In my opinion, Sakurai could have done a better job with balancing the game.

[OrlanduEX]

That's what I mean.
Guilty gear is actually pretty balanced when you look at it. :]
But no fighting game is going to be perfect.
IMO, Brawl is much more balanced than Melee.
By Far.

/10randomdebates.

I disagree. Not to start a "Melee vs Brawl" debate (which this thread basically is), but in Melee characters were dynamic. All the techs available to you allowed crappy characters to compete wit the best. Brawl isn't the same. In Brawl, crappy characters will always be crappy and disadvantaged against the best because there is no way for them to really improve. The discrepancy between top 6 characters in Brawl and the rest of the cast is considerably greater than that between the top 5 or so characters in Melee and the rest. Even crap characters like Link and Bowser in Melee could win regularly if played by a pro (Gimpy, The Germ, etc.) In Brawl, almost all the characters below high tier have no hope of winning a high level tournament. Link and Ganondorf will never win tournaments with a bunch of good MKs and Snakes running around.

Brawl is certainly less balanced than Melee and less balanced than most fighting games for that matter. The balance is comparable to Marvel vs Capcom 2, where a small handful of characters (Magneto, Storm, Sentinel, and Cable vs Snake, MK, DDD, Falco, G&W, and ROB) absolutely dominate followed by a couple high tiers (Strider, Doom, C. Commando, Psylocke, Iron Man etc. vs Diddy, Lucario, Marth, Wario etc.) and the rest of the characters are worthless.

 

[Sky`]

I disagree. Not to start a "Melee vs Brawl" debate (which this thread basically is), but in Melee characters were dynamic. All the techs available to you allowed crappy characters to compete wit the best. Brawl isn't the same. In Brawl, crappy characters will always be crappy and disadvantaged against the best because there is no way for them to really improve. The discrepancy between top 6 characters in Brawl and the rest of the cast is considerably greater than that between the top 5 or so characters in Melee and the rest. Even crap characters like Link and Bowser in Melee could win regularly if played by a pro (Gimpy, The Germ, etc.) In Brawl, almost all the characters below high tier have no hope of winning a high level tournament. Link and Ganondorf will never win tournaments with a bunch of good MKs and Snakes running around.

Brawl is certainly less balanced than Melee and less balanced than most fighting games for that matter. The balance is comparable to Marvel vs Capcom 2, where a small handful of characters (Magneto, Storm, Sentinel, and Cable vs Snake, MK, DDD, Falco, G&W, and ROB) absolutely dominate followed by a couple high tiers (Strider, Doom, C. Commando, Psylocke, Iron Man etc. vs Diddy, Lucario, Marth, Wario etc.) and the rest of the characters are worthless.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your bolded statement... I think that... you've got that mixed up. I believe that in Melee, you really only saw like, 5 characters, and only 2 of which won tournaments. Fox and Marth. For the most part.

Well, in Brawl, Every character Excels in their own unique way! Not everybody can glide toss, but the people who can't Glide toss, may be able to Snakedash or what have you.

Every character can rise above, there are only few, that so far have been making no progress.

EX. I place High, no joke srsly. And I play Peach.
Where is peach in the current standings? Below Bowser. Gg. :]
Do you see what I'm trying to say?

 

[AlexX]

I disagree. Not to start a "Melee vs Brawl" debate (which this thread basically is), but in Melee characters were dynamic. All the techs available to you allowed crappy characters to compete wit the best.

Only to a point. Bottom-tiers like mewtwo, pichu, and G&W aren't really viable no matter how you look at it.

While I agree in terms of % Melee has a more viable roster, I wish people wouldn't act like they were all tournament viable, because Melee wasn't exactly the most balanced fighting game, either.

 

[Yuna]

While I agree in terms of % Melee has a more viable roster, I wish people wouldn't act like they were all tournament viable, because Melee wasn't exactly the most balanced fighting game, either.

No one credible are acting like that.

 

[Sky`]

No one credible are acting like that.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh GEEEEEZ.

 

[AlexX]

No one credible are acting like that.

Point taken, though it's still annoying to see.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your bolded statement... I think that... you've got that mixed up. I believe that in Melee, you really only saw like, 5 characters, and only 2 of which won tournaments. Fox and Marth. For the most part.

Well, in Brawl, Every character Excels in their own unique way! Not everybody can glide toss, but the people who can't Glide toss, may be able to Snakedash or what have you.

Every character can rise above, there are only few, that so far have been making no progress.

EX. I place High, no joke srsly. And I play Peach.
Where is peach in the current standings? Below Bowser. Gg. :]
Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Fox and Marth? You're crazy. In Melee, along with Marth, Sheik, Fox, Zelda, and Peach, C. Falcon, Ice Climbers, Jigglypuff, Samus, Dr. Mario, and even Ganondorf regularly win tournaments. Of course the top five are the best , but about half the cast was quite viable.

In Brawl, the win ratio of MK and Snake compared to even the other 4 guys in the top tier is ridiculous. Look at the character rankings thread. MK is in a class all his own in terms of tournament results. Snake comes a distant second. And then there's everyone else.

It's nice that you use Peach, but how many Peach players are winning high level tournaments? Just about none.

Brawl is no where near as balanced as Melee, and Melee wasn't very balanced to begin with.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your bolded statement... I think that... you've got that mixed up. I believe that in Melee, you really only saw like, 5 characters, and only 2 of which won tournaments. Fox and Marth. For the most part.

Actually, it was Fox, Marth, and Shiek, followed by Peach, Falco, Captain Falcon, Jigglypuff, and Ice Climbers (thank you Chu). And pretty much all of the mid tiers had decent chances of winning (and Link and Luigi)

In brawl it's Metaknight, then Snake, then DDD, Wario, Falco, and Game and Watch (in no particular order)

Well, in Brawl, Every character Excels in their own unique way! Not everybody can glide toss, but the people who can't Glide toss, may be able to Snakedash or what have you.

Actually, every character can glidetoss, and every character can DAC. But the usefullness varies. And not every character excels. Some just suck while others are completely rediculous (sounds like melee doesn't it?) Only now they don't have those universal ATs to rely on and have to rely completely on character ability.

Mewtwo and Pichu coulld do some pretty sick stuff to Fox and Falco. But pitting Falcon or Ganondorf against Metaknight and Snake is just painfull.

Every character can rise above, there are only few, that so far have been making no progress.

Brawl: Metaknight...giant gap...Snake...big gap....Wario, Falco, DDD, and Game and watch...Gap...Marth, Lucario, ect.
Melee: Marth, Fox, Shiek (no particular order)...gap...Falco, Peach...small gap...Captain Falcon, Jigglypuff, Ice Climbers, ect.

Actually, it looks like melee had smaller gaps between tiers. Typically that indicates better balance.

EX. I place High, no joke srsly. And I play Peach.
Where is peach in the current standings? Below Bowser. Gg. :]
Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Good for you. taj/gimpyfish/KDJ/Ka-Master/Neo/ect. also placed high with low tier characters in melee. But they placed better with higher tiered characters (those of them that actually played higher tier characters).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I disagree. Not to start a "Melee vs Brawl" debate (which this thread basically is), but in Melee characters were dynamic. All the techs available to you allowed crappy characters to compete wit the best. Brawl isn't the same. In Brawl, crappy characters will always be crappy and disadvantaged against the best because there is no way for them to really improve. The discrepancy between top 6 characters in Brawl and the rest of the cast is considerably greater than that between the top 5 or so characters in Melee and the rest. Even crap characters like Link and Bowser in Melee could win regularly if played by a pro (Gimpy, The Germ, etc.) In Brawl, almost all the characters below high tier have no hope of winning a high level tournament. Link and Ganondorf will never win tournaments with a bunch of good MKs and Snakes running around.

Brawl is certainly less balanced than Melee and less balanced than most fighting games for that matter. The balance is comparable to Marvel vs Capcom 2, where a small handful of characters (Magneto, Storm, Sentinel, and Cable vs Snake, MK, DDD, Falco, G&W, and ROB) absolutely dominate followed by a couple high tiers (Strider, Doom, C. Commando, Psylocke, Iron Man etc. vs Diddy, Lucario, Marth, Wario etc.) and the rest of the characters are worthless.

MvC2 is the worst fighting game I've seen in terms of balance. Only Three to Four characters were viable with two or three being exceptions.

Brawl may not be the pinnacle of balance, nor is Melee, but no way in hell Brawl is as bad as MvC2.

And neither game is as balanced as Guilty Gear.

Brawl: Metaknight...giant gap...Snake...big gap....Wario, Falco, DDD, and Game and watch...Gap...Marth, Lucario, ect.
Melee: Marth, Fox, Shiek (no particular order)...gap...Falco, Peach...small gap...Captain Falcon, Jigglypuff, Ice Climbers, ect.

Brawl: Meta Knight, Snake...gap...King Dedede, Mr. Game & Watch, Falco, R.O.B....small gap...Marth, Wario, Lucario, Donkey Kong, Diddy...gap...etc.
Melee: Falco, Fox...gap... Shiek, Marth, Peach, Captain Falcon,...small gap...Ice Climbers
Samus, Doctor Mario, Jigglypuff, Mario, Ganondorf,...gap...Link, Luigi etc.

 

[Deathcarter]

I disagree. Not to start a "Melee vs Brawl" debate (which this thread basically is), but in Melee characters were dynamic. All the techs available to you allowed crappy characters to compete wit the best. Brawl isn't the same. In Brawl, crappy characters will always be crappy and disadvantaged against the best because there is no way for them to really improve. The discrepancy between top 6 characters in Brawl and the rest of the cast is considerably greater than that between the top 5 or so characters in Melee and the rest. Even crap characters like Link and Bowser in Melee could win regularly if played by a pro (Gimpy, The Germ, etc.) In Brawl, almost all the characters below high tier have no hope of winning a high level tournament. Link and Ganondorf will never win tournaments with a bunch of good MKs and Snakes running around.

Brawl is certainly less balanced than Melee and less balanced than most fighting games for that matter. The balance is comparable to Marvel vs Capcom 2, where a small handful of characters (Magneto, Storm, Sentinel, and Cable vs Snake, MK, DDD, Falco, G&W, and ROB) absolutely dominate followed by a couple high tiers (Strider, Doom, C. Commando, Psylocke, Iron Man etc. vs Diddy, Lucario, Marth, Wario etc.) and the rest of the characters are worthless.

Brawl is as balanced as Melee. You cannot justify Brawl's imbalance with Meta Knight. One, he is WAY too imbalanced to be used as a basis of Brawl's balance along with the other characters; he is simply a very imbalanced outlier. Two, most matchups do not involve him.

After him, everyone from Snake to Zero Suit Samus can reasonably compete on a comparable level (as in the majority of each characters matchups are neutral or 60:40). That is 55.55% of the remaining roster. On the other hand, if you took out the top 4 characters in Melee, you at most have half of the remaining roster viable. Every character after DK sucks.

Besides, highest level friendly play is a better indicator of a game's balance instead of competetive play because character popularity as well as the emphasis on top/high tiers heavily distorts how people view a game's balance. Hell, even Guilty Gear, perhaps the most balanced competetive fighter, has a community who uses the highest ranking characters in tournaments just like the other competetive fighter communities.

Brawl, without the heavy emphasis on Meta Knight, looks just as imbalanced as Melee.

 

[OrlanduEX]

MvC2 is the worst fighting game I've seen in terms of balance. Only Three to Four characters were viable with two or three being exceptions.

Brawl may not be the pinnacle of balance, nor is Melee, but no way in hell Brawl is as bad as MvC2.

And neither game is as balanced as Guilty Gear.

I was just drawing a comparison between the massive disparities in the strengths of the few best characters in the two game with respect to the rest of the cast.
In both games, a handful of characters win everything and the rest are fodder.

Brawl isn't as bad as MvC2, but it's not much better.

And I never said that any of them were in any way equivalent in balance to Guilty Gear. GG is balanced thanks to a plethora of damage scaling mechanics such as the Gravity system (where you fall faster as you get hit in a combo, preventing infinites), the Guts system (where you take less damage the less health you have), and the blocking gauge (which decreases the damage you take the more you get hit in a combo, but increases the damage you take after blocking too much). These things prevent any one character from inflicting too much damage at a time, no matter how broken.

If only more fighting game developers would employ safe guards like these to prevent the gross disparities in character strengths found in games like Brawl and MvC2. OF course the same elements could not be employed in Brawl, but the developers didn't even try.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Brawl is as balanced as Melee. You cannot justify Brawl's imbalance with Meta Knight. One, he is WAY too imbalanced to be used as a basis of Brawl's balance along with the other characters; he is simply a very imbalanced outlier. Two, most matchups do not involve him.

After him, everyone from Snake to Zero Suit Samus can reasonably compete on a comparable level (as in the majority of each characters matchups are neutral or 60:40). That is 55.55% of the remaining roster. On the other hand, if you took out the top 4 characters in Melee, you at most have half of the remaining roster viable. Every character after DK sucks.

Besides, highest level friendly play is a better indicator of a game's balance instead of competetive play because character popularity as well as the emphasis on top/high tiers heavily distorts how people view a game's balance. Hell, even Guilty Gear, perhaps the most balanced competetive fighter, has a community who uses the highest ranking characters in tournaments just like the other competetive fighter communities.

Brawl, without the heavy emphasis on Meta Knight, looks just as imbalanced as Melee.

Can't agree there at all. Even if we exclude MK, the gaps between the characters in Brawl are far greater than in Melee. In both games, only half the roster is tournament viable, but in Brawl, the best few are far better than high-middle tier guys as evidence by their extremely good tournament results. Without MK, Snake is still in a league of his own. Then comes Falco, R.O.B., DDD, and G&W. Then there is another large gap followed by the high tier guys. And after them, everyone else is basically not viable in tournaments.

I don't think that the success of the highest tier characters in Brawl is due strictly to popularity. All of the characters are seeing use, but only a few are winning. And how would you make a tier list based on friendly matches?

Sorry for Double post.

 

[GofG]

Brawl is as balanced as Melee. You cannot justify Brawl's imbalance with Meta Knight. One, he is WAY too imbalanced to be used as a basis of Brawl's balance along with the other characters; he is simply a very imbalanced outlier. Two, most matchups do not involve him.

After him, everyone from Snake to Zero Suit Samus can reasonably compete on a comparable level (as in the majority of each characters matchups are neutral or 60:40). That is 55.55% of the remaining roster. On the other hand, if you took out the top 4 characters in Melee, you at most have half of the remaining roster viable. Every character after DK sucks.

Besides, highest level friendly play is a better indicator of a game's balance instead of competetive play because character popularity as well as the emphasis on top/high tiers heavily distorts how people view a game's balance. Hell, even Guilty Gear, perhaps the most balanced competetive fighter, has a community who uses the highest ranking characters in tournaments just like the other competetive fighter communities.

Brawl, without the heavy emphasis on Meta Knight, looks just as imbalanced as Melee.

There are no outliers. Statistically, yes, there are, but unfortunately you cannot say "look at this, the middle 2/3s of the cast are balanced, therefore the game is balanced" like you can in statistics. There is no such bell curve because every character is tournament legal.

Also, Melee wasn't very imbalanced at all.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I was just drawing a comparison between the massive disparities in the strengths of the few best characters in the two game with respect to the rest of the cast.
In both games, a handful of characters win everything and the rest are fodder.

The problem with this is that these comparisons can be made with Melee as well. The top overriding the bottom.

Then again I'm a person who ignores placement on a tier list and I just use whoever I like or am good with. I like this kind of thought since it helps me develop even low tiers for tournament play.

Brawl isn't as bad as MvV2, but it's not much better.

I'll take 25%-55%(Might be pushing it at 55%) over 8%-16% viable.

Neither game is that balanced, but to the level of MvC2, heck even near it seems far fetched.

And I never said that any of them were in any way equivalent in balance to Guilty Gear. GG is balanced thanks to a plethora of damage scaling mechanics such as the Gravity system (where you fall faster as you get hit in a combo, preventing infinites), the Guts system (where you take less damage the less health you have), and the blocking gauge (which decreases the damage you take the more you get hit in a combo, but increases the damage you take after blocking too much). These things prevent any one character from inflicting too much damage at a time, no matter how broken.

k.

If only more fighting game developers would employ safe guards like these to prevent the gross disparities in character strengths found in games like Brawl and MvC2. OF course the same elements could not be employed in Brawl, but the developers didn't even try.

Considering major time contrasts and the increase in cast size, 26-37/39, and the other things they added, I'm not surprised it wasn't as balanced as it could have been.

It looks like they did try to actually apply balance, the lower high, middle and upper low are very close in terms of power.

The middle is balanced well, it's the top and bottom of low that are the problems.

 

[GofG]

The problem with this is that these comparisons can be made with Melee as well. The top overriding the bottom.

Then again I'm a person who ignores placement on a tier list

stopped reading.

Some people (gimpyfish, t!mmy and t0mmy, Simna etc) are allowed to do this (because they are famous), but you aren't, especially not if you want to say that you are right about competitive smash and OrlanduEX is wrong.

 

[OrlanduEX]

The problem with this is that these comparisons can be made with Melee as well. The top overriding the bottom.
Then again I'm a person who ignores placement on a tier list and I just use whoever I like or am good with. I like this kind of thought since it helps me develop even low tiers for tournament play.
I'll take 25%-55%(Might be pushing it at 55%) over 8%-16% viable.

In Brawl and MvC2, a handful are viable and the rest are worthless against them. I wouldn't say that the tourney viable characters in Brawl is anywhere near 55%. Brawl is not as bad as Marvel, but the point I'm trying to make is that the disparities between the top, the middle, and the bottom are greater in Brawl and Marvel than in most other fighters.

In Melee, a good half were solid, and the rest were at least somewhat viable.

 

[Sky`]

Well.
Define a Balanced game.

 

[GofG]

Sky, aren't you black and didn't you make a video about tourney experience or something? Or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[AlAxe]

In my opinion it seems like the game was rushed through developement which created some of the large imbalances in Brawl. How else did game developers miss the ridiculously easy to perform chain grabs of DDD and Falco. Once the game was released it took about a day to discover them. How else did game developers not realize that Snake's tilts were way overpowered and that MK was just plain better than everyone else. Also it should have been obvious that some characters were just awful. After playing just a few times as Samus, CF, Link, and Ganondorf it should have been apparent to game developers that they were underpowered. Either the people who worked on creating and balancing Brawl were either just plain stupid or rushed the game through developement. If they'd spent just a month or two more working on the game I feel like it probably would have come out much better. Coming from someone who prefers Brawl over Melee I feel like Melee is a more balanced game but only because the universal techniques like wavedashing and lcanceling were available to all the cast and improved all the characters whereas in Brawl most useful techniques are character specific and only improve certain characters.

 

[GofG]

In my opinion it seems like the game was rushed through developement which created some of the large imbalances in Brawl. How else did game developers miss the ridiculously easy to perform chain grabs of DDD and Falco. Once the game was released it took about a day to discover them. How else did game developers not realize that Snake's tilts were way overpowered and that MK was just plain better than everyone else. Also it should have been obvious that some characters were just awful. After playing just a few times as Samus, CF, Link, and Ganondorf it should have been apparent to game developers that they were underpowered. Either the people who worked on creating and balancing Brawl were either just plain stupid or rushed the game through developement. If they'd spent just a month or two more working on the game I feel like it probably would have come out much better. Coming from someone who prefers Brawl over Melee

at this i was like "bleh"

I feel like Melee is a more balanced game but only because the universal techniques like wavedashing and lcanceling were available to all the cast and improved all the characters whereas in Brawl most useful techniques are character specific and only improve certain characters.

This.

L-canceling and wavedashing and dashdancing gave every character an extra boost of speed and a basic mindgame. In Brawl, characters are guaranteed no such thing.

 

[AlAxe]

Sky, aren't you black and didn't you make a video about tourney experience or something? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Yea. That was Sky.

 

[Deathcarter]

Can't agree there at all. Even if we exclude MK, the gaps between the characters in Brawl are far greater than in Melee. In both games, only half the roster is tournament viable, but in Brawl, the best few are far better than high-middle tier guys as evidence by their extremely good tournament results. Without MK, Snake is still in a league of his own. Then comes Falco, R.O.B., DDD, and G&W. Then there is another large gap followed by the high tier guys. And after them, everyone else is basically not viable in tournaments.

I don't think that the success of the highest tier characters in Brawl is due strictly to popularity. All of the characters are seeing use, but only a few are winning. And how would you make a tier list based on friendly matches?

Sorry for Double post.

Question, are the gaps between the different ranks outside of Snake's and Meta Knight's due to character ability mostly or is it that the lower half of the viable characters are very hard to master (Olimar, Toon Link, Pit, etc.)? Or are there a lot more 70:30 matchups between the 20 characters than I realize?

And friendly matchups are, imo, a better tool to analyze balance because there are not other outlying variables to factor in (like a tendency to use higher tiered characters in tournaments because money is on the line).

But to be fair, I just want to say Brawl is as imbalanced as Melee. If you look at both game's tier list from top to bottom, they both look heavily imbalanced. But Brawl does look more balanced within each tier (aside from obviously top tier) even if Melee has a somewhat small gap between each tier. This is why I think they are tied in balance.

Edit: GofG, the reason why I said Meta Knight was an outlier was because I was focusing more on overall balance at the highest level of play where Meta Knight has a lot less influence than competetive play where Meta Knight eliminates 3/4ths of the cast.

 

[GofG]

I thought he sounded a bit scrubby. FoxySigma said he was a better speaker than Barack Obama, though...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

stopped reading.

Some people (gimpyfish, t!mmy and t0mmy, Simna etc) are allowed to do this (because they are famous), but you aren't, especially not if you want to say that you are right about competitive smash and OrlanduEX is wrong.

And I exclaimed my awesome skills as Captain Falcon when?

I never claimed I was as amazing as any of those players, only that I don't let a tier list dictate who I use.

In Brawl and MvC2, a handful are viable and the rest are worthless against them. I wouldn't say that the tourney viable characters in Brawl is anywhere near 55%. Brawl is not as bad as Marvel, but the point I'm trying to make is that the disparities between the top, the middle, and the bottom are greater in Brawl and Marvel than in most other fighters.

In Melee, a good half were solid, and the rest were at least somewhat viable.

The problem I have seeing eye to eye with this is the top, middle, low gaps. The gaps between some tier are different between the gaps in size and between certain tiers.

In Melee the lowest placed character to win a major tournament thus far has been Luigi(Azen).

In Brawl the lowest has been Diddy Kong(correct me if I'm wrong).

Does this say for the balance of the game, perhaps, I don't think Brawl has developed it's tournament scene entirely, nor is it going to change drastically.(Captain Falcon as god tier).

 

[GofG]

friendly matchups are, imo, a better tool to analyze balance

This is so wrong I can't even begin to comprehend how wrong it is.

You should seek out formal matches in the form of tournaments. The best way to measure your progress is to measure your ability to win, but matches you play outside of formal competition, real as they may seem, are rarely a good measure of much. The strongest steel is forged in the hottest flame, and fiercest competitor is forged in the most serious battle. Casual play is often for “fun” but tournament play is for blood.

In a tournament, even the same opponents you are used to facing may rise to a higher level of play. Players sometimes save their secrets—their best tactics—for serious competition. In a tournament, players tend to be more conservative. They also tend to find answers to tactics they have never answered before, because now they have to. They may cling to life in the game like the fate of Earth depends on it, whereas in casual play they freely give up a game in a position of disadvantage.

 

[Sky`]

Sky, aren't you black and didn't you make a video about tourney experience or something? Or am I thinking of someone else?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ArHas4eozE

Bingo?

 

[GofG]

I never claimed I was as amazing as any of those players, only that I don't let a tier list dictate who I use.

You said that you ignored placement on the tier list, not that you ignored it when choosing your main. There is a HUGE, VASTLY ENORMOUS difference here.

 

[GofG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ArHas4eozE

Bingo?

Yes you. I have to ask, do you have any melee tourney experience?

edit: MY BROWSER IS BETTER THAN MCFOX'S.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You said that you ignored placement on the tier list, not that you ignored it when choosing your main. There is a HUGE, VASTLY ENORMOUS difference here.

...

Then again I'm a person who ignores placement on a tier list and I just use whoever I like or am good with. I like this kind of thought since it helps me develop even low tiers for tournament play.

The bolded part disagrees.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Well.
Define a Balanced game.

"Balance" in fighting games measures the capacity of characters in the game to compete against each other at the highest levels play. As has already been stated, there is no perfectly balanced game. Balance is relative.

The commonly used examples of relatively balanced games are Guilty Gear and Virtua Fighter. I don't play Virtua Fighter, so I can't speak for it, but I know plenty about Guilty Gear. Guilty Gear is considered well balanced, despite the tier distinctions, because any character, even the crappiest like Chipp and Dizzy (I'm talking Accent Core here), can win a high level tournament against the best characters like Potemkin and Eddie, though of course it is hard.

The commonly used example of an unbalanced game is MvC2. In that game, about 12 characters of the 56 character roster are used regularly in tournaments, with an elite four characters taking up at least one slot on every team. The other 44 characters are almost entirely useless in comparison.

In Brawl, while there are a good few tourney viable characters, only a few characters below high tier can even hope to win tournaments populated by high level MK, Snake, DDD, G&W, Falco, and ROB players. Thus it is relatively unbalanced. Of course you'll get your flukes here and there, but if you go into a high level tournament with Peach or even Fox, there isn't a good chance that you'll even get fourth or fifth place. And by high level tournament, I mean one where all or almost all the players are reasonably well experienced and knowledgeable. Very few scrubs.Tier lists are based primarily on the results of such tournaments.

 

[GofG]

...



The bolded part disagrees.

Err...


remember how I said I stopped reading?

>.< sorry

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

"Balance" in fighting games measures the capacity of characters in the game to compete against each other at the highest levels play. As has already been stated, there is no perfectly balanced game. Balance is relative.

The commonly used examples of relatively balanced games are Guilty Gear and Virtua Fighter. I don't play Virtua Fighter, so I can't speak for it, but I know plenty about Guilty Gear. Guilty Gear is considered well balanced, despite the tier distinctions, because any character, even the crappiest like Chipp and Dizzy (I'm talking Accent Core here), can win a high level tournament against the best characters like Potemkin and Eddie, though of course it is hard.

The commonly used example of an unbalanced game is MvC2. In that game, about 12 characters of the 56 character roster are used regularly in tournaments, with an elite four characters taking up at least one slot on every team. The other 44 characters are almost entirely useless in comparison.

In Brawl, while there are a good few tourney viable characters, only a few characters below high tier can even hope to win tournaments populated by high level MK, Snake, DDD, G&W, Falco, and ROB players. Thus it is relatively unbalanced. Of course you'll get your flukes here and there, but if you go into a high level tournament with Peach or even Fox, there isn't a good chance that you'll even get fourth or fifth place. And by high level tournament, I mean one where all or almost all the players are reasonably well experienced and knowledgeable. Very few scrubs.Tier lists are based primarily on the results of such tournaments.

Out of curiosity, why twelve?

I though about six to eight was the approximate viable number.

Err...


remember how I said I stopped reading?

>.< sorry

k.

Considering some stupid things people have said here I'm not surprised you did stop reading.

 

[Sky`]

Yes you. I have to ask, do you have any melee tourney experience?

edit: MY BROWSER IS BETTER THAN MCFOX'S.

I was in the Melee Scene.
In fact, in 04, I went to my first Bi weekly, and placed 12th with DBR there. Not bad right?

In addition, in 06, I went to MLG NJ, and played a bunch of pros. That's when I had some Skills.
EDIT: My first tourney match in doubles? Ken and Isai. I got interviewed after about the loss.
Also, I spiked ken on Rainbow Cruise in a money match. He was all, "Wow!" XD
Then I got *****.

But alas. Brawl has taken away my tech skill.
Though I retain some Melee Wisdom, as I was in the scene since 04, I am afraid that my actual play skill has diminished.
Oh how I wish It were back.

 

[Deathcarter]

This is so wrong I can't even begin to comprehend how wrong it is.

To be fair, tournament matches are the best way to analyze a competetive scene/character metagame, but IMO, they cannot be used to reliably analyze overall balance (at the highest level of play), because of the huge emphasis on the highest ranked characters. What I am talking about is like the balance between the characters within their own tier.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Question, are the gaps between the different ranks outside of Snake's and Meta Knight's due to character ability mostly or is it that the lower half of the viable characters are very hard to master (Olimar, Toon Link, Pit, etc.)? Or are there a lot more 70:30 matchups between the 20 characters than I realize?

And friendly matchups are, imo, a better tool to analyze balance because there are not other outlying variables to factor in (like a tendency to use higher tiered characters in tournaments because money is on the line).

But to be fair, I just want to say Brawl is as imbalanced as Melee. If you look at both game's tier list from top to bottom, they both look heavily imbalanced. But Brawl does look more balanced within each tier (aside from obviously top tier) even if Melee has a somewhat small gap between each tier. This is why I think they are tied in balance.

Edit: GofG, the reason why I said Meta Knight was an outlier was because I was focusing more on overall balance at the highest level of play where Meta Knight has a lot less influence than competetive play where Meta Knight eliminates 3/4ths of the cast.

I don't think difficulty of use has anything to do with it. In Melee, Fox was generally considered hard to use, yet he is at the top of the tier list. In Guilty Gear, the best characters are all the most difficult to use (according to Arcadia magazine).
If the character is good, then difficulty of use shouldn't stop them from excelling.

Though the match up charts are currently unreliable, since the game is young, the top tier guys generally have very few bad match ups with no hard counters. Everyone else has plenty of bad match ups and the characters below high tier generally have plenty of hard counters.

I wouldn't really say the characters in Brawl are more balanced within individual tiers at all. Compare the top of the high tier to the bottom of the high tier. Basically, it only starts to even out when you get pass ZSS. Then everyone is equally crappy.

 

[Patsie]

what a stupid thread

 

[OrlanduEX]

Out of curiosity, why twelve?

I though about six to eight was the approximate viable number.

I'm just thinking of every single character that people use in high level tournaments, if you consider "point" characters as well as "assist" characters. In total you get:

Magneto
Storm
Cable
Sentinel
Iron Man/War Machine
Strider
Spiral
Doom
Cyclops
Psylocke
C. Commando
Tron Bonne

Which is 13. So I was one off.

All the other characters are never used in American tournaments. Some Japanese players use characters like Dhalsim and Cammy, but they barely play Marvel anyway.

EDIT: List not in order.

 

[Sky`]

I always thought Storm was the best Character.

 

[OrlanduEX]

I always thought Storm was the best Character.

My list certainly wasn't in order. According to Shoryuken Wiki, which is similar to our Smash wiki, the order of the top tier is Sentinel, Storm, Magneto, Cable, with Sentinel and Storm being ever so slightly better than Magneto and Cable.

 

[Sky`]

200th post.
/10char.