Official Competitive Character Impressions 2.0

[SwagGuy99]

You have a very large list of so-called low-tiers.
Some of them should be easily considered mid-tier characters or I wouldn't place them there at all like or . Sure, they got buffed but they seem to be still one spot above the other mentioned characters (except Zelda because obvious bias :3) in this overall list.
Also about There is probably a reason why he performs so poorly and I don't mean the absence of Magister at tournament: It's more a case of too many unfavorable stages for this character. At least that's what M2K believes and I honestly think the same: Incin is very, very slow and so he does very poor (meaning he is at a disadvantage from the beginning) on stages that are big and nearly all legal stages are huge (Kalos, PS2, even BF or FD). The same probably goes for as well. downB would also work better on smaller stages because it gets harder to navigate around it and Isabelle.

Like, in short: I don't think the character design is to blame here but rather the non-amount of counterpick stages for these characters. Some of them would do much better if WW or Castle Siege were still legal.

I was kind of using low tier/lower mid tiers in the example, as I think that they both apply here. My list of actual low tiers isn't that big and only includes about 10 characters. I was also using some characters who are commonly considered low tiers even if I don't agree with it.

Also, I agree. The stage list doesn't exactly favor most of the low tiers/low mid tiers very much. Having Castle Seige be legal would help some of them out immensely.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

https://twitter.com/SASmashCentral/status/1161950018548326400

South Australia has banned Hero from tournaments, not because he is "broken" like Brawl Meta Knight or Smash 4 Bayo, but believing he is anti-competitive due to his RNG mechanics.

 

[blackghost]

You have a very large list of so-called low-tiers.
Some of them should be easily considered mid-tier characters or I wouldn't place them there at all like or . Sure, they got buffed but they seem to be still one spot above the other mentioned characters (except Zelda because obvious bias :3) in this overall list.
Also about There is probably a reason why he performs so poorly and I don't mean the absence of Magister at tournament: It's more a case of too many unfavorable stages for this character. At least that's what M2K believes and I honestly think the same: Incin is very, very slow and so he does very poor (meaning he is at a disadvantage from the beginning) on stages that are big and nearly all legal stages are huge (Kalos, PS2, even BF or FD). The same probably goes for as well. downB would also work better on smaller stages because it gets harder to navigate around it and Isabelle.

Like, in short: I don't think the character design is to blame here but rather the non-amount of counterpick stages for these characters. Some of them would do much better if WW or Castle Siege were still legal.

but these are the repercussions of smaller stage lists. People get bent out of shape about what happens in week 1 and month 1 of a game's lifespan theyfail to account for and we as a community don't know how losing these stages impacts the meta long term. Yet we still in every game start banning stages too erly. WW and CS or the new DQ stage being legal has an exponential effect on the meta. But once its banned a stage is dead and never once have I seen a banned stage be retested and integrated into competitive play. The smaller the stagelist is the more it favors top tiers. always has.

https://twitter.com/SASmashCentral/status/1161950018548326400

South Australia has banned Hero from tournaments, not because he is "broken" like Brawl Meta Knight or Smash 4, but believing he is anti-competitive due to his RNG mechanics.

comical. absolutely comical. Its been what a month? I'm willing to bet a TO or person of influence got hit with something and used their influence to push this. banning things we dont like is a slippery slope. Well have fun when you travel to places that have him legal might get exposed by a character that may not even be good.

 

[Arthur97]

https://twitter.com/SASmashCentral/status/1161950018548326400

South Australia has banned Hero from tournaments, not because he is "broken" like Brawl Meta Knight or Smash 4, but believing he is anti-competitive due to his RNG mechanics.

Ah, yes, the greatest of influencers, South Australia. I don't see much coming from this other than people making fun of them. Though, at least they didn't say broken. Anti-competitive is much more believable at least.

 

[Frihetsanka]

comical. absolutely comical. Its been what a month? I'm willing to bet a TO or person of influence got hit with something and used their influence to push this. banning things we dont like is a slippery slope. Well have fun when you travel to places that have him legal might get exposed by a character that may not even be good.

It's fairly likely that Hero is good, and did you read what they wrote?

We want to emphasise that this ban is not because hero is too strong, but because he is anti-competitive. We believe that tournaments are meant to provide an opportunity for players to demonstrate their skill and that, as a general rule, the player who plays more skilfully should emerge victorious. Hero's design has a very strong potential to de-emphasise player skill which isn’t fair for those who work hard to improve their abilities for competition.

Isn't it reasonable to want skill to be the deciding factor in who wins a competitive Smash game?

 

[DungeonMaster]

I'm currently leaning towards +. I think they cover... pretty much everyone? Not sure how much value there is in maintaining for what would be primarily personality-based counter-picking.

That is a good mix, and 5 effective characters is a lot, which naturally covers a lot of matchups. You will have plenty to work with and never at net negative. A lot of evens, you're not picking for the big pluses, it's a conservative mix.

The only situations you may struggle with are heavy combo character. If your neutral collapses (for whatever reason, good reads by the opponent let's say) then you can find your picks simply out-damaged since they all rely mostly on the early 40% combos and then only get small stuff past that.


My opinion on remains the same, don't bother. That hill once climbed is still pretty low. Fairly confident that if Riddles spent more time on Ken Mkleo would not have won their recent set, because is amazing in this game.

 

[blackghost]

It's fairly likely that Hero is good, and did you read what they wrote?

Isn't it reasonable to want skill to be the deciding factor in who wins a competitive Smash game?

cool so when are game and watch and peach getting axed? stitches and nines are a clear demonstration of skill. I read what they said i also read on that same thread that a TO got hit with a crit and thats where the ban originated from. This screams like it was someone's personal vendetta. it gives your scene a bad name i can't believe this was supported by many TOs its too soon.

 

[Megamang]

Well, ultimately they can do what we want and this thread shouldn't become ban talk, and shouldn't be a critique on South Australia's decisions. As mentioned before, this will hurt their chances when they travel. Can someone name some notable SA players who do travel?


And can we talk about something that isn't bans or nerfs?

*Looks at profile*

Who thinks pika is a low key top tier, and why? He's good but I feel he has the same struggles he always has.

 

[Frihetsanka]

cool so when are game and watch and peach getting axed? stitches and nines are a clear demonstration of skill.

Clearly, the Smash community has accepted some levels of RNG, no one wants a Villager ban because of up-air and down-air RNG. And also clearly, there are levels of RNG that would be far too much. So, in the end, it's a question of whether Hero has reached the level of RNG that is too much. Peach and Mr. Game & Watch are not deemed too much, and their levels of RNG are much lower than Hero's. So, has Hero passed the line? Clearly, the TOs in South Australia think so (as do many other people).

I read what they said i also read on that same thread that a TO got hit with a crit and thats where the ban originated from. This screams like it was someone's personal vendetta.

You shouldn't take jokes on Twitter seriously.

it gives your scene a bad name i can't believe this was supported by many TOs its too soon.

It shows courage, backbone and integrity. They're willing to do what they believe is best for the game, even if it risks making people upset.

 

[Browny]

Interesting read, though there are some flaws in your argumentation.

Spoiler

Hero is, as far as I know, by far the most RNG-reliant fighting game character ever. It's fairly obvious that RNG can be a ground for banning a character. Hypothetical example: Let's assume a new character, Gambler, is released as DLC. All Gambler's specials are RNG, you will randomly get one out of fifteen neutral-specials, up-specials, side-specials, and down-specials. All of his normal attacks have a 20% chance to do double damage and kill much earlier (aside from his jab, which only has increased damage, not knockback). His up-throw has a 30% chance to kill at 120%, otherwise it kills at 150%. Gambler ends up being a top 10 character, not overpowered but still strong enough to be worthwhile. RNG often plays a significant role in how his games end up, though. Is this character banworthy? Obviously so, I would argue. As such, it would seem that RNG can be a reason to ban a character. Whether Hero's RNG is bad enough to warrant a ban can be argued, but RNG can warrant a band.

Regarding "If Hero doesn't use Hocus Pocus Peach has more RNG", I believe this to be factually false. Hero's down-B introduced more RNG, in general, than Peach's down-B, and his Smashes add to it. In general, Peach's down-B has a small chance to allow RNG to affect the course of the match, while Hero's down-B has a significant chance, and Smashes increase it even further. Hero's level of RNG is generally far higher than Peach's. There are reasons you've probably never heard anyone asking for a Peach ban, while you've heard plenty of people asking for a Hero ban.

As far as RNG being unacceptable in the past, randomly spawned items and certain stages come to mind. Also, if it were possible to toggle tripping off in Brawl it's almost guaranteed that it would have been turned off. I imagine if there were a mechanic that randomly gave you a power-up it would've also been turned off. You even admit as much yourself: The issue with items is that the spawn of them is random, not that the items themselves are inherently broken.

How powerful the RNG is certainly relevant to the discussion, since it matters practically whether RNG is likely to affect the outcome of the matches or not. If Hero's down-B was mostly bad then he'd be less likely to use it and thus RNG would be less likely to affect the outcome of matches. If crits did 5% more damage they'd matter much less too.

Your definition of "competitive" is interesting. You're certainly free to stipulate your own definition, but it's mostly a matter of semantics. People who argue that Hero is anti-competitive don't use your definition of competitive, and trying to re-define the word probably won't convince anyway. I imagine most people would agree that Chess is more competitive than Monopoly or Rock-Paper-Scissors, yet it's certainly possible to play competitive Monopoly and competitive Rock-Paper-Scissors. Ultimately, how much RNG is acceptable in each game varies from game to game. A card game will have a much higher tolerance for RNG than a fighting game, for instance, which is my issue with your comparison with Magic the Gathering and poker: Smash isn't and shouldn't be MtG or poker. People might disagree but many believe fighting games should be between two people's skill, where stage RNG and character RNG and random item drop RNG are non-existent or limited. Different games have different levels of acceptance for RNG though, competitive Mario Kart certainly accepts more than competitive Gran Turismo.

You've mentioned several times that we need to draw an exact line, but this is false: The question isn't "Where do we draw the line" but "Has Hero passed it?". Many proponents of a Hero-ban think he isn't very close to the line at all, so even if we can't draw an exact line we can see that he's passed it by quite a bit. Can you draw an exact line where a character is too strong and should be banned? Probably not, yet it's easy to imagine characters that clearly fit this criteria.

Pokémon Trading Card Game is atrocious (in my opinion) as a competitive game and relies far too much on luck. It's fun to play casually but I don't think I could ever get into it competitively. If Smash ever turned to Pokémon Trading Card Game I would quit tournaments for sure. Anyway, obviously people have different levels of what degree of RNG they consider acceptable (there are Rock-Paper-Scissor tournaments, after all). Our question is: What's acceptable for Smash Ultimate, and has Hero passed it?

Regarding the Zoom argument, it's flawed because you make a significant risk by going off-stage, since he could get Zoom and then ledgetrap you. The counter-play to Zoom is to edgeguard safely, I suppose, preferably with projectiles if you can. Or you risk it and hope he doesn't get Zoom, in which case it's RNG-reliant if you win or not (in many cases, at least).

As for the RNG argument ("the other player could use him too"), the argument is that skill should be the deciding factor, not RNG. If games are decided by whoever gets lucky/unlucky then that violates the spirit of competitive Smash, doesn't it? We don't accept games being decided by RNG item spawns, and Hero's RNG can certainly change the outcome of games.

Hero is a new case, a character whose RNG level is arguably more similar to item spawns than to other character (and random items are banned). Anti-competitive arguments are relevant because we're talking about it in the context of Smash Ultimate, adding RNG effects to Chess would also be anti-competitive in the context of Chess.

As for Hero being exactly on the line, I don't think that's the pro-side's argument, most seem to think he passes it by quite some margin. Some other DLC character might be more of a borderline case, but Hero does not seem to be.

All absolutely fair points, my post was coming from a historical context though.

For hero to be banned, this is setting a new standard in what is banworthy, one which has never even been discussed in competitive smash before. For literally decades the two criteria were overcentralising, and breaking the game. Hero does neither of these and so requires a new criteria, one where RNG is just too much of a factor.

I never did say thats not a valid argument, in fact I said its possible over time his RNG would result in him causing too many upsets which would be bannable, I just really want to pro-ban side to come out and admit they are inventing new rules for Hero, and to stop saying he is 'uncompetitive' because thats just lazy and intellectually dishonest. There is no metric whatsoever of things being competitive or not except for whether there are winners and losers.

I want to see people discuss zoom as a recovery, what counterplays exist and if its actually more unfair than yoshis recovery. I dont want to see "zoom is uncompetitive because my character cant edgeguard hero'. (Ironically many ultimate players still refuse to edgeguard properly anyway, compare protobanham to most smash players, theres a world of difference). I want to see people discuss whether magic burst as a ledgetrap is actually going to lead to more KOs than snakes nikita, I dont want to see 'magic burst is uncompetitive because my character cant dodge it'.

"If games are decided by whoever gets lucky/unlucky then that violates the spirit of competitive Smash, doesn't it?"

Peach and G&W do this literally all the time. If that is an argument used against Hero, you must therefore set a minimum % of matches that must be won through pure RNG for him to be banworthy, and you best ensure that in no time in history has Peach or G&W exceeded that threshold in any given tournament, otherwise the argument is void.

 

[NotLiquid]

My opinion on remains the same, don't bother. That hill once climbed is still pretty low. Fairly confident that if Riddles spent more time on Ken Mkleo would not have won their recent set, because is amazing in this game.

This is the kind of useless observation that dies with context when you realize that Riddles' Ken was one dropped combo from winning that entire set. I'm not exactly sure what "putting in more time with Ken" would hypothetically do against the best, most composed player in the world.

 

[Slime Master]

If the perceived issue with Hero is that the lesser player wins because RNG favored them: I doubt that will be a problem once players learn the MU. All the menu options have counter play and he telegraphs when he's going for them pretty hard. Without the menu the only RNG involved is crits, which are definitely no worse than turnips or judge.

 

[blackghost]

All absolutely fair points, my post was coming from a historical context though.

Peach and G&W do this literally all the time. If that is an argument used against Hero, you must therefore set a minimum % of matches that must be won through pure RNG for him to be banworthy, and you best ensure that in no time in history has Peach or G&W exceeded that threshold in any given tournament, otherwise the argument is void.

this is the part i can't get over. we watch peach pull these wins out all the time. we can cite multiple matches for samsora alone in the last two majors where a stitch pull influenced a match. Let alone a peach like captain zack that pulls turnips at any possible space to get saturn or stitch. game and watch is not common but that doesnt stop meister (?) from fishing for it at 0 multiple times a game or match. What is the line they are arguing for? and how does hero violate it? i need some clarification.

 

[Frihetsanka]

For hero to be banned, this is setting a new standard in what is banworthy, one which has never even been discussed in competitive smash before. For literally decades the two criteria were overcentralising, and breaking the game. Hero does neither of these and so requires a new criteria, one where RNG is just too much of a factor.

Indeed. I think my hypothetical example with Gambler illustrates that there could be a character who would be banworthy due to RNG. As such, I believe I have proven that high levels of RNG could be grounds for a ban. Hero is not nearly as bad as Gambler though, so whether he's banworthy or not is up for debate. Many seem to think that he is, though.

If we imagine that Gambler would bring 100X RNG, Hero 40X, Peach 15X, then perhaps the line would be 30X? Or perhaps it is 50X, saving Hero but condemning Gambler. A character with 99X RNG (slightly less than Gambler) would likely still be banworthy, as well as 98X, 97X, etc. Where exactly do we draw the line? This, I don't know. Perhaps 30X, perhaps 35X, perhaps 50X, perhaps 25X, I don't know, it's hard to say exactly. Still, my point is that it is possible for a character to be banworthy because of RNG, and I agree that so far no character has quite reached that level in Smash. Hero might be the first (and, hopefully, the last).

I never did say thats not a valid argument, in fact I said its possible over time his RNG would result in him causing too many upsets which would be bannable, I just really want to pro-ban side to come out and admit they are inventing new rules for Hero, and to stop saying he is 'uncompetitive' because thats just lazy and intellectually dishonest. There is no metric whatsoever of things being competitive or not except for whether there are winners and losers.

I decided to search some Discord channels that discussed a Hero ban, and literally 0 people used the term "uncompetitive". People have used "anti-competitive", but I think there's a significant difference between "anti-competitive" and "uncompetitive". Uncompetitive indicates that there is no competition at all, while anti-competitive (as in, Hero contains significant anti-competitive elements) indicate that there are elements that violate the spirit of competition, but the character might still be able to compete. In Hero's case, the issue many people see is that he would make RNG, rather than skill, play a larger role, which they find harmful.

I want to see people discuss zoom as a recovery, what counterplays exist and if its actually more unfair than yoshis recovery. I dont want to see "zoom is uncompetitive because my character cant edgeguard hero'. (Ironically many ultimate players still refuse to edgeguard properly anyway, compare protobanham to most smash players, theres a world of difference). I want to see people discuss whether magic burst as a ledgetrap is actually going to lead to more KOs than snakes nikita, I dont want to see 'magic burst is uncompetitive because my character cant dodge it'.

The main issue with Zoom isn't that it's too strong, but rather the RNG. Whether Hero gets one of the best (if not the best) recoveries in the game is up to luck, sometimes he will, sometimes he won't. That kind of coin-flip can be considered anti-competitive (but not uncompetitive).

Peach and G&W do this literally all the time. If that is an argument used against Hero, you must therefore set a minimum % of matches that must be won through pure RNG for him to be banworthy, and you best ensure that in no time in history has Peach or G&W exceeded that threshold in any given tournament, otherwise the argument is void.

Peach and G&W rarely have RNG significantly affect the game, thus they reach a lower RNG level than Hero. A better comparison could be, I suppose, how much RNG influences a game on average. For Peach and G&W it's likely to be rare, less so for Hero (since every time he presses down-B RNG will be a factor, and to a much larger extent than Peach).

All the menu options have counter play and he telegraphs when he's going for them pretty hard. Without the menu the only RNG involved is crits, which are definitely no worse than turnips or judge.

Actually, there is plenty of reason to believe that "reading the menu" is not really going to be viable against good Hero players. After all, they know when they're going to press down-B, giving them more time to react, and they also know which one of the 4 skills they will pick, or cancel.

Also, RNG Smashes are arguably worse than Judge. Enough on their own to make Hero banworthy? Probably not (crits + Down-B might), but they're more likely to be used than G&W's side-B and more likely to make a difference in the game (even if you don't get a crit you still hit with a Smash, after all, making the gambit more worthwhile, and you have a 1/8 chance of getting a crit instead of 1/9 to get a 9).

this is the part i can't get over. we watch peach pull these wins out all the time. we can cite multiple matches for samsora alone in the last two majors where a stitch pull influenced a match. Let alone a peach like captain zack that pulls turnips at any possible space to get saturn or stitch. game and watch is not common but that doesnt stop meister (?) from fishing for it at 0 multiple times a game or match. What is the line they are arguing for? and how does hero violate it? i need some clarification.

Peach and G&W introduce RNG elements that aren't great, but ultimately the community believes that they have not crossed a line. Hero, however, is far, far worse, so even if Peach and G&W don't cross the line Hero might.

 

[Deathcarter]

RNG or not, its really hard to imagine a character with arguably the worst set of normals in the game after Jigglypuff and maybe Bayonetta and Zelda and a mechanic limiting the use of his otherwise powerful specials ever being banworthy. I simply can't see this character ever being consistent enough that his RNG would otherwise be a pressing concern.

 

[Avokha]

Something I'd like to point out regarding hero is the mindgames that the menu can enable. Once the menu is open and the 4 options are available for both players to see, the RNG effectively ends there (unless hocus pocus rears its head lol). Imagine this scenario:

Fox vs hero on FD
Fox is standing by the ledge, hero is over halfway across the stage
Hero opens the menu at near full MP and gets Magic Burst, Sizzle, Oomph, and Bounce and hovers the cursor over burst
This opens up a scenario in which both players can make a read against one another;
The fox player can read Magic Burst and approach and shield it, read sizzle and reflect it, cover both options with shield, or call the magic burst bluff and make an aerial approach to punish a different option. Should the fox stay still, hero can cast sizzle hoping to catch fox off guard (at the risk of it being reflected back for massive damage), or opt for either of his 2 buff spells for free. Alternatively, hero can drop the menu altogether and approach.

Just something to think about.

 

[Envoy of Chaos]

Peach’s turnip RNG is more potent than the majority of Hero’s command menu. Her weakest turnips still contribute heavily to her gameplan and pulling one is never a negative thing for her to do. Pulling a Stich just randomly rewards her immensely for doing something she should already be doing and we have seen time and time again how it completely changes the game when she has one and can capitalize. That’s not even getting into being able to pull a shield breaking Mr. Saturn or Bom-omb randomly as well.

Hero on the other hand has a command menu full of junk and very situational moves with a few actual gems. It is not always beneficial for Hero to pull his menu up like it is Peach to pull turnips. Getting kamikaze on your last stock, pulling up zoom and bounce on stage and against Falcon isn’t doing you any good, pulling two melee spells, and no good range spell against a projectile character does you no good. Like there is so much apparent counterplay for most of Hero’s down B menu that RNG is not favoring him more often than not and he’s much better just using buff spells which are actually always good and his actual good specials in side and neutral b. Being able to occasionally get a magic burst at the ledge and being in the right MU to actually use it AND having enough mana for it to actually threaten your opponent and not just help them recover, being OHKO by Thwack that your opponent can see coming in the menu and see coming visually when the move starts doesn’t come close to outweighing all the bad and mediocrity that RNG can put on Hero.

Peach’s RNG is never a detriment to her gameplan, it only can further strength it. Hero’s is and that’s why I find a ban on him because “too much RNG” is silly when Peach isnt being prosecuted for being far more abusive of RNG mechanics. That’s not even getting into the fact Hero’s not even close to as good as Peach is without the RNG stuff. If he didn’t have his other B moves the character would be straight up bad.

 

[Rizen]

Peach’s turnip RNG is more potent than the majority of Hero’s command menu. Her weakest turnips still contribute heavily to her gameplan and pulling one is never a negative thing for her to do. Pulling a Stich just randomly rewards her immensely for doing something she should already be doing and we have seen time and time again how it completely changes the game when she has one and can capitalize. That’s not even getting into being able to pull a shield breaking Mr. Saturn or Bom-omb randomly as well.



Peach’s RNG is never a detriment to her gameplan, it only can further strength it. Hero’s is and that’s why I find a ban on him because “too much RNG” is silly when Peach isnt being prosecuted for being far more abusive of RNG mechanics. That’s not even getting into the fact Hero’s not even close to as good as Peach is without the RNG stuff. If he didn’t have his other B moves the character would be straight up bad.

The thing about Peach's turnips is you have a 2.7% chance to get any of a bomb, Mr.Saturn or stitchface. There's really no comparing her to Hero's levels of RNG.

_____________________________
Not ban related:

I've been playing the Hero MU recently and it's harder than you'd think to look at his command menu. This MU takes special practice on both players' parts.

The thing to accept in this MU is Hero will get buffs, he will get spells and he will get zoom. It's not a question of "if" but "when"? Any time Cloud can charge Limit, Hero can access his menu. It's an integral part of the MU, more than I originally anticipated. This means both players must react and adapt on the fly. Fortunately Hero's magic hits shields much less hard than it hits opponents so shielding is a universal answer to ranged attacks.

Hero may have OP options but overall doesn't seem better than a high tier at his best. He mainly has huge bursts of magic to watch out for yet an otherwise mediocre neutral and poor disadvantage state- except offstage if he calls the coin flip right and gets zoom, which completely ignores disadvantage. It's his advantage state you have to watch out for. Zap is a strong landing and ledge trap and Frizz punishes hard, both when charged. Fortunately the charged versions take a lot of MP. At low MP the opponent has a lot more freedom to rush hero down. It also should be noted that Hero's Usmash and Uair have terrible hitboxes and he's not very mobile so he'll have a hard time staying on you in advantage. Like most MUs, it's best to escape and reset neutral rather than challenge his advantage.

Hero's normal attacks are mediocre but not as bad as I thought. Their hitboxes are pretty good, they just need startup time.

Overall Hero seems like a high mid tier. Luck will play a large part in how good he is during any given game. If he gets magic burst or a lucky thwack it can screw you. He'd probably fall behind more and more with more stocks, be thankful we use three instead of 2 in Ultimate.

 

[Diabolique]

Still don't understand why people are comparing Peach and Hero RNG. They different really, Good on South Australia for taking that measure.

Peach's turnips all travel at the same speed. If she has a stitch face or dot face, you can dodge it the same as regular one. No variances. Mr. Saturns and Bombs travel differently, but they look completely different than turnips so you can easily react to that change because of the end lag of the turnip pull.

Hero's Down B has EXTREMELY more variance. There are melee slashes with absurd hitboxes, self buffs, a heal, and the projectiles.
What people don;t understand when talking about Peach and Hero's RNG that Hero's projectiles all travel at different speeds. The Thwack line, Fire projectile, and the kaboom line all travel at varying speeds. The kaboom one even has a delay while the windbox comes out so if can mess your timing. Now to stop it all off, those three spells have THREE other spells just like them, but they are weaker and TRAVEL SLOWER / have less range than their respective upgrades. How the heck are you suppose to prepare and memorize all the different speeds of the spells and when to let go of shield, especially when looking away at the command screen yourself is impractical in some situations? This is even ignoring the time it takes to actually recongize what projectile is being thrown at you - the Fire line he has from Down B is ABSURDLY fast.


I'll give you an example: In Smash 4, all custom moves were banned. Why? Partly due to practicality of loading them and setting them up, but mostly becasue it was too much for any player to be able to prepared for ALL the variance in a character. Granted, the variance of smash 4 custom moves is on a larger scale, but it proves that variance like this is banwrothy to some degree.

Now, for a more reasonable example for Ultimate that also proves the point -

I'm not sure if every smash scene does this, but as far as I know if I am playing against a Mii Fighter, I can request to see what special moves they are running before playing them. Thus I am not going in blind and know what buttons on the Mii Fighter do what. (This is a really good example because the Mii Fighter's custom moves are all really different from each other.)

If we can request this of Mii Fighters, I don't think we can call a Hero ban "laughable." If you are playing a character, you deserve to know what moves that character has. Hero's Down B has too much variance on what it does and it is extremely difficult to react (Also the kaboom line is REALLY hard to see on some stages due to color and size) and prepare for all of them.

 

[DungeonMaster]

This is the kind of useless observation that dies with context when you realize that Riddles' Ken was one dropped combo from winning that entire set. I'm not exactly sure what "putting in more time with Ken" would hypothetically do against the best, most composed player in the world.

If memory serves me correct he droped 3 confirms, with at least one jab123 in there. Yes, at the highest levels "putting more time in" and dropping zero is clearly very important.

 

[Envoy of Chaos]

The Peach and Hero RNG point isn’t related to chance of getting a stitch or item it’s about risk reward. Peach does not lose anything to pull a normal turnip. If she couldn’t pull anything but normal turnips it does not affect her gameplan negatively. She does not need stitch faces or item pulls to have a function for her down b. The RNG is always going to be in her favor each time she pulls a turnip. Stitch faces are just added bonuses she doesn’t need but gets and everyone has accepted it.

This is not the case with Hero, the RNG does not always favor him in the spells he gets when he uses Down B. That’s the point I’m making. Hero gets a bad roll on his down b and it puts him in disadvantage but the one time he gets an actual very strong roll and the ideal conditions to use said roll he’s suddenly a problem?

Memorizing what different spells do/interact/etc is just learning the MU how is that an issue? Even if you don’t take advantage of reading the command menu with Hero you just react to what’s being thrown at you none of them are so fast aside maybe the Sizzles that you can’t react to them at range and his melee slashes require you to be close to be hit by in the first place which means he’s using his menu in your face which usually isn’t a good idea.

 

[Slime Master]

Actually, there is plenty of reason to believe that "reading the menu" is not really going to be viable against good Hero players. After all, they know when they're going to press down-B, giving them more time to react, and they also know which one of the 4 skills they will pick, or cancel.

Also, RNG Smashes are arguably worse than Judge. Enough on their own to make Hero banworthy? Probably not (crits + Down-B might), but they're more likely to be used than G&W's side-B and more likely to make a difference in the game (even if you don't get a crit you still hit with a Smash, after all, making the gambit more worthwhile, and you have a 1/8 chance of getting a crit instead of 1/9 to get a 9).

What I meant was that just having the menu open limits his options. Standing at midrange and shielding covers pretty much everything he wants to do except self-buffs and heal. He also has very limited options for covering above and below him (thwack, kamikaze, and magic burst, which are all reactable as long as you're far enough away for MB), so standing on a platform is usually safe.

As for crits, that's why I also brought up turnips.

But I digress, my skill level is extremely lacking so I'm mostly just theorycrafting here; I could have overlooked something.

 

[AxelVDP]

first of all, I'd like to quote my previous post

Let's talk about RNG: what constitutes "good" (personally, I'd rather say "acceptable") RNG and why is RNG ever implemented?
A multiplayer game (not even necessarily a turbo competitive game) is fun when there's a certain Depth in the interactions* that occur between the players. **
Having your mind challanged with quick decision making if fun, and this is where RNG can be good as it presents you with possible options that you need to make the best of. *** This kind of RNG is also accettable in multiplayer games since it brings forth varied interactions between the players, that is, if all players are able to strategize around this random event (which means that being reactable is a prerequisite). In the Hero's case, the whole concept of his downB fits this description decently, as do Peachs turnips.
Bad RNG would be something that actually -reduces- interactions and their depth. A random insta death removes a stock worth of interactions, the chances of a good result in a move might degenerate the game into less interesting interactions (fishing), and so on
A good example of terrible RNG would be Brawl's tripping, even casuals hated that mechanic. Less major offenders are G&W's 9 and Luigi's missfire, though at least these CAN be somewhat fun. And of course, Hero's crits and random insta kills.

Personally, I do dislike RNG (in fighting games) very much, but there's something I dislike more: seeing the community get toxic

* it is to note that having lots of options for possible interactions does not make them more meaningful, in fact I'd argue that it's pretty common for games to add lots of fluff that does not impact the gameplay in any meaningful way (and depending on the type of game, that could also be fine) - this is why games like DiveKick, a game with just 2 buttons, manages to be more entertaining than it should be

** which is why I think DI (in most of its forms) is one of the best mechanics ever implemented in a fighting game, it creates meaningful interactions even in gamestates where other games would simply let one of the player sit idly (ie getting comboed), and it does so in an elegant way that fits the game perfectly

*** an example: Tetris, the game would be -boring- if the random element was not in it bacause it would reduce the gameplay to simple iterations of algorithms -- do note though that throughout history Tetris' RNG got changed quite a bit, most modern games of Tetris make it so that you cannot get the same piece repeatedly for example

I apologize if this post is all over the place.

this is to say that I strongly believe that there's Quality & Quantity even in RNG, I'll use this argument later

There is one and only one definition of whether something is competitive or not; Can people compete in an objective match that involves any sort of skill, where one is determine a winner and one is not. Whether anyone likes it or not, Rock paper scissors is competitive. 'Competitive' is not a spectrum where some sports are 'more competitive' than others. Its Binary, either competitive or not. This is often a hard concept for people to understand, but we have to deal with objective measures here. As soon as subjectivity comes into play, the pro-ban argument falls apart. Can you tell me whether NBA is more competitive than NFL? Is chess more competitive than synchronised diving? Is car racing more competitive than horse racing? Its impossible to define, so don't bother. And there are a ton of random elements in those sports, namely umpires and judges. You can absolutely play the exact same way with different referees and have different results. The referees themselves may not be random, but who actually referees, partially is. If you are a fan of cricket, you'll know just how potent and game changing this can be.

This, I strongly disagree with. Competitiveness IS a spectrum. You even unconsciously admit to it in a later part of your very same post:

So the only argument really left is whether or not playing against hero breaks the game by virtue of upsets happening at a drastically higher level than normal. If you have player A and B who go 80:20 in 100 matches, but when both players use hero, it goes 50:50, then you have a point. If player B uses hero while player A does not and it goes to 50:50 that doesn't matter, perhaps he is just top tier, not banworthy since the other player can use him too. If Hero's RNG is actually busted good, then theoretically the good player should benefit from it just as much, and the ratio will stay at 80:20. If his RNG is incredibly random, but not actually breaking the game in the results screen, then hes fine. This is one of the weakest possible arguments one could take to ban Hero as it requires a huge burden of proof that even if reached, would require some sort of precedent on banning characters that allow new players to win more easily yet top players can't. Its almost impossible to imagine such a scenario.

While it's very hard and unfeasible to (fairly) compare competitiveness between different games (due to the human factor), there is an easy description of competitiveness:
a competitive game is a game where the more skilled player wins.
A perfect "competitive game" is impossible simply because there are tons of other out of game factors that can alter results (someone might have slept bad the day before or be down or a mosquito bites him during a set and makes the player whiff a punish etc you get what I'm talking about). (a player's skill is not fixed but it's more like an electron orbiting a nucleus)
In a game such as Rock Paper Scissor no matter how skilled you are, the chanches you're gonna lose to a complete noob are non trivial.
In smash4 you were basically guaranteed that ZeRo would not lose to a random noob.
Thus, we can reasonably assume that Smash4 was more competitive than Rock Paper Scissor.
In a way, you could look at the winrates (or GXE/other stuff for even better accuracy) of the top players in a game and kind of get an idea of the level of the competitiveness of that game. Not a foolproof method and there are flaws with this approach but it can still give you reasonable estimates.

RNG can not be talked about being 'anti competitive' when MtG and poker etc remain immensely popular, and highly competitive. If you want to argue that hero is anti-competitive because he is too random, I implore you to find your local card playing scene and lecture them all about how their game is anti-competitive because of the high random factor.

there's no single RNG, a game can still be decently competitive even with (keywords: even with) RNG elements, RNG by itself (and by design) bring excitement in exchange for consistency (read: competitiveness), but that does not mean it's all or nothing.

There has long been a fairly narrow, yet extremely strict criteria to ban a character used in all fighting games. The character must be over-centralising, and/or 'breaks' the game.

Just wanted to point out that a game being overcentralized around something can (and will) be competitive anyway, probably even more so than the same game without that overcentralizing thing. The problem with overcentralizzation in games is not competitiveness but viewers/players retention (they get bored and move on).
If you're banning for overcentralization you're not doing it because the game is more competitive that way.
(Yes, yes, there are exception as with everything. but usually it's this way)

A character having RNG abilities has, as far as I know, never actually been a criteria applied to any character that would be banned in a fighting game. If this is the angle people want to take to apply a Hero ban fine, we will discuss it. But you need to be very honest and upfront about it. You are inventing a new, subjective criteria to ban a character, one which has absolutely no historical precedent despite there being tons of examples of characters with feature RNG elements. You are attempting to draw a line between what is as acceptable, and unacceptable level of RNG.

And that's wrong because..? Personally I don't think Hero should be banned, but using history as a justification for not banning it... is kinda naive.
Every rule (even in the real world) is subjective in nature and new rules get created everytime in order to better fit the present world.
Yeah, there are no historical rules to ban RNG characters because RNG characters like this never existed before lol. (see the example of the Gambler character of Frihetsanka )

In conclusion, a hero ban is totally unwarranted by historical measures. The combination of RNG and the effectiveness of RNG is not, and never will be a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Anti-competitive arguments fly in the face of countless other competitive games which feature similar issues with limited counterplay. Hero might have extremely good options that dominate all of a characters options, but he doesn't have them all the time and you absolutely do have counterplay options at the character select screen. Certain characters will have an absolutely terrible time dealing with his offstage game, that is a matchup issue. MK vs the entire brawl cast. Hero may prove over time to routinely be a problem and causing too many upsets, but that implies that only 'bad' players will benefit from his RNG while good players will lose to it. Unless proof of that is obtained, any ban made is purely an emotional argument that features no objective standards.

This still relates to my above comment but I wanted to say that I 100% agree with the second half of this quote.

However If you start to define how much RNG a character has in terms of how many attacks feature it, that's a weak argument since that's arbitrary and completely subjective. If a G&W player doesn't use sideb once in a match, which is certainly not uncommon, the character effectively has no RNG at all. A hero main can simply choose never to use Hocus pocus in a match and now peach is more RNG than hero. In fact, Hero can have twice as much RNG as he does currently, it doesnt matter since attempting a limit a character on the instances of RNG is unprecedented and you have invented new rules explicitly for him. If that is your argument, you know must consider a peach player who obsessively pulls turnips and lets say pulls 2 bombs in a match. Is it possible that this would have a greater effect on the outcome of a match, than a typical Hero player will through their own RNG? It absolutely is. I'll get into the counterplay later, for now I'm just talking about the quantity of RNG used as an argument. There really is no value of 'too much' RNG that has ever been defined in fighting games, let alone smash. With Hero all I see is people not sure where to draw the line between 'too much' and 'acceptable' amounts of RNG, so they simply put hero on top of every character in history, put a line between them both and declare 'there, thats proof he has too much RNG'. If that seems like I'm grossly over-simplifying the argument, find me any evidence of a level of RNG being considered unacceptable in the past in smash. Literally one single element anywhere, because you can't. And that's why the line was drawn arbitrarily and instantly fails any objective ban criteria.
On the other side, how powerful the characters RNG is also irrelevant since the only time any consideration of how strong a character is in order to be worth of a ban, you now must fit the criteria of the character being over-centralising and clearly, Hero is no where close to fitting this bill. I see people trying to mix these 2 together and its intellectually dishonest. You can not have a non-banworthy amount of RNG mixed with a non-banworthy effectiveness of RNG to combine to make a banworthy character. This flies in the face of any objective, logic based approach, has never been applied before and is a classic case of fudging the hypothesis so you arrive at the conclusion you wanted. 2 + 2 does not = 5.

Completely forgot what I wanted to comment on here lol, but it's not just a case of "quantity" of RNG, there's also "quality" (read: my quoted post at the beginning)

Sorry my small brain has stopped working gotta go back to playing three houses don't ban Hero so lightly ok thanks bye

 

[ZephyrZ]

I'll give you an example: In Smash 4, all custom moves were banned. Why? Partly due to practicality of loading them and setting them up, but mostly becasue it was too much for any player to be able to prepared for ALL the variance in a character. Granted, the variance of smash 4 custom moves is on a larger scale, but it proves that variance like this is banwrothy to some degree.

Okay I can sympathize with the "RNG is too volatile" argument even if I don't agree with it, but you aren't winning me over with this one. At all.

I'd say having to memorize 70+ match ups, many of which are obscure or unusual, is too much for a single person as well. Should we ban more janky and obscure characters just to lighten the load on competitors, or should we accept that fighting games just have a ton of depth and situational things to learn and memorize?

 

[Diabolique]

The Peach and Hero RNG point isn’t related to chance of getting a stitch or item it’s about risk reward. Peach does not lose anything to pull a normal turnip. If she couldn’t pull anything but normal turnips it does not affect her gameplan negatively. She does not need stitch faces or item pulls to have a function for her down b. The RNG is always going to be in her favor each time she pulls a turnip. Stitch faces are just added bonuses she doesn’t need but gets and everyone has accepted it.

This is not the case with Hero, the RNG does not always favor him in the spells he gets when he uses Down B. That’s the point I’m making. Hero gets a bad roll on his down b and it puts him in disadvantage but the one time he gets an actual very strong roll and the ideal conditions to use said roll he’s suddenly a problem?

Memorizing what different spells do/interact/etc is just learning the MU how is that an issue? Even if you don’t take advantage of reading the command menu with Hero you just react to what’s being thrown at you none of them are so fast aside maybe the Sizzles that you can’t react to them at range and his melee slashes require you to be close to be hit by in the first place which means he’s using his menu in your face which usually isn’t a good idea.

Not sure how you think Hero never benefits from Down B and goes into disadvantage if he doesn't pick anything. If you're recovering off stage and Hero is at the ledge with his down B up, and happens to not pick anything, he isn't in disadvantage. If you were FORCED to pick one of the four moves then maybe I could see your argument, but Hero does not lose anything when he puts up a down B.

IN FACT, Hero can cancel the Down B as soon as frame 20 with shield, Peach Down B has a FAF of almost double on frame 39. Plus if you hit her hard out of it she loses the turnip and can use it yourself. Don't think your argument about risk reward means anything.

If memorizing all the spells, possible timings, and even reacting to them (you literally cannot even see the bang and kaboom particles on some stages, but okay) Then what about smash 4 customs? It would have been part of the "MU" you had to learn, and nearly all players hated them.

If it's "learning the MU," why do you have the right to preview Mii Fighters? Just know all the possibilities and combinations of moves they can have going in blind?

I'd say having to memorize 70+ match ups, many of which are obscure or unusual, is too much for a single person as well. Should we ban more janky and obscure characters just to lighten the load on competitors, or should we accept that fighting games just have a ton of depth and situational things to learn and memorize?

ZephyrZ It's not about match ups, it's about the actual moves on the character - information

Let me ask you this: Can you list/visualize in your head the tilts, smashes, aerials, and special moves of all the characters? If you load into a game against say, an unpopular character like Plant, do you think to yourself, "Oh, I forgot what his side B is..." I would say all players can do this - I believe this is the base line knowledge. Even if you were to mix up a few specials by assignment, you would know the complete set of moves.

It was nearly impossible to memorize that with Smash 4 customs if you didn't request. It would be very hard to do this without the Mii fighter request right now.

Do you have memorized all of the variance that the Mii Fighters can have for all their specials?

Could you list, without looking at a guide, from memory, all the names of Hero's down B skills and what they do? Can you rank the speeds of the projectiles? Do you know which ones can kill, and which ones cannot at any given percent?

This is what variance is - not having basic knowledge on what a character can do when you see them. Any player knows Mario's moves and can recognize them. In other words, if you see Mario, you can list all his moves easily.

 

[NotLiquid]

If memory serves me correct he droped 3 confirms, with at least one jab123 in there. Yes, at the highest levels "putting more time in" and dropping zero is clearly very important.

You can practice the same confirm a hundred times, and that's not gonna matter -period- if you let nerves get the better of you. That's what separates MKLeo from the rest of the pack, and I can tell you right now the same applies for everyone who's been one game away from winning against him. Riddles is no different from Samsora, Zackray and Tweek in this regard - all of them experts in their own characters, but their character experience in perfectly serviceable MUs did not prevent them from croaking against someone who's just way more composed and indomitable.

Riddles losing his set against Leo had nothing to do with "how much time" he put into the character, because it's clear from his play that he does put time into the character - probably way more than most actual Ken mains. If he got curbstomped in a MU that he shouldn't lose, then yeah, you'd have a point. But he wasn't, he was basically a last hit situation away, and he let himself get outplayed.

 

[Thinkaman]

Next post about RNG, banning RNG, or anything ruleset debate vaguely related is getting infractions.

This goes for low-value Arsene chat too, because I'm in a bad mood now.

 

[KirbySquad101]

Hmmm.... something different..

How's everyone feeling about atm?

Some things I picked up about him:

- A lot of his gameplay looks unchanged from SSB4 but the jump to Ultimate seems to have both harmed and helped him. Characters having better mobility does make it easier to get up in his grill, but the landing/ending lag buffs to both his slingshots and Lloid Rocket really helps him in making a wall that a lot of characters can still have a fairly hard time against.

- Improved jumpsquats gives him a really good OoS in the form of NAir, a frame 3 attack which is really good on characters with a zoner-esque play style like Villager. On the other hand, it's fairly short-ranged, so it can be hard to land against characters who can space well against him.

- He isn't heavy anymore (I never got why this was to be honest), but he still has a fairly small hurtbox for someone of his weight, which can make it very hard to hit the bugger sometimes, especially if you're playing as a character who needs to be precise with their hitboxes like .


- Half-cut bouncy tree is looking to be a really scary ledgeguarding option; part of me is relieved that Villager has to plant the thing and then water it first, because otherwise, I can imagine it would be really painful to go up against.

Don't really know what tier I'd place him atm lol

 

[Thinkaman]

If you really are trying to focus on maximizing your chances of winning, just pick a top tier (NSFW language), even for secondaries. Even though it seems like you've settled on PT as a main (which is a good call), I don't see much point in having Isabelle as a secondary based on actual potency against the meta. She could be a sleeper anti-meta pick, but if she were there'd probably be some kind of data to support it. Even if she were, I doubt you wouldn't get equal or better results with any top tier you happen to mesh with. I'm not sure PT really needs a secondary, but I'd suggest easy to use powerhouses like Wolf or Lucina instead. Maybe Peach or Snake if you mesh with their quirks well enough.

So, on one hand, I very much agree with the main thesis of "pick a top tier, don't self-sabotage." And I do have a strong disdain for both low-tier fetishization and people whining endlessly against top tiers and always rooting against them.

But character affinity is a real thing, and everyone is uniquely talented with different characters. Sometimes an unusual person is better with a high-tier that they just jive with than they would ever be with a top-tier, no matter how much they practice otherwise--or in rare cases, even a mid-tier. And in crazy flukes, it can even happen with the worst characters.

And in Brawl, I was the poster child of this. I played a lot of Brawl--I went through 3 Wiis and the last one had 30k matches on it. And despite efforts, Jigglypuff remained my best character. It was just, somehow, a perfect fit for the way I think. I really thrived on spacing and airspeed, but could never make Wario work. In my quest for a higher tier character I could eventually play Snake at a functional level, but when grand finals rolled around and money was on the line, I'd have to face the facts that Puff really was my best shot.

And I made it work--I did pretty decently in Brawl, and made a decent amount of winnings relative to that era. I was able to really capitalize that no one out-of-state knew the Puff matchup, and learned how to squeeze that silver-lining to its maximum.

There's also the notion of non-linear goals. I don't romanticize the idea of being a K. Rool that places 33rd over a Lucina that places 17th. But suppose I did succeed where I had failed and actually trained up a MK that could get the same results as my Puff. (So same performance, but higher potential for future improvement) So I go through Brawl and achieve the same level of moderate success with MK instead of Puff. Would I have enjoyed it as much? Would the social dynamics have been different? Probably. I can't help but feel, with very high confidence, that the rewards beyond just tournament winnings from that period of my life would have been less.

People remembered me easily, I made a lot of friends. There was a certain joy to being a bit more off in the wild west, figuring out unknown dynamics alone vs. grinding execution of solved problems. (I tried maining Falco for a day and wanted to shoot myself.) It was nice to have people usually cheering for me instead of my opponent. I could win every local in my city and in some ways still be considered the underdog.

Again, I think a lot of newer players fetishize this and it bothers me. All of this is silver-lining, not something to aspire towards or wish for. I tell people who want to win to practice top-tiers--that they can commit to a low-tier like I did only after they searched for other mains as long as I did, and proved that they are that one-in-a-million who drew the Ace of the worst suit.

To bring this back to earth...

Isabelle is only topical because I'm playing bizzarely well with her with zero practice (even in 3.1 she was tying my best characters), and she has very polarized matchups well-suited for a secondary. (Including good matchups against certain top tiers, better than PT or at least equal.) And if it's an equal matchup, better to not play the most popular character in the game that EVERYONE knows how to fight. 4.0 has me feeling bullish on Isabelle: Jab confirms into setup and kills, trap is reliable, rod is way better and kills, rolls are functional...

Spacies + rats + shotos are my worst characters; I struggle with vertical precision. This affects Joker too, to a lesser extent. I can make Peach and Lucina function but it's not a good fit either way. Snake is better, maybe my best top tier outside of PT, but it's nowhere near as natural as PT.

My biggest strengths are paitience + hard reads, which is why Incineroar jives and why I was able make lemonade out of Brawl/4 Ganon and Little Mac. It explains aspects of why I worked with Brawl Jiggs. (Brawl Pound could beat almost anything on a small hard read + good spacing, and I did a lot of read-based roll-to-grab.) It explains why PT works well--Ivysaur and Charizard harshly punish even modest reads, between grabs and a variety of their kill tools. It even explains my disproportionate success with Isabelle rod.

I have zero character loyalty (obviously), so if Isabelle doesn't pull her weight then bye felicia. But I really am optimistic about the character in 4.0! I think she's held back by a few bad matchups that will always dampen her tiering/solo-potential, but PT and/or Ness are great at those.

Edit: you should use specifically for money matches. Come on, now. Very rare MU + stupid power = quick $$.

I made a decent chunk of change in Brawl with Falcon and Ganon money matches! Mostly Falcon dittos.

Plus, Mac ain't bad in doubles with certain partners.

 

[Rizen]

So, on one hand, I very much agree with the main thesis of "pick a top tier, don't self-sabotage." And I do have a strong disdain for both low-tier fetishization and people whining endlessly against top tiers and always rooting against them.

But character affinity is a real thing, and everyone is uniquely talented with different characters. Sometimes an unusual person is better with a high-tier that they just jive with than they would ever be with a top-tier, no matter how much they practice otherwise--or in rare cases, even a mid-tier. And in crazy flukes, it can even happen with the worst characters.

And in Brawl, I was the poster child of this. I played a lot of Brawl--I went through 3 Wiis and the last one had 30k matches on it. And despite efforts, Jigglypuff remained my best character. It was just, somehow, a perfect fit for the way I think. I really thrived on spacing and airspeed, but could never make Wario work. In my quest for a higher tier character I could eventually play Snake at a functional level, but when grand finals rolled around and money was on the line, I'd have to face the facts that Puff really was my best shot.

And I made it work--I did pretty decently in Brawl, and made a decent amount of winnings relative to that era. I was able to really capitalize that no one out-of-state knew the Puff matchup, and learned how to squeeze that silver-lining to its maximum.

There's also the notion of non-linear goals. I don't romanticize the idea of being a K. Rool that places 33rd over a Lucina that places 17th. But suppose I did succeed where I had failed and actually trained up a MK that could get the same results as my Puff. (So same performance, but higher potential for future improvement) So I go through Brawl and achieve the same level of moderate success with MK instead of Puff. Would I have enjoyed it as much? Would the social dynamics have been different? Probably. I can't help but feel, with very high confidence, that the rewards beyond just tournament winnings from that period of my life would have been less.

People remembered me easily, I made a lot of friends. There was a certain joy to being a bit more off in the wild west, figuring out unknown dynamics alone vs. grinding execution of solved problems. (I tried maining Falco for a day and wanted to shoot myself.) It was nice to have people usually cheering for me instead of my opponent. I could win every local in my city and in some ways still be considered the underdog.

Again, I think a lot of newer players fetishize this and it bothers me. All of this is silver-lining, not something to aspire towards or wish for. I tell people who want to win to practice top-tiers--that they can commit to a low-tier like I did only after they searched for other mains as long as I did, and proved that they are that one-in-a-million who drew the Ace of the worst suit.

To bring this back to earth...

Isabelle is only topical because I'm playing bizzarely well with her with zero practice (even in 3.1 she was tying my best characters), and she has very polarized matchups well-suited for a secondary. (Including good matchups against certain top tiers, better than PT or at least equal.) And if it's an equal matchup, better to not play the most popular character in the game that EVERYONE knows how to fight. 4.0 has me feeling bullish on Isabelle: Jab confirms into setup and kills, trap is reliable, rod is way better and kills, rolls are functional...

Spacies + rats + shotos are my worst characters; I struggle with vertical precision. This affects Joker too, to a lesser extent. I can make Peach and Lucina function but it's not a good fit either way. Snake is better, maybe my best top tier outside of PT, but it's nowhere near as natural as PT.

My biggest strengths are paitience + hard reads, which is why Incineroar jives and why I was able make lemonade out of Brawl/4 Ganon and Little Mac. It explains aspects of why I worked with Brawl Jiggs. (Brawl Pound could beat almost anything on a small hard read + good spacing, and I did a lot of read-based roll-to-grab.) It explains why PT works well--Ivysaur and Charizard harshly punish even modest reads, between grabs and a variety of their kill tools. It even explains my disproportionate success with Isabelle rod.

I have zero character loyalty (obviously), so if Isabelle doesn't pull her weight then bye felicia. But I really am optimistic about the character in 4.0! I think she's held back by a few bad matchups that will always dampen her tiering/solo-potential, but PT and/or Ness are great at those.



I made a decent chunk of change in Brawl with Falcon and Ganon money matches! Mostly Falcon dittos.

Plus, Mac ain't bad in doubles with certain partners.

What would you say 's hardest MUs are and how his spread looks in general?

 

[Locke 06]

To bring this back to earth...

Isabelle is only topical because I'm playing bizzarely well with her with zero practice (even in 3.1 she was tying my best characters), and she has very polarized matchups well-suited for a secondary. (Including good matchups against certain top tiers, better than PT or at least equal.) And if it's an equal matchup, better to not play the most popular character in the game that EVERYONE knows how to fight. 4.0 has me feeling bullish on Isabelle: Jab confirms into setup and kills, trap is reliable, rod is way better and kills, rolls are functional...

It's easy to play Isabelle if you have defensive fundamentals (understand projectiles, can anti-air, and run/walk-back ftilt/fsmash); rod whiff punishes buttons and catches landings, full hop nair stuffs jumps, she is able to edgeguard, and the lloid trap is something you can play around if you are smart. It's why she is very popular among people who dislike braindead ultimate play. Unfortunately she is not rewarding enough or threatening enough (up air is the main culprit imo), and her defensive options vs moves on shield are awful, but certain play styles/matchups will not exploit that.

 

[Goodstyle_4]

Playing Isabelle has really given me an appreciation of Villager's side B. In a subtle way, that move IS the character and is hugely responsible for any success he has in competition.

 

[ProfessorVincent]

(My wife: "GEE, IT'S TOO BAD THERE'S NOT A TOP TIER CHARACTER WHO REWARDS PLAYING DIVERSE PLAYSTYLES. C'MON, HOW IS THIS HARD???")

Yeah yeah, I should probably be primarily playing PT. I do really enjoy the character!

PT is strong and fun (subjective, I know). Someone with such a wide pool of characters they're proficient with like yourself could do wonders with it. There is a reason why Tweek, one of the top Smash 4 players who pulled off a super heavy at top level and succeeded, is showing everyone how strong Charizard can be.

Just listen to your wife. It'll make everything easier in smash and IRL.

 

[SwagGuy99]

comical. absolutely comical. Its been what a month? I'm willing to bet a TO or person of influence got hit with something and used their influence to push this. banning things we dont like is a slippery slope. Well have fun when you travel to places that have him legal might get exposed by a character that may not even be good.

17 days. He's been out for less than 3 weeks and he's already been banned somewhere. I'd understand the idea of banning him (even if I didn't fully agree with it) if he had a well-rounded moveset like Roy or Lucina as that (on top of his large arsenal of special attacks) would make his moveset much more threatening overall. But, it's not. So I really don't know why a ban is necessary at all.

Playing Isabelle has really given me an appreciation of Villager's side B. In a subtle way, that move IS the character and is hugely responsible for any success he has in competition.

Yeah, side-b really is a lot of Villager's gameplan. It makes his defensive and camping game much better, it gives him an extra option to mix up his recovery, stall in the air, and it allows him to put his opponents in a disadvantageous position.

Villager does have some other moves that are better than Isabelle (most of his moves are at least slightly better although a case could probably be made for Isabelle's being better in some cases) but this one is clearly the most significant instance of that.

 

[ProfessorVincent]

Hmmm.... something different..

How's everyone feeling about atm?

Some things I picked up about him:

- A lot of his gameplay looks unchanged from SSB4 but the jump to Ultimate seems to have both harmed and helped him. Characters having better mobility does make it easier to get up in his grill, but the landing/ending lag buffs to both his slingshots and Lloid Rocket really helps him in making a wall that a lot of characters can still have a fairly hard time against.

- Improved jumpsquats gives him a really good OoS in the form of NAir, a frame 3 attack which is really good on characters with a zoner-esque play style like Villager. On the other hand, it's fairly short-ranged, so it can be hard to land against characters who can space well against him.

- He isn't heavy anymore (I never got why this was to be honest), but he still has a fairly small hurtbox for someone of his weight, which can make it very hard to hit the bugger sometimes, especially if you're playing as a character who needs to be precise with their hitboxes like .


- Half-cut bouncy tree is looking to be a really scary ledgeguarding option; part of me is relieved that Villager has to plant the thing and then water it first, because otherwise, I can imagine it would be really painful to go up against.

Don't really know what tier I'd place him atm lol

I mained and dabbled with . I think although he is a better character now, he is lower in the tier list and the cons of the transition outweight the pros.

He is more mobile and overall less laggy in Ultimate, but so is everyone else and I don't think that works in his favor. The most noteworthy changes are his grabs, which went from 56/70/66 to 43/47/44 faf. It is A LOT better (in Smash 4, I had enough time to giggle at how bad it was before I got punished hard) but it is still bad. Startups are 14/16/17, one frame faster than Samus and two frames slower than YL, with a pretty mediocre range compared to what both of them have. Outside of opponents that do not know the matchup and just sit in shield against the rocket, he still struggles kinda hard against shields. His pseudo-tether grab continues to be too laggy for too little range.

He also struggles against mobile characters with big disjoints. had a bad matchup against cloud. probably still does, and also against all four marthlings. Long lasting hitboxes such as Ivy's and Palu's nair also easily power through slingshots.

Maybe the changes to airdodges make his edgeguarding more reliable, but I have yet to experience it in practice.

I would put him in mid-tier along with all of the characters that can have good showings in tournament, but surprise us when they do. I would love to be proved wrong, however, because I think he is super well-designed and flavorful.

Thinkaman I am really curious about what you think about Villager. With all that I said above, I still can't see how Isabelle could be a better character. Obviously I am biased, but when I try her, her zoning game just seems to have a gigantic rocket-shaped hole right in the middle.

 

[SwagGuy99]

Hmmm.... something different..

How's everyone feeling about atm?

Some things I picked up about him:

- A lot of his gameplay looks unchanged from SSB4 but the jump to Ultimate seems to have both harmed and helped him. Characters having better mobility does make it easier to get up in his grill, but the landing/ending lag buffs to both his slingshots and Lloid Rocket really helps him in making a wall that a lot of characters can still have a fairly hard time against.

- Improved jumpsquats gives him a really good OoS in the form of NAir, a frame 3 attack which is really good on characters with a zoner-esque play style like Villager. On the other hand, it's fairly short-ranged, so it can be hard to land against characters who can space well against him.

- He isn't heavy anymore (I never got why this was to be honest), but he still has a fairly small hurtbox for someone of his weight, which can make it very hard to hit the bugger sometimes, especially if you're playing as a character who needs to be precise with their hitboxes like .


- Half-cut bouncy tree is looking to be a really scary ledgeguarding option; part of me is relieved that Villager has to plant the thing and then water it first, because otherwise, I can imagine it would be really painful to go up against.

Don't really know what tier I'd place him atm lol

He's not horrible. He has the ability to do well verses campy characters due to his large arsenal of long ranged attacks and his pocket. His edgeguarding and defense are both really good and he is able to create a kind of wall using f-air, b-air, down-b, and side-b that some characters can't get past.

For example, some notable matchups that could possibly be even or winning for Villager are .

Some notable ones that he clearly loses are

 

[Megamang]

Some basic stuff below, but I feel we have some newcomers that could learn some fighting game basics. and it is something for everyone to think about, as I write this I keep thinking of more implications for different projectiles.

Projectiles are interesting. Slow ones have a lot of benefit as well, if you can act while the projectile is pressuring for you that is a huge benefit. Villager is what reminded me, it is also why tjolt / super missile / shadow ball are fairly strong. Tjolt can make you have to dodge to not get grabbed, and then you have pika stuffing your jumps if you try... etc etc, its just options and we know that is always good.

It is not only good for covering your approaches, or letting you beat a quick retreat/reset... but the closer you can get before impact gives you much better confirms out of this.

This is why, if my projectile isn't fast, I prefer it be really slow. Transcendence is obviously usually a bonus. And a bayonet effect is killer.


This has some interesting implications. So, first off Ryu gets all of the benefits. No transcendence though.

You'll notice there aren't many transcendent and slow projectiles. The devs knew that slow ones would have you needing to trade it out, and it would be very strong if they could come in right behind it and know if you try and swat it you will get stuffed and then punished. When it can get boring/repetitive is when your best option behind your projectile... is to pull another projectile. But slow ones don't really feel this, because the combo reward off of them can be killer vs some chip damage. Peach is a good example, something every peach could get better at is turnip confirms, I've seen some killer combos into her new fsmash that just wipe a stock from early.


I won't list all the projectiles (That's for the BSD shirt) but you can take this implication pretty far.


Also, thank the heavens that joker can't confirm much (anything?) out of eiha or travel with it for pressure with his extremely fast grab. He sits there, or continues floating the direction he was moving.


...

what is Hero's slowest projectile? Kafrizzle?

 

[Spinosaurus]

what is Hero's slowest projectile? Kafrizzle?

Frizz is his slowest, I'm sure. Pops them up as well so he gets the added benefits of confirms off of it. (Ryuga's twitter has a lot of that lately)

 

[Megamang]

Shows how much I know about the character. Each charge level makes the projectile faster?

 

[Myollnir]

Played around with Frizz for a bit because I didn't get how you'd combo off of it. Turns out you have to throw it from far away.

There are 2 hitboxes, one that deals 10,8% (damage is without staling activated) and puts into tumble as early as 45%. You don't want this hitbox, unless you're with this ability (he can confirm close range Frizz into an instant B-air at mid-high %)

The second hitbox deals 7,2%, and only starts making them tumble at around 70%.

This is the one you want. The further you are from your opponent when you use Frizz, the better the follow-ups will be. If you're barely in range to get this hitbox (see picture below, this is the range when Frizz starts to deal 7,2%), you can only combo into a well timed SH Zap (it's very tight, some characters will be able to escape it if the % are too low).

If you land a max range Frizz, you can combo into Zapple (you need to hold B for at least 16 frames to avoid doing a Zap). I checked, it is not escapable, but can be pretty tight (not super tight, don't worry) due to needing to know the Zapple charge timing.

With some % but before it sends into tumble, if you land it from max range, it can confirm into dash attack (which can possibly kill I guess).

After it starts putting into tumble, you don't really have follow-ups, except Dash Attack, which seems to work even with DI away, BUT : it's not a true combo ( can dodge it), and I'm pretty sure non-fastfallers can avoid it with jump. Still useful in game I'm pretty sure.

For reference : you start getting the 2nd hitbox at this distance.

Having Acceleratle activated allows you to have easier follow-ups, obviously. But I'm too lazy to know exactly what it confirms into. And I'm sure there's a lot of nasty stuff.

This is kinda situational, due to needing to land the Frizz from a certain range, but that's just one out of three variation of 's Neutral B. It definitely is an insanely good move. Lots of things to explore with this move, although Frizz is the one with the most combo potential. Frizzle is just an overall good projectile, but no follow-ups. And Kafrizz is a situationally good combo finisher (but when it works, the reward is there).