offcourse it is.That's funny.
now go play with your....
..
what have you got
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!
offcourse it is.That's funny.
By some of the world's best Jiggz... and not-so-major major tournaments (I'm assuming) featuring many of Jiggz' worst match-ups (I'm assuming again).Just as a side note, Jigglypuff placing top 8 has been a fairly frequent occurrence in at least the past year in the United States. I don't know about Europe or Japan.
well the 'LOL' in that table is like..ehm..replace it with a ratio..Taken from the match-up threads:
Pika has a 60-80% chaingrab on Fox that ends in an upsmash. He out-prioritizes Fox. His aerials beat Fox's aerials. He out-ranges Fox. He can nullify all of Fox's approaches. He gimps Fox's recovery with ease. He out-camps Fox. He combos Fox.
CF vers MK is hard. It's stupidly hard. But it's not Pika/Fox hard.
The LOL was a 90-10. This is before it was discussed that Pika out-prioritized Fox everywhere. It was then changed to LOL, mainly because it was a joke, and partially, I assume, because nobody would take a 95-5 match-up seriously anyway.well the 'LOL' in that table is like..ehm..replace it with a ratio..
Falcon vs MK is also 'LOL'
All MK doesn't have on falcon is the 60-80% CG ending in an Usmash. The rest is the same.
And meta knight has the tornado, wich destroys falcon completely. (pika doesn't have one move that completely destroys fox)
The 'LOL' in the table for pika vs fox is probably also a 20-80 (in pika's favor)
sure.The LOL was a 90-10. This is before it was discussed that Pika out-prioritized Fox everywhere. It was then changed to LOL, mainly because it was a joke, and partially, I assume, because nobody would take a 95-5 match-up seriously anyway.
I should mention that the chain grab (which can also end in a Nair, if memory serves) will usually kill. So when MK can take CF out with a single grab at any percent under 75%, you can talk. Oh, and there's your one move that destroys Fox, by the way.
The tornado isn't even a bigger problem for CF than it is for any other character. Shield and punish, it's what everyone does. It may be slightly harder due to CF's abysmal grab range, but it sure as hell doesn't destroy him.
Then of course, there's the DDD vers anyone who can be infinited clause, which, to give you an idea of how bad it is, was being called 100:0 by people who don't take ratios super-literally, and 99:1 by most people who do.
no, CP tells nothing about the matchup.Did you just argue that a match-up isn't bad because it can be counterpicked?
There is a few matchups like this like DK vs D3 (infinate chaingrab on DK)oh, almost forgot:
there isn't a matchup in melee that is '1-99' or '0-100'. Not even 'bowser vs sheik'
so, is brawl more balanced than melee?
NO
no, CP tells nothing about the matchup.
But it does decrease the 'brokenness' in competitive play.
Yes, the 1-99 I'm talking about (or pure_awesome is talking about) is the infiniteThere is a few matchups like this like DK vs D3 (infinate chaingrab on DK)
I don't think Falcon vs MK is 1-99 but it is a terrible matchup
so you agree brawl is less balanced?On the internet, you're reading words. Any intonation that you put on those words is a product of your own mind. If you're angry at me when you're reading this, you'll read it in a condescending way to allow your mind to become more angry at me by labelling me as a prick. Just don't do that.
Anyway, you just argued that a match-up isn't that bad because it can just be counterpicked, which indicates that I don't think you quite understand what match-up ratios are supposed to establish.
So I'm just going to excuse myself from the thread, and I hope you don't take it as an insult when I say there's still some things you need to research. Such as how Falcon Kick beats Mach Tornado, making CF one of the few characters that can actually deal with it reasonably.
Looking at which game has the worse match-up is a very narrow-minded way of looking at it, as it's only one facet of the game.It sure seems like Melee was more balanced, but I definitely think it's too early in Brawl's life to make the call. Regardless, I think we can all agree that Smash64 is by far the most balanced of the three.
God Tier:
Isai
Who Cares Tier:
Everything else to do with the game.
Bottom Tier:
Link's Recovery
ok man. sureLooking at which game has the worse match-up is a very narrow-minded way of looking at it, as it's only one facet of the game.
Example: We have two games, Melee A and Melee B.
Melee A is exactly like Smash Melee, except Fox is more powerful than he already is.
Melee B is exactly like Smash Melee, except Marth has an infinite on... say, Mewtwo, which can be started from a jab, fair, sideb, grab, etc.
By your logic, Melee B would be less balanced, since it clearly as the worst single match-up. It should be obvious, however, that Melee A is the less balanced of the two, since Fox would dominate at high levels of play. Essentially, if Marth touches Mewtwo, Mewtwo is down a stock.
It doesn't matter whether Brawl is more balanced, or Melee is more balanced. Your reasoning is still wrong, bud. You gotta look at the big picture.
No you completely misunderstand me. First off, don't even think about bringing the air dodge hack that we have when I specifically said that is not included. It is a BS hack that has no merit in what I'm trying to say here. Brawl actually has the "smash mechanics" of 64/melee except they are so weak and so insignificant that the game acts as if they were not present.And they aren't in Brawl. So they aren't global. Brawl is no less a Smash game than the other two just because some people don't like it. You can call them "Melee/64" mechanics, but directional airdodge is no more a smash mechanic than momentum air dodge anymore.
The ultimate fact remains that whether or not you and the rest of the hackers think that your unfinished product will ultimately be more balanced than the original game is completely irrelevant to whether or not the original game is more balanced than a different game.
Ankoku, didn't everyone back-track on the Vader/Yoda ban since they're no longer console-exclusive?
I mean, that would just further your point, but I seems to me like you're talking like it's said and done. I'm just confused.
ok, fair enough, I agree.Yes, it's true that the balance of the characters is what constitutes the balance of the game. The thing is, you can't just look at the handful of ridiculous 99-1 matches and say "Oh, this game is completely unbalanced."
It takes more than that. What if every other match-up in the game is close to 50/50? It'd be a crazy balanced game. Brawl is too young for us to decide whether or not it's balanced well. Over at the Falco boards, we're having a hell of a time trying to decide on a ratio for the Falco/Fox matchup, and one of the big reasons is we just don't have enough examples of the matchup at high levels of play.
So yeah. Biiiiiiig picture.
@kupo
Assuming you're right and Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl, you have still failed to explain why this necessarily makes Brawl less balanced than Melee. Just because Melee has longer true hitstun, shorter ledge times, and legit shield stun, it's automatically more balanced?
Brawl is almost a year old. And people with a lot of logic and insight into Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash have been picking it apart for that one year. Brawl is not too young. Heck, not much is different today than what it was half a year ago, that's how shallow it is (relatively speaking).ok, fair enough, I agree.
brawl is too young.
Well actually, the more important ledge code would be no auto sweet spot ledges and you also forgot about l canceling. L canceling is really important as well to make the game more balanced. What I feel like we have in brawl is a game where the characters have limits beyond the skill of the player because these mechanics don't function properly. But what we have in 64 and melee is a game where I feel its more based on the skill of the player than the character because it has these functioning smash mechanics. Gimpyfish and Aniki can be good examples of showing how low tier characters can still compete whereas most of the low tier characters in brawl are deemed "not viable"@kupo
Assuming you're right and Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl, you have still failed to explain why this necessarily makes Brawl less balanced than Melee. Just because Melee has longer true hitstun, shorter ledge times, and legit shield stun, it's automatically more balanced?
What part of "Proving Brawl+ is more balanced than Base Brawl does not prove Melee is more balanced than Brawl" was too Spanish para tu entender?Wah wah wah.
Malcolm and Bwett are good examples of low tier Brawl characters that can compete. It works both ways. Not only is this not relevant, but it applies to both games.Well actually, the more important ledge code would be no auto sweet spot ledges and you also forgot about l canceling. L canceling is really important as well to make the game more balanced. What I feel like we have in brawl is a game where the characters have limits beyond the skill of the player because these mechanics don't function properly. But what we have in 64 and melee is a game where I feel its more based on the skill of the player than the character because it has these functioning smash mechanics. Gimpyfish and Aniki can be good examples of showing how low tier characters can still compete whereas most of the low tier characters in brawl are deemed "not viable"
Hypothetical: Let's say that Fox and Marth were ruthlessly overpowered. Like, Fox can 0-death anyone off his shine, and Marth can guaranteed combo anyone into his dair spike off an fair. Aside from that, Melee doesn't change.And yes, having hitstun, shield stun, no auto sweet spot ledges and l canceling automatically makes the game more balanced because they provide all characters with more options and the ability to use their moves to the fullest extent. I thought that it would be assumed that the reason why brawl is not as good as a competitive fighter is because it lacks these competitive elements. I would have thought it it was obvious that with the functioning mechanics I described above that you would have a more balanced game since they provide a "common ground" for all characters. Do you really want me to provide examples as to how each mechanic actually makes this game balanced and tighter? I thought it would be obvious..
Err... he said that Brawl was less balanced, not more.This is just a cop-out! Before, you were all "Brawl is more balanced!".
Sure. Third Strike banned a character, Smash hasn't.Also, can we bring this back to debating Melee vs. the various SF games and their cousins?
Fine, I misread him. His logic is still inane. You cannot make a call and start debating it and then say "Wait, it's too early!" when you find yourself beaten.Err... he said that Brawl was less balanced, not more.
Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.Sure. Third Strike banned a character, Smash hasn't.
Go!
I prefer to think of it as he realized his mistake, realized that he may have spoken too soon, and manned up to it.Fine, I misread him. His logic is still inane. You cannot make a call and start debating it and then say "Wait, it's too early!" when you find yourself beaten.
I don't care if he's on "my side". That was still a cop-out.
Counter-point: At high levels of play, the rest of the cast being amazingly balanced wouldn't even be noticed. The entire competitive scene would degenerate into God Character vers God Character, making the game imbalanced again.Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.
Re-read the post. It was edited with new stuff.I prefer to think of it as he realized his mistake, realized that he may have spoken too soon, and manned up to it.
But I suppose cop-out works.
What if we banned the top four in Melee? The game would probably turn out a good deal more balanced.Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.
One banned characters does not automatically make a game more imbalanced than any game without a banned character.
I see what you mean. I believe that brawl is not more balanced than melee and I was trying to prove it indirectly instead of directly. I am not claiming brawl+ to be more balanced than melee but I think its level of balance is more comparable to melee and if brawl+ is nothing more than a more balanced form of base brawl, I don't see how brawl can possibly be more balanced than melee. I may not be as good a debater as you Yuna, I was just saying that we can use brawl+ as a tool to analyze brawl.It proves that if you introduce "Smash mechanics" into Brawl, it'll be more balanced than before. It does not prove that Brawl is less balanced than Melee!
The difference is that while those two characters are a little unbalanced, the game as a whole is balanced because every character can combo and those unbalanced characters can be comboed themselves. What you have in brawl is the few characters that are unbalanced and can "combo" well or string together attacks easier but can't have the same damage done to themselves. It doesn't matter how broken they are while in hitstun, but in brawl they are unbalanced almost the whole time without these "smash mechanics" in place.Hypothetical: Let's say that Fox and Marth were ruthlessly overpowered. Like, Fox can 0-death anyone off his shine, and Marth can guaranteed combo anyone into his dair spike off an fair. Aside from that, Melee doesn't change.
By your logic, that game would still be balanced, since it has shield stun, and no auto-sweetspot, and true hitstun, etc. But it's obvious that the game would be crazy unbalanced, for completely independent reasons (namely, Fox and Marth being completely broken.)
These mechanics focus on the big pictureBig picture. You can't just look at a few mechanics and say "This one has them, therefore it's more balanced."
Again, I'm not saying that Brawl is more balanced than Melee. I'm saying your reasoning is wrong.
...are you talking about actual Melee, or my hypothetical game where Fox and Marth are completely broken?The difference is that while those two characters are a little unbalanced, the game as a whole is balanced because every character can combo and those unbalanced characters can be comboed themselves. What you have in brawl is the few characters that are unbalanced and can "combo" well or string together attacks easier but can't have the same damage done to themselves. It doesn't matter how broken they are while in hitstun, but in brawl they are unbalanced almost the whole time without these "smash mechanics" in place.
Didn't you use this claim to say is Brawl banned MK that would prove how much more imbalanced it was compared to Melee? I don't remember it was in the Ban MK thread or something.Ah, yes, but what if the balance between the remaining characters was perfect? Then we'd have one character way above everyone else, everyone else being perfectly balanced vs. a game with gaps in the tiers.
One banned characters does not automatically make a game more imbalanced than any game without a banned character.
I think I was thinking about those characters having those powers in melee. If that was the case then you would have a game that is overall very balanced with two characters that break the game to making the game unbalanced. If you ban them, then the game overall will be balanced. But if you had two version of that game with the two characters banned where one game had the shield stun, hit stun etc and one that did not, the one with the hit stun, l canceling ect would be more balanced......are you talking about actual Melee, or my hypothetical game where Fox and Marth are completely broken?
Because if you just implied that my hypothetical, intentionally broken game is still more balanced than Brawl... well, you may want to reconsider.
Keep in mind how good Fox is already. Now imagine that every time he hits with his Shine, it's a death combo. Same with Marth's Fair. Just... imagine it.
I'm not talking about SSF2T or 3S with banned characters vs. Melee. I'm saying that just saying "They banned a character" does not mean the game is automatically more imbalanced than all fighting games without any banned characters.What if we banned the top four in Melee? The game would probably turn out a good deal more balanced.
I'm not arguing whether or not 3S is more or less balanced than NTSC or PAL Melee. I've told you this at least twice now.It's just that in the particular cases of Super Turbo and 3S, the balance is only as good as the balance in the NTSC version of Melee (since I know you play PAL) even with those character bans.
I believe you (I actually do). Despite your flawed logic, you at least don't appear to be blatantly stupid, just misguided.I didn't mean to ignore your points. I went back to the page I last posted and saw pure_awesome's points to refute and honestly forgot about yours. I apologize..
You proved something else entirely. Using flawed logic and flawed arguments will not help anyone. In fact, it will only help the opposing side as they will perceive this as a chance to destroy the "Melee is more balanced" side, perceiving it as a weakness and pouncing on it. It might also taint any further arguments from people from the same side in the eyes of bystanders, the undecided or even people on the same side.I see what you mean. I believe that brawl is not more balanced than melee and I was trying to prove it indirectly instead of directly.
Please read my posts better. I never said you claimed Brawl+ is more balanced than Melee.I am not claiming brawl+ to be more balanced than melee
That is what you believe. And even though I TL;DR:ed some parts of your posts, I'm pretty sure you never directly said that. You just said that since Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl by introducing "Smash physics", Brawl must be less balanced than Melee.but I think its level of balance is more comparable to melee and if brawl+ is nothing more than a more balanced form of base brawl, I don't see how brawl can possibly be more balanced than melee.
This does not guarantee greater balance. Every character can combo. So? What if some character can just combo so much better than everyone else? Do not use flimsy and superficial arguments like these.The difference is that while those two characters are a little unbalanced, the game as a whole is balanced because every character can combo and those unbalanced characters can be comboed themselves.
You're only proving that every character can combo in Brawl+. If there are still some who can combo much better than everyone else, the game can still be highly imbalanced. And comboing is not everything. It does not ensure balance.What you have in brawl is the few characters that are unbalanced and can "combo" well or string together attacks easier but can't have the same damage done to themselves.
You used flawed arguments. You still are. This is not good, even if you're just doing it for ****s and giggles.But I could care less about which game is more balanced. I just wanted to bring in a different perspective as to why I think this game is not as balanced while speaking from my experience from playing a more balanced version of the game.
So then, you can agree that having shield stun, l-cancelling, all those things we've been talking about, although they may help, do not automatically make a game balanced, as evidenced by the fact that this hypothetical game is unbalanced despite having all those things?I think I was thinking about those characters having those powers in melee. If that was the case then you would have a game that is overall very balanced with two characters that break the game to making the game unbalanced. If you ban them, then the game overall will be balanced.
Which is just saying that Brawl+ is more balanced than Brawl. Which I have no issue with, and I take your word for it.But if you had two version of that game with the two characters banned where one game had the shield stun, hit stun etc and one that did not, the one with the hit stun, l canceling ect would be more balanced...
No?Didn't you use this claim to say is Brawl banned MK that would prove how much more imbalanced it was compared to Melee? I don't remember it was in the Ban MK thread or something.
You are confusing overall and total game design balance vs. variability in representation of characters at tournaments. The two are not the same thing.Counter-point: At high levels of play, the rest of the cast being amazingly balanced wouldn't even be noticed. The entire competitive scene would degenerate into God Character vers God Character, making the game imbalanced again.
We are not arguing whether 3S or Melee are balanced. They are both imbalanced. We are arguing which one is more balanced. Don't strawman and expect to get away with it.The character could be banned, thus producing a balanced metagame, but the game itself would still be imbalanced.
More like "ker-splat". Needs more logic.Sha-zam!
.You proved something else entirely. Using flawed logic and flawed arguments will not help anyone. In fact, it will only help the opposing side as they will perceive this as a chance to destroy the "Melee is more balanced" side, perceiving it as a weakness and pouncing on it. It might also taint any further arguments from people from the same side in the eyes of bystanders, the undecided or even people on the same side.
This is why I'm debating you, despite us being on the same side. I'm telling you to argue our side better.
United we stand, together we all, stupid and flawed arguments must be quashed, one and all
That is what I was thinking, but never came across in my writing...."Everybody can combo!" - Big whoop
"Everybody can combo at around the same level, with there being slight differences in power level, but no characters excel at it way, way more than the rest, at least not any more than in/at the same levels as Melee" - Better
I'm not doing this for ****s and gigglesYou used flawed arguments. You still are. This is not good, even if you're just doing it for ****s and giggles.
Even though they help a lot in balancing, I guess this can be true..So then, you can agree that having shield stun, l-cancelling, all those things we've been talking about, although they may help, do not automatically make a game balanced, as evidenced by the fact that this hypothetical game is unbalanced despite having all those things?
Take a lesson from this. Short and superficial points = Bad.That is what I was thinking, but never came across in my writing....
Well, then do it better!I'm not doing this for ****s and giggles
You just don't type out your arguments properly. Your arguments are too superficial, sometimes ambiguous, sometimes just worded wrong. If I had been on the opposing side of this debate, I could've eviscerated your points just as well as I just did, then declare myself winner and people might actually believe me and think Brawl is more balanced than Melee.I am clearly less talented at debating than you yuna and since we are on the same side, I should not stay since I'll probably hurt our side more then help...
Good point. I'll agree that while the game would not appear to be balanced (no variability in representation), it actually would be.You are confusing overall and total game design balance vs. variability in representation of characters at tournaments. The two are not the same thing.
One (balance) usually affects the other (variability in representation of characters at tournaments) but they are not the same.
I wouldn't think of it. I was talking about the hypothetical game you had proposed, with one clearly overpowered character, and the rest of the cast very well balanced. In the event that the overpowered character were banned, the resulting metagame would be very well balanced. I completely agree that neither 3S nor Melee are actually balanced.We are not arguing whether 3S or Melee are balanced. They are both imbalanced. We are arguing which one is more balanced. Don't strawman and expect to get away with it.
Ah, don't let Yuna scare you. He's actually a pretty nice guy, once you get to know him. Also, just pretend that every time he says something mean, he's giving you a hug!I am clearly less talented at debating than you yuna and since we are on the same side, I should not stay since I'll probably hurt our side more then help...
Right on. So, although they help, saying Melee has those things and is therefore more balanced isn't necessarily true, since there are a ton of other things that you have to consider.Even though they help a lot in balancing, I guess this can be true..
Really?
Ahh sorry for that. Thanks for the tips and I'll get out of your way. I can't believe this debate is still going on...your points are pretty irrefutable...You just don't type out your arguments properly. Your arguments are too superficial, sometimes ambiguous, sometimes just worded wrong. If I had been on the opposing side of this debate, I could've eviscerated your points just as well as I just did, then declare myself winner and people might actually believe me and think Brawl is more balanced than Melee.
When entering a public debate that is meant to debate an "important" issue that is important to "the people" and not just yourself, you must think about what will hold up in "debate court". Will this really fly? Is this airtight? If it's not, do I have a follow-up to it to elaborate on my point? Am I saying that I want to say or does it come out wrong? How sure am I about what I'm about to say?
Because if you fail, it's not only a failure for you personally, it's a failure for your entire side in the eyes of the undecided, the less educated and the quick-to-jump-ships.
Mortal Kombat? Or wait, that was "there is no knowledge that isn't power.."'Cause knowledge is power!
...does anyone get that? Or am I too old?
That is beside the point.Good point. Then I'll agree that while the game would not appear to be balanced (no variability in representation), it would be, in truth.
However, this merely leaves us with the sad realization that 3S is not that game.
All this does is prove, yet again, that you do not read my posts properly.I wouldn't think of it. I was talking about the hypothetical game you had proposed, with one clearly overpowered character, and the rest of the cast very well balanced. In the event that the overpowered character were banned, the resulting metagame would be very well balanced. I completely agree that neither 3S nor Melee are actually balanced.
I'm sorry, are you strawmanning yourself?Really?
I could have sworn someone spouted someone said at one point about how balanced Brawl would be if MK was gone, like it would be much better than Melee in terms of balance.
Don't remember it well though, I was reading 20+ pages a day seeing how fast posting in that topic went.