Fox: Is he number one?

[tarheeljks]

This brings into question whether the number of spacies at the top is a result of a large portion of the community playing them, and perhaps people are better vs. spacies on average than other characters because they have more practice.

it also begs the question as to why more people play them

edit: bolded is a key point that gets overlooked sometimes i think. you will get top players who aren't well versed in matchup x, even when x is a strong character, but you almost never see a top player who lacks space animal experience

 

[RaynEX]

In psychology, there is a theory known as Belief Perseverance. This is the tendency for people to have continual belief in some train of thought, even after the logic or information on which that belief is based, has been thoroughly disproved. What does this have to do with smash? Absolutely everything.

The smash community at large refuses to admit changes in the power structure of this game, and will find any number of excuses to maintain the current structure, even when overwhelming evidence proves we are wrong. It took 2.5 years for us to move jiggs up the tier list after she started to win literally everything between 2007-early 2010. Instead, we insisted that mango was just "too good." Again today, most people wll insist that peach is probably still a relatively weak character (compared to spacies/sheik/puff), and instead, Armada is just "too good." People will tell you that fox still has some ridiculous matchup vs peach like 7-3 or 6-4, except all the foxes are "doing it wrong" or Armada is just "way better than all the current foxs." My point is, people will attribute internal reasons for objective results, instead of considering external factors like (like holy ****, maybe peach is an even matchup with fox? mindblown.) These are just a few examples.

Point being, no matter what the evidence is for Fox not being that good anymore, the fact that we have believed he was the best for the last 7 years, pretty much means that we're going to continue t believe it, no matter how much objective evidence exists to the contrary. Top players will routinely go out and destroy the fox competition, then come back and say "my character still loses to fox"

Personally, I believe falco is currently the best in the game for winning tournaments from a practical standpoint. After him, I believe the next 3-4 characters are so evenly matched that its impossible to really determine the difference.

As a side note, I think fox's combo break opportunities are so stupid. You can drop combo's fpr arbitrary reasons like sdi'ing out of dairs (some characters like samus do this semi-automatically), sdi'ing out of upairs, and ground landing cancelling shine stun. Escaping falco combos are way harder/impossible.

I love melee. 10 years strong and we are still arguing about tiers and matchups.

tl;dr Fox is no longer the best, but we wont ever really change our minds because we're stubborn.

Let's all take a second and bathe in the logic. Well said!

 

[Niko45]

yea jpobs bodied the thread

 

[Mew2King]

@ Novice - I never had a reason to not travel before =/ when I could just go and attend one event for 2 games.

 

[EthereaL]

tl;dr Fox is no longer the best, but we wont ever really change our minds because we're stubborn.

However, wouldn't being told this make them change their minds simply to disprove you?

Haha.

So, it seems a general consensus that Falco is better. However, I refer back to my previous question.

How do you all feel about Falco's disadvantage to Fox in terms of mobility?

 

[Pi]

pretty irrelevant when ur opponent isn't doing alot of moving

 

[S l o X]

people are finally realizing how broken falco is?

 

[Deleted member]

As a side note, I think fox's combo break opportunities are so stupid. You can drop combo's fpr arbitrary reasons like sdi'ing out of dairs (some characters like samus do this semi-automatically), sdi'ing out of upairs, and ground landing cancelling shine stun. Escaping falco combos are way harder/impossible.

Fox's combos are almost entirely irrelevant because fox isn't a combo character. Optimal use of the character involves putting the opponent into a poor position and keeping them there the duration of the stock. Because the damage is essentially free, there is no practical difference between it and a combo. Focusing on combos past 2 or maybe 3 hits with fox will end in frustration.

I think fox is a heavily misunderstood character for a lot of reasons. But I still don't think he's the best. Maybe someday we'll see the "right" fox player. But I think Jman was really close for a while.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Well, I suppose since Sheik, Marth, Fox, and Jiggs have all had their time as common picks for #1, its about time that Falco got his due.

I ****ing love this game. Its 2011 and we still have no idea. <3 <3 <3

 

[Bones0]

Peach is next, then Falcon to counter Peach. Then Roy.



Wait, what?

 

[ph00tbag]

Falco has losing match-ups, even if only arguably.

I've never heard anyone mount a compelling argument that Fox has a bad match-up.

Why is there even a question about this? You can't just say, "well, Fox is better in theory, but the tier list should reflect results," because tier lists are not about results. They are only theory. If Fox is better in theory, then he is better.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Peach is next, then Falcon to counter Peach. Then Roy.

Wait, what?

Almost.

Its going to be Falco->Peach->MEWTWO->Falcon->Roy

Taj just needs a few more rare candies to tame the swedish beast

 

[Wretched]

There is a simple explanation as to why, in the end, Falco can and will always be a more competitively viable character.
Falco controls the matches too much. Do you think that when any character plays Falco that he decides the pace of the match? No. Falco has complete and utter control of almost all of his matchups.
Undeniably, nobody will ever take Fox even close to his limits, but Falco's control seems limitless even within human capabilities.

 

[Sinji]

Fox's combos are almost entirely irrelevant because fox isn't a combo character.

of course he is. People just haven't used him right yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9khXMy8Svh0#t=134s

 

[DerfMidWest]

Falco ain't broken. I used to think he was, but I realized that no character in this game is broken so long as they are beatable. Falco has weaknesses, which can be exploited.

Melee has no metaknight.

 

[Strife]

Falco has losing match-ups, even if only arguably.

I've never heard anyone mount a compelling argument that Fox has a bad match-up.

Why is there even a question about this? You can't just say, "well, Fox is better in theory, but the tier list should reflect results," because tier lists are not about results. They are only theory. If Fox is better in theory, then he is better.

Just to correct you, people have been saying for a while that Falco beats Fox. Falco is a bad match up for fox, if you've never heard that then it's because you didn't want to listen.

 

[Varist]

Here's how I see the whole history of the Fox as #1 issue:

---

People know that Fox, when played perfectly, will be undefeatable. Because this is pretty much confirmed, it seems ludicrous to not simply put him up there at #1.

Realize, however, that in all other cases, we define the tier list as "representative of current top-level play". Is Fox currently being played at the level we know he can be played at?

The answer is no. His place on the tier list is inflated. Until Foxes start playing at that unbeatable level, he should not simply be cemented into that spot.

The problem is it feels weird to uproot Fox when we know he's the best, just because we haven't caught up to those theories yet. In a way, we have put him at #1 proactively: "We know that one day he'll be number one, when the metagame gets far enough, so let's go ahead and put one piece of the puzzle in the right spot. We'll skip ahead a little bit and get closer to that perfect tier list."

So sure, Fox will be #1. And one day Luigi might be #4, if we came across a whole bunch of frame data that supported his status as a dope character, but if they were very impractical, would we put him up there at #4 right away? Probably not.

And does it remind you of Roy? Really good on paper, but no one has seemed to make it work. So he's still low. Fox is the same. Unbeatable on paper, but no one has been physically able to make him work exactly as he should.

---

I believe that Fox's position should finally be reconsidered, not because he deserves a lower spot, but because our metagame doesn't deserve to keep him in the highest spot.

 

[Landry]

I don't really see how you can make a valid case against Fox being #1. Sure, he's not unbeatable but that's whats so great about Melee. If you play him properly he has the most potential and therefore is the best. To say that Falco can beat him (or even consistently beats him) doesn't matter if you still acknowledge Fox as having the most potential. That's why Marth isn't #1 anymore. For a while people thought Marth was top because so many Marth mains were placing well at the national level but people realized Marth has severe limitations and that other characters are potentially better than him. Until we see that with Fox he should stay #1.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

our minds haven't changed about fox being the best because the game itself hasn't changed.

fox still has the best options in the most scenarios, and the best punishes after those scenarios.

he's the best character because the game design has him as the best character.

^is what i said when i saw this.

 

[ph00tbag]

Just to correct you, people have been saying for a while that Falco beats Fox. Falco is a bad match up for fox, if you've never heard that then it's because you didn't want to listen.

I said compelling. Most of the arguments boil down to results without really bringing any actual game data to the table. Results are not compelling. Game data is.

 

[RaynEX]

I don't really see how you can make a valid case against Fox being #1. Sure, he's not unbeatable but that's whats so great about Melee. If you play him properly he has the most potential and therefore is the best. To say that Falco can beat him (or even consistently beats him) doesn't matter if you still acknowledge Fox as having the most potential. That's why Marth isn't #1 anymore. For a while people thought Marth was top because so many Marth mains were placing well at the national level but people realized Marth has severe limitations and that other characters are potentially better than him. Until we see that with Fox he should stay #1.

You don't make tier lists based on potential. People aren't saying Falco is the best or close to it because of how good he COULD be, it's because we've seen and weighed empirical data. If we based the tier list solely on character potential it would change drastically.

 

[KirbyKaze]

Bowser would be 3rd.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

And does it remind you of Roy? Really good on paper, but no one has seemed to make it work. So he's still low. Fox is the same. Really good on paper, but no one has been physically able to make him work exactly as he should.

I'm sorry, but I burst out laughing when I read this.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

i use ganon cause he's easy and stuff.

yeahhhhhh he *****.

 

[joejoe22802]

Fox is so legit. I want to play him. Too many players play him with Candy and Fatty Fat **** instead of Bread and Butter and Cookie Cutter stuff.

 

[JPOBS]

Fox's combos are almost entirely irrelevant because fox isn't a combo character. Optimal use of the character involves putting the opponent into a poor position and keeping them there the duration of the stock. Because the damage is essentially free, there is no practical difference between it and a combo. Focusing on combos past 2 or maybe 3 hits with fox will end in frustration.

I think fox is a heavily misunderstood character for a lot of reasons. But I still don't think he's the best. Maybe someday we'll see the "right" fox player. But I think Jman was really close for a while.

I'm not going to argue with your definition of what optimal fox play should look like. But I am going to disagree that you in that, you can't just disregard fox's numerous weaknesses in his combo game.

Sure, maybe fox can put people in a bad position, and keep them there somewhat, but its not a perfect system. There are ways for characters to get out of bad spots like invincible ledge dashes, or even simple mechanics like rolling. Fox has the tools to force bad situations, but they aren't perfect.

However, having the ability to tack massive garuanteed damage or death from any opening is a huge bonus, and having one's ability to due so prevented because certain game mechanics shouldn't just be discounted I think.

But this isn't the primary reason why fox isn't #1 imo, this is just a sidenote.

Falco has losing match-ups, even if only arguably.

I've never heard anyone mount a compelling argument that Fox has a bad match-up.

Why is there even a question about this? You can't just say, "well, Fox is better in theory, but the tier list should reflect results," because tier lists are not about results. They are only theory. If Fox is better in theory, then he is better.

This logic starts to fall apart when you consider that, "in theory" Bowser is the 3rd best character in the game. A tier list based entirely on theory is pointless. Why should anyone care about what can be accomplished in theory?

Also, people have mounted very reasonable arguments for fox having losing matchups vs both falco and marth.

I don't really see how you can make a valid case against Fox being #1. Sure, he's not unbeatable but that's whats so great about Melee. If you play him properly he has the most potential and therefore is the best. To say that Falco can beat him (or even consistently beats him) doesn't matter if you still acknowledge Fox as having the most potential. That's why Marth isn't #1 anymore. For a while people thought Marth was top because so many Marth mains were placing well at the national level but people realized Marth has severe limitations and that other characters are potentially better than him. Until we see that with Fox he should stay #1.

This doesn't really make much sense.

For a while, people thoguht marth was #1 because players were actually proving it. Of course when marth's stopped winning we reconsidered. However, I like the part where you said "Until we see that with Fox he should stay #1", its funny considering, fox has never dominated tournaments.

So lets see, by your train of marth logic, marth was removed because he was proven to not be able to consistently win tournaments anymore. Funny, why haven't we done that with fox? Its almost as if we have fox at the number one spot based on absolutely nothing.

The argument that fox is the best based on "potential" is so ridiculous, I don't understand why anyone gives it any credence. Everyone likes to say "fox, when played properly, is the best character." I can't even guess how people even know what "proper" fox play looks like considering no one has ever been able to show us by winning major tournaments consistently with him.

People need to stop watching TAS vids. Potential shouldn't be the basis for best char. There should be some solid objective backing.

 

[EthereaL]

For those arguing that Fox is the best because at "perfect" play Fox is unbeatable...why should a level of play beyond human capacity be a determining factor in a character's placement?

For those who argue otherwise, why should it be effected by character placements in tournaments? Would it not be better to determine tier position based on maximum human potential?

 

[ph00tbag]

This logic starts to fall apart when you consider that, "in theory" Bowser is the 3rd best character in the game. A tier list based entirely on theory is pointless. Why should anyone care about what can be accomplished in theory?

Just because KirbyKaze says it doesn't make it true. Bowser is better than a lot of people think, but third best in the game is an exaggeration beyond words.

Also, people have mounted very reasonable arguments for fox having losing matchups vs both falco and marth.

I've already addressed Falco. I haven't seen a single argument that actually addresses the options Falco has against Fox, and how they are superior to the options Fox has against Falco. Those arguments always come down to results, and like I've said, results don't matter in this discussion. I personally haven't seen anyone argue that Marth beats Fox, though admittedly I don't spend much time on either the Fox or Marth boards.

 

[Bones0]

JPOBS continues to just post entire walls of text without saying a single thing I disagree with...


As far as tier lists base off of theory vs. current metagame, they both have flaws. I think the tier list would ideally be based off of theory limited by realistic human potential. That is to say, Bowser is not 3rd because no one has the reaction time to abuse his up-B perfectly. I also think this means you have to acknowledge that humans, no matter how well-practiced, DO make errors, so taking into consideration how difficult a character is and how hard they will get punished is certainly relevant.

To me, this differs from both the pure theoretical possibilities of the game, but also of the whole notion that tournament results should influence the tiers. If there was an equal number of players playing an equal distribution of all of the characters, it might be more convincing if certain characters did better, but that isn't the case at all. Even if it were, the characters that win tournaments would still be largely determined by the player's skill, not the character they use. Mango can win tournaments with his Fox and Falco, but if he only ever played one and not the other, then people would attribute his victories (at least partially) to his character being the best. This even happened to an extent with his Puff. He destroyed everyone and people started johning about Puff, but when people realized he could also dominate with a bunch of other characters they were like, "Oh, guess his character wasn't the determining factor in his dominance."

 

[BEES]

This logic starts to fall apart when you consider that, "in theory" Bowser is the 3rd best character in the game. A tier list based entirely on theory is pointless. Why should anyone care about what can be accomplished in theory?

I've heard this before a few times so I assume it's a consensus among the good players that "Bowser played perfectly is 3rd", but I've never actually heard the explanation for it, I just started seeing it pop up every now and then, and I'd be curious to know why.

Why Bowser and not Marth, for instance? Doesn't Marth outrange him? Wouldn't Marth, when played perfectly, always prevent Bowser from landing hits? Bear in mind that I suck; I am actually quite terrible at this game, and I am not intending to challenge this piece of conventional wisdom. Merely asking for clarification.

 

[Bones0]

I've heard this before a few times so I assume it's a consensus among the good players that "Bowser played perfectly is 3rd", but I've never actually heard the explanation for it, I just started seeing it pop up every now and then, and I'd be curious to know why.

Why Bowser and not Marth, for instance? Doesn't Marth outrange him? Wouldn't Marth, when played perfectly, always prevent Bowser from landing hits? Bear in mind that I suck; I am actually quite terrible at this game, and I am not intending to challenge this piece of conventional wisdom. Merely asking for clarification.

I believe it goes back to a post Magus made. He said something along the lines of, if people could react frame perfectly, Fox, Falco, and Bowser would be the best. Fox and Falco have shines, which is a 1 frame move with invincibility. Then you have Bowser's up-B which is invincible, and I believe he has some ledge invincibility trick? Not sure about that. So basically if you have a perfect Fox/Falco/Bowser, they just shine/up-B any time another character tries to touch them (like if a character's jab hits on frame 2, it doesn't matter because as soon as the first frame of the jab appears, the top 3 characters can use their invincibility on reaction).

 

[JPOBS]

Just because KirbyKaze says it doesn't make it true. Bowser is better than a lot of people think, but third best in the game is an exaggeration beyond words.
.

You think I said that because KK said it?

LOL. Its been conclusively proven in Action replay that bowser's UpB oos and ledgeattack/invincibility make him strctly the 3rd best character in the game IN THEORY after fox and falco.

Try again.

For those who argue otherwise, why should it be effected by character placements in tournaments? Would it not be better to determine tier position based on maximum human potential?

The problem is we have no idea how good "maximum human potential" is.

Its either we look at current Fox's (mango included) losing tournaments and conclude that maybe he isn't so swell
or we look at TAS vids of fox going bananas and conclude that he is.

But people try to pull this act where they try to fuse the two together "oh, if only human fox's could play better, then obviously he is best" and that frankly doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

This logic starts to fall apart when you consider that, "in theory" Bowser is the 3rd best character in the game.

Whirling Fortress?

 

[BEES]

How does Bowser's up+B OOS deal with projectiles, or disjointed attacks that would outprioritize the up+B?

 

[Strife]

I've already addressed Falco. I haven't seen a single argument that actually addresses the options Falco has against Fox, and how they are superior to the options Fox has against Falco. Those arguments always come down to results, and like I've said, results don't matter in this discussion. I personally haven't seen anyone argue that Marth beats Fox, though admittedly I don't spend much time on either the Fox or Marth boards.

You need to read the old match up thread, even top fox players say that Falco wins the match, and great arguments are provided. It mostly comes down to the fact that Falco combos fox way harder than vice versa, and Falco can laser camp/approach fox,(nullifying his mobility advantage in the process) while Fox's laser camping is far less effective.

 

[napZzz]

falco is so much better....its like everything combos into ANYTHING. His dair is some bull****, and his recovery isn't even that bad....not that hard to make it back generally unless you get read. his lasers give him a godlike zone game thats ridciulously frustrating to get past vs. a good one. **** falco

 

[Landry]

You don't make tier lists based on potential. People aren't saying Falco is the best or close to it because of how good he COULD be, it's because we've seen and weighed empirical data. If we based the tier list solely on character potential it would change drastically.

You can't be trying to tell me that the tier list is based on tournament results... If it was Puff would have to be higher what with the recent trend of Puff players making finals at large tournaments. Sheik would also be ranked higher. As has been stated, Fox has not really ever had a period of absolute dominance and yet he's still ranked highest because people can tell what he's capable of. Perhaps the tier list is a combination of potential and performance, but to say its character potential doesn't factor is outright wrong.

 

[frotaz37]

I'm a bit out of touch with the current metagame, but I think Fox has the advantage for two reasons:

1. He has a safer recovery. It's much harder to gimp a fox than a falco, not only because of the length of his up B, but also because the flames that surround him when he's up Bing protect him from poorly spaced gimp attempts. Also, his recovery combos into vertical finishers sometimes <_<

2. Laser camping.... I think fox has a much better laser than Falco. Falco's lasers are great but they are slow and avoidable....you can keep your distance from Falco and not take damage if you play it right (and pick the right characters) Against Fox, it's impossible. The only character that doesn't absolutely have to approach Fox is uh.. Ness using down B. But that's dumb and never works.

 

[Kal]

1. He has a safer recovery. It's much harder to gimp a fox than a falco, not only because of the length of his up B, but also because the flames that surround him when he's up Bing protect him from poorly spaced gimp attempts. Also, his recovery combos into vertical finishers sometimes <_<

As a general rule for modern smash, recovery is unimportant. Edgeguarding has developed to the point where everyone's probability of recovery is negligible, with a few exceptions. Even if you can argue that Falco's recovery makes him "too easy" to edgeguard (such that he is much more likely to be edgeguarded than Fox), it's still not a particularly important aspect of his rank.

2. Laser camping.... I think fox has a much better laser than Falco. Falco's lasers are great but they are slow and avoidable....you can keep your distance from Falco and not take damage if you play it right (and pick the right characters) Against Fox, it's impossible. The only character that doesn't absolutely have to approach Fox is uh.. Ness using down B. But that's dumb and never works.

Not sure if trolling.

 

[frotaz37]

Recovery is unimportant if everyone plays perfectly 100% of the time, which if we're going to use that argument, then Fox is easily the best.

But from what I've seen and experienced, one blown edge guard can change the pace of an entire set, especially in the fast pace of modern melee.