Is Brawl more balanced than melee? **Take 2**

[Zeallyx]

That's funny.

offcourse it is.
now go play with your....

..

what have you got

 

[pure_awesome]

Taken from the match-up threads:

Pika has a 60-80% chaingrab on Fox that ends in an upsmash. He out-prioritizes Fox. His aerials beat Fox's aerials. He out-ranges Fox. He can nullify all of Fox's approaches. He gimps Fox's recovery with ease. He out-camps Fox. He combos Fox.

CF vers MK is hard. It's stupidly hard. But it's not Pika/Fox hard.

 

[Radical Dreamer]

I don't know where to draw the line.

Just as a side note, Jigglypuff placing top 8 has actually been a fairly frequent occurrence in the past year and a half, at least in the United States. I don't know about Europe or Japan.

 

[Yuna]

Just as a side note, Jigglypuff placing top 8 has been a fairly frequent occurrence in at least the past year in the United States. I don't know about Europe or Japan.

By some of the world's best Jiggz... and not-so-major major tournaments (I'm assuming) featuring many of Jiggz' worst match-ups (I'm assuming again).

 

[Zeallyx]

Taken from the match-up threads:

Pika has a 60-80% chaingrab on Fox that ends in an upsmash. He out-prioritizes Fox. His aerials beat Fox's aerials. He out-ranges Fox. He can nullify all of Fox's approaches. He gimps Fox's recovery with ease. He out-camps Fox. He combos Fox.

CF vers MK is hard. It's stupidly hard. But it's not Pika/Fox hard.

well the 'LOL' in that table is like..ehm..replace it with a ratio..
Falcon vs MK is also 'LOL'

All MK doesn't have on falcon is the 60-80% CG ending in an Usmash. The rest is the same.
And meta knight has the tornado, wich destroys falcon completely. (pika doesn't have one move that completely destroys fox)

The 'LOL' in the table for pika vs fox is probably also a 20-80 (in pika's favor)

 

[pure_awesome]

well the 'LOL' in that table is like..ehm..replace it with a ratio..
Falcon vs MK is also 'LOL'

All MK doesn't have on falcon is the 60-80% CG ending in an Usmash. The rest is the same.
And meta knight has the tornado, wich destroys falcon completely. (pika doesn't have one move that completely destroys fox)

The 'LOL' in the table for pika vs fox is probably also a 20-80 (in pika's favor)

The LOL was a 90-10. This is before it was discussed that Pika out-prioritized Fox everywhere. It was then changed to LOL, mainly because it was a joke, and partially, I assume, because nobody would take a 95-5 match-up seriously anyway.

I should mention that the chain grab (which can also end in a Nair, if memory serves) will usually kill. So when MK can take CF out with a single grab at any percent under 75%, you can talk. Oh, and there's your one move that destroys Fox, by the way.

The tornado isn't even a bigger problem for CF than it is for any other character. Shield and punish, it's what everyone does. It may be slightly harder due to CF's abysmal grab range, but it sure as hell doesn't destroy him.

Then of course, there's the DDD vers anyone who can be infinited clause, which, to give you an idea of how bad it is, was being called 100:0 by people who don't take ratios super-literally, and 99:1 by most people who do.

 

[Zeallyx]

The LOL was a 90-10. This is before it was discussed that Pika out-prioritized Fox everywhere. It was then changed to LOL, mainly because it was a joke, and partially, I assume, because nobody would take a 95-5 match-up seriously anyway.

I should mention that the chain grab (which can also end in a Nair, if memory serves) will usually kill. So when MK can take CF out with a single grab at any percent under 75%, you can talk. Oh, and there's your one move that destroys Fox, by the way.

The tornado isn't even a bigger problem for CF than it is for any other character. Shield and punish, it's what everyone does. It may be slightly harder due to CF's abysmal grab range, but it sure as hell doesn't destroy him.

Then of course, there's the DDD vers anyone who can be infinited clause, which, to give you an idea of how bad it is, was being called 100:0 by people who don't take ratios super-literally, and 99:1 by most people who do.

sure.
The DDD infinites are pretty bad. but CPing will take care of that easily. MK has no bad matchups, so CPing doesn't save falcon (in theory).

Also, MK can destroy falcon from any percent, he doesn't need to be under 75% (in theory, but what you say is in theory too. as foxes will focus on not getting grabbed too.)

and falcon almost can't punish MK due to MK low ending lag and falcon's startup lag on most moves. His jab(>jab)>grab is the only 'guaranteed' punish on MK. (Unless the meta knigh uses Fsmash)

also, stop acting like you do. It is uncalled for.
now go play with whatever you play with.

 

[pure_awesome]

On the internet, you're reading words. Any intonation that you put on those words is a product of your own mind. If you're angry at me when you're reading this, you'll read it in a condescending way to allow your mind to become more angry at me by labelling me as a prick. Just don't do that.

Anyway, you just argued that a match-up isn't that bad because it can just be counterpicked, which indicates that I don't think you quite understand what match-up ratios are supposed to establish.

So I'm just going to excuse myself from the thread, and I hope you don't take it as an insult when I say there's still some things you need to research. Such as how Falcon Kick beats Mach Tornado, making CF one of the few characters that can actually deal with it reasonably.

 

[Zeallyx]

oh, almost forgot:

there isn't a matchup in melee that is '1-99' or '0-100'. Not even 'bowser vs sheik'

so, is brawl more balanced than melee?

NO

Did you just argue that a match-up isn't bad because it can be counterpicked?

no, CP tells nothing about the matchup.
But it does decrease the 'brokenness' in competitive play.

 

[Redthorn21]

oh, almost forgot:

there isn't a matchup in melee that is '1-99' or '0-100'. Not even 'bowser vs sheik'

so, is brawl more balanced than melee?

NO



no, CP tells nothing about the matchup.
But it does decrease the 'brokenness' in competitive play.

There is a few matchups like this like DK vs D3 (infinate chaingrab on DK)
I don't think Falcon vs MK is 1-99 but it is a terrible matchup

 

[Zeallyx]

There is a few matchups like this like DK vs D3 (infinate chaingrab on DK)
I don't think Falcon vs MK is 1-99 but it is a terrible matchup

Yes, the 1-99 I'm talking about (or pure_awesome is talking about) is the infinite

I never said MK vs falcon was 1-99, I said there isn't a matchup like that in melee.
making brawl less balanced.

 

[Zeallyx]

On the internet, you're reading words. Any intonation that you put on those words is a product of your own mind. If you're angry at me when you're reading this, you'll read it in a condescending way to allow your mind to become more angry at me by labelling me as a prick. Just don't do that.

Anyway, you just argued that a match-up isn't that bad because it can just be counterpicked, which indicates that I don't think you quite understand what match-up ratios are supposed to establish.

So I'm just going to excuse myself from the thread, and I hope you don't take it as an insult when I say there's still some things you need to research. Such as how Falcon Kick beats Mach Tornado, making CF one of the few characters that can actually deal with it reasonably.

so you agree brawl is less balanced?

 

[pure_awesome]

It sure seems like Melee was more balanced, but I definitely think it's too early in Brawl's life to make the call. Regardless, I think we can all agree that Smash64 is by far the most balanced of the three.

God Tier:
Isai

Who Cares Tier:
Everything else to do with the game.

Bottom Tier:
Link's Recovery

Looking at which game has the worse match-up is a very narrow-minded way of looking at it, as it's only one facet of the game.

Example: We have two games, Melee A and Melee B.

Melee A is exactly like Smash Melee, except Fox is more powerful than he already is.
Melee B is exactly like Smash Melee, except Marth has an infinite on... say, Mewtwo, which can be started from a jab, fair, sideb, grab, etc. Essentially, if Marth touches Mewtwo, Mewtwo is down a stock.

By your logic, Melee B would be less balanced, since it clearly has the worst single match-up in Marth vers Mewtwo. It should be obvious, however, that Melee A is the less balanced of the two, since Fox would dominate at high levels of play.


It doesn't matter which one is actually more balanced in this context. Either way, your reasoning is still wrong, bud. You gotta look at the big picture.

 

[Zeallyx]

Looking at which game has the worse match-up is a very narrow-minded way of looking at it, as it's only one facet of the game.

Example: We have two games, Melee A and Melee B.

Melee A is exactly like Smash Melee, except Fox is more powerful than he already is.
Melee B is exactly like Smash Melee, except Marth has an infinite on... say, Mewtwo, which can be started from a jab, fair, sideb, grab, etc.

By your logic, Melee B would be less balanced, since it clearly as the worst single match-up. It should be obvious, however, that Melee A is the less balanced of the two, since Fox would dominate at high levels of play. Essentially, if Marth touches Mewtwo, Mewtwo is down a stock.


It doesn't matter whether Brawl is more balanced, or Melee is more balanced. Your reasoning is still wrong, bud. You gotta look at the big picture.

ok man. sure
I understand, but yeah, its the balancing of the characters that makes a game balanced right? and if one game has 0-100 matchups, it may be narrow-minded but still true.

>.<

 

[kupo15]

And they aren't in Brawl. So they aren't global. Brawl is no less a Smash game than the other two just because some people don't like it. You can call them "Melee/64" mechanics, but directional airdodge is no more a smash mechanic than momentum air dodge anymore.

The ultimate fact remains that whether or not you and the rest of the hackers think that your unfinished product will ultimately be more balanced than the original game is completely irrelevant to whether or not the original game is more balanced than a different game.


Ankoku, didn't everyone back-track on the Vader/Yoda ban since they're no longer console-exclusive?
I mean, that would just further your point, but I seems to me like you're talking like it's said and done. I'm just confused.

No you completely misunderstand me. First off, don't even think about bringing the air dodge hack that we have when I specifically said that is not included. It is a BS hack that has no merit in what I'm trying to say here. Brawl actually has the "smash mechanics" of 64/melee except they are so weak and so insignificant that the game acts as if they were not present.
Brawl has hitstun, except they enabled air dodging and attacking during it
Brawl has shield stun, except it is really small
Brawl has a form of l canceling that is selective

When I am talking about global codes, I'm referring to codes that "fix" these type of mechanics that don't really function in brawl that affect everyone across the board. I'm not talking about giving fox JC shine or anything like that. Global codes as in global to the game of brawl.

Basically what I am saying is that we can use brawl+ as a tool to examine brawl. From my perspective from playing brawl for 8 months then switching over to brawl+, I've noticed how much more balanced the game has become. Its not adding new features, it is tweaking the current mechanics so they work like they did in 64 which makes more characters become more viable by naturally adding to the options they currently have. With every code that comes out, the more I see the game get balanced. MK is no longer God tier (even though he is still the best, his gap is smaller) and the lower tier are becoming more viable.

L canceling and hit stun- Characters can use moves they couldn't use before
Ledge codes- Characters can edgeguard effectively by using the moves that are good for edgeguarding
Shield stun- Will open up more moves that were useless or some that didn't make sense like wolf's Nair

From seeing the difference between brawl+ and brawl, I feel that brawl can never be as balanced as melee without these fixed global mechanics. Furthermore, I can't see how it is possible to compare brawl to melee because they don't share the same basic mechanics or the basic mechanics they share don't function the same way thus making brawl and melee two very different games.

But I don't really care about which is more balanced, I just thought I offer a different perspective about viewing this. I can't expect my point to be worth debating now that I think about it since most people don't know about brawl+ as much as I do and people have a very wrong view on what brawl+ actually is.

 

[pure_awesome]

Yes, it's true that the balance of the characters is what constitutes the balance of the game. The thing is, you can't just look at the handful of ridiculous 99-1 matches and say "Oh, this game is completely unbalanced."

It takes more than that. What if every other match-up in the game is close to 50/50? It'd be a crazy balanced game. Brawl is too young for us to decide whether or not it's balanced well. Over at the Falco boards, we're having a hell of a time trying to decide on a ratio for the Falco/Fox matchup, and one of the big reasons is we just don't have enough examples of the matchup at high levels of play.

So yeah. Biiiiiiig picture.


@kupo
Assuming you're right and Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl, you have still failed to explain why this necessarily makes Brawl less balanced than Melee. Just because Melee has longer true hitstun, shorter ledge times, and legit shield stun, it's automatically more balanced?

 

[Zeallyx]

Yes, it's true that the balance of the characters is what constitutes the balance of the game. The thing is, you can't just look at the handful of ridiculous 99-1 matches and say "Oh, this game is completely unbalanced."

It takes more than that. What if every other match-up in the game is close to 50/50? It'd be a crazy balanced game. Brawl is too young for us to decide whether or not it's balanced well. Over at the Falco boards, we're having a hell of a time trying to decide on a ratio for the Falco/Fox matchup, and one of the big reasons is we just don't have enough examples of the matchup at high levels of play.

So yeah. Biiiiiiig picture.


@kupo
Assuming you're right and Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl, you have still failed to explain why this necessarily makes Brawl less balanced than Melee. Just because Melee has longer true hitstun, shorter ledge times, and legit shield stun, it's automatically more balanced?

ok, fair enough, I agree.
brawl is too young.

but then why does this topic exist >.<

 

[Yuna]

ok, fair enough, I agree.
brawl is too young.

Brawl is almost a year old. And people with a lot of logic and insight into Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash have been picking it apart for that one year. Brawl is not too young. Heck, not much is different today than what it was half a year ago, that's how shallow it is (relatively speaking).

Also, we're just dissecting it at a much more rapid pace than we dissected Melee.

This is just a cop-out! Before, you were all "Brawl is more balanced!". But how could you know that if Brawl's too young? Suddenly, when you're proven wrong time and are losing the debate in a horrendous landslide, you're all "Brawl is too young". No, it doesn't work that way. Either admit to being wrong or admit to talking out of your behind when you claimed "Brawl is more balanced" since, apparently, Brawl is "too young" for us to make any such calls.




Also, can we bring this back to debating Melee vs. the various SF games and their cousins? At least that debate was entertaining and I think I'm actually "losing" it (technically, I'm not losing it at all since I never claimed 3S is more balance or whatever. I was merely questioning the arguments being used to prove that Melee is more balance than 3S or whatever the heck Radical Dreamer was arguing + I openly admitted to knowing very little about 3S and that I wasn't arguing whether it was more or less balanced than Melee at all).

 

[kupo15]

@kupo
Assuming you're right and Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl, you have still failed to explain why this necessarily makes Brawl less balanced than Melee. Just because Melee has longer true hitstun, shorter ledge times, and legit shield stun, it's automatically more balanced?

Well actually, the more important ledge code would be no auto sweet spot ledges and you also forgot about l canceling. L canceling is really important as well to make the game more balanced. What I feel like we have in brawl is a game where the characters have limits beyond the skill of the player because these mechanics don't function properly. But what we have in 64 and melee is a game where I feel its more based on the skill of the player than the character because it has these functioning smash mechanics. Gimpyfish and Aniki can be good examples of showing how low tier characters can still compete whereas most of the low tier characters in brawl are deemed "not viable"

And yes, having hitstun, shield stun, no auto sweet spot ledges and l canceling automatically makes the game more balanced because they provide all characters with more options and the ability to use their moves to the fullest extent. I thought that it would be assumed that the reason why brawl is not as good as a competitive fighter is because it lacks these competitive elements. I would have thought it it was obvious that with the functioning mechanics I described above that you would have a more balanced game since they provide a "common ground" for all characters. Do you really want me to provide examples as to how each mechanic actually makes this game balanced and tighter? I thought it would be obvious..

 

[Yuna]

Wah wah wah.

What part of "Proving Brawl+ is more balanced than Base Brawl does not prove Melee is more balanced than Brawl" was too Spanish para tu entender?

Heck, how come you just randomly ignored my posts refuting all of your arguments into oblivion? It does not matter that Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl, even if Brawl+ uses Melee and "Smash" mechanics. This only proves that Brawl + more balanced than Melee.

It proves that if you introduce "Smash mechanics" into Brawl, it'll be more balanced than before. It does not prove that Brawl is less balanced than Melee!

 

[pure_awesome]

Well actually, the more important ledge code would be no auto sweet spot ledges and you also forgot about l canceling. L canceling is really important as well to make the game more balanced. What I feel like we have in brawl is a game where the characters have limits beyond the skill of the player because these mechanics don't function properly. But what we have in 64 and melee is a game where I feel its more based on the skill of the player than the character because it has these functioning smash mechanics. Gimpyfish and Aniki can be good examples of showing how low tier characters can still compete whereas most of the low tier characters in brawl are deemed "not viable"

Malcolm and Bwett are good examples of low tier Brawl characters that can compete. It works both ways. Not only is this not relevant, but it applies to both games.

And yes, having hitstun, shield stun, no auto sweet spot ledges and l canceling automatically makes the game more balanced because they provide all characters with more options and the ability to use their moves to the fullest extent. I thought that it would be assumed that the reason why brawl is not as good as a competitive fighter is because it lacks these competitive elements. I would have thought it it was obvious that with the functioning mechanics I described above that you would have a more balanced game since they provide a "common ground" for all characters. Do you really want me to provide examples as to how each mechanic actually makes this game balanced and tighter? I thought it would be obvious..

Hypothetical: Let's say that Fox and Marth were ruthlessly overpowered. Like, Fox can 0-death anyone off his shine, and Marth can guaranteed combo anyone into his dair spike off an fair. Aside from that, Melee doesn't change.

By your logic, that game would still be balanced, since it has shield stun, and no auto-sweetspot, and true hitstun, etc. But it's obvious that the game would be crazy unbalanced, for completely independent reasons (namely, Fox and Marth being completely broken.)

Big picture. You can't just look at a few mechanics and say "This one has them, therefore it's more balanced."

Again, I'm not saying that Brawl is more balanced than Melee. I'm saying your reasoning is wrong.

This is just a cop-out! Before, you were all "Brawl is more balanced!".

Err... he said that Brawl was less balanced, not more.

Also, can we bring this back to debating Melee vs. the various SF games and their cousins?

Sure. Third Strike banned a character, Smash hasn't.
Go!

 

[Yuna]

Err... he said that Brawl was less balanced, not more.

Fine, I misread him. His logic is still inane. You cannot make a call and start debating it and then say "Wait, it's too early!" when you find yourself beaten.

I don't care if he's on "my side". That was still a cop-out.

Sure. Third Strike banned a character, Smash hasn't.
Go!

Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.

One banned characters does not automatically make a game more imbalanced than any game without a banned character.

 

[Yuna]

*accidental double post*

 

[pure_awesome]

Fine, I misread him. His logic is still inane. You cannot make a call and start debating it and then say "Wait, it's too early!" when you find yourself beaten.

I don't care if he's on "my side". That was still a cop-out.

I prefer to think of it as he realized his mistake, realized that he may have spoken too soon, and manned up to it.

But I suppose cop-out works.

Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.

Counter-point: At high levels of play, the rest of the cast being amazingly balanced wouldn't even be noticed. The entire competitive scene would degenerate into God Character vers God Character, making the game imbalanced again.

The character could be banned, thus producing a balanced metagame, but the game itself would still be imbalanced.

Sha-zam!

 

[Yuna]

I prefer to think of it as he realized his mistake, realized that he may have spoken too soon, and manned up to it.

But I suppose cop-out works.

Re-read the post. It was edited with new stuff.

Well, he's still wrong on that it's too early to call. It is not. So, either way, he's wrong on at least one major issue.

 

[Radical Dreamer]

Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.

One banned characters does not automatically make a game more imbalanced than any game without a banned character.

What if we banned the top four in Melee? The game would probably turn out a good deal more balanced.

It's just that in the particular cases of Super Turbo and 3S, the balance is only as good as the balance in the NTSC version of Melee (since I know you play PAL) even with those character bans.

 

[kupo15]

@yuna
I didn't mean to ignore your points. I went back to the page I last posted and saw pure_awesome's points to refute and honestly forgot about yours. I apologize..

It proves that if you introduce "Smash mechanics" into Brawl, it'll be more balanced than before. It does not prove that Brawl is less balanced than Melee!

I see what you mean. I believe that brawl is not more balanced than melee and I was trying to prove it indirectly instead of directly. I am not claiming brawl+ to be more balanced than melee but I think its level of balance is more comparable to melee and if brawl+ is nothing more than a more balanced form of base brawl, I don't see how brawl can possibly be more balanced than melee. I may not be as good a debater as you Yuna, I was just saying that we can use brawl+ as a tool to analyze brawl.

Hypothetical: Let's say that Fox and Marth were ruthlessly overpowered. Like, Fox can 0-death anyone off his shine, and Marth can guaranteed combo anyone into his dair spike off an fair. Aside from that, Melee doesn't change.
By your logic, that game would still be balanced, since it has shield stun, and no auto-sweetspot, and true hitstun, etc. But it's obvious that the game would be crazy unbalanced, for completely independent reasons (namely, Fox and Marth being completely broken.)

The difference is that while those two characters are a little unbalanced, the game as a whole is balanced because every character can combo and those unbalanced characters can be comboed themselves. What you have in brawl is the few characters that are unbalanced and can "combo" well or string together attacks easier but can't have the same damage done to themselves. It doesn't matter how broken they are while in hitstun, but in brawl they are unbalanced almost the whole time without these "smash mechanics" in place.

Big picture. You can't just look at a few mechanics and say "This one has them, therefore it's more balanced."

Again, I'm not saying that Brawl is more balanced than Melee. I'm saying your reasoning is wrong.

These mechanics focus on the big picture

But I could care less about which game is more balanced. I just wanted to bring in a different perspective as to why I think this game is not as balanced while speaking from my experience from playing a more balanced version of the game. If you don't feel that this is a flawed reasoning, sorry for wasting your time....

 

[pure_awesome]

The difference is that while those two characters are a little unbalanced, the game as a whole is balanced because every character can combo and those unbalanced characters can be comboed themselves. What you have in brawl is the few characters that are unbalanced and can "combo" well or string together attacks easier but can't have the same damage done to themselves. It doesn't matter how broken they are while in hitstun, but in brawl they are unbalanced almost the whole time without these "smash mechanics" in place.

...are you talking about actual Melee, or my hypothetical game where Fox and Marth are completely broken?
Because if you just implied that my hypothetical, intentionally broken game is still more balanced than Brawl... well, you may want to reconsider.

Keep in mind how good Fox is already. Now imagine that every time he hits with his Shine, it's a death combo. Same with Marth's Fair. Just... imagine it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.

One banned characters does not automatically make a game more imbalanced than any game without a banned character.

Didn't you use this claim to say is Brawl banned MK that would prove how much more imbalanced it was compared to Melee? I don't remember it was in the Ban MK thread or something.

Then again if we did ban MK, Marth would just take the spot of best character with only Snake and DDD to mainly worry about.

 

[kupo15]

...are you talking about actual Melee, or my hypothetical game where Fox and Marth are completely broken?
Because if you just implied that my hypothetical, intentionally broken game is still more balanced than Brawl... well, you may want to reconsider.

Keep in mind how good Fox is already. Now imagine that every time he hits with his Shine, it's a death combo. Same with Marth's Fair. Just... imagine it.

I think I was thinking about those characters having those powers in melee. If that was the case then you would have a game that is overall very balanced with two characters that break the game to making the game unbalanced. If you ban them, then the game overall will be balanced. But if you had two version of that game with the two characters banned where one game had the shield stun, hit stun etc and one that did not, the one with the hit stun, l canceling ect would be more balanced...

 

[Yuna]

What if we banned the top four in Melee? The game would probably turn out a good deal more balanced.

I'm not talking about SSF2T or 3S with banned characters vs. Melee. I'm saying that just saying "They banned a character" does not mean the game is automatically more imbalanced than all fighting games without any banned characters.

Even if we unbanned Gill and Akuma, SSF2T and 3S could still be more balanced than Melee if Melee has 4 characters way, way, way above everyone else vs. Gill and Akuma who are slightly less above everyone else while everyone else was perfectly balanced.

I'm telling you to not stare yourself blind at the red dot but look at the big picture. Also, read my posts better.

It's just that in the particular cases of Super Turbo and 3S, the balance is only as good as the balance in the NTSC version of Melee (since I know you play PAL) even with those character bans.

I'm not arguing whether or not 3S is more or less balanced than NTSC or PAL Melee. I've told you this at least twice now.

I'm questioning your logic and your flawed arguments. I'm telling you to give me better arguments. I have no illusions of having enough insight into Competitive 3S to compare it to Melee. I'm simply debating your flawed arguments, telling you to get better ones.

I didn't mean to ignore your points. I went back to the page I last posted and saw pure_awesome's points to refute and honestly forgot about yours. I apologize..

I believe you (I actually do). Despite your flawed logic, you at least don't appear to be blatantly stupid, just misguided.

Yes, that was a compliment.

I see what you mean. I believe that brawl is not more balanced than melee and I was trying to prove it indirectly instead of directly.

You proved something else entirely. Using flawed logic and flawed arguments will not help anyone. In fact, it will only help the opposing side as they will perceive this as a chance to destroy the "Melee is more balanced" side, perceiving it as a weakness and pouncing on it. It might also taint any further arguments from people from the same side in the eyes of bystanders, the undecided or even people on the same side.

This is why I'm debating you, despite us being on the same side. I'm telling you to argue our side better.

United we stand, together we all, stupid and flawed arguments must be quashed, one and all.

I am not claiming brawl+ to be more balanced than melee

Please read my posts better. I never said you claimed Brawl+ is more balanced than Melee.

but I think its level of balance is more comparable to melee and if brawl+ is nothing more than a more balanced form of base brawl, I don't see how brawl can possibly be more balanced than melee.

That is what you believe. And even though I TL;DR:ed some parts of your posts, I'm pretty sure you never directly said that. You just said that since Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl by introducing "Smash physics", Brawl must be less balanced than Melee.

You never stated a direct correlation between Brawl+ and Melee.

The difference is that while those two characters are a little unbalanced, the game as a whole is balanced because every character can combo and those unbalanced characters can be comboed themselves.

This does not guarantee greater balance. Every character can combo. So? What if some character can just combo so much better than everyone else? Do not use flimsy and superficial arguments like these.

"Everybody can combo!" - Big whoop
"Everybody can combo at around the same level, with there being slight differences in power level, but no characters excel at it way, way more than the rest, at least not any more than in/at the same levels as Melee" - Better

What you have in brawl is the few characters that are unbalanced and can "combo" well or string together attacks easier but can't have the same damage done to themselves.

You're only proving that every character can combo in Brawl+. If there are still some who can combo much better than everyone else, the game can still be highly imbalanced. And comboing is not everything. It does not ensure balance.

Melee Peach doesn't combo. She strings together moves loosely. Her moves just inflict a lot of damage. Yet she's 5th from the top, imagine that.

But I could care less about which game is more balanced. I just wanted to bring in a different perspective as to why I think this game is not as balanced while speaking from my experience from playing a more balanced version of the game.

You used flawed arguments. You still are. This is not good, even if you're just doing it for ****s and giggles.

 

[pure_awesome]

I think I was thinking about those characters having those powers in melee. If that was the case then you would have a game that is overall very balanced with two characters that break the game to making the game unbalanced. If you ban them, then the game overall will be balanced.

So then, you can agree that having shield stun, l-cancelling, all those things we've been talking about, although they may help, do not automatically make a game balanced, as evidenced by the fact that this hypothetical game is unbalanced despite having all those things?

But if you had two version of that game with the two characters banned where one game had the shield stun, hit stun etc and one that did not, the one with the hit stun, l canceling ect would be more balanced...

Which is just saying that Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl. Which I have no issue with, and I take your word for it.

@Yuna
By the way, I edited my post with a response to your edited post. Not the most obvious of ways to do it, but I figured it was better than double-posting.

 

[Yuna]

Didn't you use this claim to say is Brawl banned MK that would prove how much more imbalanced it was compared to Melee? I don't remember it was in the Ban MK thread or something.

No?

Counter-point: At high levels of play, the rest of the cast being amazingly balanced wouldn't even be noticed. The entire competitive scene would degenerate into God Character vers God Character, making the game imbalanced again.

You are confusing overall and total game design balance vs. variability in representation of characters at tournaments. The two are not the same thing.

One (balance) usually affects the other (variability in representation of characters at tournaments) but they are not the same.

The character could be banned, thus producing a balanced metagame, but the game itself would still be imbalanced.

We are not arguing whether 3S or Melee are balanced. They are both imbalanced. We are arguing which one is more balanced. Don't strawman and expect to get away with it.

Sha-zam!

More like "ker-splat". Needs more logic.

 

[kupo15]

You proved something else entirely. Using flawed logic and flawed arguments will not help anyone. In fact, it will only help the opposing side as they will perceive this as a chance to destroy the "Melee is more balanced" side, perceiving it as a weakness and pouncing on it. It might also taint any further arguments from people from the same side in the eyes of bystanders, the undecided or even people on the same side.

This is why I'm debating you, despite us being on the same side. I'm telling you to argue our side better.

United we stand, together we all, stupid and flawed arguments must be quashed, one and all

.

I guess I have quite some learning to do on how to make strong points.

"Everybody can combo!" - Big whoop
"Everybody can combo at around the same level, with there being slight differences in power level, but no characters excel at it way, way more than the rest, at least not any more than in/at the same levels as Melee" - Better

That is what I was thinking, but never came across in my writing....

You used flawed arguments. You still are. This is not good, even if you're just doing it for ****s and giggles.

I'm not doing this for ****s and giggles

I am clearly less talented at debating than you yuna and since we are on the same side, I should not stay since I'll probably hurt our side more then help...

So then, you can agree that having shield stun, l-cancelling, all those things we've been talking about, although they may help, do not automatically make a game balanced, as evidenced by the fact that this hypothetical game is unbalanced despite having all those things?

Even though they help a lot in balancing, I guess this can be true..

 

[Yuna]

That is what I was thinking, but never came across in my writing....

Take a lesson from this. Short and superficial points = Bad.

I'm not doing this for ****s and giggles

Well, then do it better!

I am clearly less talented at debating than you yuna and since we are on the same side, I should not stay since I'll probably hurt our side more then help...

You just don't type out your arguments properly. Your arguments are too superficial, sometimes ambiguous, sometimes just worded wrong. If I had been on the opposing side of this debate, I could've eviscerated your points just as well as I just did, then declare myself winner and people might actually believe me and think Brawl is more balanced than Melee.

When entering a public debate that is meant to debate an "important" issue that is important to "the people" and not just yourself, you must think about what will hold up in "debate court". Will this really fly? Is this airtight? If it's not, do I have a follow-up to it to elaborate on my point? Am I saying that I want to say or does it come out wrong? How sure am I about what I'm about to say?

Because if you fail, it's not only a failure for you personally, it's a failure for your entire side in the eyes of the undecided, the less educated and the quick-to-jump-ships.

 

[pure_awesome]

You are confusing overall and total game design balance vs. variability in representation of characters at tournaments. The two are not the same thing.

One (balance) usually affects the other (variability in representation of characters at tournaments) but they are not the same.

Good point. I'll agree that while the game would not appear to be balanced (no variability in representation), it actually would be.

However, this merely leaves us with the sad realization that 3S is not that game. As we discussed before, the recent metagames for 3S and Melee are surpringly similar. You've got your four top characters (Marth, Fox, Falco, Sheik, Ken, Yun, Chun-Li, and Makoto) placing well, along with various lower characters (Jiggs, Ice Climbers, Akuma, Dudley) placing every once in a while due to the people playing them just being straight up amazing players.

Very similar metagames, but one of them only achieved this level of "balance" (used loosely) by banning a character in the first place. So essentially, the 3S community had to fix their game just to get it to the level of balance of Melee.

We are not arguing whether 3S or Melee are balanced. They are both imbalanced. We are arguing which one is more balanced. Don't strawman and expect to get away with it.

I wouldn't think of it. I was talking about the hypothetical game you had proposed, with one clearly overpowered character, and the rest of the cast very well balanced. In the event that the overpowered character were banned, the resulting metagame would be very well balanced. I completely agree that neither 3S nor Melee are actually balanced.

I am clearly less talented at debating than you yuna and since we are on the same side, I should not stay since I'll probably hurt our side more then help...

Ah, don't let Yuna scare you. He's actually a pretty nice guy, once you get to know him. Also, just pretend that every time he says something mean, he's giving you a hug!

Even though they help a lot in balancing, I guess this can be true..

Right on. So, although they help, saying Melee has those things and is therefore more balanced isn't necessarily true, since there are a ton of other things that you have to consider.

'Cause knowledge is power!


...does anyone get that? Or am I too old?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

No?

Really?

I could have sworn someone spouted someone said at one point about how balanced Brawl would be if MK was gone, like it would be much better than Melee in terms of balance.

Don't remember it well though, I was reading 20+ pages a day seeing how fast posting in that topic went.

 

[kupo15]

You just don't type out your arguments properly. Your arguments are too superficial, sometimes ambiguous, sometimes just worded wrong. If I had been on the opposing side of this debate, I could've eviscerated your points just as well as I just did, then declare myself winner and people might actually believe me and think Brawl is more balanced than Melee.

When entering a public debate that is meant to debate an "important" issue that is important to "the people" and not just yourself, you must think about what will hold up in "debate court". Will this really fly? Is this airtight? If it's not, do I have a follow-up to it to elaborate on my point? Am I saying that I want to say or does it come out wrong? How sure am I about what I'm about to say?

Because if you fail, it's not only a failure for you personally, it's a failure for your entire side in the eyes of the undecided, the less educated and the quick-to-jump-ships.

Ahh sorry for that. Thanks for the tips and I'll get out of your way. I can't believe this debate is still going on...your points are pretty irrefutable...

'Cause knowledge is power!


...does anyone get that? Or am I too old?

Mortal Kombat? Or wait, that was "there is no knowledge that isn't power.."

 

[Yuna]

Good point. Then I'll agree that while the game would not appear to be balanced (no variability in representation), it would be, in truth.

However, this merely leaves us with the sad realization that 3S is not that game.

That is beside the point.

The argument "3S has a character banned, for goodness sake! Melee does not!" is an invalid argument. You just admitted that yourself. It is besides the point whether or not 3S is more balanced than Melee, that argument (repeated several times in this thread) is invalid.

As we discussed before, the recent metagames for 3S and Melee are surpringly similar. You've got your four top characters (Marth, Fox, Falco, Sheik, Ken, Yun, Chun-Li, and Makoto) placing well, along with various lower character (Jiggs, Ice Climbers, Akuma, Dudley) placing every once in a while due to the people playing them just being straight up amazing players.

Very similar metagames, but one of them only achieved this level of "balance" (used loosely) by banning a character in the first place. So essentially, the 3S community had to fix their game just to get it to the level of balance of Melee.

I wouldn't think of it. I was talking about the hypothetical game you had proposed, with one clearly overpowered character, and the rest of the cast very well balanced. In the event that the overpowered character were banned, the resulting metagame would be very well balanced. I completely agree that neither 3S nor Melee are actually balanced.

All this does is prove, yet again, that you do not read my posts properly.

I have said several times now that we are to compare 3S with Gill unbanned to Melee, even in my hypothetical example!

Read better!

Really?

I could have sworn someone spouted someone said at one point about how balanced Brawl would be if MK was gone, like it would be much better than Melee in terms of balance.

Don't remember it well though, I was reading 20+ pages a day seeing how fast posting in that topic went.

I'm sorry, are you strawmanning yourself?

You: Didn't you (me, since you were quoting me) use this claim to say is Brawl banned MK that would prove how much more imbalanced it was compared to Melee? I don't remember it was in the Ban MK thread or something.
Me: No.
You: I could have sword someone spouted someone said at one point about how...

So are you saying you could've sworn I said it or are you saying you could've sworn someone said it and just assumed that I had said it for absolutely no reason at all?

 

[RDK]

No.

We're not comparing 3S with Gill unbanned to Melee. That would mean it's not being played in its competitive form today, which was what the criteria was in my first post.

Melee obviously has no banned characters, but modern competitive play does have a ban on items. If we were to compare both games naked, we'd have to include all stages, items, and all the other garbage in Melee with everything in 3S, including Gill.

Stop using that argument.