If you had to choose, roster size or game balance?

[Quinfordmac]

Pretty simple. The larger the roster size, the higher the chance your favorite character got in. But with that, the game is poorly balanced.

ROSTER SIZE:

57 characters
So unbalanced there is one or two at the top, then everyone else is a mystery

BALANCE

28-29 characters
Really good balance, no "broken" characters, no "horrible" characters.

 

[Morbi]

I would go with roster size. Let us be honest, the balance in Smash is pitiful. So I am used to it. This time, I just want a large variety of characters. I don't really care if half of them are not viable. I just want to have fun with the game. If I want to play a balanced fighting game, I will just play Street Fighter or Tekken. That is where I stand currently. I hardly think they can balance the game with a small roster anyways. So I just want a lot of fun characters in the game.

It looks like they are going the balance route. So the game BETTER be balanced. That is all I have to say on the matter.

 

[stan423321]

I don't think we have got to go binary (100% something) on that. But I'd go primarily for roster size, just because the balancing cannot possibly cover all available environments, or as some of you would probably say rulesets. Fast examples: suppose devs are balancing SSB4. They are obviously balancing it with items on, maybe on low, maybe on high, I don't know. When fighting community gets on the game, suppose they disable items. This nerfs Villager compared to the developers' environment because his "collect object" move was balanced with items on in mind. Also, this nerfs Donkey Kong because the fact he can carry crates fast doesn't matter anymore. All big characters get nerfed as their increased item throw distance doesn't matter anymore. Everybody but Fighting Alloy Team which can't use items at all gets nerfed.

If any of the following, and possibly more, changes:

• item settings
• game type (time/stock/whatever)
• technical game setting (type of controllers, internet or not)
• stage selection

balancing gets more or less invalidated. Of course with good balancing the differences may be less visible, but they will be there.

 

[lami]

I would rather have balance. When you go with the huge roster size you increase the chance of having broken characters in the vein of MK and IC's. And having IMBA characters, you create a rift in the community with banned "X" characters etc. But this is coming from the competitive point of view. From a casual, party game view, roster size is better for what you're trying to get out of the game.

 

[DonkaFjord]

Roster size because competitive types are going to ban a lot of things anyways so it doesn't affect them (unless they can not agree I suppose.)

 

[Deleted member]

Roster size since patches and DLC can be used as an option to make the game balanced.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Balance. EASILY.

I'd take a well balanced roster of 10 characters over a random mess of dozens upon dozens any day.

 

[nat pagle]

BALANCE

28-29 characters
Really good balance, no "broken" characters, no "horrible" characters.

This is very hard to make out. Are you saying we go back to Melee level tiers minus the tier that Pichu is in? Or would this put everyone in S to A or upper mid tier?

If it were the latter, I'd take the balance any day. If it were the former, not a chance. There'd still be a noticeable difference and frankly, as long as there are more than 10 viable characters it's fine. I'd take the 56 characters in that case.

 

[itsDa$H]

I would have to say balance but then again when has a Smash Bros. game ever been properly balanced.