Adi
Smash Lord
Yet you think Peach's down smash is perfectly balanced lol. That's not biased <<
-
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!
Downloadable balance patches?
- Thread starter S_B
- Start date
Peach's dsmash, in the hands of Peach, is hardly a broken move. Does that make more sense?
th0rn
Smash Lord
I really wouldn't want patches because all the scrubs would keep begging for a patch to fix wavedashing (if its in the game) and other things that make the game great.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
Anyone who thinks Peach's down-smash is "cheap" does not play competitively. Learn how to make intelligent approaches. I agree that it is a grossly overpowered move, but it is your fault if you keep being hit by it. Peach is not the one winning tournaments these days.
Scrubs can whine and complain all they want. The patch committee would simply ignore the silly requests they make.
Scrubs can whine and complain all they want. The patch committee would simply ignore the silly requests they make.
Adi
Smash Lord
Rofl, I'm not complaining about it being cheap at all, I'm just pointing out the irony in calling Sheik's forward air cheap and not the downsmash, to me, both of them have counters, I really don't find anything "cheap" in smash.
The problem is not when a character has a cheap move, but when they have the perfect conditions for using them as well as a great arsenal of skills to back them up.
Zelda has two cheap moves, but she sucks because all her other attacks are relatively lousy and shuffling fairs or bairs is her only approach, besides the fact that her aerial movement isn't ideal and she's very vulnerable in general.
The same is SORT of true for Peach, although she has a lot more benefits.
On that note, I can see how it became a problem in WoW or whatever it was that people whining got the patches they wanted so they wouldn't have to actually think of a strategy...
The sad thing about this in Smash is that it's not a strategy game and you should not be restricted to only having one viable strategy because you picked Bowser while your opponent has all the freedom in the world to do whatever they want because he picked Fox. The only time Bowser can do anything is if Fox makes a mistake and Bowser reacts quickly enough to exploit it. That just as an example.
Zelda has two cheap moves, but she sucks because all her other attacks are relatively lousy and shuffling fairs or bairs is her only approach, besides the fact that her aerial movement isn't ideal and she's very vulnerable in general.
The same is SORT of true for Peach, although she has a lot more benefits.
On that note, I can see how it became a problem in WoW or whatever it was that people whining got the patches they wanted so they wouldn't have to actually think of a strategy...
The sad thing about this in Smash is that it's not a strategy game and you should not be restricted to only having one viable strategy because you picked Bowser while your opponent has all the freedom in the world to do whatever they want because he picked Fox. The only time Bowser can do anything is if Fox makes a mistake and Bowser reacts quickly enough to exploit it. That just as an example.
I intend no irony in my statements. Sheik's forward air has a combination of speed, priority, range, power, and lower-than-any-other-fair sending angle that contributes to it being overpowered. This is especially because Sheik can hit with it easily out of many set ups, and can edgeguard with it efficiently. If you get edgeguarded with Sheik's fair, you're dead even with correct DI because it sends that low.
Peach's dsmash merely racks up damage. It's a pretty weak killer, and you can't combo out of it because Peach is not quick enough. Despite this, it has exploitable lag.
You can't just look at a single move and say "that's broken." You need to look at the character as a whole. Sheik has lots of insane moves at her disposal that are only made better by her speed. Peach has good moves but no *amazing* ones to compliment them, and this is hindered by her slow movement.
Peach's dsmash merely racks up damage. It's a pretty weak killer, and you can't combo out of it because Peach is not quick enough. Despite this, it has exploitable lag.
You can't just look at a single move and say "that's broken." You need to look at the character as a whole. Sheik has lots of insane moves at her disposal that are only made better by her speed. Peach has good moves but no *amazing* ones to compliment them, and this is hindered by her slow movement.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
We should ban Ganondorf's Warlock Punch. That move is way cheap. 30 damage? Low damage kill move? Cheeeeeeeeap...
Adi
Smash Lord
Yeah I used to play WoW too, I played a Warlock wayyy back in the day and remember people always complaining about how we sucked and how we had no viable defense when in all honesty we had plenty of ways to get around our lack of instant cast defense, you just had to be innovative. Instead Blizzard listened to the whiners and buffed us to hell with Deathcoil along with numerous other buffs. And I believe today warlocks still are the most overpowered class in WoW.
Point is, they have to be very careful when changing around game mechanics, as what the general population thinks isn't always what's best for the community. Some matchups, like Bowser vs. Fox are justified in changing but others such as Marth vs. Shiek aren't. Although many Marth players complain about this matchup being terrible for Marth the fact is on the top levels of competition Marths never complain about Shiek so chances are you're doing something wrong (BTW, if you think I'm just saying this from a Shiek standpoint look at my sig and guess what one of my mains is ^^)
Point is, they have to be very careful when changing around game mechanics, as what the general population thinks isn't always what's best for the community. Some matchups, like Bowser vs. Fox are justified in changing but others such as Marth vs. Shiek aren't. Although many Marth players complain about this matchup being terrible for Marth the fact is on the top levels of competition Marths never complain about Shiek so chances are you're doing something wrong (BTW, if you think I'm just saying this from a Shiek standpoint look at my sig and guess what one of my mains is ^^)
BigRick
Smash Master
I am scared of patches.
Just like Adi pointed out in his WoW examples, some balance fixes won't resolve balance issues at all.
Just like Adi pointed out in his WoW examples, some balance fixes won't resolve balance issues at all.
B01001101ownz
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Messages
- 137
I'm fine with the tiers because even low tier characters can still come out on top depending on your skill. I played as Kirby and my cousin would play as Marth and we were a pretty even match so I don't really care either way
I highly doubt that over 50% of the players would be Fox/Falco. And even if they are, I'm sure a lot of them aren't playing those characters for the same reasons we as competitive Smashers are. The competitive scene in Melee is incredibly small compared to the entire Smash community, so I have a feeling that the online community in Brawl will consist of more casual players than not.. this means that, even though we have the tier lists and whatnot, we'll probably still see multiple characters being played (even if most of them don't know anything about what they're doing).
Just saying.. hope I didn't misread you.
Anyway, my honest opinion is that I do not want patches. I feel that people need to develop on the game once it's out their own way. if they keep getting destroyed by a "broken" move, then they need to try and find a way around it themselves rather than trying to "nerf" it or "buff" who they use. However, should they decide to do patches, they had better choose what to patch carefully. Do NOT nerf the strong, but buff the weak. Also, do NOT patch something just because of multiple complaints. The only reason something should be patched is if it messes up the game in some manner, or if it creates something undefeatable. And also, they had better wait for at LEAST a year or two before they do patch characters and things because only then will we truly be discovering the full potential of the game.
Patches are risky. I just don't want them to **** up somehow.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
If the same three characters are winning every tournament then a patch is needed.
MookieRah
Kinda Sorta OK at Smash
In photography class at MSU all the students had to learn how to color balance their printed pictures for a true gray. We would use photoshop to make the image on the screen pure black and white, but the printers didn't necessarily print it as a true neutral. We were taught that the fastest way to making a true neutral print was to fix one small thing at a time. If the image looked a little blue, throw a smidgen of yellow onto the image and reprint. If it was too dark, throw a little light on it. If it is blue, and dark, just change the brightness and check to see if you still need to change the color. Oddly enough, sometimes even if it seemed too blue in a dark image, it was corrected by just adding a little bit of brightness. But if you tried to tried to correct things at once, then you could make the color balance worse than you started out with, and it takes more prints when you backtrack.
The same thing goes with game balancing, but few companies seem to realize this. Often times WoW patches had DRASTIC changes on characters, that would often completely overhaul them, and they went through patches like crazy. Instead of trying to fix one thing at a time, they almost always adjusted 6 things at a time, and they usually weren't minor adjustments either.
If companies went about it wisely they would just be patient with it and look into all the minor things they could adjust easily that would yield a more balanced game. For example, a simple way to fix Sheik's fair would be to just make it send you pure horizontal like all the other fairs in the game. Then it would still be an excellent kill move and it wouldn't be something that would make Sheik suck, nor would it be overpowered. Since that is her number 1 finisher, that simple change would go a LONG way towards overall balance. That would be a small change that could work with a patch and would more than likely be accepted among the community.
If they patched things like that, in conjunction with the fact that they rarely patch the game, it will be obvious what little things should be adjusted given the time period. Over the course of the games duration a lot of balance issues would be solved without a character becoming overpowered or useless in the process.
The same thing goes with game balancing, but few companies seem to realize this. Often times WoW patches had DRASTIC changes on characters, that would often completely overhaul them, and they went through patches like crazy. Instead of trying to fix one thing at a time, they almost always adjusted 6 things at a time, and they usually weren't minor adjustments either.
If companies went about it wisely they would just be patient with it and look into all the minor things they could adjust easily that would yield a more balanced game. For example, a simple way to fix Sheik's fair would be to just make it send you pure horizontal like all the other fairs in the game. Then it would still be an excellent kill move and it wouldn't be something that would make Sheik suck, nor would it be overpowered. Since that is her number 1 finisher, that simple change would go a LONG way towards overall balance. That would be a small change that could work with a patch and would more than likely be accepted among the community.
If they patched things like that, in conjunction with the fact that they rarely patch the game, it will be obvious what little things should be adjusted given the time period. Over the course of the games duration a lot of balance issues would be solved without a character becoming overpowered or useless in the process.
The issue that nobody's addressing is "Who do they balance the game for?" Go talk to noobs about which moves are overpowered (or read a few Gamefaqs guides). The top move on the list will be Link's Up+B. Play against somebody who never does 1 vs. 1 and watch how much damage you can build up by spamming fox/falco's forward+B (Some people can handle it, but a lot can't).
Being a Warcraft III and Dawn of War player, I saw both games dumbed down (W3 slightly, DoW enormously) to appeal to people who would rather cry "imbalance" than adjust their tactics. Half of the players would move to whichever race had the supposedly imbalanced technique, and most of those remaining would do more complaining than anything.
If a small group composed of top players was balancing the game, I would support it. Instead, I can guarantee that the #1 source of balance imput would be NSiders who would either ask for balance on the wrong things or request ridiculous nerfs on stuff like the shine when they fought good players.
Being a Warcraft III and Dawn of War player, I saw both games dumbed down (W3 slightly, DoW enormously) to appeal to people who would rather cry "imbalance" than adjust their tactics. Half of the players would move to whichever race had the supposedly imbalanced technique, and most of those remaining would do more complaining than anything.
If a small group composed of top players was balancing the game, I would support it. Instead, I can guarantee that the #1 source of balance imput would be NSiders who would either ask for balance on the wrong things or request ridiculous nerfs on stuff like the shine when they fought good players.
mark.
Smash Journeyman
its a good idea, i really fxn like it.
but yes i agree, they need the top 'brawl pros' to adjust these changes. and the modest ones plx.
imagine game mods (like cs)? that would be awesome.
but yes i agree, they need the top 'brawl pros' to adjust these changes. and the modest ones plx.
imagine game mods (like cs)? that would be awesome.
S_B
Too Drunk to Smash
Thing is, people going online become incredibly competitive, and this sort of thing has a chain reaction.
Take Mario Strikers, for example: the online play is pretty balanced, from everything I've seen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's easier to score goals with some characters than others.
The end result is that players get beaten by a character or sidekick and then typically move on to play as/with that character or sidekick.
The same would be true for online SSBB: no one likes to lose, and I maintain that, right now, most online Melee matches would be between Foxes and Falcos because people would have learned who the best characters are after all these years.
Same goes for Bowser's lack of use: eventually, all but the most die-hard Bowser players would have realized that they basically always get their a$$es handed to them and would have abandoned him as a character. It's fun playing as the characters you like, but not when you can't win a game, ever.
Given the sheer amount of data they'd be able to collect, I think they could easily see which characters badly need a boost to get back to a competitive level, and the TRUE beauty of this is that there are no whiny scrub players: it's ALL by statistics and I'm certain that the data won't lie in this regard.
People get very competitive when they play online. Try Strikers online if you don't believe me. I have no doubt that the millions of players going online with SSBB games would produce more than enough data for Nintendo to make decisions regarding which characters need buffs.
Problem2
Smash Champion
If there are any adjustments, they can rarely be nerfs unless there is an incredibly easy 0-death combo that works on every character or something like that. What needs the boost is the weakened. Gears of War actually got an online patch that made the chainsaw gun usable (which is my favorite gun anyways), because it became the "throw away" gun.
If Melee was given patches, I would just boost some of the weaker characters slightly, let is set a year, and make more small patches based on how the metagame changed.
If Melee was given patches, I would just boost some of the weaker characters slightly, let is set a year, and make more small patches based on how the metagame changed.
Drik Khaail
Smash Ace
all you have to do to fix brawl is get rid of fox and falco!
Adi
Smash Lord
Or prevent idiots from playing the game/making stupid posts ^^
S_B
Too Drunk to Smash
That's exactly my idea.
If they constantly kept boosting the weak, unused characters back to usability, then I'd be happy.
I don't want Fox or Falco nerfed. I want Bowser overhauled into not s*cking anymore.
That also eliminates the "oh noes! tehy changed my main!" problem. Who's going to complain when Nintendo makes their main stronger and more capable?
That almost works, but there some other problems.
1) A character's learning curve will have more to do with with online victories than his/her maximum potential. Fox and Falco may be at the top, but you can't just pillar and waveshine after practicing for five minutes. Ice climbers have a good spot on the tier list, but it takes a ton of practice to really be able to compete with them. Half of Ganondorf's moves, on the other hand, will kill the player at 90+% whether you're trying to or not.
2)It's easier to chop off limbs than grow new ones. You mentioned somewhere else that you want to see the balance be created by enhancing lower characters, but unless you just modify the numbers (more damage, lower lag), it will take an enormous amount of work. On the other hand, it is quite easy to remove jump-cancelling from shines or other things like that. Since they wouldn't be charging for the patches, they would have to keep the cost reasonably low, so we can probably expect at least some of the limb-hewing approach to balance that you see in most games that receive patches.
3)There will be TONS of whiny scrub players. They may or may not influence the balancing process, but they'll be there. Look at the message boards of any high-skill game that receives patches and they're full of people screaming "imbalance" about perfectly counterable techniques.
Adi
Smash Lord
Yeah I agree with the above statements. Statistics and general consensus are not necessarily the most accurate way to balance things, look at my WoW post earlier on.
S_B
Too Drunk to Smash
This is why it would take a while for them to release the first balance patch, but I agree with the minute adjustments of characters.
For example, Bowser in Melee could be better balanced by either:
1. Reducing his move lag.
2. Giving some of his moves the "non-flinch" treatment.
3. Making his attacks stronger and more damaging.
I didn't anticipate frequent or massive changes, just small things like fine tuning move effects and lag times after a year worth of data to really see the stats level out.
You also always have to keep in mind that changes have a different effect on players on different skill levels.
If you had asked me months ago who the most broken character is, I would have said Captain Falcon, because he has all the advantages that a n00b knows of: strength, speed, weight and a recovery that usually covers a great distance.
The fact that he has a hard time approaching another character and that any Falco, Fox, Sheik, etc. can easily gimp his recovery in the metagame means nothing to a player who doesn't even know edgehogging exists.
Changes would have to be subtle and mostly have affect the metagame rather than the newbie level.
If you try to make Bowser competitive by only giving him strength, chances are new players will have nightmares about him.
If you had asked me months ago who the most broken character is, I would have said Captain Falcon, because he has all the advantages that a n00b knows of: strength, speed, weight and a recovery that usually covers a great distance.
The fact that he has a hard time approaching another character and that any Falco, Fox, Sheik, etc. can easily gimp his recovery in the metagame means nothing to a player who doesn't even know edgehogging exists.
Changes would have to be subtle and mostly have affect the metagame rather than the newbie level.
If you try to make Bowser competitive by only giving him strength, chances are new players will have nightmares about him.
Hong
The Strongest
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 23,550
The only reason I'd want balance patches is the possibility there is some game breaking bug or exploit, or something gets way, way, way too out of hand. There are character advantages that may seem ridiculous, but chances are they're balanced and you just need to work on your playstyle. However, there are also just things the developers didn't see or things being used the way they weren't meant to be. (And I'm not talking about innovation.)
S_B
Too Drunk to Smash
I suppose this is always the challenge which falls between the casuals and hardcores.
Bowser needs to be able to "grow" in skills and combos along with the other faster characters who normally outspeed him and thus crush him without being a nightmare for new players.
However, when Melee first released, Bowser was a pretty decent power character, especially before people knew how to dodge and block.
I think one way or another, people will get over it.
I already made a thread about this...................... oh well
well this is a good idea but not many people want to see some characters changed to be better when they have no problems with them as they are. if nintendo decides to do this (unlikely but possible) they have to contend with all the people who don't like the idea.
this idea has potential but since people like different things it MAY flop but its unlikely.
well this is a good idea but not many people want to see some characters changed to be better when they have no problems with them as they are. if nintendo decides to do this (unlikely but possible) they have to contend with all the people who don't like the idea.
this idea has potential but since people like different things it MAY flop but its unlikely.
Phyvo
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 289
I think the nature of lots of smashers will change if there's online play. Posters here often remark about how most smashers hardly know anything about advanced techs. That will change when these same people go online, being the king of their block, and get demolished by the better players there. They'll ask, WHY, HOW, and they'll get the answer of "advanced techs", "you character sucks".
Thus, it will increase smash's competitiveness.
If Brawl is online I don't think there will be as many scrubs. They'll still be there, but there won't be as many playing as badly compared to now.
In relation to patches, it's tough for me. I really want to main Ridley, my favorite character in SS64 was Kirby, who received the unpatched game equivalent of the nerf bat. But... I don't know.
Statistics can only tell you so much. And how could you possibly take into account sheer popularity of characters? If character X is unpopular because he looks like a turkey, are you going to buff him until people realize how overpowered he is? Is he unpopular just because he's too hard to master? How do you glean "Captain Falcon has no good way to approach in the high-end meta game" from statistical data?
Now that I think about it, I'd much rather a game be consistently unbalanced than unbalanced in different ways all the time. You can use a variety of methods to figure out what's broken, but, the end question is, are the developers able to see through the smoke and mirrors and make a change that is good for the game?
I'm not that confident...
Thus, it will increase smash's competitiveness.
If Brawl is online I don't think there will be as many scrubs. They'll still be there, but there won't be as many playing as badly compared to now.
In relation to patches, it's tough for me. I really want to main Ridley, my favorite character in SS64 was Kirby, who received the unpatched game equivalent of the nerf bat. But... I don't know.
Statistics can only tell you so much. And how could you possibly take into account sheer popularity of characters? If character X is unpopular because he looks like a turkey, are you going to buff him until people realize how overpowered he is? Is he unpopular just because he's too hard to master? How do you glean "Captain Falcon has no good way to approach in the high-end meta game" from statistical data?
Now that I think about it, I'd much rather a game be consistently unbalanced than unbalanced in different ways all the time. You can use a variety of methods to figure out what's broken, but, the end question is, are the developers able to see through the smoke and mirrors and make a change that is good for the game?
I'm not that confident...
Now that I think about it... it's possibly all not as bad as it seems.
Really urgent changes have to be made if, at a casual level, one character is just plain overpowered.
The only ones where that might be the case in Melee are Sheik and Fox once you try them enough to figure out their obvious strengths.
However, they are aiming for balance. They have the experience of two games and probably spend a lot of time betatesting everything.
Obvious injustices like the comparative strengths of Pichu and Captain Falcon will probably not be existent. ( One has incredible speed, weight, strength and combos. The other one has, like, agility or something. )
Once the normal casual game is balanced ( un-Sheik'd ), you can go on to the metagame level.
After a while, a year or so, it will become apparent which characters own and which ones can only try to capitalize on a mistake made by their higher-tier opponent.
In many cases, buffing a weaker character without hurting the casual level play wouldn't be very hard. For example, Zelda's up- and forward-smashes could be un-DI-able. It's not like a casual gamer can DI well anyway, so this only really benefits her on the higher level. Luigi could be made into high-tier material if they gave him a jump-cancelable second jump. Or something like that.
Of course, it's also easy to nerf a character a little, but people will kick me in the shin if I start talking about that.
In my opinion, every character should be high tier or maybe mid-tier. No bottom tier, but no top tier, either.
Really urgent changes have to be made if, at a casual level, one character is just plain overpowered.
The only ones where that might be the case in Melee are Sheik and Fox once you try them enough to figure out their obvious strengths.
However, they are aiming for balance. They have the experience of two games and probably spend a lot of time betatesting everything.
Obvious injustices like the comparative strengths of Pichu and Captain Falcon will probably not be existent. ( One has incredible speed, weight, strength and combos. The other one has, like, agility or something. )
Once the normal casual game is balanced ( un-Sheik'd ), you can go on to the metagame level.
After a while, a year or so, it will become apparent which characters own and which ones can only try to capitalize on a mistake made by their higher-tier opponent.
In many cases, buffing a weaker character without hurting the casual level play wouldn't be very hard. For example, Zelda's up- and forward-smashes could be un-DI-able. It's not like a casual gamer can DI well anyway, so this only really benefits her on the higher level. Luigi could be made into high-tier material if they gave him a jump-cancelable second jump. Or something like that.
Of course, it's also easy to nerf a character a little, but people will kick me in the shin if I start talking about that.
In my opinion, every character should be high tier or maybe mid-tier. No bottom tier, but no top tier, either.
Can a game be balanced... I mean any charachter can beat another charachter. Sure teirs but do they really affect how i play. I use Jigglypuff and beat Foxes that have more skill than me, without items, without stage advantages.
"Do you know a Bumblebee by the laws of physics should'nt be able to fly" I mean who cares what is said for every unfair technique theres a way around. Sheiks fair for instance, a disjointed hitbox can take care of that.
"Do you know a Bumblebee by the laws of physics should'nt be able to fly" I mean who cares what is said for every unfair technique theres a way around. Sheiks fair for instance, a disjointed hitbox can take care of that.
Zenjamin
Smash Lord
my vote:
yes.
dont assume you know what these patches, that dont even exixt in the creators minds, will do.
if the creators feel that a patch would be benifical, they should be able to do it.
if they dont see anything wring with the game/data/ then they wont do anything.
just dont limit the people with the power. (if you trust them and they have no motive to frack you over) **coughrealworldpoliticscough**))
yes.
dont assume you know what these patches, that dont even exixt in the creators minds, will do.
if the creators feel that a patch would be benifical, they should be able to do it.
if they dont see anything wring with the game/data/ then they wont do anything.
just dont limit the people with the power. (if you trust them and they have no motive to frack you over) **coughrealworldpoliticscough**))
xyouxarexuglyx2
Smash Lord
idk, I only read the first page, but I have to say this:
Nintendo will not be able to find accurate data for tiers. Seriously, this will be the makeup of Brawl online:
-99% OMG I ROLL AND SMASH! I AM TEH BEST PLAYER EVAR
-1% ^This dude is a n00b, and needs to learn that Mewtwo isn't a good character.
Nintendo will not be able to find accurate data for tiers. Seriously, this will be the makeup of Brawl online:
-99% OMG I ROLL AND SMASH! I AM TEH BEST PLAYER EVAR
-1% ^This dude is a n00b, and needs to learn that Mewtwo isn't a good character.
Just a few FYIs looking thouhg all these post, the balance wont get broken like Melee for a few years. The other thing, is all the characters are balanced in 4vs. What qworks in the competative level, doens't work everywhere else.
OnyxVulpine
Smash Champion
Whats wrong with that?
I think Street Fighter had some balance.. and DoA seemed balanced to me.
KratosAurion192
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 822
I hope they do... Look at it this way...
Yugioh has two different ban and limited card lists. One for traditional players, which just limits cards, and doesn't ban any, and advanced, which bans any card that has been found to make very easy to pull off ,game ending moves... these lists are updated every 1-3 monthes.
This allows for new decks to be tried out, new strategies to be learned by all who want to compete, and to create a somewhat more level playing field. Now apply that to smash...
These patches would have the potential the make drastic changes in the teir list, giving more characters their time to shine (bad bad pun) If you want to play competitivly, you'll have to learn and adapt, a new and different way to prove your skill, and if you are someone who just loves your character, you just have to accept that their abilities might be changed, but why do care? You'll play them no matter what...right?
And I think it is only fair, I mean if we're looking at a roster of 35-40, half of them better be worth competitve play at any given moment...
Yugioh has two different ban and limited card lists. One for traditional players, which just limits cards, and doesn't ban any, and advanced, which bans any card that has been found to make very easy to pull off ,game ending moves... these lists are updated every 1-3 monthes.
This allows for new decks to be tried out, new strategies to be learned by all who want to compete, and to create a somewhat more level playing field. Now apply that to smash...
These patches would have the potential the make drastic changes in the teir list, giving more characters their time to shine (bad bad pun) If you want to play competitivly, you'll have to learn and adapt, a new and different way to prove your skill, and if you are someone who just loves your character, you just have to accept that their abilities might be changed, but why do care? You'll play them no matter what...right?
And I think it is only fair, I mean if we're looking at a roster of 35-40, half of them better be worth competitve play at any given moment...
Dizzynecro
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 446
lol he was being sarcastic. Balance is the key to any fighting game.
.
.
.
.
and DOA sucks.
HideousBeing
Smash Ace
I think that it would take a long time for the game to be able to be played to its fullest in order for anyone to be able to frankly state, "This character is imbalanced," or, "This character is no good." There would first have to be concrete tiers for any balance work to be done. I always wished they could release a beta version to the public for balance work, but to be able to make any definite declarations about balance would take months of toiling play.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
Hence why I believe that patches should come out no more often than once per year.