From a competitive standpoint..

[adumbrodeus]

Could someone tell me whats wrong with most of the characters? Like what makes parts of the brawl cast BAD?
Like I've been around the forums and seen things like
"D3 is un-viable"
"Zelda is COMPLETE trash"

But I've been curious why; I know for some characters it's glaringly obvious, like Ike's easily gimpable recovery, but for others it's not.

Are they named MK?


Then they're bad, case closed.


...


Ok, I won't be that dramatic, even though it's pretty close to true, there's an enormous gap between MK and everyone else.


What it really comes down to is, "do you have a winnable MU against MK without a reasonably common character shutting you down, or a less commonly played character that wins with almost no experience required". Any character that isn't MK is bad, but any character that doesn't fit that criteria is horrible.

Still, superior skill especially in reading, and/or with a lack of MU knowledge on the opponent's end can do wonders.

Yes. Theorycraft and a stern reliance on widely-perceived matchup scenarios don't do much justice for that extremely important point: situational advantages/disadvantages, solely because of the subjectivity of it all. I, however, disagree with turning a cheek to that fact for said reason. Keeping an open mind at all times will prevent people from making blind/empty claims without truly knowing what they're dealing with and how to do so, as well as prevent them from becoming unnecessarily cocky against certain matchups in tournament play unless the cockiness/confidence is justified and backed with knowledge rather than an impression.

Well, you CAN analyze situational advantages/disadvantages, it's just pretty much nobody does it.





And yes, you're right Afro, if you mean, "capable of winning a tournament... look at Breezy and DLA, they've taken games and sets off the best WITH GANON". No character is incapable of winning, it's just very very difficult for some at the top of the metagame.

 

[Rubberbandman]

All this question is really saying is "What is a metagame?".

 

[Doctor Grudge]

This question is rather ambiguous...

 

[Goldenadept]

i'm so confused at this point, mk is the only viable character cause he's the only one who can stop himself from planking or timing you out everyone else is trash cause of that

 

[etecoon]

mk is the only viable character cause he's the only one who can stop himself from planking or timing you out everyone else is trash cause of that

don't know how true this is exactly, almost every MK ditto I've ever played was simply "who has the resolve to camp harder", no one stops MK from timing you out IMO <_<

 

[Pierce7d]

In Brawl, very few characters are "Unviable" because everyone sucks. If everyone KNEW all their match-ups, and used good characters, then characters like Luigi would stand absolutely no chance of placing well. Why? Because he DOES NOT HAVE THE TOOLS to beat MK or Marth. However, BigLou is able to squeeze in top 8, because even top players of this game don't know their match-ups, and let Luigi consistently get inside their spacing, and don't retreat. So long as everyone is "Doing it wrong", it is quite possible to use arbitrary characters who's MUs are unknown, and succeed.

And that doesn't apply to people just worse than you (because at the end of the day, Biglou and Esam have a bit more to prove before they can start throwing out statements like, I'm better than Mike Haze, Atomsk, and everyone else who DIDN'T make top 8 at that stacked tourney). It just gives you an edge against people who haven't done their homework (which is like everyone). Don't get me wrong. I personally watched both Biglou play, and he's a very talented and impressive player. His character simply has drastic limitations, that most people are aware of, but have not learned how to deal with, or capitalize on properly.

And that goes for a lot of characters. D3 to some degree. Definitely a lot of the lower tiered characters Zelda and Mario. I play Zelda for fun a LOT, and my Zelda is extremely proficient. My Mario is even more so, and my Jigglypuff is of similar level. I constantly beat players with these three characters, and am beginning to do so with Captain Falcon as well. This isn't because they are viable. It's simply because they do not know the match-up. I could beat them with good characters that they don't know the MU with either, in the instance they learn the MU, I'll still have a fighting chance with adequate options and yomi layers to give me potential paths to victory. The unviable characters are lacking this, which is what I believe you were asking, OP.

tl;dr

When everyone starts learning their MUs, or uses polarizing strategies that very few characters can deal with (IE: MK Dair camp or plank), then many characters will not have options to realistically win on any type of consistent level, and therefore they will be unsuitable for tournament, regardless of skill.

 

[MD.Dude]

IMO most people win with low tiers because the other players do not know the match up>

THE ????

that is all.

 

[Kitamerby]

IMO most people win with low tiers because the other players do not know the match up>

THE ????
that is all.

It's 100% true. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the statement. :|

Please take some time to reassess your thoughts before making posts like this in the future.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Any MU that is like (as some would say) 6-4 or something is easily winnable in both directions even if both players fully know the MU.

Remember that player skill isn't static, it wavers and some days people are playing really well and other days they are not. Then within a given day there are some games where a player may be amazing and others where they may suicide their first stock away. These are factors that are often ignored when talking about MUs. The reality is anything that isn't like, a total demolition, can be winnable because of the fluctuation in player skill from game to game and day to day.

 

[MD.Dude]

It's 100% true. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the statement. :|

Please take some time to reassess your thoughts before making posts like this in the future.

You know what sir. I think i will take your advise.

 

[Eddie G]

Any MU that is like (as some would say) 6-4 or something is easily winnable in both directions even if both players fully know the MU.

Remember that player skill isn't static, it wavers and some days people are playing really well and other days they are not. Then within a given day there are some games where a player may be amazing and others where they may suicide their first stock away. These are factors that are often ignored when talking about MUs. The reality is anything that isn't like, a total demolition, can be winnable because of the fluctuation in player skill from game to game and day to day.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. Excellent post AZ. :3

 

[GTR!]

In Brawl, very few characters are "Unviable" because everyone sucks. If everyone KNEW all their match-ups, and used good characters, then characters like Luigi would stand absolutely no chance of placing well. Why? Because he DOES NOT HAVE THE TOOLS to beat MK or Marth. However, BigLou is able to squeeze in top 8, because even top players of this game don't know their match-ups, and let Luigi consistently get inside their spacing, and don't retreat. So long as everyone is "Doing it wrong", it is quite possible to use arbitrary characters who's MUs are unknown, and succeed.

And that doesn't apply to people just worse than you (because at the end of the day, Biglou and Esam have a bit more to prove before they can start throwing out statements like, I'm better than Mike Haze, Atomsk, and everyone else who DIDN'T make top 8 at that stacked tourney). It just gives you an edge against people who haven't done their homework (which is like everyone). Don't get me wrong. I personally watched both Biglou play, and he's a very talented and impressive player. His character simply has drastic limitations, that most people are aware of, but have not learned how to deal with, or capitalize on properly.

And that goes for a lot of characters. D3 to some degree. Definitely a lot of the lower tiered characters Zelda and Mario. I play Zelda for fun a LOT, and my Zelda is extremely proficient. My Mario is even more so, and my Jigglypuff is of similar level. I constantly beat players with these three characters, and am beginning to do so with Captain Falcon as well. This isn't because they are viable. It's simply because they do not know the match-up. I could beat them with good characters that they don't know the MU with either, in the instance they learn the MU, I'll still have a fighting chance with adequate options and yomi layers to give me potential paths to victory. The unviable characters are lacking this, which is what I believe you were asking, OP.

tl;dr

When everyone starts learning their MUs, or uses polarizing strategies that very few characters can deal with (IE: MK Dair camp or plank), then many characters will not have options to realistically win on any type of consistent level, and therefore they will be unsuitable for tournament, regardless of skill.

Pierce, I honestly think this is one of the best responses I've ever read.

/thread.

 

[KillerJawz]

Pierce why do you always **** these threads so **** hard?

 

[Red Arremer]

Remember that player skill isn't static [...]

But character potential is pretty much static.

I can be the worst Ganondorf or the best who ***** every single Meta Knight to date, it still doesn't change that Ganondorf as a character sucks. If I win against someone with better tools than me, it just means I'm a better player or that my opponent doesn't know how to deal with my worse tools. But that doesn't make my tools better on themselves.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Character potential is not static because our knowledge on characters is always changing.

Would you say that in 2006 Jigglypuff was one of the top 3 character in Melee? No, you couldn't say that, because it wasn't until 2009 that the best two Melee players mained Jigglypuff.

Technically speaking Jigglypuff always contained that ability (so it would be "static" in that sense) but the reality is you only know so much about a character or MU.

The very fact that Pierce has to bring up people who "don't know the MU" shows how little most people actually know about when talking about character potential.

The argument of ignorance has always, to me, been complete BS.

Using Pierce as an example: I played him at Pound 4. I have close to zero Marth practice, I play a Marth maybe once a month in tournament. Pierce has ADHD practice and had previously stated how he knew the Diddy-Marth MU inside and out. Even though Pierce hadn't played ADHD in a month or two before fighting me, he still should have wiped the floor with me based on the MU knowledge argument...but instead I two stocked him both games and I don't know the first thing about the Marth-Diddy MU.

If some characters have the advantages that many people claim, then there is no way you can make the MU inexperience argument with a straight face. Especially when we are talking about players ranked in the top 50 in the country. I always find it funny to when the MU argument comes into play: it is always assumed that the higher tier character is doing something wrong and not that, concievably, the lower tiered character may have simply been completely misunderstood up to that point.

Pikachu is a great example, because on 3 different occasions we now have a Pika in the top 8 at a national tournament. Yet this is supposedly a MU players don't know?

 

[GimR]

I agree with AZ and pierce but mostly AZ.

I feel that a character's ability is static. The problem is that because people aren't perfect, no one will ever reach that level with any character(Or, no one will ever be able to play at a character's full potential because it isn't possible to be perfect). Because of this, in a sense, character ability isn't static because his or her meta game will always be evolving and never stop because there is no way for a human to get to that level.


I mean, the game's been out a little over 2 years and people are already trying to say that certain match ups are un-winnable? Melee has been out for 10 years and match-ups are still flip-flopping. For example, it was thought just 3 or so months ago by everyone that space animals can not beat a good Jiggly Puff no matter what. In March PP decides he doesn't like that, and destroys hungry box at Herb 3 with Falco.

Knowing your match ups is very important also, but it's not the end all be all. Reading your opponent is the most important thing in this game. There is no move that isn't punishable in Brawl. So if your reading your opponent really well no matter what character he is playing as you should beat him.

 

[RATED]

And that doesn't apply to people just worse than you (because at the end of the day, Biglou and Esam have a bit more to prove before they can start throwing out statements like, I'm better than Mike Haze, Atomsk, and everyone else who DIDN'T make top 8 at that stacked tourney). It just gives you an edge against people who haven't done their homework (which is like everyone).
.[/B]
QUOTE]
.

a question: who do you consider a best student : the student that is not that super smart and get good grades in final grades bcuz he's responsible and does every homework, always attend to class. OR the ones that are really smart that can get good grades but are kinda unresponsible they don't do that much of homework or they don't attend to class and have no studying habits but he can get good final grades bcuz of his "natural smart" in exams without studying ?

in a future high level education : who of the both student will be most triumphant the " responsible one" or the " prodigy one" ?

I agree with AZ and pierce but mostly AZ.

I feel that a character's ability is static.


Reading your opponent is the most important thing in every competitive game .

fixed.

 

[Kitamerby]

a question: who do you consider a best student : the student that is not that super smart and get good grades in final grades bcuz he's responsible and does every homework, always attend to class. OR the ones that are really smart that can get good grades but are kinda unresponsible they don't do that much of homework or they don't attend to class and have no studying habits but he can get good final grades bcuz of his "natural smart" in exams without studying ?

in a future high level education : who of the both student will be most triumphant the " responsible one" or the " prodigy one" ?

They are both equal. Their grades reflect that. All that matters in this world are results.

fixed.

Golf. GG

 

[-Ran]

in a future high level education : who of the both student will be most triumphant the " responsible one" or the " prodigy one" ?

The responsible one has an work ethic and thus a system that he uses to achieve his results, while the prodigy relies upon nothing but his brute brain power. Eventually the prodigy will enter a situation where his natural gifts won't be enough to sustain his prior achievements, while the responsible one will already be prepared to do the work. Assuming that the potentials of both individuals are equal, the responsible one would overtake the prodigy.

 

[Browny]

uhuh...

my experiences in the tertiary education system would show the genius' are always the ones who top the class.

 

[Nicole]

the naturally smarter one SHOULD reap the larger reward, but this usually isn't the case because the hard worker can simply study their life away and do better. obviously, given equal study time, it would be clear who the smarter student was, but since study time is voluntary on the student's part, the hard worker will likely do better, or at least the two will end up with approximately equal results.

peach is tournament viable

 

[napZzz]

peach is tournament viable

I can fly too

 

[Nicole]

I can fly too

lol nappy, you're like my personal troll.

 

[GimR]

What about the genius with a really good work ethic?

 

[Kitamerby]

What about the genius with a really good work ethic?

His tag is Mew2King.

 

[RATED]

What about the genius with a really good work ethic?

facepalm at trying to answer a question with another question , he would be ****

------------

Ran Iji... u won.

----------------------

also the moment I did that post something in my mind told me " someone is going to mention M2k" and someone did XD