Character Competitive Impressions

[HeroMystic]

Sure, it can happen, but how often does it happen?

I'm pretty sure if the Pika player and Pon had played a 10 game set, it would have been 8-2 Pika, unless the Pika player got totally mind****ed after those two losses. Pon got some amazing reads in those 2 matches, but you just can't make those types of reads all the time, particularly if the Pika player adapts and starts making safer recoveries.

You're applying my comment as a rebuttal instead of an actual comment.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

Can we even assume that buffing and nerding characters will ever happen? Look, it doesn't matter what someone "should" have. If they don't have it, they don't have it.

 

[HeavyLobster]

I don't see this as the right example.
Pika and Ganon are literally at the opposite sides of the weight scale. If anything the real schicm is that Ganondorf is stuck with the warlock punch instead of a projectile for some godawful reason and that quick attack is absurd. Otherwise Pikachu has every justification to be equal and/or superior to Ganon given Pikachu dies like 25-40% earlier...

Gimps are a much bigger issue than Ganon's lack of a projectile. Pika's ability to take early stocks without too much trouble offstage in many cases nullify Ganon's superior kill power. Customs do help to patch up this problem for Ganon and make the matchup more even. Also Quick Attack is indeed absurd.

 

[S_B]

Can we even assume that buffing and nerding characters will ever happen? Look, it doesn't matter what someone "should" have. If they don't have it, they don't have it.

Well, it definitely DOES happen, and many have speculated that we'll see a balance patch when we get Mooshoo at long last.

As for "balance", no game is ever TRULY balanced, no, as it's basically impossible.

However, the DREAM of balance is simple: that any character can beat any other character because it's all about the player and how far they've decided to take that character instead of being about the inherent limitations that character has.

It's a noble dream, and I'm guessing Banco knows that it's one worth striving for as better balance = more interesting tournament play.

People are still discovering new ways to use characters in melee that make them viable and that DEFINITELY helps when it comes to making spectating interesting. Watching Diddy dittos all damn day can and will get boring VERY quickly...

 

[Antonykun]

Can we even assume that buffing and nerding characters will ever happen? Look, it doesn't matter what someone "should" have. If they don't have it, they don't have it.

I for one wouldn't want Diddy to get nerded, he would get picked on and have his lunch money stolen.

So I finally got around watching Trela's Swordfighter and I, got to say he makes F-smash look like a good move!

 

[CrimsonSmasher]

I for one wouldn't want Diddy to get nerded, he would get picked on and have his lunch money stolen.

So I finally got around watching Trela's Swordfighter and I, got to say he makes F-smash look like a good move!

That's because he does it VERY fast and unexpected -- at least that's what I noticed out of the video on Twitch.

 

[PUK]

Well, it definitely DOES happen, and many have speculated that we'll see a balance patch when we get Mooshoo at long last.

As for "balance", no game is ever TRULY balanced, no, as it's basically impossible.

However, the DREAM of balance is simple: that any character can beat any other character because it's all about the player and how far they've decided to take that character instead of being about the inherent limitations that character has.

It's a noble dream, and I'm guessing Banco knows that it's one worth striving for as better balance = more interesting tournament play.

People are still discovering new ways to use characters in melee that make them viable and that DEFINITELY helps when it comes to making spectating interesting. Watching Diddy dittos all damn day can and will get boring VERY quickly...

Nope balance means that having an advantage somewhere is balanced by having a disadvantage somewhere else. If A beats B, B beats C and C beats A it's balanced. If you're better by a large margin and win in a bad MU it makes the game well made, not balanced.
Brawl was crap in this regard.

 

[NairWizard]

Agreed.

Rock-paper-scissors is a balanced game.

Balance is wholly independent of player skill.

 

[S_B]

Nope balance means that having an advantage somewhere is balanced by having a disadvantage somewhere else.

My post didn't dispute that.

Which leaves me confused as to why you said "nope"...

Especially when the end result of what you're describing is what I'm describing: yes, characters will have different strengths and weaknesses, and the end result in a balanced game will be that it's all about the player, not the character.

"Balanced" doesn't mean "homogenized" ( at least not to a GOOD developer...).

Agreed.

Rock-paper-scissors is a balanced game.

Balance is wholly independent of player skill.

RPS is kind of a bad example because both players can pull out rock, paper or scissors at any given turn.

SSB isn't really comparable because it's not like you can see that your opponent is using DK and then decide to play as Shiek mid-match...

 

[NairWizard]

RPS is kind of a bad example because both players can pull out rock, paper or scissors at any given turn.

SSB isn't really comparable because it's not like you can see that your opponent is using DK and then decide to play as Shiek mid-match...

Consider an RPS turn to be a match, and they are the same thing. In the SSB example, you can both be using DK, or you can both be using Sheik...or one of you can be using DK, and the other using Sheik.

RPS is balanced because no matter what you choose, your chance of winning against a group of opponents (assuming a uniform skill distribution) does not change.

The only prerequisite for balance is that your selection of "character" (or rock/paper/scissors, or whatever other parameter you are trying to balance around) does not give you, on average, an advantage or disadvantage. This could be achieved by giving everyone in the cast 50:50s against everyone else, but that is a very specific type of balance, in which skill is the only determining factor of match outcomes.

Balance could also be achieved by giving all characters an exactly even number of 100:0s and 0:100s, or any number of other combinations. In RPS, Rock is 100:0 against Scissors, but the game is balanced because it's also 0:100 against Paper.

 

[Thinkaman]

Time to flip a table and do some game design school.

Balance is a subtractive design element; in other words, balance is the absence of certain things. Specifically, balance is the absence of factors that degenerate asymmetry.

Balance is the absence of:

1. Unfairness
2. Polarization
3. Homogenization

Unfairness is the strict superiority of options. Melee Fox, Brawl Meta Knight, and Smash 4 Diddy are unfair, which means they are simply better than the other characters on average. Unfairness is the simplest and easiest to identify problem, but it is only only element of balance.

Polarization is certain specific characters beating certain other specific character, regardless of average balance. (aka "counters") Melee Sheik, Brawl DDD, and Smash 4 Little Mac are very polarized characters. Polarization takes more time to identify, and is harder to address.

Homogenization is the absence of asymmetry in the first place. This is the most subjective and difficult to quantify element, but it just as (if not more) important, because it defeats the point of pursuing everything else.


Any two elements can be easily addressed by sacrificing the other, but none of these are acceptable:

• You can trivially depolarize any game while preserving character diversity if you just accept blatant unfairness.
• You can trivially solve any unfairness in any game while preserving character diversity if you just make a ring of pure counters.
• You can trivially remove all unfairness and polarization by making everyone the same character.

None of these games are balanced. If we insist that any of these cases are semantically "balanced", then we have forfeited all meaningful function of the word so the point as moot. At best we could say these cases are "trivially balanced", like the trivial "solution" of a math problem that isn't actually a useful solution at all.


There is perceptually the most confusion from amateur game designers about polarization. Some go so far as to put polarization on a pedestal, actually making imbalance a design goal. Hard facts:

• Rock-paper-scissors is a terrible game.
• Rock-paper-scissors is not a balanced game. (As described above)
• True counters are bad for a game.
• Hard counters are bad for a game.
• Soft counters are bad for a game.
• All the deepest matchups in virtually any competitive game are 5:5.
• Ideal balance is a matchup chart of entirely 5:5.
• Yes, this (absolute zero polarization) is impossible, just like absolute zero unfairness is impossible.
• But this is still the only correct goal.

If any StarCraft matchup exceeds 55:45, that represents a huge balance problem to the game. Blizzard cannot turn Starcraft into rock-paper-scissors and call it a competitive game. 0% of competitive games should be won at the character select screen. They should not even be 10% won at the character select screen.

Blizzard and Riot have the biggest balance design teams in the world. The vast majority of their time and resources goes towards fighting polarization. David Sirlin obsessively balances his games, and spends the vast majority of that time on polarization. When we made BBrawl, probably 90% of our time was dealing with polarization factors.

Unfairness is, in comparison, quite easy.


Final note: The word "counter" is overloaded. We have been talking about top-level, out-of-game-selected elements--like characters in a fighting game, or races in an RTS.

This does not apply at all to local components, such as a fighting game move, a card game card, or an RTS unit. It's okay for ZSS paralyzer to "counter" or "answer" certain moves. (While it's bad for ZSS to have a 9:1 against Fox, or even a 6:4.)

Team-composition games are tricky (Pokemon, LoL, TF2), since characters are only components of your actual team, just like ZSS paralyzer is just a component of her full character. This means they are somewhere in between, resulting in some weird non-zero target of polarization. Some games target more polarization (Pokemon) and some less (LoL), but either way it is a separate and unrelated topic.


tl;dr - Polarization is a component of balance and strictly bad regarding top-level elements of competitive games. It is neither good nor the lesser of any evils. Stop wishing that your intricate and deep competitive games get turned into character select screen rock-paper-scissors.

 

[S_B]

Consider an RPS turn to be a match, and they are the same thing. In the SSB example, you can both be using DK, or you can both be using Sheik...or one of you can be using DK, and the other using Sheik.

But then SSB would be terrible because it would mean that every match had a basically predetermined outcome and was guaranteed to be a massive uphill battle for one player...

tl;dr - Polarization is a component of balance and strictly bad regarding top-level elements of competitive games. It is neither good nor the lesser of any evils. Stop wishing that your intricate and deep competitive games get turned into character select screen rock-paper-scissors.

Exactly.

That's what I mean when I say "the dream of balance" because this is the goal but it is ultimately impossible.

It's like the villain in every other anime who's trying to achieve "perfection". Everyone should be familiar with this concept already.

 

[NairWizard]

tl;dr - Polarization is a component of balance and strictly bad regarding top-level elements of competitive games. It is neither good nor the lesser of any evils. Stop wishing that your intricate and deep competitive games get turned into character select screen rock-paper-scissors.

Polarization is inherently bad, but you're making a point with no audience. No one wants the game to be rock-paper-scissors (at least I hope that no one wants this). the original post on the subject:

If you're better by a large margin and win in a bad MU it makes the game well made, not balanced.

The point is that balance, by its definition, is bad and not desirable as the sole mission-objective. If you want to adapt your definition of balance to some game design standard that basically translates to "what makes a game deep and fun," then we're talking about something else.

50:50s are good because they make player skill important.

Your post kind of pissed me off with its table-flip and talk of amateur game design and whatnot. Don't make assumptions, if you would be so kind.

 

[S_B]

The point is that balance, by its definition, is bad and not desirable as the sole mission-objective. If you want to adapt your definition of balance to some game design standard that basically translates to "what makes a game deep and fun," then we're talking about something else.

Where is this definition of "balance" coming from?

Balance (n)

a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.

When a fighting game is perfectly balanced, the implication (at least in MY mind...) is that none of the characters possess technical advantages which make them outright better than any other (an equilibrium that is near-impossible to achieve), and that the skill of the player alone will determine their chance of winning. This does not mean that characters are in any way homogenized, only that each character has their strengths in different areas.

What OTHER definition of "balance" is there...?

 

[ChronoPenguin]

What OTHER definition of "balance" is there...?

Circular balance. Common for team based games. As thinkaman implied its typically because while the individual parts of the team is circular the whole is not intended to be.

Balance is intentionally avoided on a micro scale in some cases.

 

[Nobie]

I think the two definitions of balance being worked with here are "ideal roster balance," where everything somehow works out and all characters are equally good, and "effective roster balance," which comes from the reality that balancing 2 characters is super difficult, let alone 25 or 50, and if enough characters are "good enough" then it can be called a success.

The former is impossible to achieve, and also impossible measure accurately due to different skill levels and the effect of time on the development of strategy. If two characters are actually ideally balanced but we're at a point in the meta where one character's optimal play hasn't been figured out yet, is that balance?

The latter is highly subjective because, for example, some people claim that Melee is actually a very well-balanced game because as many as 9 characters or so are considered high to top tier, and that's over 1/3 of the roster, while others will look at the bottom tier and shake their heads. Just the fact that people disagree on what defines "viable" (Is it winning championships? Is it getting top 8 finishes consistently?) makes this very much a matter of "feel."

 

[Balgorxz]

I was testing some dthrow combos with custom gnw (custom upb) and I found some cool stuff even tho most of these are already well known by gnw players but still, I tested the popular matchups for him and posted it on the gnw forum already, I tested them against level 9 cpu and most of them are registered by the game as true combos my question is are level 9 CPU good at DI or I'll have to get a real player to test it first?

anyways here there are if someone is interested
vs
-0%
dthrow + heavy upb
dthrow + ftilt
dthrow + jab
*dthrow + fast chef (this works in different % but results may very depending on how the projectiles hit the target)
**dthrow + fastchef + utilt + upb/nair can work depending on DI on different % this is affected a lot by rage
***dthrow + chain judge (this might work up to 40%) **** dthrow+uair works on most %s
-10%
dthrow + ftilt
-15%
dthrow + utilt + heavy upb
-20%
dthrow + utilt + utilt + nair
-25%
dthrow + utilt + heavy upb
-30%
dthrow + utilt + heavy upb + dair
dthrow + utilt + heavy upb + nair
dthrow + utilt + heavy upb + bair
these mix ups depend on the utilt DI
-35%
dthrow + utilt + nair
* from here dthrow+fast chef+utilt/jab becomes a situational string
-41%
dthrow + utilt + heavy upb + nair - true combo guaranteed
-45%
dthrow + utilt
-50%
dthrow + nairs + judge
* from 50% onwards aerial judge becomes easier to setup after throws
-55%
dthrow + nair + heavy upb
-60%
dthrow + nair + heavy upb + nair
-70%
dthrow + upb
-143%
dthrow + upb stops working here
vs
-0%
dthrow+jab
dthrow+dtilt
dthrow+heavy upb
uthrow+upb
-16%
dthrow+utilt+heavy upb+uair (44% true combo)
dthrow+utilt+utilt
dthrow+utilt+nair
-20%
dthrow+utilt+heavy upb+nair (36% true combo)
dthrow+utilt+heavy upb+dair (39% true combo)
dthrow+utilt+heavy uapb+uair (35% true combo)
-25%
dthrow+utilt+heavy uapb+uair
-30%
dthrow+nair
dthrow+upb
-35%
dthrow+nair
dthrow+upb
from here short hop dthrow+uair starts working as a true combo
-40%
dthrow+nair
dthrow+upb
-45%
dthrow+nair
dthrow+upb
-55%
dthrow+nair does not work anymore
from here you dthrow+uair true combo needs 2 jumps instead of one, stays as a true combo.
-81%
dthrow+upb does not work anymore
dthrow+uair still works here
-87%-91%
here dthrow+uair is a true combo and kills but its extremely hard to do you have 1 or 2 frames to do it, with rage this might kill earlier.
-93%
dthrow+uair stops working
-96%-101%
dthrow+foxtrot+uair true combo and kills

 

[Thinkaman]

Your post kind of pissed me off with its table-flip and talk of amateur game design and whatnot. Don't make assumptions, if you would be so kind.

Sorry, I didn't meant to offend.

I did not mean to imply that you were in favor of polarization yourself; I only addressed it because it is (sadly) an increasingly popular opinion.

It most frequently takes the form of people arguing that "counters are good for a game" in some sort of cocaine logic.

Similar is the trendy opinion that shows up now and then, that "balance is overrated" or "balance is actually bad for a competitive game." We saw a bit of this on Smashboards after Smash 4 came out.

The point is that balance, by its definition, is bad and not desirable as the sole mission-objective. If you want to adapt your definition of balance to some game design standard that basically translates to "what makes a game deep and fun," then we're talking about something else.

But the comprehensive definition of balance is the one that designers actually use, because it's the only one that matters.

When StarCraft designers talk about PvT being only 47%, we say that's a balance problem. When Darius or Riven dunks on Nasus, we say that's a balance problem. When DDD can infinite people in Brawl, we say that's a balance problem.

Anyone saying otherwise is the one pushing for a non-standard, functionally useless definition.

 

[NairWizard]

When a fighting game is perfectly balanced, the implication (at least in MY mind...) is that none of the characters possess technical advantages which make them outright better than any other (an equilibrium that is near-impossible to achieve)

Suppose you have 11 characters, and each of the characters goes 100:0 with 5 other characters, and 0:100 with 5 other characters.

"none of the characters possess technical advantages which make them outright better than any other" holds true in this case.

The point is that balance just by its definition is too broad, and you can have balance that is undesirable (the above scenario is one that I would describe as undesirable). You have to add conditions or asterisks to balance as a concept to get it to mean what you want it to mean. In this case, what you are actually trying to say by "balanced game" is "a game in which player skill is the most important factor in determining match outcomes." Saying that makes it clear what your intent is. I agree with you; such a game is an ideal game.

@ Thinkaman , I think my point is that most people aren't aware of that definition of balance, and the word is misleading because different people take it mean to different things, as evidenced by this thread.

 

[S_B]

Circular balance. Common for team based games. As thinkaman implied its typically because while the individual parts of the team is circular the whole is not intended to be.

Balance is intentionally avoided on a micro scale in some cases.

Right, and that makes sense in games like Team Fortress 2 where it's very much intended to be a team game, but SSB4 officially acknowledges 1v1 matches in online mode now, meaning that SOME thought had to have gone to balancing characters for 1v1 scenarios.

This should be the end of the discussion right here...

But the comprehensive definition of balance is the one that designers actually use, because it's the only one that matters.

When StarCraft designers talk about PvT being only 47%, we say that's a balance problem. When Darius or Riven dunks on Nasus, we say that's a balance problem. When DDD can infinite people in Brawl, we say that's a balance problem.

Anyone saying otherwise is the one pushing for a non-standard, functionally useless definition.

No matter how difficult it may be to attain what we're suggesting, it's still what any good developer will ultimately aim for.

I think my point is that most people aren't aware of that definition of balance, and the word is misleading because different people take it mean to different things, as evidenced by this thread.

Not trying to sound like a gigantic ******* here, but I don't think it's as confusing as you make it out to be. "Balance" in fighting games is a fairly universal concept: when the entire point of the game is to take two characters and see which one of them can knock the other one off the screen, balancing their toolkits becomes of paramount importance.

What other definition could you apply to "balance" when treating SSB as a 1v1 game? (which the game has a mode for)

 

[Shaya]

A call back from a few pages ago now, but
"Heavies are bad still"

Well look at how good small characters are in this game, better than ever, arguably. The 2D fighter principle of "low" has been fleshed out a lot more in this game than in previous iterations.
heavy/tall characters just need to be too big/fat to be grabbed by these lightweights (or some sort of resistance). Middle-weight/size have the dynamic of not having said weakness, but all the pikas in the world need to lose their grab against Bowser. Very light characters still tall should have issues with just the highest grade (top 4 weights).
</came to me in a dream and then I saw a post that this kinda applied to>

Agreed.

Rock-paper-scissors is a balanced game.

Balance is wholly independent of player skill.

I'm so glad Thinkaman showed up.
My hero~

RPS is silly when one character's rock kills at 20%, another character's paper kills the user half the time, etc etc
Brawl was heavily talked about as an RPS game, and never ever in a positive light. RPS defined neutral interaction, yet one character would be cg'd to death from it, or put into a position in which they're reduced to just one or two of those options (hence it wasn't a real RPS). realistically, the game can be played in such a way which the rock killing at 20% is the only option ever relevant, as they never play a game in which paper is usable; that does have to do with player skill.

 

[Locke 06]

Rock Paper Scissors is a game won when you choose your option. Trying to equate it with a game with non-100:0 outcomes seems incredibly silly, like adding fire, water, or rocket launchers to RPS.

RPS is a beautifully simple game. Fighting games are not quite as simple.

Edit: talking about the CSS = RPS idea.

 

[Ffamran]

Time for something different... SEE! I'm not a daffy duck! Fire Sliding is real! Thank Lavani for making a gif of this and experimenting with Fast Fire Bird. Also, thank @ Plain Yogurt for mentioning that you could land perfectly out of Fire Bird and (and Fire Fox) making me notice this with Fast Fire Bird.

just gonna drop this here cuz I don't remember the tech being shown at all and it's pretty cool

 

[HeroMystic]

Time for something different... SEE! I'm not a daffy duck! Fire Sliding is real! Thank Lavani for making a gif of this and experimenting with Fast Fire Bird. Also, thank @ Plain Yogurt for mentioning that you could land perfectly out of Fire Bird and (and Fire Fox) making me notice this with Fast Fire Bird.

If I'm interpreting this right, Fire Bird/Fox has auto-cancel frames?

 

[Ffamran]

If I'm interpreting this right, Fire Bird/Fox has auto-cancel frames?

I have no idea and I don't know how to check for auto-cancel frames, so... yeah... If anything, this might be like frame-canceling, but at a specific angle rather than at a specific time.

Edit: Jaysus, I just noticed that Falco covered about 2/3's of the stage with that.

 

[Lavani]

If I'm interpreting this right, Fire Bird/Fox has auto-cancel frames?

I believe it functions like Sheik's Vanish or Meta Knight's Mach Tornado/Dimensional Cape where there's a set amount of end lag before helpless/landing lag begins, and by landing at the last few frames of the move it mimics the look of an autocancel.

 

[HeroMystic]

I'll try looking into it when I have spare time, because honestly that looks sexy as all hell.

 

[Ffamran]

I'll try looking into it when I have spare time, because honestly that looks sexy as all hell.

Did someone call for sexy Falco?

Anyway, yeah, Falco gets two burst movements with Falco Phantasm/Phase and Fast Fire Bird. Add in universal perfect pivots, foxtrots, and other movements, his vertical movement through his jumps, his fast fall short hops which I still don't understand, and what you can do with Fast Fire Bird: a regular burst movement, a shortened one (Fire Roll), and a burst movement into immediate action (Fire Slide). Yeah, Falco's got game.

 

[Plain Yogurt]

Now that I think about it Kong cyclone seems to function in a similar fashion as well. And Sheik and MK can do it too? I wonder if other characters could get mileage out of this...Could Samus Screw Rush to a high platform, for example? Testing will need to be done this weekend...

Looking at Smash Wiki and considering how outdated it typically is, Fire Fox/Bird seem to have been able to do this fire slide thing for a while:
"Additionally, if Fox hits the ground before the attack ends, Fox will slide on the ground in a wavedash like manner, cancelling any endlag from the attack."

I imagine I hadn't heard of it before because using the moves on stage wasn't particularly common. However, with Fast Fire Bird being so...well, fast, I imagine one could get a lot more mileage out of it in this game.

 

[Ffamran]

I think it's the momentum that Fast Fire Bird gives Falco. Check Distant Fire Bird and there's like no momentum at all or look at Ike's Quickdraw and I guess, Marth and Lucina's fully charged Shield Breaker. They will slide, especially Ike who sort of gets "ice-physic'd" when he tries to run the opposite way. It's probably why Fast Fire Bird travels the same distance as default Fire Bird when used horizontally. I think the "somersault" Falco does adds to distance, but I'm not sure.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I think the main problems with heavies is their lack of close up options. They're bigger and slower than everyone and when you get in their facr it's bad for them. Contrast with a character like Zangief who has a command grab which forcrs players a certain way. It also gives him a great ability to punish things which would normally be safe. Heavies will always be bad unless they change their frame data and give them absurd stuff like 4 frame jabs and ftilt and utilt. ....

 

[Ffamran]

Which would be broken as all hell... Wait, didn't Melee Ganondorf have a fast Jab or is it just the animation tricking me since he actually jabs instead of doing the palm strike thing like he does in Brawl and SSB4?

 

[deepseadiva]

Which would be broken as all hell... Wait, didn't Melee Ganondorf have a fast Jab or is it just the animation tricking me since he actually jabs instead of doing the palm strike thing like he does in Brawl and SSB4?

It's much faster. It's a real jab versus post-Melee Ganondorf's "jab" which reminds me of the slow stances of a little kid learning karate.

 

[Ulevo]

I think the main problems with heavies is their lack of close up options. They're bigger and slower than everyone and when you get in their facr it's bad for them. Contrast with a character like Zangief who has a command grab which forcrs players a certain way. It also gives him a great ability to punish things which would normally be safe. Heavies will always be bad unless they change their frame data and give them absurd stuff like 4 frame jabs and ftilt and utilt. ....

The problem with heavies isn't their lack of close quarters options. That's part of a larger picture. Their main issue is that when they're in a bad position, they have a really hard resetting the momentum back to neutral. This is most emphasized if they're being juggled, frame trapped, or edge guarded. If an average or light weight character gives an inch, the opponent will take a mile. If a heavyweight gives an inch, the opponent will take several miles.

 

[Lavani]

On the topic of other characters I've been messing around with today: how are people feeling about and with customs on? I know Doc's been a subject a few times, but I wasn't aware of how absurd the knockback is on Soaring Tornado until recently, especially with rage. Not to mention that the hitbox stays out for a whopping 19 frames. Fast pills, alternate capes, and a buffed recovery+(even more) terrifying edgeguarding tool seem like they help him out quite a bit.

ROB I've heard much less about, and I didn't even really know what his customs did before today (I still don't know what most of them do), but I noticed uthrow>Robo Rocket>uair is a rather lenient kill combo starting from around 55~75% without rage, depending on how floaty the opponent is. Even before getting to any other benefits he gets from customs (let alone the much faster recovery that particular custom also provides) being able to kill so early off a grab seems quite substantial in itself.

 

[Ffamran]

It's much faster. It's a real jab versus post-Melee Ganondorf's "jab" which reminds me of the slow stances of a little kid learning karate.

Well, Falco went from actually boxing with his Jab 1 and 2 in Melee to whatever the hell he's doing now with his swipe down and up with his left arm and the spin.

The other thing about Ganondorf's current Jab is that his fingers are separated and in an insane fight like that, they could catch onto something... Yeah... Or someone could just grab his hand which is dangerous since they're infused with electricity - Captain Falcon would be fine - and snap his fingers one by one. So, yeah Ganondorf's Jab was faster... Snake and Ike have good Jabs for being heavies, right? And there's Charizard, right?

 

[Pyr]

On Doc, I wouldn't play him without customs. Fast Pill and Soaring Down-B fix a lot of his major problems.

Can't say for ROB, as I don't play him.

 

[deepseadiva]

On the topic of other characters I've been messing around with today: how are people feeling about and with customs on?

Honestly I forget Dr Mario is even in this game.

 

[Balgorxz]

I can do it on 2/3 but man its insane how hard is to get it right, overlapping the lagg on his dair is much easier than this.

 

[HeavyLobster]

The problem with heavies isn't their lack of close quarters options. That's part of a larger picture. Their main issue is that when they're in a bad position, they have a really hard resetting the momentum back to neutral. This is most emphasized if they're being juggled, frame trapped, or edge guarded. If an average or light weight character gives an inch, the opponent will take a mile. If a heavyweight gives an inch, the opponent will take several miles.

It depends on the heavies. Dedede and Bowser are horrifically vulnerable to juggling regardless of customs and Bowser's recovery isn't all that great either. Dedede's will generally let you survive though it can be predictable and you might have to eat a bit of damage. Ganondorf's escape options are risky but devastating if you can properly read what your opponent will do, especially with Dark Fists as a custom, which actually forces the opponent to be careful while edgeguarding. He's still not very good in disadvantage and prone to combos and frametraps, but his ability to threaten fairly early kills even from disadvantage(I mean more feasibly than stuff like Bowser Dair or Bowser Bomb) can get you more reset opportunities than the aforementioned characters. Custom Charizard and DK are where you start to see heavies with legitimately good reset tools however, and they are the ones I have somewhat higher hopes for in terms of tourney presence. Kong Cyclone is the big tool everyone's been talking about, and while it starts up too slowly to bust DK out of frame tight strings, it can often reset the situation quite nicely, and is pretty safe when platform cancelled. DK still does have these issues to an extent, but they're much more manageable now. Charizard gets both Rock Hurl and Dragon Rush. Rock Hurl's frame 1 armor is excellent for breaking out of frame traps, juggles, and strings that most characters can't, and is something you have to respect when going for a follow up. Dragon Rush gives Charizard a very useful recovery and escape option that's free of recoil and helps further enhance his survivability. A combination of these two tools, multiple jumps, Nair, and Flamethrower makes Zard actually pretty capable of resetting things when he is in trouble, I'd argue above average actually, in spite of his poor airspeed and the fact that his other aerials are bad landing options. So yeah, overall heavies are pretty bad in disadvantage, and this tends to nullify their superior survivability, kill power, and damage output, but there are a few very good customs that change that dynamic to various extents, and I think these will allow certain heavies to be able to hold their own competitively and see some success.