I disagree with how 3.5 approached balance.

[DraconisMarch]

First off, let me just say that I'm trying to start a civil conversation here. I'm not trolling, I'm not hating, and I hope I don't get any dumb fanboys who just say "shuddup 3.5 is gr8 tho!" without actually addressing points I'm talking about. And by and large, I do agree: 3.5 is great. There's a lot to like about it, like great map reskins, new character skins, all-star mode (albeit unstable right now), etc. are all really cool things that I love having.

And generally speaking, balance among members of the cast came a lot closer to being achieved. The PMBR addressed characters (Mewtwo, Lucas, Diddy, Pit) and overall issues (generally good recoveries, ledge stalling) that really needed it. However, I really feel they went overboard with the nerf hammer, nerfing things that needed it, as well as things that didn't.

Dedede was widely considered to be just plain bad, but he got nerfed instead of buffed? Why was Jigglypuff virtually unchanged when she was one of the worst? Why did Ice Climbers get nerfs when they were also considered one of the worst? Who was dominating tournaments with Yoshi to justify nerfing him? And nerfing his recovery? Was he not already gimpable enough as soon as he lost his double jump? (I really felt that he was in a good place already.) Was Kirby's down-B such a problem as to warrant nerfing? These are just a few examples.

When I look at the changelog, the overwhelming majority of characters' changes are nerfs rather than buffs (yes, there are some buffs, but they are much less common). But despite some particular changes that were very questionable, in terms of the big picture, I believe that there needed to be a lot more buffs to go with the nerfs. And so I get to the main point of this thread...

I think balance should be achieved by toning down exceptionally strong characters and then bringing weak characters up to parity--not by essentially nerfing everyone and everything. The benefit of meeting in the middle with nerfs and buffs means that you don't have be as extreme when going in either direction, so the changes don't feel as extreme. I feel there's a bigger margin for error when only going one way or the other.

Dev blogposts gave me a lot of hope about the upcoming version's vision, but now I'm not sure what that vision of the PMBR was supposed to be at all, in light of actually seeing these changes.

Another thing on the same vein as this is that I'm really not liking how many times the patch notes said "...to match Melee [insert character name here] or just "...to match Melee." The PMBR has gone on record to state that Project M wasn't supposed to be a Melee-ification of Brawl, so it's very concerning the number of times things were matched to Melee (for seemingly no particular reason).

It'd be nice to hear the PMBR's rationale behind each character's changes, especially the more questionable ones (I was actually hoping to see this in the changelog ala League of Legends style), and why in general, nerfing was chosen so much more than buffing.

So what do you guys think about balance in this patch? Are there any other changes you found particularly questionable?

 

[HenryZusa]

I don't get why nerfing characters. Why not just make everyone OP as ****?
It would be fun, and that way you wouldn't have to worry about picking a bad character.
But hey, that's just me. I just play smash for fun and am not a competitive player so what I think is probably not important for the development team.

 

[someonerandom]

I don't get why nerfing characters. Why not just make everyone OP as ****?
It would be fun, and that way you wouldn't have to worry about picking a bad character.
But hey, that's just me. I just play smash for fun and am not a competitive player so what I think is probably not important for the development team.

That's called Brawl Minus.

 

[HenryZusa]

That's called Brawl Minus.

I don't mean insanely OP, just in the same scale as some of the most nerfed characters.
What I wanted to say is...why not taking the bad characters to the same level and combo-capability of the powerful characters instead of nerfing the already good characters?

 

[Remo]

Roy got nerfs as well, but yet I've been womping characters I before, had very hard times dealing with. Just because everyone got nerfs doesn't mean they aren't better. Just as Sethlon said to me in a PM. Everyone was worked but the sillier characters were brought much more fair levels. I think this update will take time to get used to and you can't give judgement on a game that takes months-years to develop the metagame. Give it time.

 

[Narpas_sword]

give yourself time to adjust before these threads tbh.

 

[shairn]

I don't mean insanely OP, just in the same scale as some of the most nerfed characters.
What I wanted to say is...why not taking the bad characters to the same level and combo-capability of the powerful characters instead of nerfing the already good characters?

Because what you call bad characters were actually good and what you call good characters were actually too good.

 

[IronChar]

I fully agree. being a P:M player who plays mostly brawl characters I feel completely alienated- seriously the changes feel so drastic that the game isn't even fun anymore.

I imagine the update is done to address the balance of the game.... but with the changes being so drastic (and mostly "nerfs" to the roster)... is this what were going to see every update? very overwhelming- no other game can do this which is great, but it hurts P:Ms ability to get a stable meta game going.

 

[GP&B]

Because it resulted in ridiculously polarizing traits that either outright crippled some characters or gave them messed up MU spreads. Jiggs in particular lost to any kind of zoning because it was way too safe against her. Ivy either obliterated the opposition (ie. vs fatties) or got out-zoned badly. Mario didn't care about range because fireballs did everything for him.

is this what were going to see every update?

No. Are you serious? They set clear design standards they wanted to reach and 3.5 was designed to meet them. From this point on, the roster will adhere to this so nerfs will only be done as seen necessary.

 

[MLGF]

3.5 doesn't feel so much as a balance patch as it does a "destroy the stupid" patch.
Balance comes later, right now we have to make sure every character has a solid design that has no tools to obtain easy wins.

 

[Shell]

Buffing characters up to top tier doesn't actually work well in practice. Trust me, we've tried.

Ultimately it created some of the most well-salted / hated characters in Project M, possibly in Smash. Nobody wants more 2.6 Ivysaurs or 2.1 Sonics, or 3.0 Mewtwos etc.

Usually the way that characters get up to SS tier is that they have some technique or combination of techniques that bends the Rules of Smash. It's often some combination of disproportionate risk vs reward and unprecedented mechanics that tend to ignore Smash fundamentals.

If you aim juuust a little lower than SS tier, more like A-B tier, all of a sudden it's significantly easier to make everyone good while maintaining good design that's in touch with those basic design principles & gameplay fundamentals. Even though you don't get quite the same rush of "OMG my character is godlike with unlimited potential" you also aren't playing against 40-some other characters that are (subjectively) annoying to fight, and chances are people will enjoy playing against you quite a bit more, too.

The net result is that a game built around ~A-B tier balance is just much more fair and fun for everyone to play in the long run, even if it takes a little personal adjustment to your own character in the short term.

With that said are there some characters that were low tier as of v3.5 that maybe didn't get enough help? Possibly. With the huge number of balance tweaks and overall nerfs to recoveries, move safety, and burst movement we really wanted to see how these characters would fall within the context of these global changes before piling more buffs on top, since the theme of the update was crafting a leaner & more fair experience.

 

[DraconisMarch]

Buffing characters up to top tier doesn't actually work well in practice. Trust me, we've tried.

[...]

The net result is that a game built around ~A-B tier balance is just much more fair and fun for everyone to play in the long run, even if it takes a little personal adjustment to your own character in the short term.

With that said are there some characters that were low tier as of v3.5 that maybe didn't get enough help? Possibly. With the huge number of balance tweaks and overall nerfs to recoveries, move safety, and burst movement we really wanted to see how these characters would fall within the context of these global changes before piling more buffs on top, since the theme of the update was crafting a leaner & more fair experience.

I appreciate the response. However, the benefit of meeting in the middle with nerfs and buffs means that you don't have be as extreme when going in either direction, so the changes don't feel as extreme. It feels more like you were aiming for C- tier than A-B (like I said, the characters who were particularly weak got nothing). I didn't see any meeting in the middle: basically everything was unilateral in the downward direction.

 

[kaizo13]

guys the game just came out. please go play the game. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you can't possibly review something that took thousands of hours to make....in 24 hours. Go play the game.
for me, from what i've played...the game feels a lot smoother and every character feels good without feeling cheap. I think the PMDT did an outstanding job.

 

[Strong Badam]

The vast majority of the cast are still significantly more capable fighters than most Melee mid-tiers; the game is most certainly not balanced around a "C or D-tier."

 

[Vashimus]

Peach barely got any changes in 3.5 and wasn't very strong in the overall 3.02 scene. Peach is still an excellently designed character and one of the fairest characters in the game to fight against. She wasn't a bad character, everyone else is just much better, but you know you have a problem when characters are significantly better than buffed Melee Peach.

Characters are not C-tier in 3.5. People are just so used to the jank at this point, when it's taken away and characters are brought to "Peach" levels, they feel like their balls have been cut off.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

Honestly, so many characters in 3.02 (and even well before that) had extremely gimmicky aspects that could be abused to fundamentally change how the characters interact with each other in a way that detracts from the skill and effort exerted by the players. This needed to be fixed, and it has.

Furthermore, characters cannot be looked at within the context of 3.0. Everything needs to be re-examined, since there are so many global changes in 3.5. For example, like you said, Puff was considered among the worst in 3.0, but now that recoveries are generally much worse, Puff has much better match-ups against a ton of characters, in addition to the fact that gimmicky neutral games and ridiculous projectiles seem to have been fixed, so she's better in neutral as well. That's just an example, but the point is that 3.5 will have a completely different meta game than 3.0. It's not as simple as "buff characters that are the worst in 3.0" and "nerf characters that are the best in 3.0" since every change to every character affects that character's match-ups against every single other character.

There's really no telling how characters actually measure up to the rest of the cast until the 3.5 meta develops. It's way too early to talk about balance issues until those issues actually arise.

What 3.5 did is made it so that every character needs to work in order to win without any exploitable bull****. The way I see it, that's the biggest and most fair balance change that Project M has ever had.

 

[Empyrean]

Most of the changes and nerfs can be boiled down to the removal of burst movement options and "get out of jail free" tools, which made it really annoying and unenjoyable to play against a lot of characters, even the 3.0 "low tiers".

Mewtwo had his teleport nerfed
MK got his down b nerfed and dair changed, both of which made it possible for him to escape otherwise dangerous situations with relative ease.
Pika with the QAC nerf
Glide nerfs in general
Zelda teleport and Ike QD changes
Waddledash nerf
and so on, I might be missing a lot of stuff.

Imo the problem with only nerfing the 3.0 top tiers and leaving everyone the same and/or buffing them would have made other previously non-top tier chars outshine the rest once again, since their tools and options might not be shut down by the presence of M2/Lucas/Diddy/Pit/Mario/Link/etc anymore.

Like MLGF said, 3.5 feels a lot more like a general cast redesign patch instead of balance adjustments through nerfs/buffs. So many chars previously had options so polarizing or overcentralizing that just buffing/nerfing them would render them useless or too good.

Imagine if DDD, perceived by many to be among the worst characters in 3.02, got buffs like faster fair startup and medium armor on the move. It's not much, but coupled with the overall recovery nerfs and other changed aspects, it would have been too good. Same goes for Jiggs, like Ridley is too small (still my fave username lmao) mentioned above.

 

[DraconisMarch]

The vast majority of the cast are still significantly more capable fighters than most Melee mid-tiers; the game is most certainly not balanced around a "C or D-tier."

C and D tier are relative to the game itself--not when compared to other games.

 

[Exodo]

actually, icies are good now, again.
puff even though she wasent touched it doesnt mean she still sucks, with mostly everyone getting their recovery nerfed gives her a better spot in my opinion, though some offensive touches wouldnt been bad either.

 

[Kankato]

C and D tier are relative to the game itself--not when compared to other games.

In this case "C & D tier" refer to the melee tier list & how ineffective those characters were. Since melee & PM are quite similar it's still an accurate means of comparison.

 

[ItsRainingGravy]

In order to make a delicious banana split, one must remove the peel before adding the banana.

Essentially, this is what PM 3.5 is. It is easier to administer nerfs to characters, observing how the metagame develops due to said nerfs, and then later buff characters accordingly to provide optimal balance as opposed to just buffing and nerfing everything at the same time. Ultimately, this saves time and stress for everyone in the long run. Be patient, and give PM 3.5 a chance to develop. Eventually, once the metagame is more understood, the PM Dev Team can then use the knowledge gained from the PM 3.5 Metagame changes to begin crafting the banana split that shall be PM 4.0.

one must remove the peel

Isn't that right, Diddy Kong?

(I play Diddy Kong btw, but two bananas was silly lol)

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

C and D tier are relative to the game itself--not when compared to other games.

You are throwing out words without fully understanding or appreciating the process, the context and the actual know-how of game balance.

In addition, nerfs are all relative. There are characters who received only nerfs that are actually stronger in the new game environment.

Given the sheer number of dev builds, time, playtesting and number of PM releases, the PMDT have tried everything - even everything you've suggested - and found that this is the best way. Many people agree.

In short, let go of 3.02's unreasonable standards of power and recontextualize your idea of balance with 3.5's environment, power level and design philosophy.

 

[Chesstiger2612]

I partially disagree with the approach, but not for the same reason.
The nerfs of the characters were needed
One of the core issues wasn't addressed, which is balancing skill levels. Making tech-skill harder for characters known to be easy to play isn't all one can do, there are multiple ways to require precision (Pit as example can require quite a bit of precision to execute his guaranteed combos). Giving a character more option which then cover less areas is also a method to make the character somehow harder, while keeping about the same strength.

As it is now, you see what happens when the balancing doesn't take learning curves etc. into account...
In 3.0, many characters could keep up with characters much harder to play, which leads to the question why you should play such a harder character
In 3.5, everyone received nerfs, and I predict spacie domination (especially Wolf). They got nerfs, but now the other characters don't have the tools any more to keep up with their superior technology advances. And just to nerf them more is no solution because we would be approaching case 1 again.

Third time or so I post this but it seems the new version shows it was mostly unheard.

Nonetheless, I think this version's balance is significantly better already and as long as it keeps getting better I can't complain.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

3.5 meta will be healthier but still be mostly spacy and counter-spacy play.

It's a step up from 3.5 in the sense that unlike Pit and Mewtwo counter-play, spacy counter-play exists.

Still not quite where we want to be, though.

4.0 will take us there I presume by introducing 4 spacy-slayer characters.

 

[Chesstiger2612]

I don't quite like the idea of introducing counters to certain characters to make those characters worse.
It should be the aim to balance in a way that your matchups are playable (of course there will be better and worse ones, but avoiding clear counters) instead of creating winning and losing matchups for everyone.

In a extreme, oversimplified case, where the result of the game is only dependant on both players' character choice, where are things like a fair battle, creativity in Smash etc.

Give players' characters counter-options or reduce the counters' options, but don't give the players counter-characters.

 

[jtm94]

I will continue playing in hopes that the game will slowly build it's pace back up.

I do not want a game dominated by Melee top tiers because the cast is focused around Melee mid-tiers which are terrible. I understand the philosophy though, and I will try my best to keep others from jumping ship.

The new modes and stuff are EXTREMELY fun though. The changes to stamina are awesome. And the new menu changes are slick.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Balance to me is a variety of playstyles and characters with variable MU spreads. Some characters have worse spreads than others but no single character wins most of their MUs. Every character should have some losing MUs.

That describes a lot of characters atm I feel, but not all of them.

 

[Chesstiger2612]

Every character should have some losing MUs.

I disagree here. There could be different design-philosophies behind that. I just think that no one should have a disadvantage because of his character, and that not only if all MUs are summed up, but in every individual one.
I grant you that it is better having a character with a few winning and losing matchups than someone with a huge range of advantageous and no disadvantegous, but ideal it would be all even matchups, and since that is barely possible, a few advantegous and disadvantegous, but I think that every winning/losing matchup is a design error big enough it is worth fixing it

 

[Anonistry]

Chances are this is the same as other times you see a "nerf besides relative balance" approach: The creators sense, either presently or in the future, that they are going to hit a "gimmick wall."

Here is an example, and as always be patient, AND IF YOU HAVE PLAYED THIS GAME I AM ABOUT TO SPEAK OF, PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM ONLY SPEAKING FROM DEV PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE THIS THING WAS LIKE, THE SALT OF ALL SALTS IN THE GAME, AT LEAST SINCE I LAST PLAYED. END DISCLAIMER.

So, I am going to reference a game called DC Universe Online (DCUO). Sometime last year, I think, the devs announced a MASSIVE, systemic change. I mean, the game is completely different change, I am not ****ting you one ounce or exaggerating one iota. You see, this was an MMO, but had a funny thing where instead of a timer-based combat system, it was freeform, and actually had similar ideas to fighting games, with different attack categories that could cancel into each other (basically, a regular weapon attack system, moves that cost "mana", and super moves which... kinda didn't matter, but okay.)

Here was the issues: a couple of cancels existed that, according to the devs, was never intended. In particular, jump cancelling was a huge one, where you could jump during most anything, and it oft times allowed you to cancel, say, a weapon attack, jump, and cancel that with another weapon attack. It was so quick, and indeed cancelling in general was, that you appeared to cancel a weapon attack with a weapon attack. Now this got even further compounded with certain powertypes (basically classes), instead of being purely "powers", having a system where powers had their own built in combochain: for whatever reason, those moves after the first power were always "weapon attacks" for cancelling. Now, between the weapon attacks, jump cancels into weapon attacks, and that the universal cancel for attacks was powers, you could take these particular powersets... and cram, like, 3-4 moves in the course of one, and then cancel into a power and chain and rinse, lather, repeat.

So what was the problem? Well, there was one in the existence of vast discrepancies in performance based on if you were a combo powerset or not. But for the devs, there was a much bigger one: this was literally a balance nightmare. Think about all the ways you could balance an attack or power: damage, range, cost... and speed of performance, whether recovery, startup, animation, any part of that. Guess what? That last one was NOEP due to these cancels. And guess what? As a couple of moves demonstrated, it even dragged the others down with it. Sure a move may do, like, a couple points of damage, but that is a couple of basically costless points if they can be cancelled in a heartbeat.

In other words, this was a toxic game design, for the developers, or so they felt. And so, beyond just trying the numbers game, they finally decided they had to retighten cancels according to a universal, strict pattern. Mind you, and I had done this and can attest the game felt "fast" because of it, this was actually kind of fun. it was hectic, you were on your toes and constantly doing technique after move after skill after cancel optimizing damage. Instead of the game's time, it was more your ability to perform these efficiently. In other words, MANY people loved this piss out of this design. So, despite what the devs felt, there was UPROAR, I mean... mang. Dude. If you weren't there, you wouldn't know. And its true, it was seriously a DIFFERENT GAME afterwards. Same genre, but different game, as it were.

The point: understand, devs don't just balance for us or for the present. They need to keep in mind the future and what affects their later potential to balance. I can't say what was and was not needed, but chances are, if you see a bunch of nerfs or changes that seem non-sensical or punishing an already weak character, or even needlessly touching the wrong aspects: you likely are looking at, whatever it may be, a design they think will shoot them or us in the foot in the future.

TL:DR Some design decisions are made as a sort of meta-level balance intended to allow devs to more appropriately balance the system from there on out. They tend to look weird, cruel, or something undesirable initially, but from the devs point of view it often is meant for a better frame of design for future decisions.

 

[Twisty Treats]

I feel like all they did was nerf certain characters that were really good. Mewtwo needed one because everyone knew he was god tier. But certain charachters can't even kill anymore because of weird hitbox ****. What i'm saying is if you nerf it to the extent of having everyone balanced, then no one is going to be able to do crazy combos. It feels like Smash 4 with the delayed combo crap. Unless there is someone like wobbles abusing ice climbers (no offence but its unfair if you wobble) in the game and it literally breaks the game to a point where you can not do anything, Don't change it. I am extremely upset I can not use my main Lucas anymore because he can not air combo, does not have good smash attacks anymore, and he can not recover for crap now.

 

[Anonistry]

What i'm saying is if you nerf it to the extent of having everyone balanced, then no one is going to be able to do crazy combos.

Thus my above post. Sometimes when things get too crazy, devs can feel put into a corner balance wise. As it happens, this wanted to try to put forth the competitive aspects of Smash, so don't be surprised that, if they balance "crazy awesome" and "moderate, balanced design" in their decision making, they pick the latter.

Although I don't see them wanting to even make that a decision too often.

ON ANOTHER NOTE: Should I just put a big "expect TL;DR" warning sign in a sig or something? I feel like I am accidentally becoming Big Post Guy...

 

[TreK]

I actually agree with the global nerf, my problem lies with the few characters that did not get nerfed.

Everyone's freaking out about Fox so I'll use another example. Marth was one of my character's top 3 worst matchups in 3.02. My character got nerfed, Marth didn't (he's actually got the smallest patch note of the whole roster), so I wouldn't be surprised if the matchup actually became unwinnable. In my region, having an unwinnable matchup against Marth means your character is not viable, period. He is the most played character and I've got at least three Marth I would say are of top level.

So I'm actually forced to switch mains because of 3.5, and I'm sure my character isn't the only one in that situation.

The worst part is that I truly believe (for the moment, time will tell) that Ivysaur is, for the first time, well designed. I still have a few complaints but this is nowhere near the level of bull**** that were 2.6 and 3.0.

 

[Phaiyte]

If you want a competitive game, you have to have clear weaknesses and strengths across the cast. Characters weren't "nerfed to the ground", they were redesigned to work in a way that highlights that mindset. In a game of chess, you're not allowed to treat every pawn as a queen because that's ****ing dumb and everyone would likely agree with that.

 

[Anonistry]

If you want a competitive game, you have to have clear weaknesses and strengths across the cast. Characters weren't "nerfed to the ground", they were redesigned to work in a way that highlights that mindset. In a game of chess, you're not allowed to treat every pawn as a queen because that's ****ing dumb and everyone would likely agree with that.

I WOULD play that chess non-seriously for maximum shenanigans, though.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

All-pawn chess is legitimately more interesting and fun than all-queen chess.

I'm somewhat sad that I know this from personal experience.

 

[Anonistry]

All-pawn chess is legitimately more interesting and fun than all-queen chess.

I'm somewhat sad that I know this from personal experience.

Nothing to be sad about. Experience is born from experimentation, and the best parts of life is, as far as I am concerned, born from experience.

EDIT: Suddenly I just depressed myself from how boring and stagnant my life is. Good job, me.

 

[Phaiyte]

I WOULD play that chess non-seriously for maximum shenanigans, though.

I probably would too tbh, but anyone would agree that it's not a good idea for a competitive game.

Every character should have some losing MUs.

Every character should have mostly even matchups instead. This doesn't mean 50/50 everyone vs everyone, because that will never happen, but striving to obtain that anyways is the better goal. Or just better worded, either way.

To others in the thread, characters flat out hard countering other characters on purpose is bad game design. That's the kinda thing that keeps a lot of people from taking MOBA games any kind of seriously. "omg this hard counters this jajajaja" should not come up in a serious conversation beyond intermediate levels of players.

 

[Twisty Treats]

I feel they are more focused into making sure no one is overpowered and fixing the semi OP characters then giving the absolutely crappy characters like olimar or rob (they are craop IMO) something to compete with them. I mean come on they nerfed yoshi!

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Bros, of course every character having even MUs is good.

I did not state that because it is literally impossible. Especially with a cast this large and diverse.

As a realistic goal, no character should dominate. If any characters come close to dominating, they should mostly have even MUs rather than mostly winning. Wofl is a good example of this.

 

[Deleted member]

@ Shell nailed it imo

that said, if we have issues, the PMDT is still open to suggestions, correct? i've found a couple small ones already