Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I'd prefer if you had a problem with me to state it outright through PMs, rather than using vaguely worded snide statements. There's no need for this kind of brash and childish behavior on the forums.
The hypocrisy of this statement is literally making me lol.
In what regard? You make a claim that Pikachu can do something without proof of it, and I call you out on it, then you berate me. It is impossible to show something not happening, while finding proof of it is a burden for the one making the claim.
Well I don't disagree with that point. In fact, that's what my last post was trying to illustrate, so why you see the need to dispute it on those grounds is beyond me. My issue is that you seem to also be suggesting that competitive popularity informs viability. My point is that this is impossible because viability is an immutable property of the game's balance. Instead, I'm arguing that viability affects competitive popularity.
Falcon's viability hasn't changed. His popularity has as his options have become more well-understood.
If the claim I made was controversial, I would have included proof. I berated you... after you berated me (your so called "call out"). So basically I was just throwing out a cool little smash-fact, you called me out, and you were wrong. GTFO
Not necessarily.
I think it's pretty common thinking that Puff shouldn't be S tier anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that she is just as viable as any other A tier character.
How do you follow? No one is using Puff any more than any other time in the game's history; and Fox, Falco, and Sheik have always been on top. The movement of characters has little to no correlation on their use by top players, and the only game level to which this applies is like, way low ignorant assumption amateur level. Do you really have such a low presumption about "players" to think everyone jumps all over whoever the MBR puts in S?
Fox and Falco were not always popular. You need to look further into the past to find that out.
First tier list had Marth at 4th behind Sheik and both spacies, so idk how you can say people considered him better. I don't have any evidence of how popular they were back in the day so maybe someone who actually attended early tournaments can weigh in, but I've always had the sense that they were always very popular characters because of how fun they are.
Roy and Yoshi are quite a lot of fun despite their huge glaring weaknesses. It is those weaknesses that prevent them from being more popular competitively, not the experience of playing the characters--they're straightforward to learn. These are exceptions in the opposite direction, I'd say. I would agree that the spacies/falcon/marth/shiek are rewarding because of their ability to combo and control space, which happens to be what makes them good, and many other characters aren't great at one or both of those.
Such an ugly sounding word.
ehhhhhhh ok
Poor Sheik misses her domination of the game.
I think the Pokemon community is way ahead of us on this one. They rank their tiers on usage on the assumption that better pokemon will be used more often. Personally I think it's brilliant, but this community can't play the same kind of numbers game due to obvious constraints.
I think low tiers are more fun- to a point. Winning is fun, and better characters enable that flavor of enjoyment.
As someone who was there for the whole thing, you have no idea what you're talking about.
