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

[AlphaZealot]

If Marth is the only character capable of consistently winning tournaments, you're also saying that he's the best character in Melee by quite a wide margin (since he's the only character capable of whatever). By that logic, since he's so much better than everyone else, he should be taking the majority of Top 8 at all major tournaments.

First fallacy: assumption that the capability to win consistently equates to being the best by a large margin.

By that logic, many more Marths should emerge as dominant players and winning and placing Top 8 at tournaments. Tournaments should be overrun with Marth-players since Marth's so good and requires less "perfect" play than everyone else (apparently).

Second fallacy: assumption that a character who is the best by a wide margin should be taking all 8 of the top spots at a tournament. This fallacy is compounded because it uses the first false assumption that Marth is the best by a large margin.

By this logic, the Top 8 of every major tournament should have several Marths in them. Unless you're making the argument "It's a coincidence" that no one besides Ken, Azen and Mew2King ever took Melee Marth to the level necessary to make him "the only character capable of consistently winning tournaments".

Are you saying there just weren't that many good Marth players around? Because if you aren't, by your own logic, tournament Top 8s should be overrun with Marths, not just Ken, Mew2King and Azen consistently racking up wins.

You took the statement "Marth is the only character that can win national tournaments consistently" and then used it to draw radically fallacious conclusions, then you call these conclusions my logic?

When you have facts on your side it really would help to solidfy your arguments, but I've been asking for evidence and facts for awhile now, only to here more opinions about how, maybe by 2020, some other character will win two or three national tournaments in a row.

Fact: Marth won the majority of national tournaments
Fact: The streak began in 2004 and continues today
Fact: Marth won under the use of three different individuals
Fact: No other character came close to matching Marth's achievements

Conclusion: To win national tournaments consistently Marth was the best character.

Fact: Marth did not take all top 8 spots
Fact: A few other characters won national tournaments

Conclusion: Marth was not the best by a wide margin

 

[Cactuar]

@Alpha: It's not different players winning each tournament as Marth, it's the same few Marth players.

M2K beat Ken's Marth with Fox shortly before switching to Marth. His biggest problem with being a Fox player was that he felt he was countered by ***FALCO*** not Marth. None of the top 4 characters in Melee are as strong across all matchups the way some characters in Brawl are.

Towards the end of the MLG era, players were getting so adept at taking out Marth players that Azen and Ken didn't even make it to top 2 in the final event. Sheik advancements started taking place and Sheik started countering Marth harder than ever.

Using your evidence of Marth winning so many tournaments over the period of time you are using doesn't work because it is 1 player winning all of those tournaments (and later Azen stepping on his toes, but within just the EC, Azen could often beat anyone with any character he wanted), while no other Marth player was really at that level. Many were recognized as being quite talented (KM, FLT, even Husband was good in his time), but none of them consistently placed even top 3 at national level events. You are placing way too much emphasis on one player's dominance and trying to hide it by just stating "a Marth player won". And no, just the top spot isn't the only thing that matters in this discussion.

(The focus needs to go back to comparing the balance of the two games rather than look at what character took the top spot at how many tournaments, as that is not the only determining factor... especially when the results are skewed by the point that I already brought up in a previous post...)


@IrArby: Yes, I do feel that people are avoiding using the top characters in Brawl because of the negative attention they receive for doing so. Obviously, there are people that care purely about winning that will tier ***** their way to the top. The few tournaments that I have been to for brawl, I couldn't help but notice the distaste for certain characters. There is nothing quite like seeing the pure frustration that appears in a player's eyes when the person they are playing against picks MK. I've even heard people apologize prior to picking their character, as if their apology makes anything better, and really only shows that they realize the character they are using is horribly broken and that they are only using him as a desperate attempt to win.

 

[JesiahTEG]

"MARTH!" The announcers voice rings in my head. I've heard him call that name many times before. We all have. We've heard this at the start of the competitive Smash scene in 2003, when Ken first won TG4, all the way until the end of 2006. It didn't stop there though. We've heard this all throughout 2007 as M2K switched to Marth and began to dominate every tournament he entered. We've also heard this from the "master of diversity," Azen Zagenite, who mains Marth despite being able to play every character at a high level. What do all of these people have in common? The beginning of all of their matches began with, "MARTH!" and they all ended with, "This game's winner is...Marth!"

Despite overwhelming evidence that supports Marth being the best character in Melee, people still argue that he's not. At first I didn't understand this. After elaborate research and speaking with top professionals, I've gained perspective, and am proud to say I understand high level play better. I'd like to share my findings with you all, and receive feedback that will hopefully educate me even more on the topic of, "The best character in Melee." However, I do hope that in addition to receiving great feedback, you take your time and put effort into understanding my research. I spent a lot of work on it and hopefully I can present some new perspectives to the community.

FACTS
*Marth has more tournament wins than any other character by an overwhelming amount.*
This is the beginning of all of my conclusions. Marth has won more tournaments than any other character. This can be, and is debated all of the time, but there is one thing that cannot be argued with. The statement itself! Regardless of the reasoning behind it, or the "whys" and "hows" of this statement, it remains true. Marth is the most successful tournament character in Melee.

*Ken secondaried Fox, but mained Marth*
Some people say Fox is the best character in the game. A lot of people say that actually, and it may be true. But the fact is that Ken played both characters at a high level but decided to main Marth. This can also be debated but it's important to look at the face value as well.

*Azen could play any character at a high level, but mained Marth*
This is the same as the above statement, only Azen had more diversity than Ken. The facts are beginning to get a bit overwhelming now, no? Two of the highest level players, Ken and Azen, both main Marth despite being able to play multiple characters at the highest level, including characters that people say are the best in the game.

*M2K mained Fox and was a great player. He switched to Marth and became the best in the world.*
This is a big fact but is commonly countered by the whole "player skill is more important than character choice" argument. It is a good argument and holds true for the most part too, but again the fact cannot be ignored that M2K got significantly better after switching to Marth, despite what his reasonings were for switching in the first place.

Those are some pretty big facts. I know there are tons of reasonings why these facts may be considered irrelevant, but I implore you to at least realize that these facts have some sort of significance. Even if there are reasons behind them, they are facts and results. They mean something.

OPINIONS/ARGUMENTS
Many opinions/arguments are very well founded and have to be taken into consideration when deciding who the best character is. I'm more than happy to listen to these arguments and take them into consideration while deciding for myself who the best character is.

*Player skill matters more than character selection*
I personally believe this to be true. I played with this idea back and forth for a while before making my decision. If you don't think this is true, think about M2K when Brawl first came out. He mained DDD and was the best in the world. He switched to Metaknight and still is. I'm sure if he used Snake as well he'd be the best still. His skill is more important than the characters he chooses, since he has proven to play multiple characters at the highest level possible. This argument needs to be in the back of everyone's mind when exploring for themselves the topic of who the best character is. It's most likely the most important thing to keep in mind, as high level play revolves around player skill.

*Azen and Ken just "like" Marth more, and M2K switched to Marth because his controller broke*
M2K did indeed switch to Marth when his controller broke. That is true. Azen and Ken both just "like" Marth so they play him more...Getting kinda iffy there. It's hard to believe that arguably the two greatest players ever just mained him because they liked him. I can believe it though. What I can't believe however, is that it's just a mere coincidence that all 3 of these top players, who could be said to be the greatest players ever, are all the most skilled but just randomly main Marth. I'm sorry but that's just too much of a coincidence for me.

*Marth has too many weaknesses*
He is comboed easily, has trouble killing at higher percents, and he's bad on most counterpick stages. He loses to Sheik and Falcon, goes even with Fox and Falco. These weaknesses prohibit him from being the best character. Most of these weaknesses are true although they can be debated. Fox and Sheik have way less weaknesses and therefore make them the best characters. Hmm. This is where I begin to think hard about this.

Why does Marth have the most wins although two characters in the game are clearly better than him?

Something isn't adding up here. You could say because the best 3 players in history of U.S. Smash chose to use Marth. You could. But I can't, and I urge most of you to stop here with the opinions. There comes a point where you have to draw a line between opinions, and a ridiculous amount of coincidences. You have to line up the opinions with the evidence and come to a conclusion. Blaming Marth's tournament wins solely on the fact that "they liked him" can't be used. It doesn't line up with the evidence. Let's go deeper here.

Now ignoring the fact that we have to blame Marth's greatness on "player skill," we can begin to ask questions using that answer for everything. I believe this leads us to more accurate answers and I hope you at least begin to see where I'm coming from.

"If Marth has so many weaknesses, why does he easily have the most amount of tournament wins?"
There could be many different reasons for this, but there is a reason that is easily the most important: His strengths far, far outweigh his weaknesses. Ok, Marth has weaknesses. We get it. He also has advantages. Most people will weigh Marth's advantages and weaknesses equally. For example, his comboing is equal to the fact that he gets combod easily. I guess that one could work. But for us try and do that with every one of his strengths and weaknesses just isn't fair. Let's go over his strengths and weaknesses.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Weaknesses
-Gets combod easily
-Has a hard time killing at higher percents
-Does poorly on counterpick stages
-Lightshield edgeguarding ***** him
-He gets gimped fairly easily
-Dies off the top a bit easier than other characters
-Has a few bad matchups

Strengths
-Amazing grab range and grab game
-Amazing combo game
-Arguably the best edgeguarder in the game
-Best range in the game
-Tippers are amazing, especially Fsmash
-Tech chasing is really good
-Not a very technical character
-And one I think is forgotten about too often, the ability to be played more creatively than any other character. He has options, many many options.

Marth's strengths far outweigh his weaknesses. Ok, he gets gimped fairly easily. The amount of gimping he does is so incredible, and with such ease. It is infinitely times harder for a Falco to gimp Marth than it is for Marth to gimp Falco. He gets comboed easily, it's true. But look at his comboing ability. One grab on a Fox can spell potential death. As Umbreonmow puts it, "Marth messes up and Fox can **** him up ok. Fox messes up and he dies." Marth's edgeguarding alone more than makes up for the fact that he does poorly on counterpick stages. So he can't play well on a stage. You always have the fact that Marth's opponent messes up, which every player messes up...even the best of the best...If Marth's opponent messes up, one backthrow off the edge can spell death. This leads me to one of my biggest points that I want to explain.

MARTH AS AN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER
Most of the time when people are explaining Marth and why or why not he should be top tier, they forget to keep in mind one very important aspect: Marth as an individual character. This applies to so much and people always forget about it. When people talk about Marth's bad matchups or bad stages, they only list specific matchup details. They forget to keep in mind how good of a character Marth is himself. I'll give a few examples.

Marth vs Falcon- Falcon outcamps Marth on the stage with grabs and combos him better. A lot of Marth's game is grabbing and when he gets out grabcamped, it spells trouble. Perhaps Falcon does have the advantage in terms of matchup characterstics. He probably does. I'd probably say he does at least. What most people don't take into consideration though is Marth's strengths and abilities as an individual character. At any point in the match near the ledge if Falcon gets thrown off, he can be edgeguarded to death. Maybe not always, but a good amount of time. Marth's Fsmash alone can turn a match with just one use. If Marth expects Falcon to DD away, Marth approaches by running past Falcon and Fsmashing. It's a tipper, next thing you know Falcon is off the stage and he's not coming back. There are simple advantages that Marth has against every character. These are his strengths, and people need to stop overlooking them when describing matchup details.

IMPORTANT DETAIL
*Please read this part carefully, as I believe it is a big contribution to Marth's high level success*
Another big advantage has as an individual character is his ability to be played creatively. Every character can be played creatively, but not like Marth can. This allows for a better mixup game overall and with more options, Marth has an easier time outhinking his opponent than his opponent does to outhink him. This is a HUGE factor and is really overlooked by most people. When people say, "Marth has to be played smarter than every other top tier," this is because of his creativity and all of his options. This plays a big role in all of his bad matchups. Sheik may be able to auto combo him, get inside of his range and edgeguard him well...but then why does Marth stand a good chance against Sheik at higher levels of play? Because of Marth's options and creativity. Majority of the time Sheik will win. But if the Marth player is even just slightly more skilled than the Sheik player...just slightly, the matchup instantly becomes much more even. Even if both players are equally skilled, Marth just has more options to work with.

Marth's individuality needs to be taken into account when determining his placing among the rest of the roster. Matchup specifics become increasingly less important when you realize the fact that Marth has more advantages and more options than most characters. The ability to play creatively could be perhaps his biggest strength, as it allows him to stand a chance in any situation.

The Best Character
I've thought Marth was the best character for a long time. Some people disagreed, saying Fox or Sheik were the best. I relied on tournament evidence to support my theory, while others relied on their own beliefs and observations. I decided to try out their level of thinking, and found myself seeing exactly where they were coming from. However, this only made me more confused. I thought to myself, "Why does Marth win the most tournaments, but he isn't the best character?"

After much thinking (and I mean a lot) I came to a conclusion. A very important conclusion. There is not one definition of the word "best." My best is different from some other people's best, which is different from some other peoples' best. I realized, even if Marth isn't the "best" character..he still is the "best." What am I getting at? What I'm trying to say is that when some people say the word "best" they are talking about the character's maximum potential. When I say "best" what I am talking about is the best tournament character, or the character most capable of winning tournaments. THIS is where the evidence comes in, THIS is why I've been so confused all this time. Maybe Marth doesn't have the maximum potential of Fox. When both players are played perfectly, maybe Fox really would win the most tournaments.

This isn't the way it works though, and there is more to look at besides potential. I like to relate it to competing in a tournament. When playing in tournaments, you are competing against more than the opposing player's skill. You have to deal with tournament philosophies, keeping up your stamina, the crowd etc. The same applies to using different characters. Fox may have the most potential, but other factors severely detract from how good he actually does in tournaments. He does well but doesn't win.

Ever heard M2K John about his controller? Yeah, maybe he really would have won every tournament with his Fox once he started improving. However, his controller prevented him from doing so. And even if his controller was working perfectly, there's no guarantees he could have played perfectly every tournament. In fact, he probably wouldn't. Take a look at P.C. Chris. PC was kind enough to show us what is probably the highest level Fox has ever been played in the history of Smash: His performance vs M2K at OC3. If PC played like this every tournament, he would probably win every tournament. However, that's nearly impossible due to the amount of technical prowess that is required to perform at such a level.

Marth isn't like that. Marth not only is not that far behind Fox in terms of maximum potential, but he is also much more consistent in terms of ability to place well at tournaments. It's probable that if M2K's controller didn't break AND he played perfectly all the time, he would have stuck with Fox. The fact is though, Marth is BETTER for what M2K was trying to do: Win tournaments. And win he did.

So, I'll reiterate what I think and what I've thought for a long time. Marth is the best character in Melee. If you think Fox or Sheik have more potential, that's fine. Just realize that tournament evidence doesn't show that. Even if the reasoning for the evidence is debatable, I've shown you (hopefully) evidence as to why that tournament evidence is viable and should hold truth.

A few notes though before closing.

I'm sure some people are going to disagree or at least have things to say to me about me being wrong. Please be respectful. I'm open to any changes if you can convince me and I'm not going to be an *** to you so please don't be an *** to me.

It's important to read everything I wrote if you want to understand these perspectives fully. Don't skim through this and then try and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Cactuar:

There was only one tournament that did not feature Marth in the finals at an MLG event in 2006 and it was the 8 person MLG Las Vegas. My explanation for why Marth does well is because it is difficult to keep up the peak performance level of Falco/Fox across an entire tournament. This is partially reinforced when you look at the MLG Vegas finals, where you only had to play 2 sets to get to the winner's finals.

I think in a given set if the best Marth were to play the best Fox/Sheik, then Fox/Sheik may have the upper hand. This is why people consistently rate these characters as better than Marth. (you can throw Falco in this mix as well, lets be honest Marth/Fox/Falco/Sheik are all insanely close).

However, I think if that given set is at the end of a 12 hour day at the end of a tournament after having played 70 games (Melee FCD) of Smash already, then I would give the upper hand to Marth.

People often just look blindly at match ups and assume perfect conditions, perfect settings, flawless play.

However tournament settings involve: stress, fatigue, controller familiarity (part of the reason M2K switched to Marth after breaking his controller is because Marth didn't require the same precision that Fox did), pressure, noise, distractions, and other things that can effect your playing. It is under these types of conditions that I believe Marth has the upper hand over Fox/Falco/Sheik. It is also these types of conditions that are present at most national tournament finals. Again, Azen was stellar at MLG Playoffs and the final regular season event in 2006 (he won them both with Marth), both of these tournaments he advanced through a 32 man bracket with large crowds (50-possibly even 100 people) watching. At MLG Vegas, it was an 8 person bracket and about 10 people watching any given match behind a player. It was like this until the finals when they finally put Smash on the main stage, but at that point Ken/Azen were knocked out.

So, when the MLG event was:
-Noisy
-Large crowds
-At the end of a long day of playing
Marth won 5/6 times and made it to the finals 6/6 times

So, when the MLG event was:
-Relatively quiet
-Relatively relaxing (started late in the day, players slept in, not matches from the day before, etc etc)
-Very short (only an 8 person double elimination bracket)
Marth failed to get to the finals (for pretty much the only time in the history of MLG as well-I need to double check the stats with 2005 but I'm fairly certain with the exception of maybe Nashville, which ChuDat won, Marth was in the finals at every single MLG event in MLG's history, until Vegas of course).

There is a disconnect I believe because people aren't focusing on how playing deep into a tournament can have an effect on players mentally/physically, and that some characters happen to be capable of being played better under these types of conditions. I remember talking with PC a long time ago about how he gets nervous during finals/stress effects him at tournaments. These are outside-the-match variables that have a very real and consistent effect on who wins the finals at a tournament.

Jesiah hit a lot of my same points.

 

[JesiahTEG]

Wow, for everyone reading these posts, I just want to say that AlphaZealot just said exactly what I posted RIGHT BEFORE him LOL. AZ, did you read what I said? If you didn't that's funny that you came to that conclusion also. You should read my post, you'd find it interesting.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Read it but I wanted to stress MLG Vegas.

 

[Yuna]

First fallacy: assumption that the capability to win consistently equates to being the best by a large margin.

No, this is you strawmanning yourself.

You didn't say he's just got the best margin to win, you said, and I cannot stress this enough, that Marth is the only character in Melee capable of consistently winning major tournaments.

Now, if he's the only character capable of doing all that and you ****ing keep on whining about how no other character is even close to his prowess by waving your precious tournament results in our faces screaming "Look! Ken, M2K and Azen!", time and time again yammering on about the fact that no character comes even close to Marth, then, logic dictates that you are saying that he's winning by a rather large margin!

Second fallacy: assumption that a character who is the best by a wide margin should be taking all 8 of the top spots at a tournament. This fallacy is compounded because it uses the first false assumption that Marth is the best by a large margin.

It is your assumption! It's what you have been arguing for months, waving your precious tournament results in our faces.

You took the statement "Marth is the only character that can win national tournaments consistently" and then used it to draw radically fallacious conclusions, then you call these conclusions my logic?

How?! How am I out of line by extrapolating "Marth is quite a lot better than everyone else" from the statement "Marth is the only character (out of field of 25) capable of winning national tournaments consistently! Look at these tournament results where Marth does just that!"?

When you have facts on your side it really would help to solidfy your arguments, but I've been asking for evidence and facts for awhile now, only to here more opinions about how, maybe by 2020, some other character will win two or three national tournaments in a row.

Your own evidence speaks against you.

If Marth was the only character capable of winning tournaments consistently (and I keep repeating this as you don't seem to be understanding exactly what it is you are saying), he should be taking many more Top 8 spots than he is!

And if Marth is so friggin' good, more people than three people should be able to win major tournaments as them!

Conclusion: To win national tournaments consistently Marth was the best character.

No, this was not what you originally claimed. You claimed that to win national tournaments consistently, Marth is the only choice.

Don't strawman yourself and expect to get away with it on my watch.

This entire post of yours has been one major strawmanning of my post and your own arguments + ignoring a large chunk of what I said (in favor of strawmanning other parts).

Despite overwhelming evidence that supports Marth being the best character in Melee, people still argue that he's not.

This is not what is being argued. AlphaZealot might like to want to make you think it is what is being argued.

What is being argued is whether or not Marth is better than everyone else to such an extent he is the only character capable of winning tournaments consistently.

This is what AlphaZealot originally argued. And as much as he'd like us to forget he ever argued that, I'm not gonna let him get away with it. AlphaZealot keeps waving his tournament results in our faces not to prove that Marth is the best character but that he's a better character than everyone else to a certain degree.

He's currently backtracking, stating that it's not by a wide margin, but he still has not recanted on the claim that Marth is the only character capable of winning major tournaments despite the fact that his overall match-ups aren't really that much better than NTSC Fox's and NTSC Sheik's (and quite possibly also NTSC Falco's).

He better than them, yes. But he's not that much better. He doesn't dominate the metagame. He's not the only character capable of winning major tournaments. He just happens to have won the vast majority of tournaments because he is the best character and 3 specific players managed to take his metagame to such a level they could dominate the tournament placings.

But no one is dying that. Especially not I. I have never denied a single thing you've stated. And neither has anyone else (credible) from what I've been able to tell, really.

 

[AlphaZealot]

How?! How am I out of line by extrapolating "Marth is quite a lot better than everyone else" from the statement "Marth is the only character (out of field of 25) capable of winning national tournaments consistently! Look at these tournament results where Marth does just that!"?

Because you don't understand, are ignoring, or don't believe the importance of this:

There is a disconnect I believe because people aren't focusing on how playing deep into a tournament can have an effect on players mentally/physically, and that some characters happen to be capable of being played better under these types of conditions. I remember talking with PC a long time ago about how he gets nervous during finals/stress effects him at tournaments. These are outside-the-match variables that have a very real and consistent effect on who wins the finals at a tournament.

---

Your own evidence speaks against you.

If Marth was the only character capable of winning tournaments consistently (and I keep repeating this as you don't seem to be understanding exactly what it is you are saying), he should be taking many more Top 8 spots than he is!

And if Marth is so friggin' good, more people than three people should be able to win major tournaments as them!

If Fox, Falco, and Sheik are so good than more people than zero should be able to consistently win national tournaments with them (please find a time where one of these characters won two national tournaments in a row).

However my own evidence does not speak against me. I said Marth is the only character that can win national tournaments consistently. To date, he is the only character that has won national tournaments consistently. That is called facts matching up with a statement.

You have made the claim multiple times now that that should mean Marth should take the top 8 at every tournament. I never made this claim. You did. You have nothing to support it though other than the THEORY that the best character in a game should eventually take the top 8 spots in every tournament, a theory that has never actually reared its head in the Smash community in practice/results-Meta Knight is proof enough that there are other factors at work that prevents the top 8 from consistently being 1 character.

No, this was not what you originally claimed. You claimed that to win national tournaments consistently, Marth is the only choice.

Semantics. Marth is the only character and the best character, I should have been more specific I guess.

He better than them, yes. But he's not that much better. He doesn't dominate the metagame. He's not the only character capable of winning major tournaments. He just happens to have won the vast majority of tournaments because he is the best character and 3 specific players managed to take his metagame to such a level they could dominate the tournament placings.

Until proven otherwise is there any reason to believe that another character will be capable of winning back-to-back (back-to-back being just the absolute minimin threshold for establishing consistency) national tournaments? Honestly, the closest person/character at this point is probably Mango's Jigglypuff.

 

[Yuna]

Because you don't understand, are ignoring, or don't believe the importance of this:

So we're back to "You can be sloppier with Marth"? Because that is what you are arguing. That during finals, some people stress out and under-perform and if you do that as Fox, Falco and Sheik, chances are, you will not be doing anywhere near as well as Marth.

So this is your defense? "Sometimes, people get nervous and play sloppily"?

 

[AlphaZealot]

So we're back to "You can be sloppier with Marth"? Because that is what you are arguing. That during finals, some people stress out and under-perform and if you do that as Fox, Falco and Sheik, chances are, you will not be doing anywhere near as well as Marth.

So this is your defense? "Sometimes, people get nervous and play sloppily"?

Are you saying you feel these factors (stress, pressure, noise, etc) have no effect on how a player handles themselves? And if you do believe it does have an effect, do you believe that effect to be equally as impairing regardless of the character being used?

Fact: Marth is the only character to win national level tournaments consistently.
Possible explanation (my theory): that Marth is the best character to use in a tournament environment because he is easier to play consistently and under the stresses in a tournament environment (stress, fatigue, pressure, noise, cheering, heckling, etc).

It isn't a defense, it is an explanation. I don't need to know why Marth is the only character to win national tournaments consistently. All I need to know is that he is the only character that has in 4-5 years been able to consistently win those tournaments.

After 4-5 years I feel it is justified to make the statement that Marth is the only character that can consistently win national tournaments. Is there any reason to believe the trend will discontinue (though considering the impacted number of Melee players because of Brawl new problems emerge). 2006-2007 were the only years in Melee that really had a solidified national scene with the best players fighting each other, essentially, every single month. It was in this time frame that Marth showed he was the most dominant to. We still don't have this type of data for Brawl and it is unlikely we will ever, again, have this type of data for Melee.

 

[JesiahTEG]

Again, I'm very inclined to agree with AZ. Potential and Best tournament performer are not the same thing.

 

[Fade016]

I too also think metaknight is overated, don't get me wrong he is broken and very goody but he not as good as every says he is. I also think that there are characters that are underated too a lot of characters like jiggly and peach. I think brawl is more ballanced than melee though. With shiek being godly broken and then Marth being also very broken and low tier characters couldnt do much. Although low tier characters in brawl can still get you places.

 

[Yuna]

Are you saying you feel these factors (stress, pressure, noise, etc) have no effect on how a player handles themselves? And if you do believe it does have an effect, do you believe that effect to be equally as impairing regardless of the character being used?

No, I'm saying that it is my view that Marth is not that much better than everyone else, even with all of this accounted for.

Fact: Marth is the only character to win national level tournaments consistently. Possible explanation (my theory): that Marth is the best character to use in a tournament environment.

It isn't a defense, it is an explanation. I don't need to know why Marth is the only character to win national tournaments consistently. All I need to know is that he is the only character that has in 4-5 years been able to consistently win those tournaments.

No. You do not get to do this. You do not get to strawman yourself out of this one.

You did not state that Marth was merely the only character to win national level tournaments consistently. You stated, and I quote (I'm pretty sure this is almost verbatim):
"Marth is the only character capable of consistently winning [national level] tournaments."

This is what I opposed then, this is what I oppose now, this is what I'm fighting you on. Not the fact that Marth dominated, not the fact that Marth is the best character, not the fact that Marth can be played "sloppier" than everyone else and still win pretty **** well.

You have yet to deny ever making that claim (as you know fully well that you made it), but you have also yet to even address it directly. No, instead you try to strawman the hell out of yourself!

I am not arguing this or that or that thing over there! I am not fighting you on all of these gazillion related issues you're trying to strawman me with! I'm fighting you only on the issue that Marth is the only character capable of consistently winning major tournaments.

Address that issue! All of the things I'm arguing pertain to that one issue. If I'm arguing something in the same breath, I'm arguing it in relation to Marth apparently being the only character capable of [you know the drill by now].

If I'm arguing that, no, Marth can't be played that much sloppier than Fox, Falco and Sheik, I'm not arguing whether or not Marth can be played that much sloppier FaFoShe whatsoever, I'm arguing whether or not he can be played much sloppier than them and still be the only character even capable of [you know what].

Stop strawmanning me. You're not even denying my accusations of strawmanning! You're just ignoring every single relevant thing I say altogether and then proceed to strawman me yet again, time and time again, bringing up "issues" to refute arguments I'm not even making.

After 4-5 years I feel it is justified to make the statement that Marth is the only character that can consistently win national tournaments.

At least now you're finally addressing this issue (after only, oh, 5+ posts refusing to address it).

What proof do you have? No, your tournament results do not prove this!

Because if he's the only character capable of doing so, he should also be taking the majority of Top 8 spots and there should be more than just 3 players consistently winning tournaments as Marth!

Again, I'm very inclined to agree with AZ. Potential and Best tournament performer are not the same thing.

This is really quite irrelevant and I've never argued the opposite.

 

[AlphaZealot]

"Marth is the only character capable of consistently winning [national level] tournaments."

I still support this...

I base my views on past-precedence. Guess what? The precedence is that Marth is the only character that is capable (since apparently not having that word every time is a problem) of winning national tournaments consistently.

Per strawmanning: I'm not addressing this because I don't believe I can "strawman" my own position. Strawmanning is simply misrepresenting a position (intentionally) so you can refute it. I didn't even know it was possible to strawman yourself, and I think your interpritation of me strawmanning myself is simply me being to lazy to post the exact same phrase over and over (ie leaving out "capable" or saying "best" instead of "only").

At least now you're finally addressing this issue (after only, oh, 5+ posts refusing to address it).

What proof do you have? No, your tournament results do not prove this!

Because if he's the only character capable of doing so, he should also be taking the majority of Top 8 spots and there should be more than just 3 players consistently winning tournaments as Marth!

Really? My tournament results show Marth winning the majority of national tournaments. You seem to be worried about the spots 2-8 and some theory about how those spots should also be Marth. Guess what? To prove that Marth is the only character capable of winning national tournaments I simply need to show that HE ALREADY HAS BEEN THE ONLY CHARACTER TO WIN NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS CONSISTENTLY.

Marth wins
Marth wins
Sheik wins
Marth wins
Fox wins
Marth wins
Marth wins

I see this trend and say the next 5 iterations will likely be something like:
Marth wins
Marth wins
Marth wins
Fox wins
Marth wins

You see this trend and say the next 5 iterations will likely be:
Fox wins
Fox wins
Marth wins
Fox wins
Fox wins

Sorry, but I don't buy it, until someone proves another character is capable of winning national tournaments consistently (did I get every word in there you want?) then Marth is the only character capable of doing so.

---

What is your argument then? That another character can win a national tournament 2, maybe 3-4 times in a row the same way Marth has? What do you base this off of? That those same characters/players consistently coming in 2-8 against Marth? I'm arguing that the past is our best indication of the future, and that based on the past Marth is the only character (capable!) of winning national tournaments in the future. Why is he the only character? Because he is the only character that has consistently won in the past. It is a pretty straight forward concept (past-precedence) that is used in...oh everywhere. If there is precedence for making the case that another character can consistently win then point to it-but otherwise all you are doing is arguing that in theory some characters could be capable of winning consistently, but we know based on 4-5 years of data that such a theory hasn't shown itself to be true in reality.

 

[Yuna]

That is not one jillion Marths winning! That is three people winning! Meanwhile, there are plenty of Spacies + Sheiks (played by different people) consistently either winning (but, of course, not to the same extent as Marth) or placing Top 8!

If Marth is so **** good, he should be taking many more Top 8 spots and more than 3 people should be able to win as him!

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wow, this is getting crazy. I don't think I've ever seen Yuna lose composure like this before. Dude, I know you're good at debating. Really, you are. And the fact that you are at least kind of holding up in the face of lots and lots of fact proves that you're good. But, AZ not only has facts on his side (something you don't have, since all I've read about this from you has been theory and conjecture, no numbers, which is unlike you), but he has experience covering exactly this kind of thing. Dude, AZ writes for MLG; I'm pretty sure he knows his ****.

Face it. He's right. Marth is the only one capable of winning consecutive major tournaments. The fact that the same 3 people are using him is irrelevant, because if that was the deciding factor, then they could play someone else and still win consistently. According to the RAW DATA, they CAN win with other characters... but not consistently. And consistency is what's being argued.

AZ looks to be right, and the data backs him up.

 

[Deleted member]

[22:45] Jason: tourney results dont show how good a character is
[22:45] Jason: its based wayyyyyyyyyy too much off individual player skill and popularity and who still plays and who doesnt
[23:14] MycatgoesMow: not really
[23:15] Jason: what if pichus were ranking higher than pikachus
[23:15] Jason: it dosent mean pichu is better
[23:16] MycatgoesMow: yes it would
[23:16] MycatgoesMow: tiers are supposed to show tournament results
[23:16] MycatgoesMow: only tournaments matter
[23:16] Jason: no way
[23:16] Jason: tiers show how good the character is
[23:16] MycatgoesMow: in tournament
[23:16] Jason: otherwise
[23:16] Jason: we need to
[23:16] Jason: definite tier
[23:16] Jason: just cuz thats what happened in the past
[23:16] Jason: means thats what SHOULD happen
[23:16] MycatgoesMow: thats why the last list was dumb
[23:17] MycatgoesMow: with fox and falco top alone
[23:17] Jason: sheik being 3rd is dumb
[23:17] MycatgoesMow: cause tournaments don't show that
[23:17] MycatgoesMow: based on US tournaments sheik should be 4th
[23:17] MycatgoesMow: cause you made marth 1st/2nd
[23:17] Jason: based on europe sheik should be 1st
[23:17] Jason: based on japan sheik/fox are 1/2
[23:17] MycatgoesMow: if you **** everyone @ sheik, sheik will be first
[23:17] MycatgoesMow: we're not europe or japan
[23:17] Jason: thats stupid
[23:17] Jason: basically whatever i do is the tiers
[23:17] Jason: thats so dumb
[23:18] MycatgoesMow: you're like 1 of 3 people that can change the tiers cause you have the most influence on tournament results
[23:18] MycatgoesMow: if you want sheik to be first, do it
[23:18] Jason: i use sheik vs like
[23:19] Jason: almost everyone cept spacies cuz i can CG them with marth
[23:19] MycatgoesMow: ok then use her and only her in the finals for like 6 major tournaments and she'll be first
[23:19] MycatgoesMow: thats only like 30 matches for you
[23:19] MycatgoesMow: np right?
[23:20] Jason: LOL
[23:20] Jason: it would be so much easier
[23:20] Jason: if kdj was still around
[23:20] Jason: i beat pcs fox the last time i played it with sheik
[23:20] Jason: it was FD too
[23:20] Jason: and his tech skill was fine
[23:20] MycatgoesMow: so do it in tournament
[23:20] Jason: theres no reason to when i can have better chances CGing with marth
[23:20] Jason: like, why should i risk money
[23:20] Jason: just to prove tiers
[23:20] Jason: money > tiers
[23:21] MycatgoesMow: so when it comes time to win money, you choose marth, which means you have a higher chance to win with him, aka he's a better character for winning tournaments, aka higher on the tier list
[23:21] MycatgoesMow: thank you, now we're on the same page
[23:21] MycatgoesMow: I've been saying this for years
[23:21] MycatgoesMow: reasons don't matter
[23:22] MycatgoesMow: when people want to win and use better chars, thats how we define tiers

convo w/ m2k from a while ago.

Yuna, please name 3 fox/falco players that can keep up with ken/azen/m2k, and then tell us why the dominance rating isn't equal when you have them.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, please name 3 fox/falco players that can keep up with ken/azen/m2k, and then tell us why the dominance rating isn't equal when you have them.

I'm sorry, I was arguing that there exist Fox/Falco players who win on the same level as Ken/Azen/M2K's Marths when now?

 

[Turbo Ether]

Sheik's not capable? She's not exactly the most technical character either.

 

[Yuna]

Sheik's not capable? She's not exactly the most technical character either.

Especially not considering from what I hear, KDJ keeps up pretty well against Ken and M2K. I guess that's just coincidence.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Especially not considering from what I hear, KDJ keeps up pretty well against Ken and M2K. I guess that's just coincidence.

Has KDJ won any back-to-back major tournaments vs. Ken/M2K's Marths? Legit question, btw.

 

[Turbo Ether]

People literally poke fun at how easy Sheik is to play.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm sorry, I was arguing that there exist Fox/Falco players who win on the same level as Ken/Azen/M2K's Marths when now?

I don't know any. who are they?

 

[Yuna]

Has KDJ won any back-to-back major tournaments vs. Ken/M2K's Marths? Legit question, btw.

If Marth is the only character capable of winning major tournaments, how come KDJ can beat the best Marth's in the world (as Sheik)? You'd think that if he just went to more tournaments (or more Sheiks of his caliber showed up), they'd be able to impede on Ken's and M2K's reigns.

I haven't really kept up, but from what I hear, it has happened several times. You'd think a character as obviously superior as Marth wouldn't lose that often to an obviously inferior character.

I don't know any. who are they?

Read my previous post again.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

If Marth is the only character capable of winning major tournaments, how come KDJ can beat the best Marth's in the world (as Sheik)? You'd think that if he just went to more tournaments (or more Sheiks of his caliber showed up), they'd be able to impede on Ken's and M2K's reigns.

I haven't really kept up, but from what I hear, it has happened several times. You'd think a character as obviously superior as Marth wouldn't lose that often to an obviously inferior character.

This is about consistency. A less consistant character will on occation defeat a more consistant character because of luck.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yuna... you just said "from what I hear." Hearsay is unlike you. If you don't know, just say you don't know. Besides, it sounds like you're basing this conclusion of "Sheik can consistently take Marth in major tournaments" off of some hearsay you've heard of it maybe happening sometime in the past. Unless you aren't arguing that, in which case anything you just said is irrelevant (because we're talking about consistency here; multiple successive cases, not singular instances).

 

[Dual Kirby]

brawl has some broken characters -cough mk cough- but still its more balanced than mele

 

[AlphaZealot]

If Marth is the only character capable of winning major tournaments, how come KDJ can beat the best Marth's in the world (as Sheik)? You'd think that if he just went to more tournaments (or more Sheiks of his caliber showed up), they'd be able to impede on Ken's and M2K's reigns.

If Marth isn't the only character that is capable of winning major tournaments consistently then you must have an example of a stretch of tournaments where someone broke the reign of Marths (IE Ken/Azen/M2K) consistently (ie by taking first).

It's backwards thinking to say other characters can consistently win national tournaments while not having any evidence of it occurring in the past.

 

[Roager]

When we look at Brawl as what it was built to be (a game for players of low to mid-range skill) it is, in fact, very well balanced. That's because the differences that serve as a very large cause of tiers (ChainGrabs, Projectile Spam, etc.) are largely ignored. Highly skilled players discover them, bring them into play, and thus, tiers form.

Melee, regardless of what it was built to be, became a very technical and skilled game. This was primarily because of L canceling and Wavedashing. The first was (assumedly) included intentionally. Wavedashing, on the other hand, seems to be an exploited physics phenomenon, and I doubt anyone on the dev team expected it. Its removal from Brawl seems to reinforce that.

Anyway, point is, tiers were primarily formed by characters that could better take advantage of those two mechanics. Also, looking at the Melee tier list (ok, I'm not looking at it, it's from memory, but still) speed was key. Top tiers (Fox, Falco, etc.) were all fast characters, and the slow characters (Bowser, Ganny) fell to the bottom spots.

Brawl has a bit less emphasis on speed being wonderful, such as DDD being high, and Fox being relatively low. Speed is still important, to be sure (Ganny is near bottom, Ike is quite low, and I think Bowser is too. MK and Falco take high spots, though.) But its not AS important.

All in all, there's legit cases for both sides. Brawl has MK, and Melee's lack of such a broken character pushes Melee toward more balanced. On the other hand, it's not totally unheardof for a low tier (say, Falcon) to beat a high tier (say, MK). That's top of the top vs bottom of the bottom. I don't know of any tournament matches where Fox got beat by Mewtwo. (or whatever the top of the top vs bottom of the bottom match was)

Personally, I side with Brawl being more balanced.

 

[Oracle]

When we look at Brawl as what it was built to be (a game for players of low to mid-range skill) it is, in fact, very well balanced. That's because the differences that serve as a very large cause of tiers (ChainGrabs, Projectile Spam, etc.) are largely ignored. Highly skilled players discover them, bring them into play, and thus, tiers form.

Melee, regardless of what it was built to be, became a very technical and skilled game. This was primarily because of L canceling and Wavedashing. The first was (assumedly) included intentionally. Wavedashing, on the other hand, seems to be an exploited physics phenomenon, and I doubt anyone on the dev team expected it. Its removal from Brawl seems to reinforce that.

It was removed from brawl for 2 reasons
1. it was a glitch, and game developers rarely keep glitches
2. even if they had wanted to keep it, it would have made the game more skill based and difficult to be good at, which is exactly what they tried not to do.

Anyway, point is, tiers were primarily formed by characters that could better take advantage of those two mechanics. Also, looking at the Melee tier list (ok, I'm not looking at it, it's from memory, but still) speed was key. Top tiers (Fox, Falco, etc.) were all fast characters, and the slow characters (Bowser, Ganny) fell to the bottom spots.

Your tire list info seems to be misinformed. Peach really isn't a speed based character, yet she takes 6th or 8th (i can't remember, but its high)
Also in melee DK and Gannon are mid tier, and the ic's are a power character, and they are just below peach.

Brawl has a bit less emphasis on speed being wonderful, such as DDD being high, and Fox being relatively low. Speed is still important, to be sure (Ganny is near bottom, Ike is quite low, and I think Bowser is too. MK and Falco take high spots, though.) But its not AS important.

All in all, there's legit cases for both sides. Brawl has MK, and Melee's lack of such a broken character pushes Melee toward more balanced. On the other hand, it's not totally unheardof for a low tier (say, Falcon) to beat a high tier (say, MK). That's top of the top vs bottom of the bottom. I don't know of any tournament matches where Fox got beat by Mewtwo. (or whatever the top of the top vs bottom of the bottom match was)

It actually is pretty unheard of for barwl falcon to beat mk. Falcon would have to have a huge skill advantage, and since this discusses top level play, that is irrelivent, as we consider all of these hypothetical situations to have players with equal skil
Some of the melee low tiers have great matchups against high tires, such as pikachu ****** falcon and jiggly and DK on final d ****** fox hard. I don't think this is the case in barwl (correct me if I'm wrong)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuuQCqvp_0s

I'm not talking about top 8, I'm talking about winning tournaments. How come no other character, ever, has won the same amount of tournaments and on the same consistent basis as THREE different people were capable of doing with Marth?



Marth.

You are saying that other characters can win on a consistent basis. I'm saying that, after 5 years, there has only been one character to ever really win on a consistent basis. You can say "well its the players!" or "other characters could win!", but in the end results are results-three people dominated with Marth, zero people dominated with any other character. Where is the evidence that other characters could win consistently? I've asked this repeatedly and heard nothing.

I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, but eventually, we will see more people going to sheik, as that is marth's only bad matchup (even though it's so close to even, its still his worst matchup), but it's difficult to play marth as sheik. Tech chasing and cg's don't work on him, which is why it's close to even. But sheik has so many low % combos and juggles against him, so she has great offensive options.

 

[ShadowLink84]

It was removed from brawl for 2 reasons
1. it was a glitch, and game developers rarely keep glitches
2. even if they had wanted to keep it, it would have made the game more skill based and difficult to be good at, which is exactly what they tried not to do.

That is actually incorrect.
Wavedashing isn't a glitch. Glitches is the equivalent of things such as pushing through walls in MP:H.
It breaks through a barrier that is normally meant to be there.

Wavedashing can be considered an exploit in that, it isn't really a glitch, but its unintentional as well. It simply is using the physics engine they use, it doesn't break anything really.

On the other hand, ROB is a glitch. He isn't a character!

 

[IrArby]

Firstly, speed is not the defining attribute for good Melee Characters. What makes a Melee character good is much more diverse than what it is for Brawl. Good Brawl characters have: Priority, Range, Can Camp or Can't be camped, are difficult to edgeguard and or don't die easily from lack luster recoveries.

I'll edit more into this a little later.

 

[ROOOOY!]

Good Brawl characters have: Priority, Range, Can Camp or Can't be camped, are difficult to edgeguard and or don't die easily from lack luster recoveries.

Sonic has three out of that list, the latter three to be exact, but is seen as an abysmal character.

And I'm seeing some confusion around on the whole wavedashing front. Whilst not meant to be included, the melee dev team found it before release but kept it in.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Sonic has three out of that list, the latter three to be exact, but is seen as an abysmal character.

And I'm seeing some confusion around on the whole wavedashing front. Whilst not meant to be included, the melee dev team found it before release but kept it in.

Sonic doesn't have much range.
The moves that do are his Bair, Ftilt and Utilt.

So its 2 out of 4

 

[IrArby]

Sonic has three out of that list, the latter three to be exact, but is seen as an abysmal character.

And I'm seeing some confusion around on the whole wavedashing front. Whilst not meant to be included, the melee dev team found it before release but kept it in.

As far as I know sonic's recovery would fall under lack luster compared to say MK or R.O.B. or even Snake. Yea he's too fast to be easily camped but he still can't do abunch of movement feints or anything so his speed is largely negated compared to what it could do. As far as I know whatever decent priority moves he has aren't as accessible as say MK everything or Snakes Ftilt/jab combo. Thats just entry level analysis. I don't know enough about Sonic to say truly how bad he is.

You're right though the developers definetly knew about Wavelanding and had a name for it. Special landing or something like that.

To the Marth Dominance debate.

As far as I know, no other fighting game measures balance or divys up their tier based on how easy it is to not be distracted and perform all you techs correctly at the end of a tournament. There are fighters that are more technically/physically demanding than Melee so I don't see how we can factor this in.

I pose yet another question no one has answered. What other high ranking Fox's are playing throughout Marth's dominance? Chillin and . . . I ask again, what high ranking Shieks were out there. KDJ and . . . Falcons? Isai and . . .

The latter two players beat Ken around the height of his dominance.

Another lurking hole in this arguement, what other Marth's were dominating the scene other than Ken, M2K, and Azen? Well theres Cactuar who didn't dominate it but certainly made good tournament showings. But this guy trains with M2K, arguably the best Marth and he plays Marth. Why isn't he winning tons of tournaments?

Then theres Taj. Somewhat successful and obviously talented for making Mewto what he is today. Few Melee'ers could have done that. Yet he's not topping tournament after tournament either.

Or Cort! Yes, known to train with PC and arguably the best Peach in Melee. As a Peach at his level I'm sure he knows all about playing Marth and had a pretty good Marth himself. No? Not dominating.

No disrespect to any of these guys. They're great players that I'd kill to be nearly as talented as. They all play Marth extensively and don't dominate. Why?

To answer that we come to the same question as earlier. Why do M2K, Ken, and Azen main Marth? For starters, Ken started Marth. He made Marth big before anyone else. Why shouldn't he play Marth? M2K stopped playing Fox, not because he felt he could get better tourny results but a.) because he felt Falco's were countering him alot (Remember the Falco Craze era? NJ is somewhat a Falco state.) and b.) because his controller was no longer up to peak performance needed for highly technical Fox work. And theres Azen who places top 5 (which has no bearing on balance) with Link. He's not the biggest technical player but he's known for great solid play, and mindgames. Sounds like a Marth main to me.

All of these guys have very legitimate reasons for maining Marth and hardly any reasons to not Main him as all his potential counter characters are under-represented by the best players. Its not like theres tons of top level Shieks continously knocked out of big tourneys by Marths. Its not as if theres a butt load of Foxs who refused to switch to Marth and thus became less incapable of winning tournaments.

Balance is not decided by whether some MK will have a harder time ****** Falcon in the finals because he's tired, sleepy, and people are making noise. We also can't put all of our faith in Melee's balance or imbalance based on statistics. Statistics don't explain anything, they merely illustrate one measured aspect of it. They don't explain the "why" but we've interpreted them to do as such. 90% of Football players are overwieght. Does that mean they're all fat *****? No, it means they have alot more pounds from muscle than the average person. Thats a very shallow example yet I think you get the point.

Furthermore, the fact that 3 players can win with the 4th best character in the game (at the time Marth was 4th), speaks volumes about it's Balance.

Lastly, who beat Mathos, Sliq, Cactuar (I'm guessing Marth), Foward, Azen (Marth?), Chu, Cort, PC Chris, and M2K (Marth and switched to Fox) in a somewhat recent tournament? Then again, M2K would have won if he stayed Marth as thats the only character that wins tournaments. Great tournament by that guy. Can't remember what character he played. Maybe a Marth since he's way past everyone in his metagame and he dominates tournaments. No? Ah probably someone in the top 4. No? Not even the top 6? That would seem to indicate that player skill is more important than tiers (in Melee). It would also indicate that the top three players are the top three for their skill and not for their character only.

SUPER POST!!!

 

[Roager]

It was removed from brawl for 2 reasons
1. it was a glitch, and game developers rarely keep glitches
2. even if they had wanted to keep it, it would have made the game more skill based and difficult to be good at, which is exactly what they tried not to do.

Not a glitch. An unexpected side effect of the airdodge system. Technically an exploit. Doesn't really matter, I'm just splitting hairs.

As for number 2: I believe they removed it not because they changed their stance on it. (that is, I don't think they put it in, then didn't like it and took it out) I don't think they ever meant melee to have that much in-depth focus. Brawl was built to be what melee was supposed to be, but Brawl is closer to the goal: A more or less casual game, for players of mid-range skill.

Your tire list info seems to be misinformed. Peach really isn't a speed based character, yet she takes 6th or 8th (i can't remember, but its high)
Also in melee DK and Gannon are mid tier, and the ic's are a power character, and they are just below peach.

Peach was high because of her float, unless I'm mistaken. True, she is not speed-based, but I didn't mean that ALL high tiers were speed characters, or that speed was the single most important aspect of a character.

It actually is pretty unheard of for barwl falcon to beat mk. Falcon would have to have a huge skill advantage, and since this discusses top level play, that is irrelivent, as we consider all of these hypothetical situations to have players with equal skil
Some of the melee low tiers have great matchups against high tires, such as pikachu ****** falcon and jiggly and DK on final d ****** fox hard. I don't think this is the case in barwl (correct me if I'm wrong)

DK is currently mid-high tier, correct? He's still one of the better counters to MK. More importantly, I don't mean that an equally skilled match between Falcon and MK would likely end in Falcon winning. I just mean that given any random melee match between, say, Fox and Bowser (very high and very low) would have X% possibility of Fox winning. And any given, say, Snake v Falcon (very high and very low) match would have Y% of snake winning.

My contention is that X > Y. That is to say, in any given matchup, high tiers were more likely to win in melee than in brawl.

Responses are in red.

 

[Yuna]

Peach was high because of her float, unless I'm mistaken. True, she is not speed-based, but I didn't mean that ALL high tiers were speed characters, or that speed was the single most important aspect of a character.

Peach was High Tier because of her Dsmash (and this should be a no-brainer), her match-ups against the Tops and Highs (because she doesn't really **** the Lower Tiers the way they do, but she does well against them + the Tops and Highs), her inability to just friggin' die unless outright KO:ed or flashily edgeguarded (preferrably with a spike or a semi-spike) + her priority. Of course, her float added to her prowess. It was not some magical Holy High Tier Grail, though.

DK is currently mid-high tier, correct? He's still one of the better counters to MK.

It is impossible to be a counter to someone when you have a disadvantageous match-up against them. Meta Knight has zero counters.

My contention is that X > Y. That is to say, in any given matchup, high tiers were more likely to win in melee than in brawl.

And you would be wrong.

 

[IrArby]

@Roager: the problem with point number 2 is that its well wrong. Going in to Melee, the competitive 64 scene was almost completely unheard of. Brawl is no closer to being a casual game than Melee because both games can be played casually without any problems whatsoever. Brawl however fails (by a long shot) to match Melee's level of competition and depth in large part because the Competitive Melee scene was huge. Sakurai and the designers went out of their way to take out competitive elements in Brawl even before nerfing the game after E for All. Therefore both games worked great casually but only one works so well competitively.

I've posed this scenario before and do so again. Lets put KDJ's Pichu up against . . . IDK PC Chris's Fox. Then Ally's CF verse M2K's MK. KDJ will probably lose but do some pretty sweet **** since Fox get CGed by half the cast. Ally will just get plain *****. As far as I remember, Falcon has basically one kill move (the Dsmash) since his knee has sh*t priority, sh*t range, and a sh*tty *ss timing that can't be comboed into. His F/Usmash is rather slow to startup and has "sh*t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . can't be comboed into". His ground approach includes Raptor Boost (somewhat sh*tty) and grab (same sh*t as above minus the timing part). His aerial approach also mirrors the same problems above minus the timing but compounded by his non-existent aerial movement.

Brawl Falcon has nothing. The same cannot be said for Pichu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbgyMBt8LM&feature=related

 

[TheManaLord]

Even if Melee has a -best- character (untrue) it doesn't compare to how unbalanced Brawl is ROFL people are way off topic especially AZ with his unnecessary melee hating these days.

 

[pure_awesome]

...I can't believe some just referred to AZ of all people as a Melee hater.

You know AZ rocks the Melee kasbah, right?


Anyway, I think it's safe to say that while it's possible that another character could win consistently (if Fox can win one tournament, he's obviously capable of winning two in a row), it's massively unlikely.