this. You're wrong about all his meaningful damage coming from JC bombs. I don't know what gave you that idea. And I'd disagree about not having to care about being grabbed until you're at kill percents; if this were the case, people would never bother avoiding them. If you can't see the value in admittedly relatively minor throw (+ pummel) damage putting the opponent from a position of neutral to arguable disadvantage, then maybe you've just been spoiled by smash 4's overall strong grab game.

I don't believe I have anything insightful to say as this is all basic stuff, but here goes.

What you are essentially describing is the obstacle that must be overcome in order to play Toon effectively at all. Much of Toon's game necessarily revolves around safely harassing shields and adopting correct responses (in relation to the choices the opponent makes) in order to break their defence. It's not a simple matter of looking at a bomb in hand blocking your ability to grab and thinking, 'well gee, I guess I can't threaten shields, what now?' or looking at how slow the grab is and how little guaranteed damage you can get out of it and taking that to mean Toon has no answer to shields. While I agree that a good shield-game is absolutely essential for versing Toon, Toon mains are more than well versed at playing around them because of this. What you need to be thinking as Toon is, 'am I in a position where their potential actions OoS are threatening me, and if so, am I currently unable to act?'; if not, what's the problem? Keep safely harassing their shield, or safely throwing out attacks that would hit them if they used an OoS option, all while baiting responses, and then beat the responses, not the shield directly. Then, through conditioning, beating the shield directly with grab or dash grab becomes a perfectly legitimate option too, just to keep them on their toes and keep your momentum going.

The lack of damage output makes Toon very frustrating to use, especially against other characters who can rack up ~60% in the blink of an eye. But just because he is frustrating to use this does not mean he is a bad character. You have to ask, to what exactly should this frustration be directed? The character, or yourself? I know this is a cop out to say 'oh it's the player that is bad, not the character', but it is absolutely a fact that some characters require less effort and less concentration to win with than others, and it is also a fact, last time I checked, that this criteria does not determine tiers. Any character with poor damage output per move, including high tiers, must rely on the player to compensate for it by learning to extend combos/strings, learning to maintain the advantage for as long as possible, learning to win the neutral consistently, learning to seal stocks early/efficiently, and of course learning to avoid unnecessary/avoidable damage yourself. The better the player, the more they'll be able to make use of a character's natural mobility and overall speed to do just that, such that poor damage output per move becomes less of an issue. I believe that Toon's natural mobility and overall speed scrapes by to allow top players to compete with him at a high level, a level that Link will not see.

Link is actually better because he doesn't lose to shielding.

Right, assuming that the opponent isn't interested in the bait and punish game, assuming you've conditioned the opponent to stay in shield which Link is worse at forcing, and also assuming that you yourself haven't been conditioned to not grab for fear that you will whiff and receive a larger punish from the opponent because of your slow and punishable grab.
What Link has is a greater threat attached to his grab, which naturally makes the opponent want to avoid making a habit of standing in shield waiting for you to do something, but this does not = beating shield.

This all stems from the fact that you see the scenario where the opponent is standing in shield waiting for you to do something, as a crippling problem for Toon, which has been addressed above.

He also has better burst against defensive players because of his massive dashgrab

lol no.
I'll put it this way. When you see a Link dash towards you without a bomb, what exactly do you think he's going to do? Dash attack is out of the question; too slow and cumbersome. Link has no good dash rising aerials, so that's not going to happen. Other than simply shielding or stopping and doing something out of a skid, all he's really got is dash grab, which is slow, and now also predictable. Toon on the other hand has a burst dash attack, rising aerials as well as a good ground speed and aerial mobility to reverse his momentum if need be, and he's not afraid of crossing up, e.g. with one of the fastest rolls in the game, or getting in close on occasion where his U-tilt is very threatening. Toon's burst is a threat. Link's is a joke.

and he's better at killing.

I've spoken about this before in some earlier post, but arguably Toon is better at killing. Besides, you said it yourself:

He just has better mobility and better kill set ups.

Sure, Link has stronger Smash attacks, but didn't we find that his "kill setups" out of down throw were avoidable in this thread?

Why wasn't I invited to this party? http://smashboards.com/threads/link...-found-in-the-op.379659/page-35#post-20457552

It doesn't make him more threatening in CQC because they have similar frame data

Yeah, no, there's more to frame data than start-up frames. Care to compare their FAFs?

Bombs are not that easily avoided, they're difficult (maybe impossible? haven't really checked) to Powershield, that makes them bounce off your shield and create a falling hitbox you must avoid

Bomb's can be 'powershielded', but not in the traditional sense. Bombs themselves aren't a hitbox. They merely generate a hitbox, i.e. the bomb blast, so if the bomb hits a shield within three frames, you won't get the 'ting' and you'll still have to go through the 7 frames of shield drop etc, etc. You can however powershield the bomb blast itself if you happen to hit shield on the same frame that the bomb blast hitbox is generated, i.e. the frame after the bomb has detected an enemy hurtbox, and of course you can powershield the explosion if the bomb hits the ground. If however the bomb enters into the shield-sphere before the shield is even up, and then it is 'powershielded', then it behaves differently, which leads me on to the next bit.
When Toon's bomb, not the blast, is shielded in any normal way, i.e. not 'powershielded', it immediately stops trying to detect the hurtbox of the enemy who shielded it. It will then fall to the ground and explode only upon impact with the ground; prior to this, it is harmless. If however the bomb itself is 'powershielded' then it will continue to detect your hurtbox on the way back down, effectively punishing you for being good.

Link doesn't get as much mileage as Tink with his grab.

Link's Throw game is definitely better. See the link above.


Now, back to testing. Leave me alone.

 

[Mili]

Have you met Zan?
I'm kind of busy atm testing z-axis stuff, so this'll have to be short.

This wouldn't have anything to do with trying to get an answer to these posts, would it?
http://smashboards.com/threads/the-...-rules-q-a-thread.378930/page-9#post-20572019
http://smashboards.com/threads/isle...cial-skype-group.376731/page-30#post-20577702

But seriously though. You're not wrong in that Toon's low damage output is an issue and it is certainly true that he must approach shields and patient play differently from other members of the cast, but he doesn't outright lose to them because of this. You're wrong about all his meaningful damage coming from JC bombs. I don't know what gave you that idea. And I'd disagree about not having to care about being grabbed until you're at kill percents; if this were the case, people would never bother avoiding them. If you can't see the value in admittedly relatively minor throw (+ pummel) damage putting the opponent from a position of neutral to arguable disadvantage, then maybe you've just been spoiled by smash 4's overall strong grab game.

I don't believe I have anything insightful to say as this is all basic stuff, but here goes.

What you are essentially describing is the obstacle that must be overcome in order to play Toon effectively at all. Much of Toon's game necessarily revolves around safely harassing shields and adopting correct responses (in relation to the choices the opponent makes) in order to break their defence. It's not a simple matter of looking at a bomb in hand blocking your ability to grab and thinking, 'well gee, I guess I can't threaten shields, what now?' or looking at how slow the grab is and how little guaranteed damage you can get out of it and taking that to mean Toon has no answer to shields. While I agree that a good shield-game is absolutely essential for versing Toon, Toon mains are more than well versed at playing around them because of this. What you need to be thinking as Toon is, 'am I in a position where their potential actions OoS are threatening me, and if so, am I currently unable to act?'; if not, what's the problem? Keep safely harassing their shield, or safely throwing out attacks that would hit them if they used an OoS option, all while baiting responses, and then beat the responses, not the shield directly. Then, through conditioning, beating the shield directly with grab or dash grab becomes a perfectly legitimate option too, just to keep them on their toes and keep your momentum going.

The lack of damage output makes Toon very frustrating to use, especially against other characters who can rack up ~60% in the blink of an eye. But just because he is frustrating to use this does not mean he is a bad character. You have to ask, to what exactly should this frustration be directed? The character, or yourself? I know this is a cop out to say 'oh it's the player that is bad, not the character', but it is absolutely a fact that some characters require less effort and less concentration to win with than others, and it is also a fact, last time I checked, that this criteria does not determine tiers. Any character with poor damage output per move, including high tiers, must rely on the player to compensate for it by learning to extend combos/strings, learning to maintain the advantage for as long as possible, learning to win the neutral consistently, learning to seal stocks early/efficiently, and of course learning to avoid unnecessary/avoidable damage yourself. The better the player, the more they'll be able to make use of a character's natural mobility and overall speed to do just that, such that poor damage output per move becomes less of an issue. I believe that Toon's natural mobility and overall speed scrapes by to allow top players to compete with him at a high level, a level that Link will not see.


Right, assuming that the opponent isn't interested in the bait and punish game, assuming you've conditioned the opponent to stay in shield which Link is worse at forcing, and also assuming that you yourself haven't been conditioned to not grab for fear that you will whiff and receive a larger punish from the opponent because of your slow and punishable grab.
What Link has is a greater threat attached to his grab, which naturally makes the opponent want to avoid making a habit of standing in shield waiting for you to do something, but this does not = beating shield.

This all stems from the fact that you see the scenario where the opponent is standing in shield waiting for you to do something, as a crippling problem for Toon, which has been addressed above.

lol no.
I'll put it this way. When you see a Link dash towards you without a bomb, what exactly do you think he's going to do? Dash attack is out of the question; too slow and cumbersome. Link has no good dash rising aerials, so that's not going to happen. Other than simply shielding or stopping and doing something out of a skid, all he's really got is dash grab, which is slow, and now also predictable. Toon on the other hand has a burst dash attack, rising aerials as well as a good ground speed and aerial mobility to reverse his momentum if need be, and he's not afraid of crossing up, e.g. with one of the fastest rolls in the game, or getting in close on occasion where his U-tilt is very threatening. Toon's burst is a threat. Link's is a joke.

I've spoken about this before in some earlier post, but arguably Toon is better at killing. Besides, you said it yourself:



Why wasn't I invited to this party? http://smashboards.com/threads/link...-found-in-the-op.379659/page-35#post-20457552


Yeah, no, there's more to frame data than start-up frames. Care to compare their FAFs?


Bomb's can be 'powershielded', but not in the traditional sense. Bombs themselves aren't a hitbox. They merely generate a hitbox, i.e. the bomb blast, so if the bomb hits a shield within three frames, you won't get the 'ting' and you'll still have to go through the 7 frames of shield drop etc, etc. You can however powershield the bomb blast itself if you happen to hit shield on the same frame that the bomb blast hitbox is generated, i.e. the frame after the bomb has detected an enemy hurtbox, and of course you can powershield the explosion if the bomb hits the ground. If however the bomb enters into the shield-sphere before the shield is even up, and then it is 'powershielded', then it behaves differently, which leads me on to the next bit.
When Toon's bomb, not the blast, is shielded in any normal way, i.e. not 'powershielded', it immediately stops trying to detect the hurtbox of the enemy who shielded it. It will then fall to the ground and explode only upon impact with the ground; prior to this, it is harmless. If however the bomb itself is 'powershielded' then it will continue to detect your hurtbox on the way back down, effectively punishing you for being good.


Link's Throw game is definitely better. See the link above.


Now, back to testing. Leave me alone.

@Ffamran this wall of text is insane. Pick up your game

Seriously, though, I think FIOD sums up Tink quite well with his options etc. etc.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Fox Is Openly Deceptive

remind me never to pull you out of the lab, dude

(great post)

Smooth Criminal

 

[ぱみゅ]

Great post indeed, it was more enlightening than 99.99% of the posts in this thread.
Now I gotta respect Link's grab more and at the same time I lost some respect for Bombs.

 

[meleebrawler]

With the large amount of viable characters in this game it's easy to fall into the trap of blaming the character you're using for losses, and then thinking all you need to do to win next time is pick a different one.

Mewtwo has this bad. People are almost always ready to come up with SOME excuse for losing that wouldn't happen with X other character. Hit by a powerful move that kills you under 50%? Lost cuz' of Mewtwo's weight. Fatal whiff? Mewtwo's hitboxes are wonky. Fail a recovery? Teleport is jank.

Protip: you would have won or done better with another character more likely because you put in more practice with them. Check your play for things you could have avoided or done differently before chalking it up to your character.

 

[Konneh]

With the large amount of viable characters in this game it's easy to fall into the trap of blaming the character you're using for losses, and then thinking all you need to do to win next time is pick a different one.

Mewtwo has this bad. People are almost always ready to come up with SOME excuse for losing that wouldn't happen with X other character. Hit by a powerful move that kills you under 50%? Lost cuz' of Mewtwo's weight. Fatal whiff? Mewtwo's hitboxes are wonky. Fail a recovery? Teleport is jank.

Protip: you would have won or done better with another character more likely because you put in more practice with them. Check your play for things you could have avoided or done differently before chalking it up to your character.

This is standard in competitive gaming, though. One of the major points of improving is recognizing that you, yourself, are the only factor you can influence in your performance.
This realization is especially hard to make in team-based competitive games (who hasn't heard the infamous "I would be the grandmaster-sensei of this game if it weren't for these stupid teammates who hold me back"?). I would have thought this to be different in 1v1 fighting games when I joined the scene, but alas, a lot of people play low/mid-tier characters or have bad matchups and do actually fall into this mentality.

One very frustrating part about the players stuck at this mental roadblack is their philosophy - "I beat you with [Low/Mid-Tier], so you suck" and "You only beat me because I played [Low/Mid-Tier]" - once you fall into this kind of mindset it's difficult to get out, and difficult to improve, since none of these scenarios leave you with a sense of necessity to sit down and lab things out.

However, these johns you describe also happen a lot with matchups. In my region, for example, there are a few Ness players who don't even try to play my Rosalina anymore and argue the matchup is so terrible that I could play with my feet and still wouldn't lose a stock. But neither do they lab out the MU, nor do they ask me for MU practice or learn a secondary to cover the MU. These guys are actually better than me, but their heads are in the way.

Just don't fall into that mentality. Can't stop other players playing a character you suck against - but you can stop sucking against that character.

 

[meleebrawler]

This is standard in competitive gaming, though. One of the major points of improving is recognizing that you, yourself, are the only factor you can influence in your performance.
This realization is especially hard to make in team-based competitive games (who hasn't heard the infamous "I would be the grandmaster-sensei of this game if it weren't for these stupid teammates who hold me back"?). I would have thought this to be different in 1v1 fighting games when I joined the scene, but alas, a lot of people play low/mid-tier characters or have bad matchups and do actually fall into this mentality.

One very frustrating part about the players stuck at this mental roadblack is their philosophy - "I beat you with [Low/Mid-Tier], so you suck" and "You only beat me because I played [Low/Mid-Tier]" - once you fall into this kind of mindset it's difficult to get out, and difficult to improve, since none of these scenarios leave you with a sense of necessity to sit down and lab things out.

However, these johns you describe also happen a lot with matchups. In my region, for example, there are a few Ness players who don't even try to play my Rosalina anymore and argue the matchup is so terrible that I could play with my feet and still wouldn't lose a stock. But neither do they lab out the MU, nor do they ask me for MU practice or learn a secondary to cover the MU. These guys are actually better than me, but their heads are in the way.

Just don't fall into that mentality. Can't stop other players playing a character you suck against - but you can stop sucking against that character.

You get more angry when you lose in 1v1 games because deep down, you know there's nothing to blame but yourself.

The infamous "braindead character" is also a popular insult for players who can't adapt (Pre-patch Diddy and Luigi were admittedly close to this, though).

Put the work in to beat the things you lose to... or cry for buffs/nerfs.

 

[outfoxd]

You get more angry when you lose in 1v1 games because deep down, you know there's nothing to blame but yourself.

This is probably why mid and low level FPS matches can be so vitriolic. Personal responsibility is hard to deal with.

I'm coming to terms with the fact that i know i can pick Shiek like everybody else and am trying to cry less about my character. I'd like to think it's helping.

 

[Konneh]

I'm coming to terms with the fact that i know i can pick Shiek like everybody else

Why would you, though?
Everyone will know the matchup against you perfectly while you will need to learn every single matchup, which means base matchup knowledge will almost always be favoring the enemy.
Stick to your guns, especially if you're having fun. If not, then you can consider switching them out. But playing DHD or Mario (assuming from your profile) and having fun will yield bigger reward in the long run rather than playing Sheik, having a bad time because you don't like her and quitting the game soon thereafter, especially if you're not a top level player.

 

[outfoxd]

Why would you, though?
Everyone will know the matchup against you perfectly while you will need to learn every single matchup, which means base matchup knowledge will almost always be favoring the enemy.
Stick to your guns, especially if you're having fun. If not, then you can consider switching them out. But playing DHD or Wario (assuming from your profile) and having fun will yield bigger reward in the long run rather than playing Sheik, having a bad time because you don't like her and quitting the game soon thereafter, especially if you're not a top level player.

Oh no, i don't mean I'm switching. Im just using that notion as a reason to stop complaining about my character. If it bothers me really i could play a good character and not make people feel bad about mine.

 

[Dre89]

What people also don't realise is that just because you could have won with the character, doesn't mean they're not weak relative to the rest of the cast.

You can win with lesser characters like Samus and Mewtwo even at a high level of play, but they're still weaker characters.

 

[bc1910]

Some characters are better than others. Basic, but there's no denying it.

So falling into that "trap" is not totally unjustified. Character choice has a massive influence on whether you win or lose a match.

The issues arise, though, when people continue complaining and yet refuse to pick a better character. You need to decide what's most important to you: winning with your favourite character, or winning full stop.

 

[wpwood]

With the large amount of viable characters in this game it's easy to fall into the trap of blaming the character you're using for losses, and then thinking all you need to do to win next time is pick a different one.

a lot of people play low/mid-tier characters or have bad matchups and do actually fall into this mentality.

It's true many of the characters in this game are viable. However I think that with 50+ characters counter-pick characters / secondaries are all the more important, even more so for the low tier character loyalist. I enjoy playing Palutena and she's one of my favorite Nintendo characters, but I suck at the Fox MU with her. Fox is probably Palutena's worse MU so why would I use her against a Fox? Honestly I wouldn't because the way to play that MU is against Palutena from the start. That's why I play Peach. Peach may not straight up beat Fox but the MU is easier and helps with other weaker MUs as well, plus I also enjoy playing Peach so win win.

Honestly I think counter-pick characters / secondaries should be a bigger thing. If you know your character is bad in a MU why take them into that MU? Sure character loyalty and all, but if I was a loyal Ness main why the **** would I take Ness into the Rosa match?

There are MUs I can win with Palutena and I'll play Palutena in them, but there are also MUs she looses and I'll play Peach in those MUs. People can blame their character for being bad, but some MUs are just hard for a character and they should come to terms with that.

 

[Thinkaman]

Yes, some characters are better than others. Yes, you can still win with a weaker character. Yes, that doesn't mean their not weaker. Yes, that doesn't mean you didn't win. Yes, but it's still true.

We've seen this rerun before. It's Squirtles all the way down.

If we had hard win-rate data sorted by skill level thresholds and controlling for key environmental factors, we could slap a number on things and be done with this endless jitterbug. But we don't, so we can't, and thus the bugs jitter onward. Alas.


Re: Secondaries -- Counters might be more important if we had any idea what they were. Like, we can't agree on how bad the Ness vs. Rosa matchup actually is; how are we supposed to conclude which matchups actually require a counter-pick, much less what those matchups actually are?

Honestly, maybe I'm a weird case, but it's more beneficial for me to counterpick placestyles than opposing characters. I played a good Fox in Sweden who could beat my Mac, but I could beat with Ness. At EVO, Ish's Fox handled my Ness pretty well, but I was able to beat with Mac.

In Brawl, there was even an event in which I counter-picked Ganondorf into a Marth non-ironically. He was wrecking my main(s), and Marth wrecked Ganon even more. However, I was making key reads on him every time (just not enough to win), and I knew in my heart of hearts that Ganon (and only Ganon) would be able to convert those free hard reads into stocks. And it worked.

Sorry that this is abstract, and may be difficult to break down into actionable advice. But the road of blindly counter-picking characters is paved mostly with tears and the rest with surprises. After all, the most successful counter-pick character in the history of Smash 4 is Doctor Mario.

 

[Big-Cat]

Some characters are better than others. Basic, but there's no denying it.

So falling into that "trap" is not totally unjustified. Character choice has a massive influence on whether you win or lose a match.

The issues arise, though, when people continue complaining and yet refuse to pick a better character. You need to decide what's most important to you: winning with your favourite character, or winning full stop.

For me, I went with the former. Bowser, like 80% of the cast (statistic I made up on the spot), is not even close to being optimized. So what do I do? Put research time into him. So far, my results are interesting. If anyone's interested I'll post later.

 

[Amadeus9]

There's only like 20 top-high level play viable fighters in this game. The meme that every fighter in this game is quality and viable needs to end. even the power gap between top 10 and top 20 is huge, look at how much harder yoshi/ike/falcon mains have to work at all stages of their gameplay than, say, sheik/zss/rosa/mario.

 

[TTTTTsd]

There's only like 20 top-high level play viable fighters in this game. The meme that every fighter in this game is quality and viable needs to end. even the power gap between top 10 and top 20 is huge, look at how much harder yoshi/ike/falcon mains have to work at all stages of their gameplay than, say, sheik/zss/rosa/mario.

I mean this isn't entirely untrue but I don't think anyone thinks every character is solo-viable at top/high level at all. If they do well uh....k.

But I do think counterpicks and player specific stuff like Thinkaman said will always have some sort of edge. I think if you look at solo viability the list isn't wide, but when you look at the kind of things you can do with say, a good character and a secondary to cover anything annoying...the possibilities expand greatly. It's happened before at the top/high level in this regard, perceived bad characters having interesting niche matchup coverage. It's really fascinating and it's probably where it's going to end up going, personally.

Also it's funny that you mention Doc as the most successful CP Thinkaman, even Koolaid did it vs. Dugan. Pretty interesting stuff....

 

[Smooth Criminal]

There's only like 20 top-high level play viable fighters in this game. The meme that every fighter in this game is quality and viable needs to end. even the power gap between top 10 and top 20 is huge, look at how much harder yoshi/ike/falcon mains have to work at all stages of their gameplay than, say, sheik/zss/rosa/mario.

I...don't think anybody champions that notion of everyone being viable, but it is evident that the disparity in this game is less than its predecessors. To what degree, well, we don't even have all the ****ing characters yet AND we might have future patches still, soooooo...

And lol at the notion of Falcon mains having to "work hard."

Smooth Criminal

 

[Amadeus9]

Largely this was in regard to the Link discussion I so unfortunately just missed. Every low tier main likes to say that they have some untapped secret potential. It's been more than a year. Where is this potential exactly?

 

[TTTTTsd]

Largely this was in regard to the Link discussion I so unfortunately just missed. Every low tier main likes to say that they have some untapped secret potential. It's been more than a year. Where is this potential exactly?

Well assuming I still mained Doc (2ndary now) I'd have a source for this "potential", heh. Link though? I have no idea, but a lot of the discussion wasn't really about Link's untapped potential so much as it was Tink vs. Link. I could be reading it wrong but I think that was mostly what was going on, unless someone said something and I missed it, perhaps...

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Largely this was in regard to the Link discussion I so unfortunately just missed. Every low tier main likes to say that they have some untapped secret potential. It's been more than a year. Where is this potential exactly?

Define "low tier" main for me real quick, 'cause I don't think we have anything remotely hammered down in terms of an actual tier list.

Wasn't sarcasm on my end, just to clarify.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Jamurai]

I mean this isn't entirely untrue but I don't think anyone thinks every character is solo-viable at top/high level at all. If they do well uh....k.

I...don't think anybody champions that notion of everyone being viable,..

Most of the people who frequent this thread/are fairly involved in competitive Smash probably don't think this, but outside of that there is definitely some notion that the majority of the cast can do well 'with enough work and dedication'. People throw the phrase 'solid mid tier' in arguments about the viability of lacklustre characters (eg. Kirby, Lucas) like it's a good thing to be, when in reality that's actually getting towards the bottom end of solo viable characters, at the very best; some think only the top 15 or so have a decent chance of winning nationals.

As for some definitions of tiers... obviously nothing is set in stone so this is essentially my opinion only:
Borderline between high/mid tier: , around the 20th best mark
Borderline between mid/low tier: , around the 33rd best mark?
The only definite "bottom tiers": (assuming default 1111)

^ Oops, red topic... My b. I only hope I don't derail the thread by facilitating discussion about it.

 

[wpwood]

but it's more beneficial for me to counterpick placestyles than opposing characters.

In the case of playstyles other characters do work better against different playstyles. Ganon is (possibly) the best character with a perfect (I said PERFECT) read game. If you can read your opponents play then you know what character to counter that play, but you also want to choose a character that doesn't struggle too much in the match and one that you understand. You can't just pick a counter character (except maybe Rosa vs Ness); you have to know and practice the character. Nairo practiced the Dr. Mario vs Pika MU and it payed off for him. In the future we should see some more cases like this with other characters as well. This game is just over a year old and are still getting balance patches so more and more characters may prove their worth in niche MUs.

There's only like 20 top-high level play viable fighters in this game. The meme that every fighter in this game is quality and viable needs to end. even the power gap between top 10 and top 20 is huge, look at how much harder yoshi/ike/falcon mains have to work at all stages of their gameplay than, say, sheik/zss/rosa/mario.

Most people don't put Doc in the top 20, but he beat a character many say to be top 5. It's the niche MUs and special tools that makes a character viable. Nearly everyone put Doc a little higher on their tier list after that match but that's a single MU not overall character use. Palutena has 2 invincible moves and they honestly make her better. She's not top 20 but she can win a few MUs with what she has. Sure some characters have to work harder, but that doesn't mean they can't win and it doesn't mean they're any less viable. Yeah it's a pain in the *** for some characters, but they can win. It's that they can win that makes them viable.

Define "low tier" main for me real quick, 'cause I don't think we have anything remotely hammered down in terms of an actual tier list.

Wasn't sarcasm on my end, just to clarify.

Smooth Criminal

On the subject of tier list, do E and F tier even exist in this game. Sure it's there to show that some characters are bad, but that's not really the point of the tier part of a tier list. It's to show if a character could potentially win a tournament or help to win a tournament with secondaries and counter pick characters. If a Doc can beat a Pika then do E and F tier even exist. I feel this game is the top tiers, the high tiers, and then the mid tiers. The bottom tiers are really just the bottom of mid tier. Making a tier list for this game is probably impossible. The placements of the mid tiers are so varied and there are so many that to give an accurate representation is nearly impossible. A MU chart would be much better in the case of smash 4. I know was attempted to be made, but I don't know the final results of it.

 

[Y2Kay]

I've noticed this weird trend where link mains seem to mostly think link is about just as good as toon link

 

[bc1910]

I don't believe there's any need for a large number of tiers in this game. Call them D, E, F, whatever. I've said it before, but there are only three groups that matter.

Viable - can comfortably place well at or win tournaments solo. Sheik, ZSS, Mario etc. There are about 10 characters in this group.

Semi-viable - either do nearly as well as viable characters OR can do just as well but require some (preferably limited) use of a secondary. Falcon, Peach, Greninja, Yoshi, characters of that caliber. About 15 characters, possibly 20 being generous to guys like Toon Link, Robin and G&W.

Unviable - everyone else. The remaining ~30 characters.

I believe every character can fit quite comfortably into one of these categories and, at this point, there's not much room for arguing which category a character belongs in. Note that "unviable" does not exactly mean "unviable", it's just a blanket term to describe characters who aren't as likely to win as those above them.

Yes, you could argue the existence of a D or E tier. Zelda and Jigglypuff in particular seem to be quite a bit worse than the rest of the cast. But does it really matter? There is a large group of characters who are unlikely to make a splash at a big tournament and your ranking within that group is sorta moot until you reach the ones like, I dunno, Bowser, who do have a few results to back up claims that they're semi-viable. Or Toon Link/Robin if you consider them unviable.

 

[Nobie]

A YEAR? People think a YEAR is enough time to tap the full potential of a character?

I'm not even talking about new technology, mastering existing technology, or learning frame data. Cut that out of the equation for now. Let's even remove the patches and shield stun changes, etc.

It took players like, 6 months to even start to properly exploit holes in the opponent's gameplay. Why were so many players fairly passive at Apex 2015? It's because they didn't have the awareness of their own characters in a whole lot of situations, and were unwilling to take risks on uncertain things (common in competitive play of anything). The secret ingredients were time and diffusion of knowledge.

A lot of the talk on this page so far has essentially been about not thinking of the characters merely in terms of themselves but also their players. Players and characters exist together in games, and regardless if your character is tippity top tier or bottom of the barrel tier, even if they've got the easiest tech in the world, the process of learning a character is as much about you as it is the character itself.

One question that comes up then is, would it be even worth it to master a low tier character? Why not put that effort into a better one, one that you know will bring you success? Obviously that's a personal choice based on your goals in playing Smash, but you don't then turn around and go, "Well I tapped the full potential of the low tier character, even though I only played 'em for a year!" You can predict that even played to perfection that they'll never truly go anywhere, but that's still only a prediction and not actual time spent.

Two more things:

First, has anyone watched the new Snake Eyez documentary series from Red Bull? For those who don't know, he's a Street Fighter player, and he traveled to Japan recently to practice. In the documentary, his mentor Alex Valle (one of the greatest SF players ever) mentions that going to Japan changes you, because there people don't just play to win, they play to perfect their characters, and it changes the way you think about the game. Ultimately, Snake Eyez came away from it developing a new counterpick character for his bad matchups (so it's not like the lesson learned was TIERS DON'T MATTER), but he also learned to incorporate that knowledge into Zangief, which is his primary character.

Second, last night Mew2King was streaming, and he mentioned that he will never be as deep into Smash 4 as he would be in Brawl, PM, or especially Melee. This is because, due to the unique mechanics of Smash 4 (the tendency towards more standardized combos and the changes to ledge play), the game takes away the primary tools he's used to differentiate himself as a top Smasher. It's also probably why he has such trouble choosing a main: the game itself doesn't cater to his greatest strengths. Some might take this as a criticism of Smash 4, but I saw it more as a top competitor aware of his key talents who still can't find that right marriage of character and player for his unique qualities in Smash 4.

 

[Thinkaman]

Actionable advice:

You cannot allow opponents to beat you by counter-picking characters they don't play. If you play Ness, you have to be prepared to stomp anyone who picks Rosalina but doesn't actually play her.

In Brawl, I played Jigglypuff, who had known atrocious matchups against G&W and Marth. I picked up Ness for G&W and PT for Marth, but only for dedicated mains of those characters. For Joe Blow the Diddy main who just knows who I play, and wants to cp an easy win? No, you can't allow yourself to be bullied; what are you going to do, just keep your character a secret from the community, or never play your "main" game 1?

You HAVE to be able to beat random people blind picking your counters. You HAVE to, it's a requirement to play your character.

Beyond that, how far you are willing to cope with problem matchups vs. (investing in a secondary) is up to you.

Just remember that counter-picking is only valuable if you have spend significantly more effort developing your counter-picks than your opponent, because the situation of dealing with a bad matchup is exactly the challenge you are reversing upon them.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I...don't think anybody champions that notion of everyone being viable, but it is evident that the disparity in this game is less than its predecessors.

Not sure if I can agree with that if I look at the disparity between ZSS and Zelda.

 

[Nobie]

So the Final Smash Direct is tomorrow, and with it likely comes a new patch either sooner or later. I don't want to fill this thread with balance what-ifs (even if they're fun), but I think we should all be reminded of something BIG:

This would be the first balance patch since the shield stun changes.

Think about it: outside of nerfing a few shield breaking techniques, and some move buffs here and there, the shield stun changes were applied to the game's existing balance. I get the feeling that what we'll be seeing is now a refinement based on better understanding of the repercussions of the last patch. I'm curious to see where it'll all go.

Not sure if I can agree with that if I look at the disparity between ZSS and Zelda.

I believe that Ice Climbers vs. Ganondorf was considered close to a 10:0 matchup in Brawll.

And have you SEEN Bowser vs. Sheik in Melee?

If you think Zelda is helpless against Sheik in Smash 4 on a level even close to those, I don't know what to say.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I believe that Ice Climbers vs. Ganondorf was considered close to a 10:0 matchup in Brawl.

And have you SEEN Bowser vs. Sheik in Melee?

If you think Zelda is helpless against Sheik in Smash 4 on a level even close to those, I don't know what to say.

Having a 70:30 matchup is basically the same as having an 100:0 matchup in the context of competitive play.

 

[Zelder]

Having a 70:30 matchup is basically the same as having an 100:0 matchup in the context of competitive play.

I agree with this, though I've seen Snake Eye's Zangief defeat Sanford Kelly's Sagat in SF4, which I've often seen placed in the 70:30. I don't think that would ever happen with the fabeled 90:10/100:0 matchup (O. Sagat vs Zangief, lol).

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I agree with this, though I've seen Snake Eye's Zangief defeat Sanford Kelly's Sagat in SF4, which I've often seen placed in the 70:30. I don't think that would ever happen with the fabeled 90:10/100:0 matchup (O. Sagat vs Zangief, lol).

The ideal revolves around two players with excellent skill and matchup knowledge. Regardless, matchup (in)experience and the hardest reads can still make a difference, even at top-level play. I mean, anything is possible...

 

[Nobie]

Having a 70:30 matchup is basically the same as having an 100:0 matchup in the context of competitive play.

So I have some honest questions that might also bleed into a discussion game design theory.

I've seen the sentiment you've described before, that a 7:3 is effectively a 10:0 in competitive play. However, when looking at other fighting game communities I rarely if ever see this assumption. A character who has a few 3:7 matchups but is otherwise solid is considered competitive. The only community I've seen more sensitive to imbalance has been the Starcraft community, where a 5.5:4.5 matchup is considered a travesty.

@Emblem Lord once said that this has to do with differences in engines. In a game like Super Turbo, even if a character has a 2:8 matchup, they've got a fighting chance because everyone hits like a truck and you only need one chance.

So when it comes to Smash, what exactly makes a 3:7 matchup unwinnable? Is it on some level the community itself, and the general philosophy around competition that has developed with in it? Is it that a game based on stocks and a differentiation between damage and kill moves causes leads to widen, especially if there's no easy way to score early KOs? Is is that, even if you feel that you have a fighting chance in a 3:7 matchup, that a stage counterpick can quickly plummet that down to a 2:8 or worse?