Character Competitive Impressions

[Road Death Wheel]

Right, but it is not our responsibility to advocate others to use certain characters with the definite assertion that they'll have as much a chance at winning as a top tier. We aren't comfortable saying such things, which is a good thing.

Players can dedicate themselves to advancing a certain character's metagame. They can also dedicate themselves to winning. They may end up winning once they've developed a character's metagame far enough and gotten good enough at the game to make them work. That's great. But WILL that happen? We don't know, and we aren't going to turn the discussion into a comfort-fest just to make them feel like their main is a secure tournament-winning pick.


Nobody is saying people shouldn't bother playing anything other than top tiers. They're saying, if your prime goal is to win, then using top tier characters is how you do so consistently. We cannot apologize, that's how every competitive game works. We're not obnoxious enough to pretend Smash is different.

Yes, the 'top tier' place is still in contention, but that's not the issue anyone has. The issue is that people don't like the 'feeling' that top tiers provide a better chance of success for the majority of tournament competitors. You can't drag us into a discussion about that, though, because that's a topic for competitive multi-character/class games on a larger scale.

1) You can win as a less popular/effective character by being better than your opponent.

2) You can unlock the potential of a character and reveal that they're higher tier than we thought.

Those are two different things, though.

In the first instance (1), you are a player doing well with a suboptimal character. You'd likely do better with a character who has more options, more kill power, more safety, more evasiveness, more counter-strats, and more versatility. But you don't need to, since you do so well with your main.

In the second instance (2), you are a player who is taking a character people think isn't too good and going to the lab. You find ways to escape combos from high tier characters, you find attacks that out-prioritize with Sonic's spindash, you find mobility options that let you remain unpredictable, you find approaches that are safe on shield, you find ways to hit-confirm into a KO move, you find ways to trap landings, you find ways to get early KOs consistently, etc. Thus, you actually transform the character and evolve their metagame.

The second instance is VERY CRUCIAL right now, and what I advocate for. But I do not advocate for playing characters without such metagame-developing potential (we aren't new to Smash, this is the third game with a serious competitive following - we can tell where potential lies).

This is why people can tell Olimar/DK/Falcon/Fox/TLink/Wario/Luigi are likely very good and can MAYBE consistently do well in tournaments. But only IF their metagame continues developing and continues looking promising. If they keep coming up with answers against the currently dominating characters, then they may become more and more prominent and become top tiers themselves. But if this doesn't happen, we are not to blame. Nobody is. We didn't design this thing.

to bad nobdy was arguing this.

 

[Hippieslayer]

now that not what i was doing Conda and u know that. Talking about where the meta is going is all fine and dandy but thats was not not what set me off if you read the first reply i made in this. Iv always been fine with the play a top tier. But Like i was saying is that some people simply are not compatible with the top tiers and play worse. This is a true thing Look at ryuga. now would u advise him from making possile strides and impacts in the meta several ikes are making of course you would not conda because i know your not like that. But some folks here were advising that and thats my problem. if i play Fatties who on the top tier spectrum would u recomend? I Play significantly worse with shiek And iv spent my first 2 months of the game with her before i droped her.
All i was trying to desplay was Player Prefference and Time and commintment make the difference in prefformance. the whole pick a top tier advise for me never worked. And im happy developing the meta for samus, pit, and dk.
Its not this whole butt hurt "truth to much for me" thing ur making it out to be. ( thats just how i feel ur trying to make it across as im very well aware this may not be your intent)
And I swear if you honestly think anybody in this thread EVER gave the "go git em" advise without at least trying to explain the weakness or what that character does positivly.
...Really?

*edit* i guess everybody has to be the bad guy at some point lol
its okay if you dont agree with me conda and if you feel im wanting to spread some mis information witch if u honeslty think im doing well i feel like i just wasted 200+ pages on here, pick a top tier is you wana win deal with it, i have what i cant stand is people devaluing peoples work with other characters witch set me off. if you think we should start doing soo (witch i dont think u do, unless i greatly missinterpreted u) ill just i dunno go?

Ryuga and Will.. those are exceptions to the rule (how much have we even seen from Ryuga? not nearly enough for him to be used in your argument here). They aren't particularly relevant and they don't really matter in the context of this argument. Moreover, your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. If you were better with fatties than with Shiek then that's because one or more of the follow reasons:

-you aren't good enough
-the people you play against aren't good enough
-you don't play shiek the right way
-you are a rare exception to the rule like will
-you put more effort into said fatty


Player preference isn't even the right word. Your talking about players compatibility. Of course time and commitment matter, but that's also completely irrelevant. Time and commitment spent on a good character yields more than time and commitment spent on a bad character. All you are doing is pointing out highly unlikely scenarios to discredit Conda making a generalization that applies to almost all people all the time. It makes no sense. If you were to encounter a Tiger would you then think "well perhaps it's a nice tiger that's been tamed by humans and isn't going to eat me" and then go ahead and attempt to cuddle with it? Because that's about as likely to not get you eaten as you consistently winning with a fatty versus top players.

Conda isn't devaluating anybodies work with any character. He's calling you out on your irrational pep talking. I'm sure he appreciates effort being put into weaker characters as much as anybody else, why wouldn't he?

I don't know you or Conda, I just read through these last pages and it's starting to get really repetitive seeing Conda having to repeat himself over and over like this.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Those are exceptions to the rule. They aren't particularly relevant and they don't really matter in the context of this argument. Moreover, your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. If you were better with fatties than with Shiek then that's because one or more of the follow reasons:

-you aren't good enough
-the people you play against aren't good enough
-you don't play shiek the right way
-you are a rare exception to the rule like will
-you put more effort into said fatty


Player preference isn't even the right word. Your talking about players compatibilities. Of course time and commitment matter, but that's also completely irrelevant.

Conda isn't devaluating anybodies work with any character. He's calling you out on your irrational pep talking. I'm sure he appreciates effort being put into weaker characters as much as anybody else, why wouldn't he?

I don't know you or Conda, I just read through these last pages and it's starting to get really repetitive seeing Conda having to repeat himself over and over like this.

DID I EVER SAY CONDA WAS DOING ANYTHING!!!!!!!
this is how i know people are like half assing when reading my posts.
i even said conda would not do somthing like that IN my post. nobody reads nowadays

 

[Trieste SP]

Sounds like you've seriously ignored the past few pages that has not directly involved you. I suggest you go back and look at the argument on whether or not people should just play top tiers or not.

That said, I feel the confrontation is missing the point, but also unnecessary. Because while I agree the point of this thread is to talk about what's happening in tournaments, no one has been debating against that. The point of the post you originally quoted is characters that are currently not top tiers should still be played on the chance that their highest optimal playstyle could be as strong as a current top tier characters.

I've already said ages ago that regardless of what beliefs we have, there are going to be characters that are going to be limiting your skill. I know that as a fact with Mario in Brawl and I'm not optimistic at all for Smash 4 that this game won't be dominated by a select number of characters. So yes, if your goal is to win, you pick a top tier, no question.

However, I've never seen anyone debating this fact. So I'm not sure what this parade is all about.

I agree. The are just some characters that are gonna limit your skill. My personal experience from going mii swordfighter in a local tourney. But lost to a sonic.

 

[warionumbah2]

Aaaaaaaaanyway... what do you guys think of MK? Gotta change this long ass banter like Jesus.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Aaaaaaaaanyway... what do you guys think of MK? Gotta change this long *** banter like Jesus.

......Being slept on.

 

[Hippieslayer]

DID I EVER SAY CONDA WAS DOING ANYTHING!!!!!!!
this is how i know people are like half assing when reading my posts.
i even said conda would not do somthing like that IN my post. nobody reads nowadays

Yep you did:

"*edit* i guess everybody has to be the bad guy at some point lol
its okay if you dont agree with me conda and if you feel im wanting to spread some mis information witch if u honeslty think im doing well i feel like i just wasted 200+ pages on here, pick a top tier is you wana win deal with it, i have what i cant stand is people devaluing peoples work with other characters witch set me off. if you think we should start doing soo (witch i dont think u do, unless i greatly missinterpreted u) ill just i dunno go?"

There? Also are you seriously going to accuse people of not reading your posts properly when you write them so sloppily they are barely comprehensible in places? You shouldn't. If the above wasn't you trying to imply that what Conda was saying was devaluating other peoples work then you don't know what you are writing. I get that you also said that he didn't mean to do so. But you still said he was doing that in practice, whether you meant to or not.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

I honestly thought about it since I like his options and how he feels, but I decided to take the path of least resistance and go Sheik.

I can't do Sheik. I need a sword.
Only reason I sometimes touch Kirby is because of melee nostalgia from being what 8 or 9 I can't even remember and eating my cousins Roy....before I then watched Aniki's Link and dropped Kirby like a stone.

Granted Sheiks legs seem to function like swords but you know....its the flavor of things.

 

[Hippieslayer]

Aaaaaaaaanyway... what do you guys think of MK? Gotta change this long *** banter like Jesus.

Low tier, mid tier at best. Lack of range, projectiles and horizontal speed means he can't do much with what little he has and is never going to be able to stand a change against a large part of the cast.

 

[Z'zgashi]

WHYYUYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

MK is EASILY in the middle group, cmon man, youre better than that.

 

[warionumbah2]

Low tier, mid tier at best. Lack of range, projectiles and horizontal speed means he can't do much with what little he has and is never going to be able to stand a change against a large part of the cast.

His range isn't even that much of a problem since his moves(other than DA) are disjointed. How is not having a projectile a bad thing? His ground options are pretty solid and can rack up percent pretty well and can seal kills pretty reliably. Only characters he'll never stand a chance against is most probably the top, everyone else is winnable or in his favor with a few bad match ups here and there.

 

[Nu~]

WHYYUYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

MK is EASILY in the middle group, cmon man, youre better than that.

And I can EASILY see pacman in the Lower part of high tier (Maybe higher with customs). But opinions are just that

 

[Antonykun]

Mega man's learning curve is high...until you completely change the way you normally play the game. Once you throw conventional smash play out the window, he works like a charm.
...no wonder...after playing him and pac-man (the only trap/setup archetype on the roster, much like joker in injustice), no one else on the roster feels right XD

not even Villager, the other trap/set-up in this game?

 

[Conda]

Yep you did:

"*edit* i guess everybody has to be the bad guy at some point lol
its okay if you dont agree with me conda and if you feel im wanting to spread some mis information witch if u honeslty think im doing well i feel like i just wasted 200+ pages on here, pick a top tier is you wana win deal with it, i have what i cant stand is people devaluing peoples work with other characters witch set me off. if you think we should start doing soo (witch i dont think u do, unless i greatly missinterpreted u) ill just i dunno go?"

There? Also are you seriously going to accuse people of not reading your posts properly when you write them so sloppily they are barely comprehensible in places? You shouldn't. If the above wasn't you trying to imply that what Conda was saying was devaluating other peoples work then you don't know what you are writing. I get that you also said that he didn't mean to do so. But you still said he was doing that in practice, whether you meant to or not.

Thanks for that Hippie. To @ Road Death Wheel - I'm an advocate for taking characters seriously and going to the lab with them. However, that doesn't mean you'll yield results that makes the character super competitively viable at tournaments and allow you to win consistently. I've created guides on many things, some of those are guides to Samus (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ww-X2NJj4) and Pit/DPit (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS0fvvI1RBs ).

I'm a huge advocate for players who take the development of their characters seriously and want to see what they can do. The point isn't always to assure yourself that your character, as a result of your labbing with them, will be able to go up against optimally played high-top tier threats. But that's not always the point of going to the lab. It's just fun sometimes, even if the character still really ain't all that great in the competitive 1v1 format.

 

[Nu~]

not even Villager, the other trap/set-up in this game?

He's more of a high class zoner. More of a trap char with customs on though (*shudders* that tripping sprout)
But his game mostly revolves around keeping the opponent out, then using traps to kill. Pac-man uses rediculous amount of traps even in nuetral to steal all options from the opponent.

Edit: actually, villager is the other trap character. They just differ a bit. Villager is a trap character, but also a great zoner who wants the opponent out of his bubble. Pac-man has more traps, but less of a zoning game. However, he is much more well rounded than typical trap chars. Also, his tools can be used against him if you use them individually, but his traps are inescapable and very powerful when you combine his tools.

 

[Emblem Lord]

I can't do Sheik. I need a sword.
Only reason I sometimes touch Kirby is because of melee nostalgia from being what 8 or 9 I can't even remember and eating my cousins Roy....before I then watched Aniki's Link and dropped Kirby like a stone.

Granted Sheiks legs seem to function like swords but you know....its the flavor of things.

I'm all about control characters and thats what she is so im right at home.

 

[Shaya]

WHYYUYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

MK is EASILY in the middle group, cmon man, youre better than that.

It was already something which was of most resistance in placing him there. Tyrant's MK is pretty amazing, he has the ground speed and tools to play toe to toe with everything. So with that in mind, yeah, probably.



-

It can be insulting to say you're masochistic. But from experience of many people who've tried that slog, it is generally quite demoralising when you're facing something 'insurmountable' (it happens to them all eventually) and/or are having to work so much harder than your opponent it is a mental and physical strain in tournament. That's the joke of it really, to continue through it can only be attributed to 'masochism', I think another way to put it is being addicted to that feeling of pulling it off, that euphoric high; no matter the 'trauma' that comes with it.

Oh but the irony here is that it's still all the same feelings, no matter the character really, just the rates and likelihoods, self-pride and esteem associated with certain choices is more amicable. "Oh my god Will won with DK" goes louder than the same achievement from the meta knight or ice climber.

~

Is Will doing things consistently for us in Smash 4 to consider DK a true tournament threat? There's bias and oft hypocrisy in every person's interpreting, but I'm personally not really set on thinking a character is solid until I see multiple events with hopefully multiple different players.

 

[Nobie]

Honest question: how would you define "winning consistently?"

 

[san.]

I'm really only swayed by my own thoughts on characters that I see vs. my knowledge and expectation of them since general knowledge on characters are pretty low.

I am curious what optimally played Diddy means. Does it mean not dropping punishments or are there combo setups or pressure situations that weren't known before?

 

[meleebrawler]

His Dair, even with it's range nerfs, is still a heck of a pressure move when used right.

One of the safest things Meta Knight can do is use his multiple jumps and ward off his opponents
with repeated Dairs.

Thanks for that Hippie. To @ Road Death Wheel - I'm an advocate for taking characters seriously and going to the lab with them. However, that doesn't mean you'll yield results that makes the character super competitively viable at tournaments and allow you to win consistently. I've created guides on many things, some of those are guides to Samus (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ww-X2NJj4) and Pit/DPit (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS0fvvI1RBs ).

I'm a huge advocate for players who take the development of their characters seriously and want to see what they can do. The point isn't always to assure yourself that your character, as a result of your labbing with them, will be able to go up against optimally played high-top tier threats. But that's not always the point of going to the lab. It's just fun sometimes, even if the character still really ain't all that great in the competitive 1v1 format.

Fun.

Isn't that what games were made for? No matter how much is at stake when you play
them, you having fun doing it should always be a part of the reason you do. Trying to just win
and finding the most efficient ways to do so at all costs is a great way to suck said fun out.
There's nothing wrong with practicing hard and striving to be the best you can be, just don't let
it cloud everything around you. Basically, if you have more fun with characters that have been deemed
worse than others, don't let the fear of losing discourage you from playing them. There'll always be some
people to support you.

-

It can be insulting to say you're masochistic. But from experience of many people who've tried that slog, it is generally quite demoralising when you're facing something 'insurmountable' (it happens to them all eventually) and/or are having to work so much harder than your opponent it is a mental and physical strain in tournament. That's the joke of it really, to continue through it can only be attributed to 'masochism', I think another way to put it is being addicted to that feeling of pulling it off, that euphoric high; no matter the 'trauma' that comes with it.

You just described Zelda in a nutshell.

 

[Conda]

Honest question: how would you define "winning consistently?"

Winning, but consistently.

Meaning other great players see Will's DK and decide "I'll try him out", and they do, and they take their DK to a tournament, and do well. And other players follow suit. DK ends up being a means to an end - tournament success. Voila, DK shows consistent results.

This doesn't have to be 'wins' of course, if DK can consistently place top 16 or even 8 that'd be impressive. If counterplay doesn't rule him out and he remains consistent in his placing even when dealing with counter-strats, then he goes up in the tier lists. It's as simple as that.

This is how it goes with character popularity. For tournament goers, a character becomes popular if it provides them the tools to succeed versus other competitors. The 'metagame' changes when players often use certain characters, and thus what strats you must adapt to overcome 'your competitiors' are more defined.

The drawback is that the more popular a character is, the more strategies players form in order to face off against that character. A character becomes broken when counter strats don't really work and the popular character can continue dominating, even when their competitors successfuly implement skilled counterplay.



--

His Dair, even with it's range nerfs, is still a heck of a pressure move when used right.

One of the safest things Meta Knight can do is use his multiple jumps and ward off his opponents
with repeated Dairs.



Fun.

Isn't that what games were made for? No matter how much is at stake when you play
them, you having fun doing it should always be a part of the reason you do. Trying to just win
and finding the most efficient ways to do so at all costs is a great way to suck said fun out.
There's nothing wrong with practicing hard and striving to be the best you can be, just don't let
it cloud everything around you. Basically, if you have more fun with characters that have been deemed
worse than others, don't let the fear of losing discourage you from playing them.

Right, , but if you're playing to have fun and don't want to switch mains to win, then you should be alright with not winning. It's not a big deal, but being honest with oneself about why we make the decisions we do is very important. Nobody deserves to win just for having fun and making fun-focused decisions, though.

Tournaments are SUPER FUN as social gaming events. If you don't care about winning, it's really not a big deal and people here really don't care about it as much as some people expect us to. We don't feel the need to cozy the people who are worried about their low tier mains, because we assume they're still going to tournaments and having fun (and improving, of course).

I can go play Kirby at tournaments if I want. I kind of suck and Kirby kind of isn't amazing, but I'm having fun so it's all worth it. The problem is if I complain when I lose, and then I complain when people online say "Kirby isn't the best character to use to win" and I argue "Kirby is awesome, stop."
This would be lame of me, and driven by an insecurity fuelled by the things @ Shaya said a couple posts up about the ups and downs of maining a 'lower-effectiveness' character.

-

So why would I argue that Kirby is being slept on and is secret high-tier, if I don't care about winning? If my goal is to have fun and not worry about winning or losing, then why would I have a problem with people telling me their educated impressions on the character I use? When posting in threads like these, we have to not bring our insecurities over character selection in. I cannot complain about Kirby if I'm losing as Kirby, especially if I tell myself I play 'for fun'.

If I don't play to win, then that's awesome - but that doesn't make me better or more moralistic than anyone else who plays to 'win'. I'm sure ZeRo has fun schooling people with Diddy - that's his kind of fun. Who is to say he's wrong for choosing Diddy, and my path of playing Kirby at tournaments 'for fun' is the better way to go?

Note: I don't play Kirby in tournaments. This was all hypothetical to make the post hopefully relatable and helpful for readers.

 

[Antonykun]

This is a question that has been on my mind but how does one go to the lab? I think I might be able to develop Swordifhter this way (Uhg my noobiness is showing)

 

[Balgorxz]

COMPLETELY UNORDERED hooray.
As time goes on and basic metas are set out for the 'lower half' characters, the harder it seems to differentiate them. Is sword fighter losing to everyone? Ganondorf and Zelda in Brawl legitimately lost to everyone, badly. While I'm pretty sure most of these characters aren't having fun against "top tiers" (no one is though, in truth) they aren't losing terribly in and around the middle point and lower. Even without a solid standing in singles, most characters have amazing abilities in doubles.
I think I'm officially not enthused by Yoshi at the moment. I'm starting to have a [brawl] g&w inkling, although he's winning a lot of this game's match ups easily he just doesn't seem to be performing anywhere by anyone. When a niche character (by some standards) like Olimar is showing up numerously right now with success, for me Yoshi should be kept near the not over or under rated position until further notice.
I currently don't think Sonic is anything but stream-killing and frustrating. A lot of the top tier characters are breaking the standards of 'fair neutral' and 'fair advantageous and disadvantageous' state, Sonic is just a lot easier at taking things slow.
ESAM doing poorly these last two weekends bodes poorly on the outer opinions of the character. I think things are little two sided right now; everyone knows and feels they have to fear Pikachu because of ESAM and are putting lab and practice time into learning that match up. The character hasn't counter-developed with meta advancements when there's still only 1 tournament threat playing him. The way his animations go really hurt for close to shield hits but I think most characters do have an OoS option at the right spacings (ZSS jab won't hit pikachu in front of her but a little bit ahead she will).
ZSS looks great in the meta right now, she has guaranteed kill set ups and great tools. Any above ****** height character seems to lose to her tbh; her Sheik MU may be one of the best in the game but it's probably 50:50.



How you decide to take the term "not viable" isn't our fault. No matter how hard you try and have wishful thinking, 90% of people playing a bad character aren't going to win a tournament. Do we really need to tip toe around this ever-building "statistical fact"? Should people give up and not work on any character? If you're going to tournaments these issues answer themselves. You'll either be an extremely good smash player, overcoming tier gaps against likely a good portion of people, QUIT or expand your horizons (secondaries, new main, etc).
For as long as you aren't going to live tournaments or accounting for top level play, character viability does not matter to you enough to change your perspectives or aspirations for playing the game.

that's exactly how I picture the game right now, except jiggly I think he's in the mid row

 

[Emblem Lord]

Room of Spirit and Time mah dude

You just go in a boy.

You come out a man.

 

[Conda]

For those who don't enjoy reading my super long posts, my basic point was this:
If you play for fun, then you should be open to the chance that your character choice won't allow you consistent win chances against 1) characters that are more well rounded and effective in the 1v1 format, and 2) players with a more disciplined competitive mindset.

You cannot try and make others feel like lesser players because they 'play to win'. Go to tournaments and have fun if that's what you're all about. Don't worry too much if you lose - winning shouldn't be the focus if you truly are so different from your 'play to win' brethren. But you are brethren, and we should treat each other with respect and understanding.

 

[Nabbitnator]

I'm not 100% sure outside of top 4 but it was something like
M2K diddy
Nick Riddle ZSS
Manny Sonic
Xaltis rosalina/Peach
Player 1 Diddy/Villager
Myran Olimar
LeoHeart Diddy
Chozox Samus

I am so pleased to see peach at top 4. It makes me feel a bit more confident that with some work I can do that well one day with someone not considered top 10.
Speaking of peach what does everyone think of how she performs in this game competitively?

 

[the king of murder]

It can be insulting to say you're masochistic. But from experience of many people who've tried that slog, it is generally quite demoralising when you're facing something 'insurmountable' (it happens to them all eventually) and/or are having to work so much harder than your opponent it is a mental and physical strain in tournament. That's the joke of it really, to continue through it can only be attributed to 'masochism', I think another way to put it is being addicted to that feeling of pulling it off, that euphoric high; no matter the 'trauma' that comes with it.

Oh but the irony here is that it's still all the same feelings, no matter the character really, just the rates and likelihoods, self-pride and esteem associated with certain choices is more amicable. "Oh my god Will won with DK" goes louder than the same achievement from the meta knight or ice climber.

I see where you are coming from but I would rather call it passion or determination rather than machoism. I dont think we derive pleasure from getting beaten up all the time. We all have our own goals, playing to win, playing for fun, playing to prove something and we all try our best to achive our goal and we should respect all that.

So yes, I respect everyone who tries their best to reach their goal as long as they respect others as well. Calling someone a machoist implies that the person in question is not right in the head therfor insulting.

Dont worry it will be my last reply, I think this discussion got out of hand but I had to say this.

Also, about Peach, I think she needs more exploration. That character is certanly a bit underrated but I guess nobody talks about her.

 

[Shaya]

This is a question that has been on my mind but how does one go to the lab? I think I might be able to develop Swordifhter this way (Uhg my noobiness is showing)

Right now I'm not confident with timing and landing neutral airs on ZSS properly. I want to sit down at some point and practice against the various heights of characters to consistently get the second frame hitbox that has a lot more horizontal range. It's slower start up than I'm used to (10 frames) is also awkward so I'd say having the CPU set to walk or jump at some point after comfortability will be good.

Ditto to Zair. Can I ever get it on short characters? What heights do I need to be at for the various distances to reach people?

I also want to be able to b-reverse 'backwards angled' Up-Bs and Down-B's. Up-B's because cross over OoS (or from backwards uairs) is good, the optimal angle (you have 3 choices) is usually neutral or backwards, so without being precise you'll b-reverse forward up-b usually whiffing later hits, or not turn around and hold backwards and 1/50 attempts will hit them anyway (*last game of larry against nairo*). Down-B because the two kicks and the facing of ZSS is kinda important if you're able to pick one or the other in a situation rather than just the one.

Down Smash and Laser 'knock back' comboing practice (rather than hitting them in the stun).

Can I do low percent combo extensions into zair or ftilts?

Need to be more comfortable on counter picks like Castle Siege, Delfino, Halberd. Don't want to awkwardly SD or something.

On G&W I really need to look at how his bucket gives him momentum in the air and how long the move lags for/etc.

I guess that's kinda labby but also just a lot of practice stuff. It's more of a to-do-list than something I've done yet.

 

[|RK|]

.

I gotta say, I'm really not a fan of playing for fun being extricated from playing to win. Just because you don't choose the easiest route to victory doesn't mean you don't want victory - you just want victory in a specific way.

 

[HeroMystic]

@ Conda

I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. We should not give players with the objective to win, the false hope of them repping a character that will limit their skill. We should be saying telling them the truth as that is our duty as competitive players.

Personally, I play to win, but I want to win on my terms. I feel if I trained with Diddy/Sheik I'll just be some other player who wins tourneys. While this is a poor mentality to have and I can certainly break it, I don't want to. I won't be satisfied until I decipher every MU and completely tap out Mario's potential. I did that in Brawl (and quit playing competitively afterwards), and I'll do that here as well. However, I already decided that if it is unrealistic to win tourneys with Mario, I'll be shifting my focus to either Rosalina or Sonic.

That said, I've witnessed and participated in enough metas to know sugarcoating the truth is never a good thing, especially in a series as polarizing as Smash.

 

[Shaya]

I see where you are coming from but I would rather call it passion or determination rather than machoism. I dont think we derive pleasure from getting beaten up all the time. We all have our own goals, playing to win, playing for fun, playing to prove something and we all try our best to achive our goal and we should respect all that.

oh and a point I had not made on this is also the general play styles that are attributed with "unviable" characters doing well. "Oh I'd love to be able to approach, but I cannot, ever", but to some that starts to trend towards the sadists... like Yoshi and Sonic players in Brawl "YOU'LL GET TO FEEL MY PAIN WITH THIS 24 MINUTE SET".

But yeah, that's why it's the joke, or more so the almost-safe-assumption.

 

[FullMoon]

@ Conda

I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. We should not give players with the objective to win, the false hope of them repping a character that will limit their skill. We should be saying telling them the truth as that is our duty as competitive players.

Personally, I play to win, but I want to win on my terms. I feel if I trained with Diddy/Sheik I'll just be some other player who wins tourneys. While this is a poor mentality to have and I can certainly break it, I don't want to. I won't be satisfied until I decipher every MU and completely tap out Mario's potential. I did that in Brawl (and quit playing competitively afterwards), and I'll do that here as well. However, I already decided that if it is unrealistic to win tourneys with Mario, I'll be shifting my focus to either Rosalina or Sonic.

That said, I've witnessed and participated in enough metas to know sugarcoating the truth is never a good thing, especially in a series as polarizing as Smash.

That's pretty much my mentality as well, I even play Mario too. Though he takes a backseat to Greninja.

 

[NairWizard]

I am curious what optimally played Diddy means. Does it mean not dropping punishments or are there combo setups or pressure situations that weren't known before?

It was Zero's neutral game that was most impressive.

He was always in motion: he didn't just sit in shield waiting for something to punish, like m2k's Diddy does often. He used his initial dash animation to weave in and out of his opponent's spacing, and then pressured by mixing up d-tilt, banana, grab, and f-air/b-air/up-air. There was always some kind of hitbox coming out of him, and he strung these hitboxes together fluidly, leaving little to no openings for counterplay: all autocanceled aerials and strings with no wasted frames--and because side-b is punishable, Zero almost never used it in neutral.

In almost every situation where there was an obvious option, Zero didn't pick it. At one point vs. Nairo, Zero was in a corner situation where a grab or roll from Diddy was obvious, but he instead short hopped behind Nairo and used a b-air, hitting him out of his d-smash. In another moment against DEHF he had a banana in hand and threw it away from Fox, then ran in for a grab, and several times he pulled a banana and then just ran toward the opponent instead of picking it up, only to throw his opponent toward it and then grab it on the way back.

He was always one step ahead of everyone in neutral, sometimes two or three steps, and he adapted quickly to their adaptations. Nairo started pivot-grabbing Zero's approaches at one point, and Zero counteradapted by approaching with options that couldn't be pivot-grabbed (like banana -> f-air).

The ability to mix it up that well and adapt so quickly comes with mastery of a character. Diddy can probably be pushed even further, but what I saw from Zero was the smoothest smash 4 gameplay I've yet seen.

 

[Pazzo.]

Now this is just an observation...

But with the general balance, a tier list could take an exponentially long time to make... Not to mention how small of a gap there may be between characters.

There will be exceptions, like Diddy Kong, but a lot of characters can be played well if given time and work.

This isn't even taking custom moves into account... And they really should.

 

[Conda]

I gotta say, I'm really not a fan of playing for fun being extricated from playing to win. Just because you don't choose the easiest route to victory doesn't mean you don't want victory - you just want victory in a specific way.

Right, but when you don't get that victory, what is your response? That's what I was talking about. Obviously not talking about you specifically haha. Let me explain:

There are lighthearted awesome friendly people who "play to win" and actually do - they have fun at tournaments and don't sweat the losses.

But then there are the people who say they "play to win" as a sort of way of making themselves seem more righteous than everyone else. Yet when they don't win, they get angry or bitter at the competitive community for the lack of results their character has seen - as if it's the fault of the 'play to win' players who use Diddy/Sheik/etc. But it's not.

It's important to differentiate between the two. When a player complains about people talking about tiers, and about matchups and character viability, I assume they're in the latter camp because that's a very telling sign that they have some pent up disdain for competitive play.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Right, but when you don't get that victory, what is your response? That's what I was talking about - those who say the 'play to win' as a sort of way of making themselves seem more righteous than everyone else. Many players want to take the harder road of playing their fav character, yet have a 'play to win' mentality, which is at the heart of competitive play when it comes to labbing and improving the metagame of lesser-played-but-promising characters.

The problem is when a player gets angry or bitter at the competitive community for the lack of results their character has seen - as if it's the fault of the 'play to win' players who use Diddy/Sheik/etc. But it's not.

Same token:

Telling people to just "pickka top tier" this early on in the game's life, though? Not matter of righteousness. We have characters that perform very well at the moment, nothing set in stone. As Zelder said earlier on, we don't really have the rights or the means to do that right now.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Pazzo.]

So, what's the problem with customs not being fully implemented yet anyway?

We have that amazing customs chart by @Amazing Ampharos .

 

[Pazx]

@ something Cobbs said pages back along the lines of "the meta will become which characters can go toe to toe with an optimally played diddy"

The meta will not stay like this. The meta will undoubtedly become "which characters can go toe to toe with the characters who go toe to toe with Diddy?" Maybe Falcon has a very good matchup against Sheik, who in turn beats OR is more popular than Diddy. Maybe Diddy:ZSS is 70:30, but ZSS has a slight advantage over Sheik and Falcon. I can see the top few characters being the only tournament viable ones but I don't think it will come down to who can compete with Diddy, rather who can compete with all viable characters.

Results from this weekends big tourneys (spoiler: Diddy wins):
http://paragon.challonge.com/orlando_2015_smash4_singles
http://challonge.com/FBSSB4Singles

No order within tiers, based roughly on my earlier post and Shaya's too.
Top:
High:
Upper:
Lower:

 

[Conda]

Same token:

Telling people to just "pickka top tier" this early on in the game's life, though? Not matter of righteousness.

Smooth Criminal

I edited the post after the quote, but yeah that's a heavy reduction of the topic. You literally can't say "choose a high tier" in any context, even a complex one, because it'll be taken on its own without context.

"Play a top tier" is bad advice for the majority of players. Especially players uncomfortable with the idea of stripping a bit of fun away from the game for sake of competitiveness. The majority of players won't be facing off against ZeRo, so they can stick to their character and get better at them and see how well they do. After all, they're playing for fun and that's a very fun and stress-free way to play. I fully support it.

But for those who want to win and are comfortable with the concept and dedication/discipline, they have to join one of two camps:

1) Do the work in developing the meta of a character from scratch or near scratch.

or

2) Practice a character whose meta is developed and has a proven track record.

1) takes much more work than 2) does. It's a fine and sensible thing when players skip 1) and move to 2) and piggyback off of the meta developments made to the higher tier character, by virtue of their marked success so far. 1) is also RISKY, as it could not work out.

For the very dedicated players whose skill is already super high, or for players who are dedicated at improving their skill, then 1) is a great path. They can become famous for improving the meta of a character. I use Will as an example often, but he's fantastic for what he helped do to the DK metagame.

Problem is, some players are not ready to dedicate as much to the game as players like Will, Ally, ZeRo, etc have. In their head, they want to be able to do as well with whatever character they find most fun, against any opposing character or player. But that likely won't be the case. If they don't play to win, then that's fine. But when they still have the 'play to win' mentality, they feel like they deserve to be able to win.

-

It takes a lot to become as good as Will - to take a risky character and make it work. You're choosing the hard path, so own it.

It's the difference between MAKING guides (discovering new things about characters) and READING guides (practising and applying proven tactics).

Continue playing the character you 'like' but make them shine so darn bright we all notice and realise you're an amazing player (ie Will). Or 2) Play a character that allows your high skill level to shine its best, without the need to pick up a character and lab with it (and rinse and repeat if that character doesn't work out). One is easier than the other, but it's your choice what to do.

Advice to players: Own your decision and find security in it, so you can be easier to talk to and are more open to other peoples' opinions.

 

[|RK|]

Right, but when you don't get that victory, what is your response? That's what I was talking about - those who say the 'play to win' as a sort of way of making themselves seem more righteous than everyone else. Many players want to take the harder road of playing their fav character, yet have a 'play to win' mentality, which is at the heart of competitive play when it comes to labbing and improving the metagame of lesser-played-but-promising characters.

The problem is when a player gets angry or bitter at the competitive community for the lack of results their character has seen - as if it's the fault of the 'play to win' players who use Diddy/Sheik/etc. But it's not.

I feel what you're saying. Just the phrasing of it got me. I think that the reason that people act like that, though, is because their attachment to the character they play is both out of fandom and personal investment. They want to play the character and have others see the glory of the character.