Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Was it?
I said if no one has the ability to realize the potential of a character, then the character is unviable. You responded that the character would still be viable, but then argued a different point about how character popularity does not affect viability. Do we agree or do we disagree?
Would you argue that something no one has ever tasted tastes good? Likewise, would you argue that a character that no one has refined is viable?
You just contradicted your own argument within one post.
If nobody has the ability to make the cake, you can't taste anything at all, so it doesn't really matter how "good" it tastes if you'll never even get a chance ot eat it.
Well, like ambrodeus was saying to RDK, mindgame potential like Melee Falcon or Brawl Sonic can be qualified if its an ability to force mistakes and capitalize on them. I don't know enough about Sonic to do this so I won't try.
Don't be stupid. You wouldn't be able to determine whether or not it tastes good because it doesn't exist. A nonexistant object can't taste good.
Just don't get grabbed, easier said than done, but possible. Brawl IC's have still yet to win a big big tourney, & most top-level IC's know there stuff.
The logic here made me smile with insight.
Let's pretend nobody's played Brawl yet.
Wow. I've been reading the last few pages of this thread and you're the first person to get this analogy (finally!). Congratulations! You just won the 'Smartest-person-on-the-boards' Award!
This is a terrible example because the thing people haven't formed an opinion on (Brawl) actually exist in its current form. The cake in the other example does not exist at all. In order for you to taste something, particles from the substance being tasted need to land on your tounge, which means it actually needs some mass in order to be made of particles at all. Last time I checked, things that don't exist don't have mass.
At the same time, we could have tapped fully into the potential of every character.
You're taking the metaphor the wrong way entirely, and are doing so in order to either be funny or distract from the discussion, or both.
Tournament viability is the term which defines a character which can be used to win a tournament. The measure of tournament viability is a major tournament victory. MK could not be proven to be viable until at least one tournament occured.
The possibility exists. However, Jigglypuff will remain unviable until such a tactic is discovered and used to win a major tournament. Then, we will have proof. Until then, all discussion concerning Jigglypuff, or any character, is heresay and speculation.
This has nothing to do with what I said, and I never debated this.
Nope, it doesn't change. But I don't agree with your definition for practical reasons.
She can rest a ton of her opponents moves if timed well enough...
I would actually argue that the answer to this question is yes based on the idea that the characters max potential is that of the best player with that character at the current time. No they did not change the games data but before those things were discovered, it was basically as if that data didnt exist anyway. So therefore, the people that took those characters past the limits they had at the time, therefore, there max potential increased at that time.
I think this is the most important post on the topic of a characters viability.
-Jab\. Lots of other characters have much better AAA combos that don't do lame multihit things at the end which suck. His jab would still be good if the game allowed you to combo. Thats not the case and at any rate you can't run up and jab someone. Its not highly accessible especially since the range isn't great. He can't force someone to enter his jab range like Snake can since Falcon can not camp people.
With the implied meaning that if it has already been established that a character has potential, we do not need to constantly be reminded of that. As in, as long as a character has been proven to have the potential to do X, even if two years down the line, there are no longer any active players with the ability to take that character that far, it doesn't mean that the metagame has magically changed and it is no longer possible to take that character that far (unless something changed).
As opposed to Melee?
You lack logic.
I see you've taken the "If I pretend it never happened, people will pretend the same"-approach to our argument by entirely ignoring the latest posts in this thread addressed to you where your argument is destroyed (yet you still cling to your completely inaccurate sig in an attempt to discredit me).
Which pros? The ones who invoke "Waveshining!" as the paragon of imbalance? Oh yes, let's totally ignore Meta Knight, King DeDeDe, Snake and Marth who all possess one or several entirely broken moves/techniques/tactics!
I loled and am still loling. Yes Yuna rarely participates in these discussions whereas you've been around so long writing disertaion papers on the most intimate nuances of competitive Smash.
this is actually kind of upsetting as for some unknown reason I was actually looking forward to how you would respond to the point I brought up in the the post below the one you quoted here...
Many characters have broken moves, tactics or game mechanics, not only MK, D3, Snake and Marth (wtf???). There's also Wario, G&W, Olimar, Diddy Kong and Falco who have one or more broken moves/attributes so you should at least mention them as well. If 8 or more characters are broken it becomes more even again, for the very top at least. Whether this makes Brawl more or less balanced is a question of personal perception I guess.
