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

[IrArby]

Actually, I defended it mostly because me and Yuna argued the same thing so you were in essence saying I got ***** in that debate also. M2K's conversation Pg 60 supported both of our arugements that tournaments don't equal tiers and the other concerning Marth's dominance.

 

[da K.I.D.]

dude, if everyone started playing MK tomorrow, MK would be the only viable character because he would be the only character anybody played.

i find it pointless to say that certain characters could be viable even though they never put forth any results...

 

[da K.I.D.]

you all make stuff wayyyy too complecated sometimes. the tourney results are what allow us to determine what characters are viable and which ones arent...

the ish is simple but you have to overanalyse everything to the point that nobody knows/cares what anybody is talking about any more,

i believe that theres some kind of scientific theory that says that you can break some thing down to a cellular level to the point where things are so small that gravity doesnt even apply to them anymore, and thats what I feel like yuna does to most debates hes in.

 

[CRASHiC]

Actually InArby, we 3Ds fear camping, and match ups like Rob and Wario differ depending on weather the user camps or not.

 

[Yuna]

dude, if everyone started playing MK tomorrow, MK would be the only viable character because he would be the only character anybody played.

No, you obviously do not know what "tournament viability" means. A character can be perfectly viable despite not being widely played. Even if everyone stopped playing Snake or Meta Knight or any other SS-A tier tomorrow, it wouldn't make them any less viable, it's just make them rare.

In Melee, Mario and Doctor Mario were perfectly viable (especially when you consider the fact that they could chaingrab Sheik and the fastfallers), yet no one really played them (yet there still existed several Ganondorfs who manage to do quite well).

When Mango won Pound, I wasn't shocked because I'd known all along (as did anyone credible) that Jigglypuff was viable, it's just that she has a rockish road getting there and there were very few good Jiggz players around.

i believe that theres some kind of scientific theory that says that you can break some thing down to a cellular level to the point where things are so small that gravity doesnt even apply to them anymore, and thats what I feel like yuna does to most debates hes in.

What I do is employ logic. Some SWF users are appalled by this because of their incompatibility with it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Da KID if that's seriously what you think viability means you seriously need to rethink that statement.

If MK is the only character played, wouldn't that make it safer for guys who supposedly go even or have the advantage against MK since their bad match ups are super rare? Juuuuuuuust sayin'~

 

[da K.I.D.]

you overanalyse things to a sickening degree when in most cases, its really not necessary. you act like brawl is this broken simpleton game, yet you research and analyse it more than 98% of the dudes out there.

sometimes the best answer is the most simple one that was sitting in front of your face all along.

and if EVERYONE was playing MK than it wouldnt matter who else does well or who doesnt have matchup experience, because EVERYONE would be playing MK...

 

[Yuna]

you overanalyse things to a sickening degree when in most cases

No I don't. I just have enough insight into things to be able to pinpoint when people are just plain wrong about Smash, Competitive gaming, Competitive Smash, cookies, pie and *****es. I don't over-analyze, I just "wrack" by brain for, oh, 50 seconds and immediately realize someone just pulled some "facts" out of their anuses.

Because I'm good at, you know, logical thinking. Whenever I see someone being illogical, I can immediately spot where they went wrong. The problem is that when I tell them they're wrong, they won't listen, which forces me to go into exquisite detail about how and why they are wrong, "over-analyzing" things because if I don't, they will never get it.

And the sad part of it all is that a lot of the time, even after I have broken down their arguments into one jillion pieces and smashed them all with the Logic/Knowledge/Sexy hammer, they still don't get it.

its really not necessary. you act like brawl is this broken simpleton game

No I don't. When did I actually ever say anything of the like?

sometimes the best answer is the most simple one that was sitting in front of your face all along.

See above. Occam's Razor only works on smart/knowledgeable/logical people.

and if EVERYONE was playing MK than it wouldnt matter who else does well or who doesnt have matchup experience, because EVERYONE would be playing MK...

Doesn't matter. MK wouldn't magically be more or less viable than he is today if the metagame still stayed the same and no magical MK tactics/techniques were found to make him much better.

Snake wouldn't be any less viable if everyone good (and this is where I noticed how you managed to turn "everyone good" into "everyone", a recurring pattern with you where you read only what you want to read (strawmanning) and then get destroyed in debate for it later) switched to Meta Knight. He'd just be played less by the best players in the world.

However, if only one of the world's best players stuck with Snake instead of MK, he'd still win tournaments with him because Snake would still be very much viable. Tournament viability is not directly dependent on how many people play as said character.

Whether 1 or 1000 people play as Snake doesn't matter, he'd be just as viable in both cases. Indirectly, more people playing as one character will increase the chances of said characters' metagame developing.

However, this is irrelevant as this is not what is being argued. You just argued that if everyone switched to MK, he'd be the only viable character. No, he wouldn't (automatically). He'd just be the only played character.

 

[RDK]

and if EVERYONE was playing MK than it wouldnt matter who else does well or who doesnt have matchup experience, because EVERYONE would be playing MK...

Da KID, your point about MK being the only viable character in a situation where everyone only plays MK anyway is a prime example of the ****ty logic you bring into these threads on a consistent basis.

No duh he'd be the only viable character in that case. He'd be the only character, period.

But you're missing the point. His tournament viability may change because of the status of the tournaments being played at the time (I.E., all-MK), but his viability as a game character doesn't. Just because a million people play him doesn't suddenly make him twenty times better than any other character. You're ripping an argument out of its context and ****** it in the butthole.

Your stupidity never fails to amaze me.

And if you're going to rail on Yuna, actually do it when he makes a genuine mistake in his arguments. Jumping on the "**** Yuna" bandwagon just because all the other pro-bies do it is not a good reason at all, and it only continues to make you look like a ****** who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I love this forum. <3 to SWF.

 

[da K.I.D.]

No I don't. I just have enough insight into things to be able to pinpoint when people are just plain wrong about Smash, Competitive gaming, Competitive Smash, cookies, pie and *****es. I don't over-analyze, I just "wrack" by brain for, oh, 50 seconds and immediately realize someone just pulled some "facts" out of their anuses.

this is what i mean, you could have just said competitive smash, but you had to bring in 4-5 other factor that dont really pertain... also if you are spending 50 secs. thinking about the people on SWF only for them to ignore your thoughts and continue on their blissfully ignorant path anyways, than urdoinitrong.

Because I'm good at, you know, logical thinking. Whenever I see someone being illogical, I can immediately spot where they went wrong. The problem is that when I tell them they're wrong, they won't listen, which forces me to go into exquisite detail about how and why they are wrong, "over-analyzing" things because if I don't, they will never get it.

just to be a ****, are you saying that 50 seconds is immediately now?

And the sad part of it all is that a lot of the time, even after I have broken down their arguments into one jillion pieces and smashed them all with the Logic/Knowledge/Sexy hammer, they still don't get it.

so why bother?

Doesn't matter. MK wouldn't magically be more or less viable than he is today if the metagame still stayed the same and no magical MK tactics/techniques were found to make him much better.

Snake wouldn't be any less viable if everyone good (and this is where I noticed how you managed to turn "everyone good" into "everyone", a recurring pattern with you where you read only what you want to read (strawmanning) and then get destroyed in debate for it later) switched to Meta Knight. He'd just be played less by the best players in the world.

its still a poor hypothetical because if everyone GOOD ( which really doesnt matter in the context of this example) played MK, none of the other characters would matter no matter what happens because they would get beat by the good people that use MK

However, if only one of the world's best players stuck with Snake instead of MK, he'd still win tournaments with him because Snake would still be very much viable. Tournament viability is not directly dependent on how many people play as said character.

even if this is true this is not the original point that was made, and i dont know why you bring that up when the original thing you said was "everyone good playing MK"

However, this is irrelevant as this is not what is being argued. You just argued that if everyone switched to MK, he'd be the only viable character. No, he wouldn't (automatically). He'd just be the only played character.

if that happened, there would have to be a reason and i motion that he would be the only viable character, if for some reason that happened, because there would have to be a reaosn for that to happen.

welp dont bother responding to this. this is all the debate ur gettin outta me today. i got a SC4 tourney to win.
peace

 

[The Halloween Captain]

MK is awesome and fun and easy to learn. He's a great character to second, because he can cover all the weaknesses of a main character. Is he the best character in the game?

Tournament results say yes. Kinda. They show he is popular, used almost universally, but it's a little hard to tell the difference between "popular" and "the best" with such a well-rounded character. He is the best character in the game to second, after all.

Thoughts?

 

[DRD]

KID, Yuna calls you on your sig that is degrading to him and you just try and wave it away. No man, first, prove Yuna wrong or take it out of your sigspace, it's not cool

so why bother?

Because you have a stupid, degrading signature, that's why

 

[1048576]

Yuna's right. daKID is wrong. End of discussion.


I suggest makiung a degrading daKID sig until he gets rid of his degrading Yuna sig. Perhaps it will become the new Braw Tactical discussion meme. For example,

Diddy Kong sucks. His speails don't even do anything and he gets infinited by like half the cast

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Degrading sigs only work if you quote something somebody actually said. When I clicked on Da KID's link, I was lead to a post where Yuna clearly indicates that tournament results are not the end-all and be-all of tournament viability. To degrade Da KID, you would have to find a post in which he says something unintelligent.

I believe Yuna and Da KID seem to disagree on what constitutes viability. Yuna's understanding that viability is based on character ability and Da KID's understanding that it is based on tournament results are both valid. A character is nothing but what the player brings to the character, but at the same time, players can do more with some characters than others. If no one has the ability to realize the potential of a character, then the character is unviable, because it cannot be utilized properly.

 

[Masmasher@]

If you have more time to punish, that means that aspect is slower. It's a simple thing. Several random things in brawl are faster than they are in melee. For instance, no one in melee covers ground like Sonic does. I thinks rolls in general are a bit faster in brawl, but I'm not completely sure. They're certainly way more useful if nothing else... The point is that it's not totally black and white even in terms of speed. Yeah, melee is overall faster, but it's not strictly faster.

L-canceling is one of the most ridiculous things that gets complained about. Aerials in brawl have less landing lag in general in general than the non-L-canceled versions did in melee. Do you notice how almost every up aerial has ridiculously little landing lag in brawl? Someone is going to say "look at Captain Falcon..." I'm sure despite him being a completely unfair example because Captain Falcon and Ganon just got screwed in brawl and are like basing everything about melee's speed on Bowser or Mewtwo, but if you actually look at the cast as a whole, landing lag is generally lower than the non-L-canceled melee landing lag. It's not quite as low as the L-canceled stuff, but it's seriously not that long. It's also true that you actually feel it with laggy moves like Link's down aerial; in the end, landing lag variation between moves is a bigger deal in brawl. However, is that a bad thing?

The L-canceling system also completely arbitrarily screwed over Mr. Game & Watch, and if that level of landing lag was good, why did you have to press a button to begin with? It's hard to deny that melee would have been strictly superior if it were the same game with landing lag always being the level of L-canceling even if you don't press L (or R or Z for those who want to be pedantic).

I'm frankly unconvinced that top vs bottom is any more extreme in brawl than it is in melee. Seriously, explain to me how melee Ness beats melee Sheik. Or try melee Bowser vs melee Sheik. The stock pretty much ends when Sheik lands a grab, and she's better than them in almost every way anyway so it's not like that's hard for her. Are you going to try to assert that the bad sides of those matchups can win unless the player is a lot better? At least brawl Captain Falcon can play with release grabs and runs fast and even has some pretty dangerous moves if he can get them in. He gets to play for real the entire time even; he has a very hard time because his moves are generally pretty poor and tricky to land, but he certainly gets lots of chances to try and even win if the player is better. The best versus the worst is pretty sucky in both games, but if I had to take the losing side in either game, I'd take it in brawl.

About tech chases, you also have Mr. Game & Watch's down throw and Diddy Kong's bananas that set up for it all the time. Tripping in general can lead to it even, and on stages like Luigi's Mansion it comes up pretty consistently. Tech chasing is a big deal in brawl for sure.

Mashing airdodge is a good way to lose in brawl by the way. You just get hit as the airdodge ends. Yeah, I can't deny that the defender has more options, but it's not like you go "oh well, I got hit". Getting hit is still what leads to you losing, and it still puts you in bad positions. Melee has a more offensive focus than brawl for sure, but the basic concepts between the two games are really not that different. You still do get punished in brawl. How do you think people lose in brawl? It's still about who leaves the opponent more opportunities and who capitalizes on the opportunities he gets better versus who mitigates the dangers of his mistakes the best. Just look at fighting Snake; I screw up at low percentage, get hit by his grenade, and then he catches me with jab1 -> ftilt1 -> ftilt2 as I try to recover from the positional consequences of being hit by the grenade. That's a lot of damage!

Also, here's a random fault in melee that brawl doesn't have to worry about. In melee, Donkey Kong and Mr. Game & Watch have horrible shields that barely protect them even when they are full and make it really easy to shieldstab them. In brawl, no one has shields that disproportionate to their body sizes. Why do people never bring stuff like that up when comparing the games? This isn't that big of a deal, but the point is that melee has random little irritating things in it too that were fixed in brawl.

This is my response to amazing ampharos comment which is on page 75 post 1118. See crashic I took the time too dig it up unlike you to address why what you are doing is so wrong. This isnt just about you not reading anymore this is about you having a bias against me and refusing to read anything else I stated. Also as you can probably tell i put much more effort than you and you wont show me the same respect. I'm through with reverting back to the age of stupidity that happen on pages 83 to 85. I'll also highlight where amazing ampharos went about tripping first.

I'm sorry but you dont get to turn around a fundamental aspect that was overlooked in brawl and say that that makes melee slower. ESPECIALLY one thats SUPPOSED to be in fighting games. ITS CALLED A FOLLOW UP TO A COMBO. I dont mean to sound this straightfoward but hes sonic. Of course his gonna be fast but that speed is hampered by small stages and the fact that with out JC grabs, dash dancing and a extended stop animation makes his tech chasing average at best. Then again this really has nothing to do with balance. Rolls are really useful because its all about being defensive, there less lag coming out of them (lucarios roll is stupid good) Annnnd you dont really have much other options for better ground manuvering. what im trying to say is that most of these points that "make brawl fast" are irrelevant outliers. explain the floatness of all characters. explain the lack of useful strafes for offensive and defensive gameplay.

L canceling deserves to be complained about. Lag is lag and l canceling helped to lessen that. Well brawls over all floatness comes into play and not that it matters much with oh wait another detrimental aspect of brawls engine, low hitstun. Oh side note complaining about captain falcon and ganondorf in brawl is not like complaining about mewtwo and bowser in melee at all. Captain falcon and ganondorf are screwed because they dont belong with that games engine. Mewtwo and bowser are generally just bad characters a title that befalls some characters in EVERY FIGHTING GAME.

SOOOOO you would rather fight d3 as dk then take on sheik as bowser lol. Also please...melee matchups are better. you know more stun, more strafes, this sort of thing.

lol l canceling is like learning how to do ivys calamity synphony or learning JF uppercuts with the mishimas. Its extra in the game but it helps in the long run if you learn to do it. its called learning to play on a advanced level/ wanting to be better.

Yes getting hit is bad but there should be a tide of push and pull/offense/defense situations that evolves from getting hit. Not just of i can do anything i want now. not being at a neutral postion the best display of defense/ offence at brawl only happens at the mid percents. Lower percents means you get hit and its like oh nothing happens and at higher you get to far knocked back fo them to do much of anything and you are still neutral. With lack of edgeguarding you wait for them to be back on the stage(airdodging) then you are neutral.
Unless you are meta knight edge guarding for this game is sub par at best.

Again these are random outliers for two characters. l2 power shield. Plus I think this is a little exagerated.

This was between me and him then this happens.

You ignored every one of his arguments and just restated your own.
Great Job!

My response to this cause i was a little taken aback.

Crashic: You didnt read my post did you. My arguements are also answers to his arguement and mine have yet to be refuted so instead of trying to start up something silly respond back in a justified manner

I did read your post, and felt that his had in fact refuted your thoughts, and even InArby, who had original convinced me that Melee was more balanced. At the moment, because of the reasons he listed, I am currently favoring Brawl.

At this point I ask him to DESCRIBE in detailBoy does this take a good minute ! To even get a response out of him



Amazing amapharos makes this statement people.

The statement that melee's combo system benefits low tiers has been made several times. That suggests that if there were more combos in brawl that it would benefit low tiers. That's obviously wrong; Ganon is not going to be able to combo much regardless, but more combos might help Meta Knight a lot. The fact that good prediction can generally get you out of trouble is a big help to low tiers in general; other than King Dedede v Donkey Kong which has a worrysome infinite, bad matchups just tend to be about having the enemy have superior options but not the ability to deprive you of options by trapping you in hugely damaging things. If you are better, you can just win the exchanges with the low tier inferior tools, but does skill ever help you escape a chaingrab or a true combo? I just don't buy that melee combos help low tiers at all; I know the fact that I can still escape pressure as the bad characters is one of the most helpful things in the game when I play them in brawl.

To which I respond I'll highlight the most important points also you'll see some truth later on about some people hitching on to the excuse of melee people bashing brawl

You act like good prediction and playing smart is exclusive to this game. Another rubbish point brawl people keep bringing up. And for the last time you escape legitimate punishment cause the hitstun sucks NOT because of your own skill.

When I mean discrimination of games i mean for topics like this. The brawl side wants to debate with out a full deck. When the melee people prove them false and correct them. Your side looks silly so you start saying that the melee people are flaming/bashing you for liking brawl and they are elistist. THIS IS how scars thread got closed. As for people that think and say brawl is inferior. THATS THEIR OPINION prove them otherwise

Now in some of my earlier posts i may have been a little shortsighted in my argument
but in this post i try to make a concentrated effort to explain why i think hitstun and advanced strafes help all characters more balanced matchups this involves both melee and brawl for better balance so comparisons have to be made

More options doesnt directly equate to better balance but the do assist in eliminating becoming predictable. this opens up more strafes so that the low tier characters who already have a disadvantage against someone higher can at least be on a even footing when it comes to advanced manuvering. Theres too many character specific traits in brawl for instance what does metaknight have on DK. five jumps 4 viable b specials that can recover, a glide, all his moves auto cancel better, IDC and so on. Not all the advanced techniques would be needed in brawl but DD, lcancel and JC grabs would make things much smoother. The lack of alternate strafes alone does not make the argument that brawl is less balanced. Its when you couple it with a lack of hit stun and floatness that it shows a higher meaning. lol with no hitstun characters have to exchange hits. Some characters in brawl are already at a disadvantage of even getting the hits in with out being predictable and having their attempts nulified. then when they finally do get the hit theres no follow up just back to square one with their predictable moves and more frustration to get in another hit with very little reward and a high chance you wont win the exchange. Plus if a character can camp you it gets worse. MUCH WORSE Then it would be if you could have new ways/strafes to get that hit in and follow up on that deserved confirmed hit for a better reward. THIS is why proportionally/ or directly parallel the brawl matchups compared with the melee ones are MUCH, MUCH worse overall.

this is post 1211 on post 1213 i mention something else that hasnt been discussed and apparently was ignored by crashic.....again

Thats just another factor that should be taken into account when determining balance. lol how much broken stuff do we have to ban to make the game playable for others. it was said a few pages back that boss who i think plays mario took forth at a tournament that had to ban the chain grab see how many overlooked design/engine problems brawl has to regulate so that it can become playable. Melee doesnt have such simple design/engine problems and is smoother.

to which he nitpicks and responds without even thinking about the other thing i said.

By crashic: Is that why DK and GnW can shield in your game?


I respond and ask him about when I wanted him to describe in detail remember

Wow what does that have to do with anything with banning. Learn to toggle/angle your shield for one. 2. That statement he said is over exaggerated everyone’s shield gets circumvented at some point.

Side note I noticed you didn’t say anything when I asked how amazing ampharos statement rebutted anything I said in the statement that was in RESPONSE to his.

To which he says

I didn't see it. This is an overly active topic, not as
But I still feel that the very things you said where what he was tackling in his post.

Isnt this what he said last time this isnt detailed its BullS**ting me and insulting my efforts.
So in the post right after I state the entire first conversation so he doesnt have to back track and search for it and compare what i said to what amazing ampharos said I also restate this as i know he might not have read it. Ill highlight how i know he didnt read it and that he nitpicked
By me

More options doesnt directly equate to better balance but the do assist in eliminating becoming predictable. this opens up more strafes so that the low tier characters who already have a disadvantage against someone higher can at least be on a even footing when it comes to advanced manuvering. Theres too many character specific traits in brawl for instance what does metaknight have on DK. five jumps 4 viable b specials that can recover, a glide, all his moves auto cancel better, IDC and so on. Not all the advanced techniques would be needed in brawl but DD, lcancel and JC grabs would make things much smoother. The lack of alternate strafes alone does not make the argument that brawl is less balanced. Its when you couple it with a lack of hit stun and floatness that it shows a higher meaning. lol with no hitstun characters have to exchange hits. Some characters in brawl are already at a disadvantage of even getting the hits in with out being predictable and having their attempts nulified. then when they finally do get the hit theres no follow up just back to square one with their predictable moves and more frustration to get in another hit with very little reward and a high chance you wont win the exchange. Plus if a character can camp you it gets worse. MUCH WORSE Then it would be if you could have new ways/strafes to get that hit in and follow up on that deserved confirmed hit for a better reward. THIS is why proportionally/ or directly parallel the brawl matchups compared with the melee ones are MUCH, MUCH worse overall.

Now he finally give me a sensible answer after me asking him oh wait freaking 4 times lol
This is his answer but wait he finally get around to addressng what i said to amazing ampharos but he missed what i said just above him you can tell. let me show you in his post im posting green!

I read it all.

But forget my first argument for a moment, and look at this.
You attack the game's floatiness, (NOT ALONE I SAID COUPLED WITH OTHER THINGS) this has nothing to do with the balance of the game. It has to do with the fact that the game is very aerial based.
As for L canceling, Brawl has, in comparison with melee, very little landing lag. The idea that it should be in there, just because, does nothing to argue against balance.
Kirby is screwed up by the melee engine the same that C. Falcon is by Brawl.
Your argument that melee has better match ups- Cause of hit stun(NOT ALONE I SAID WITH OTHER THINGS) . Can Marth not use hit stun more than Bowser? Or are you just saying that you no how to react to a matchup better in Melee because you've been playing that for 7 years and don't want to learn new systems? (WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN. SPEAK ENGLISH)
In fact, as I'm responding to your text, I see you are MUCH more interested in bashing brawl (look whats hes saying) than saying anything about its balance. Go and read InArby's post to learn how to argue your points better.
I read yours, and they do not respond to his, merely restate what he was replying to in the first place.
This is not a brawl bash(I'AM NOT BASHING) topic.

I respond to this because its obvious he skipped alot of what i said I'll bold whats important

NO, NO AND NO. Im not letting you weasel your way out of this one


BY ME: When I mean discrimination of games i mean for topics like this. The brawl side wants to debate with out a full deck. When the melee people prove them false and correct them. Your side looks dumb so you start saying that the melee people are flaming/bashing you for liking brawl and they are elistist. THIS IS how scars thread got closed.

You havent refuted any of these yet so now you say i'm bashing brawl. SEE I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN! I havent stated whether which game i like and i havent bashed because thats subjective speech, thats why scars thread went nowhere. claims without facts and justification (and a whole bunch of thread spamming) This is a debate thats looking incredibly one sided right now because i will say to the people on the brawl side flatout. put up or shut up. Most of them have shut up cause they thought this was gonna be easy to just say I think brawl is more balanced. This approach is WRONG

CASE IN POINT: YOUR SIDE BROUGHT THIS UP INCLUDING THE MATCHUPS. When talking about the matchups the games engine has to be taken into account. We have brought up the idea of hit stun and needing more movement multiple times. points that no one on you side is refuting. Remember this involves both brawl and melee so im going to keep on bringing up these qualities to compare them

HOW is kirby screwed in melee like captain falcon is in brawl. You are a hypocrite you are telling me not to bring up aspects of brawls engine in to the argument for balance then you turn around and try to make an argument like this= fail

I said l canceling in support with the addition of hit stun would make it important and Amazing ampharos stated in his statement before mine that l canceling was faster then the auto canceling in brawl. To which I said lag is lag and it makes the characters in melee move faster. the floatness combined with these makes follow ups harder follow ups that some of you characters desperatly need.
I have read about the matchups in brawl on these boards so i know it least enough conceptual thought to what im walking into.
YOU saying I have to learn new systems is saying I have to play brawl. I have played it took a look at the engine and im bring this to the table Along with melee knowledge (which most of you side lacks.) If anything your side is clearly more subjective than ours.

EDIT:
PAKMAN Some people pages back said that bowser vs sheik was the worse matchup period, then tried to parallel it into well brawl is more balanced. I saw that as a lazy attempt and went to refute it quickly although my approach was a little limited I wanted the BS to stop. thats why d3 vs DK keeps being brought up. I know it be better to look at the overall matchups though and I dont know all of them (some are irrelevant to me cause of who i main) I do know about the engine and the context of how you play the game WHICH SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE MATCHUP comparisions

Now instead of adressing this post in full he just goes to say i'm bashing brawl

my side?
lol
What would that be, the ones who have yet to form an opinion?
This thread is one sided because of a huge amount of brawl bashers.
As far as I'm concerned, the only people that have made real points towards your side is Yuna and InArby. (not that there are big numbers towards the brawl side either, I think maybe 2 as well, I just don't remember their names)

I reposted the very first conversation between me and amazing ampharos again. Though this time I pick apart both our posts and show why he skimmed over it. I'll concede that i may have been a little short sighted and mentioned captain falcon a few times over being screwed by the games engine. I'll concede to that. I ALSO ASK HIM FOR A CRITERIA FOR HELPING TO DEFINE THE BALANCE. HE IGNORES THIS

I also said a few pages back that Melee was more balanced. I am swaying back and forth. I'm hear to make up my mind, and you make no points that seem valid to me.

What does it matter WHY captain Falcon being screwed by the game's engine? If he is a bad character, he is a bad character. It in no way affects the game's balance any more than how bad a character pichu is. Talking about how charecters can over come matchups is relevant. Complaining about tripping, which is essentially just a new form of critical hit, does NOTHING to the argument against or for the balance argument.

I am not reading this one more time. I've read it enough, and you hardly ever talk about balance.

I get a little frustrated hes being subjective in his responses and is nitpicking ESPECIALLY WHEN I HAVE ASKED HIM TO ADDRESS THE REST OF MY POST IF HES GOING TO ATTACK ME. I also ask him to state criteria for balance so that easier discussion may go on I bolded this.

Get it through you head.
1. You cant read therefore you wont.
2. you are being lazy and you got caught
3. It least you didnt say his post refuted mine we are making progress.
4. Captain falcon does effect the balance more because unlike pichu hes a good character
5. I see you still trying to call me out yet you are too lazy to make criteria.
6. In talking about character matchups we need to bring up the varibles of how the game plays INCLUDING THE ENGINE.
7. Tripping is in no way a critical hit this sound utterly foolish and you lose crediblity for even saying that matter of fact i might quote that for how ridiculous it sounds. F**k tripping.
8.I didnt mention tripping first. amazing ampharos did
9. what about my other points in my earlier post address those .
CASE IN POINT: YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ/ OR CANT READ.
YOU ARENT LEGIT CAUSE YOU WONT READ. I BET YOU SKIPPED THIS POST OTHERWISE YOU WOULD SEE THE LIGHT. WHY DONT YOU READ THIS POST.
HOW CAN YOU SEE MY POINTS IF YOU DONT READ. YOU FAVORED BRAWL SINCE PAGE 76 AND HAVENT STATED ANYTHING ABOUT CHANGING YOU MIND SINCE THAT.

Notice how he doesnt even help establish criteria when i asked him again. Plus i just said one very small F**k tripping. He responds and apparently hes pretty pissed i said F**k tripping. Also notice he never addressed what i said about banning stuff or how I said hes a hypocrtie.

God stop. I've read it 4 ****ing times now.
If he sucks in Brawl, THAN HE IS NOT A GOOD CHARACTER IN BRAWL. CAPTAIN FALCON IS A ****TY CHARACTER IN BRAWL, GET OVER IT. A BAD CHARACTER IS A BAD CHARACTER NOW MATTER HOW LIKED
Tripping is like a critical hit EXCEPT it takes the skill of the other player to punish it effectively. You complain about a lack of a punishing game, but say **** tripping? well **** you dear sir. Give me one reason tripping changes the game in ANY way that a critical hit does? Further more, give me one reason that it in any way makes the game less balanced?
You make NO ****ING POINTS to why the game is more balanced, only your ideas on why it sucks. Stop spamming this thread with your Brawl flaming. And if you read at page 76, which you can't seem to do on a 20 word post, I say that I am currently favoring Brawl. I have in no way made up my mind.
Please, gtfo my internet.

Then on page 83 to 85 stupidity happens.

then

its annoying when someone attacks you. you try to show their wrong in their attacks. I'm trying to act civilized. I posted evidence as to why he was blind in his attacks and he wont F**King read it. I think its not ignorance its a personal vendetta he has against me. Thats why he wont read them. As for the critical hit why are you guys even talking about it lol. All i said was this aint pokemon and suddenly you guys try to clarify. by the way this is the first time i'm thinking this but this thread has derailed
/thread

Finally

@Gofg:
Okay look at posts 1252 and 1227 i posted something that could end the whole family feud between me and crashic.
He wont READ it so this silly crap continues.
When I try to explain it to him cause he wont READ it he wont listen and says" you contribute nothing." I just want him to stop being silly and READ the *** post, address me back with DETAILS on what I posted and this **** can end.
UNTIL THEN I STAND BY THAT HES A HYPOCRITE, CANT READ AND I WILL NOT STFU ABOUT IT.

I WANT TO SEE SOME F**KING EFFORT ON HIS END TO TRY AND END THIS.

I would like crashic to read this I took the time so you should read this. dont skip it. I MEAN ALL OF IT DONT NIT PICK WE WERE BOTH IN THE WRONG.

 

[adumbrodeus]

--which was exactly my point. If you hadn't skipped over my last post, you'd realize that we're arguing two sides of the same coin.

The Sonic mains need to come up with a better method of arguing their point if they expect the point to stay valid. I.E., they have a valid point, but their way of saying it is ridiculous.

The point I'm making is that mindgames potential is inherently quantifiable. That's actually why they switched from "mindgames" to "mindgames potential". Because I explained a while back about how you can measure the "mindgames potential" in a given match-up using quantifiable factors, and how that signifigantly narrows the gap between the theory of the game and the practice (basically I gave them the speech I gave you).


Of course the fact that people still aren't getting it means that the Sonic mains are applying or explaining it poorly.


*finger waggle to sonic boards*


I KNOW they're using my framework because they're using my term.


I think I need to make a thread about this on tactical.

 

[Deathcarter]

@DeathCarter: It obviously is true that the tops in Melee can better use advanced techs but the tops are still the ones who get severely punished. I think you're overestimating how badly bottom tiers have it as far as approach and getting in the initial hit on top tiers. Fox can camp Bowser, but camping is definitly different and Fox has better options. You still have to be a noticeably better player to win the matchup as Bowser, but the punishment factor is huge in Melee. Bowser does alot of damage obviously and edgeguards nearly on level with Marth, having the longest ledgeroll, Fortress edgeguarding, the F1re, and so on. I don't know how to play Bowser nearly as well as I'd like but he still does alot and has alot to approach with/prevent stupid approaches. Decent range, priority, a mid air grab and so forth.

Plus, what defines a good Melee character is I think a little more diverse than what makes a Brawl character good. I've said numerous times what quilifies the latter but I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a narrow list for the Melee characters. Falco has lots of things going for him that Marth doesn't but both are perfectly good characters. That fact means that Low tiers don't have to meet narrow criteria to still be usable (maybe not tourney viable but really the best players will beat you no matter who you're using). Timmy and Tommy are both famous for taking low seeded characters and proving they something to offer. They have a uniqueness about them enhanced by the engine like everyone else.

I'll have to come and reread this post later as I'm more than half drunk ATM but I think this more or less makes sense.

For your first paragraph, I must point out that the whole reason that I think the idea that the lower tiers in Melee having more options against the higher tiers than the Brawl lower tiers is irrelevent is because that as far as low tier vs high tier goes, they need to be judged by relation to each other, not the low tiers of another game. When all aspects of a game's balance are properly analyzed, only then is the balance ameneable for comparison to the other game. I apologize if I did not emphasize this point enough.

It was either you or that guy with the micky mouse avatar who said that the amount of options the roster has are not indicitive of balance alone. They are a storng indicator of balance, however, when measured between two characters. I explicitely said that the high tiers did not have a plethora of options to use against the low tiers (except for MK, who does not have any options that obliterate the majority of the cast), what I did mention is that some high tiers have a couple of options that simply destroy all of those of the low tiers like G&W v. Lucas, Falco v Link, Fox v Pikachu, and others like those; THIS is what makes Brawl ultimately imbalanced, not lack of significant follow ups or tools for mindgames. However, a higher tier having a crippling tool against their opponent in a particular matchup is the exception, not the rule. Most matchups have a typical patters as the lower you go on the tier list, the harder the matchups become. However, a large percentage of matchups never become so bad as to be unwinnable for any character, even for Falcon.

The reason why the low tiers of Melee could be more balanced than the low tiers of Brawl is simply because there are very few retarted matchups between two characters if any in Melee. Brawl has Donkey Kong, Fox, Luigi, Wolf, and Bowser fall victim to the injustice of faulty programming and potentially lose their viability because of DDD (and Pikachu/Shiek for Fox) while this almost never happens in Melee. This is why I started that whole discount the Sacred 6 thing earlier in the thread, Brawl gets its imbalance from mostly 6 characters with all of the other characters being pretty close to even after discounting those 6, only being seperated into tiers mostly by how they did against the sacred 6 themselves. As far as Melee goes, I saw larger tier distinctions between the other characters even after getting rid of the Elite 5 even though their were a lack of **** matchups not involving the bottom 4.

As for your second paragraph, I want to know how you define balance considering the bolded part.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

GW, Olimar, Snake, D3, MK.

Are they all broken-good?

If they are, that's a lot of broken-good characters.

 

[CRASHiC]

GW, Olimar, Snake, D3, MK.

Are they all broken-good?

If they are, that's a lot of broken-good characters.

None are broken good in that they can't win every match exclusivity with some sort of AT. Such a character would be broken, and would warrant a ban. This is why I laughed when I heard Yoshi was broken. This term gets thrown around a lot. Big difference between cheap and a truly broken character. I've even heard some people say Wolf is broken.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

None are broken good in that they can't win every match exclusivity with some sort of AT. Such a character would be broken, and would warrant a ban. This is why I laughed when I heard Yoshi was broken. This term gets thrown around a lot. Big difference between cheap and a truly broken character. I've even heard some people say Wolf is broken.

Technically, Wolf is truely broken because he can string together an unending chain of invinsibility frames with his reflector.

Anyway, how can there be five cheap-good characters? In many fighters, that would just be the viable cast.

EDIT: 1300th post?

 

[victra♥]

I love you Masmasher@. lol, seriously.

Also, lol at Crashic not replying. Probably say a bunch of words and was scurred. Good stuff.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

Technically, Wolf is truely broken because he can string together an unending chain of invinsibility frames with his reflector.
?

i do hope your kidding. Wolfs redshine spam is easily stopped by shielding. ps is even better

 

[Mota]

I love this forum. <3 to SWF.

Amen to that brudda!

I swear this thread should be made into a reality T.V show.
It would be quite interesting seeing the facial expressions and frustration.

 

[doom dragon 105]

There is no such thing as impossible matchups just get that through your heads

 

[aeghrur]

The point I'm making is that mindgames potential is inherently quantifiable. That's actually why they switched from "mindgames" to "mindgames potential". Because I explained a while back about how you can measure the "mindgames potential" in a given match-up using quantifiable factors, and how that signifigantly narrows the gap between the theory of the game and the practice (basically I gave them the speech I gave you).


Of course the fact that people still aren't getting it means that the Sonic mains are applying or explaining it poorly.


*finger waggle to sonic boards*


I KNOW they're using my framework because they're using my term.


I think I need to make a thread about this on tactical.

Hey, hey, it wasn't me. If I explained it, it would work.

And KID, stop man, if your going to argue in this thread, keep logic in it. And keep excuses, such as your over analyzing everything, out.
Btw, I seem to see RDK a lot now days, lol. He seems to be against my way of thought now days. Especially like regulation in economics... *coughalthoughtaxesareneededcough*

 

[Smooth Criminal]

RDK misses me.

>__>

Smooth Criminal

 

[aeghrur]

RDK misses me.

>__>

Smooth Criminal

/jealous. WHY?

 

[Yuna]

this is what i mean, you could have just said competitive smash, but you had to bring in 4-5 other factor that dont really pertain... also if you are spending 50 secs. thinking about the people on SWF only for them to ignore your thoughts and continue on their blissfully ignorant path anyways, than urdoinitrong.

Sometimes, the point is driven home. Sometimes, it is not. Some people are stupid, others are not.

just to be a ****, are you saying that 50 seconds is immediately now?

"50 seconds" was an arbitrary amount of time to signify that I don't have to spend a lot of time over-analyzing things, I just read people's post and almost immediately am able to see how and why they are wrong.

its still a poor hypothetical because if everyone GOOD ( which really doesnt matter in the context of this example) played MK, none of the other characters would matter no matter what happens because they would get beat by the good people that use MK

It still would not make the other characters any more or less viable!

even if this is true this is not the original point that was made, and i dont know why you bring that up when the original thing you said was "everyone good playing MK"

This was to illustrate the point that the other characters would not be any less viable, they'd just be played less.

if that happened, there would have to be a reason and i motion that he would be the only viable character, if for some reason that happened, because there would have to be a reaosn for that to happen.

Now you're just desperately grasping for straws. Yesterday you said point blank that if everyone played MK, he'd be the only viable character. Now you're trying to revise your own argument to make it less stupid.

You never said anything even remotely like this before. You just said that if everyone started playing MK tomorrow, he'd be the only viable character. There was no proviso for that MK's metagame would have to have changed. This debate has always been about the current metagame with a single hypothetical change (which characters people play).

No, it does not work that way!

Tournament results are not the end-all and be-all of tournament viability. Melee Peach places well much less frequently that Melee Falcon, yet Peach is the better character. Everyone playing MK tomorrow would not change anyone else's viability, you just admitted to this by revising your own argument into "Well, he would be... if, uh, something changed, making him much more viable than anyone else because that'd be the only reason why everyone would switch over."

Thus, you just proved me right. Tournament results are not the end-all and be-all of character viability. Thus, you claiming I got "destroyed" in that argument is total fiction and your sig is entirely misleading and stupid.

I believe Yuna and Da KID seem to disagree on what constitutes viability. Yuna's understanding that viability is based on character ability and Da KID's understanding that it is based on tournament results are both valid.

da K.I.D. is arguing that tournament results are all that matter when it comes to character viable (I'm forced to assume since he ridicules my argument that tournament results aren't all that matters when it comes to character viability).

A character is nothing but what the player brings to the character, but at the same time, players can do more with some characters than others.

Just because you cannot take Peach to her highest level does not mean other players can't. Character viability is the known ceiling of how far a character can be taken, not how far a specific player (who might not even be very good) can do it.

If no one has the ability to realize the potential of a character, then the character is unviable, because it cannot be utilized properly.

No, it is not. It'd still be viable. Just because people choose not to use that character doesn't mean that character is any more or less viable. The minute someone capable picks the character up, they'd be able to place well as them (if they were anyone good with them).

Character viability is just that, character viability, not player skill. It is the theoretical human ceiling to how far a character can be taken, not how far it is currently being taken. How many Mario and Doctor Mario players do we see in Melee? Almost none.

Yet they are both quite viable.

 

[DRD]

How many Mario and Doctor Mario players do we see in Melee? Almost none.

oh hai



I agree with Yuna, incidentally

plus the signature is just degrading, why don't you just take it off already, KID

 

[RDK]

RDK misses me.

>__>

Smooth Criminal

I think about you every time I post.

SRSLY, where you been mang?

 

[Metal Reeper]

Yeah I think its balanced, well, more than melee anyway.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Just because you cannot take Peach to her highest level does not mean other players can't. Character viability is the known ceiling of how far a character can be taken, not how far a specific player (who might not even be very good) can do it.

When did my ability become a part of this discussion?

No, it is not. It'd still be viable. Just because people choose not to use that character doesn't mean that character is any more or less viable. The minute someone capable picks the character up, they'd be able to place well as them (if they were anyone good with them).

Character viability is just that, character viability, not player skill. It is the theoretical human ceiling to how far a character can be taken, not how far it is currently being taken. How many Mario and Doctor Mario players do we see in Melee? Almost none.

Yet they are both quite viable.

Character viability is the viability of a character to win tournaments. Thus, a character can only be viable if the character can be used to win tournaments. A character which no player can successfully use in a tournament is unviable until proven otherwise. The number of players who have the ability to do this is irrelivent, as one player is enough to prove a particular character can win a tournament, as demonstrated by the one player who won the tournament with said character.

 

[ShadowLink84]

My point is that the way Sonic mains are toting the argument makes it look ridiculous and invalid. If "mindgame potential" is quantifiable, which it indeed is if you refer back to Iarby's example with Melee CF, then it is by no means unable to be "put on paper". That's the definition of quantifiable.

Your motive is right but the method is wrong.

I don't believe I was arguing for sonic''s mindgame potential to factor into his tier position or matchups even though i would like to see it.
Fraknly there is little evidence to suggest that it is quantifiable.

 

[Yuna]

When did my ability become a part of this discussion?

You were arguing player skill.

Character viability is the viability of a character to win tournaments. Thus, a character can only be viable if the character can be used to win tournaments. A character which no player can successfully use in a tournament is unviable until proven otherwise.

Yes, but once proven viable, it does not have to be proven time and time again, especially not if it's an uncommon character.

This is why tournament results are not the end-all and be-all of character viability. Because there are several viable characters who are just very uncommon.

A character which no player can successfully use in a tournament is unviable until proven otherwise.

No one was arguing the opposite.

The number of players who have the ability to do this is irrelivent, as one player is enough to prove a particular character can win a tournament, as demonstrated by the one player who won the tournament with said character.

This was my argument all along?

 

[fkacyan]

ITT: Circular arguments.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Firstly, now that I'm sober, Sonic does not have mindgame potential nor does any Brawl character on par with Falcon or most of the cast simply because of the freedom of the engines movement game. Movement over moves is the name of the game in Melee. Brawl is Moves over movement since priority, range, the ability to get hits in without being hit back, are some defining characteristics of good Brawl characters. So even Sonic's mindgame potential (Foxtrotting in Brawl is definely not as groundbreaking as Melee DD) is somewhat high, it won't make him a great character since his moves aren't great and the ones that are pretty good aren't readily accessible unless I'm forgetting something. .

And what would support your argument that Sonic's mindgames are not comparable to CF?
Mindgames are difficult to quantify, that is in its nature.

of course i agree with you on that his mindgame capability isn't on par.

As I said earlier, Sonic is capable of canceling his moves, this means he can use most of his good moves at whatever point that he wishes to use them.
His ability to move from a dash to anything afterwards allows him a large amount of potential in the mindgame department, because for other characters to attempt to replicate, would result in them being unsafe.

my argument is that sonic's mindgame potential is a result of his moves behavior. I am not arguing he has the same mindgame potential, but I am arguing that he does have more mindgame potential than most of the cast.

I would like to see Sonic's mindgame capabilities implemented into his tier positioning or matchups, but its rather difficult to explain.
Adumbrodeus make the topic cause I suck at explanations.

 

[Masmasher@]

When did my ability become a part of this discussion?



Character viability is the viability of a character to win tournaments. Thus, a character can only be viable if the character can be used to win tournaments. A character which no player can successfully use in a tournament is unviable until proven otherwise. The number of players who have the ability to do this is irrelivent, as one player is enough to prove a particular character can win a tournament, as demonstrated by the one player who won the tournament with said character.

Now when you mean tournament winners does the range of skill matter. Does the skill gap between the other players and the character they are using or is it just tournaments at the highest level of skill. Please specify.

 

[Yuna]

Now when you mean tournament winners does the range of skill matter. Does the skill gap between the other players and the character they are using or is it just tournaments at the highest level of skill. Please specify.

When discussing theory fighter, always assume you're discussing players of roughly equal skill level playing at the highest (human) level of play.

 

[Veng]

Its less balanced because of all the characters that dont need secondarys.