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

[isthattim?]

Melee has dash to jump-cancel upsmash. It's nearly the same thing.

yeah, but that takes an extra input *gasp*

 

[_Keno_]

well you cant compare the 2 wen it comes to balance gameplay. Melee has somehwat easier tatics and cheap tactics. For instance, Marth's spike is wayy easier in melee than brawl. Wavedashing , pillar , etc. But brawl has stuff that melee doesn't have. Running while doing a upsmash [ srry dont know the specific name for it ] better chaingrabs, spikes, what B0mbe1c said : more nfered char such as mk && snake. But if i had to choose between the 2, i would pick the melee because it is funny and entertaining. Its something you can juss chill and play && even watch on the tube. Brawl is all about the fact of cheapy moves. They made brawl 2 ''realistic'' if you ask me.

The chaingrabs in brawl aren't as good as Melee nor as numerous. What makes the chain grabs more balanced in Melee is that they are mostly done on the best characters! brawl has only the good characters chaingrabbing.'


Also, you are supposed to put your sig in your control panel, not post the image file at the end of every post.

 

[Darxmarth23]

If we keep finding ATs in both games the out come of this debate will most likley change.

>.>

 

[IrArby]

If we keep finding ATs in both games the out come of this debate will most likley change.

>.>

Quoted for unlikelyness.

Even if we did find new ATs they would be so situational (seeing as we've gone over all the normal combinations of button inputs) that they wouldn't be useful even if they were decent ATs.

And, believe it or not there is a degree to which a tech can be to difficult even if it can heavily change the outcome of matches. Alot of people will say the difficulty of a technique is irrellevant. If it can be done people will do it. However, I never saw Samus' consistently winning using a super wavedash or Fox's dominating with the (back and forth) waveshine infinite on Link/Peachs. Theres also no one out there Perfect Shielding every attack so which would make them near unbeatable.

All this is to say the a new AT in Brawl will probably be unusable even if we find one. Remember when everyone was freaking out about Infinite Second Jump? I wasn't really a great tactic and that wasn't exactly impossible to do consistently and it was a fairly improbable find all ready.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

kinda like that craqwalking thing where you move while turning back and forth at a faster walking speed lol. fun to watch, but not useful for battle.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Quoted for unlikelyness.

Even if we did find new ATs they would be so situational (seeing as we've gone over all the normal combinations of button inputs) that they wouldn't be useful even if they were decent ATs.

And, believe it or not there is a degree to which a tech can be to difficult even if it can heavily change the outcome of matches. Alot of people will say the difficulty of a technique is irrellevant. If it can be done people will do it. However, I never saw Samus' consistently winning using a super wavedash or Fox's dominating with the (back and forth) waveshine infinite on Link/Peachs. Theres also no one out there Perfect Shielding every attack so which would make them near unbeatable.

All this is to say the a new AT in Brawl will probably be unusable even if we find one. Remember when everyone was freaking out about Infinite Second Jump? I wasn't really a great tactic and that wasn't exactly impossible to do consistently and it was a fairly improbable find all ready.

If HUMANLY POSSIBLE, and worth the effort, it will be perfected.

The waveshine infinite seems to not be humanly possible to do consistently.

Think in terms of 7 frame reaction time, the "perfect shield every attack" requires better then that.

Also, it's just not worth it, because you've gotta practice with every move in the game.

 

[IrArby]

Exactly. It supposed to illustrate the point that a new Brawl AT would have to be impossibly hard to execute and/or set up for since we've looked at the normal battle/moving mechanics enough. We'd really have to go out of our way to find anything at this point. Plus, I just don't like people saying "If its humanly possible, people will learn to do it consistently." I sort of took it an extreme but thats along the lines you would logically follow if you believe in that statement. Black and White doesn't work here or in most cases for that matter.

Does anyone remember the third Star Wars where Obi Wan whilst fighting Anakin (now becoming Darth Vader) says "Only a Sith deals in Absolutes." How very stupid of them as thats an absolute statement right there! Sorry I just randomly thought of that and had to get it off my chest.

EDIT: I'm ashamed to say I thought the Craqwalk and the Spinning walk thing some potential early on. I can admit that now but I'm not proud of it.

 

[Deathcarter]

There is one thing that could save the Brawl argument (which has been dead for a while now), the evolution of Snake and DDD. I am realistic, I beleive there will not be some new AT that will revolutionize Brawl. But what I do beleive is that DDD's and Snake's movesets are just too good to not lump them in with Meta even if he is better than those 2.

Don't underestimate DDD; his matchups are not even finished yet and not only do I beleive that NO character ***** DDD, but that he actually goes near even with Meta (has comparable to superior range, can kill Meta at absurd percentages, and is one of the more difficult characters for MK to edgeguard). When these 2 characters' are completely explored in every possible way, they will be near Meta Knight in dominance. After them (and possibly Falco as well), you have at least double the second class characters that can compete though cannot win consistently.

 

[IrArby]

I'm inclined to think that D3 has much more startup/post lag on his moves overall compared to MK. Someone may have already said this but D3 is a lot like Melee Marth with his dangerous grab range that leads to long combos (on some characters) and the fact that his moves have lag and must be spaced. Ofcourse, D3 uses Bair instead of Fair but w/e.

Other than that they're not very alike since D3 has many moves that he doesn't use much (which isn't a Brawl prerequiste since spamming works fine for many chars) his recovery is much better, and obvisously he's huge and has a projectile.

I just think the game mechanics won't allow us to do much else with him. Space aerials, and camp with goons until you can bait them into a grab.

 

[Yuna]

Then the match-up should be 100-0 it is unwinnable, there is a chance of Captain Falcon and Donkey Kong winning, the chance is just slim.

Unwinnable implies unplugging your controller is the same as playing.

Then there is no unwinnable match-up in any Competitive fighting game, ever, because we could just assume that the one with the advantage would just do everything wrong while the one with the disadvantage would do everything right.

But we don't. They are unwinnable.

 

[Zankoku]

Did someone just say the waveshine infinite being humanly impossible? 'Cause that ****'s easy. First, get a wall. Then, get the person up against the wall. Then, hold down, press B, press X+R, press B, etc.

Brain-dead infinite.

 

[Winston]

Did someone just say the waveshine infinite being humanly impossible? 'Cause that ****'s easy. First, get a wall. Then, get the person up against the wall. Then, hold down, press B, press X+R, press B, etc.

Brain-dead infinite.

They were talking about flat-ground infinites.

 

[1048576]

Then there is no unwinnable match-up in any Competitive fighting game, ever, because we could just assume that the one with the advantage would just do everything wrong while the one with the disadvantage would do everything right.

But we don't. They are unwinnable.

Gotta dsagree here. Once in a blue moon, the guy playing the character with the disadvantage reads his opponent perfectly for the whole match, and the guy with the advantage screws up royally. Even two players of near-equal skill don't always play the same. In DK vs D3, for example, suppose there is a 50-50 chance of either player predicting and punishing his opponent. DK needs to do this 30 times to win, while D3 only needs to do it three times. (I know I'm oversimplifying, but the principle is valid.) Sometimes, DK will win, although the odds ar very slim.

An unwinnable matchup would be a case where the same series of button presses performs an action which the opponent cannot escape no matter where they are or what they do. For example; jump, shoot fireball makes Akuma/E.Honda unwinnable (I don't know if it actually does that, but you get the idea.)

 

[Yuna]

Gotta dsagree here. Once in a blue moon, the guy playing the character with the disadvantage reads his opponent perfectly for the whole match, and the guy with the advantage screws up royally. Even two players of near-equal skill don't always play the same. In DK vs D3, for example, suppose there is a 50-50 chance of either player predicting and punishing his opponent. DK needs to do this 30 times to win, while D3 only needs to do it three times. (I know I'm oversimplifying, but the principle is valid.) Sometimes, DK will win, although the odds ar very slim.

I just said that. If the player with the advantage does everything wrong while the player with the disadvantage does everything right, sure, they could win. But it doesn't happen! Almost never ever ever. The one with the advantage would have to screw up royally, not just human mistakes but just stupid BS mistakes that no good player is expected to make.

They are unwinnable matches. It is an auto-win. Anyone saying "Once in a blue moon..." is just deluding themselves or talking about people of a relatively low skill level.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Then there is no unwinnable match-up in any Competitive fighting game, ever, because we could just assume that the one with the advantage would just do everything wrong while the one with the disadvantage would do everything right.

But we don't. They are unwinnable.

Pro's are human, even they can screw up from time to time.

Ninjalink's Diddy Kong gimped M2K's Metaknight. It can happen even in really life, it's just really hard and unlikely.

 

[Yuna]

Pro's are human, even they can screw up from time to time.

What part of "Pros make mistakes, but nowhere near the amount required for CF to win against MK unless the MK is having a horrendously bad day, which is not what we're going to be assuming because then no match-up is ever unwinnable since if one side just keeps screwing up every single thing while the other plays perfectly, every single match-up in existence is winnable!" was too Vietnamese cho mày hiêu'?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Yuna...do you really speak all these languages or do you just know what "for you" means in all these languages?

 

[Yuna]

Yuna...do you really speak all these languages or do you just know what "for you" means in all these languages?

Every single language in which I've written out "for you to understand" I speak as either a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th language.

I only speak the first three of those fluently. The last two I speak on an intermediate (I think)-ish level, though I'm a bit rusty. There's also Danish and Norwegian. I can't speak either very well but I understand Norwegian "fluently" (Danish, not so much because of the accent).

Trilingual? Pentalingual? Hexalingual? Take your pick.

 

[YUNq PHR3$H]

The chaingrabs in brawl aren't as good as Melee nor as numerous. What makes the chain grabs more balanced in Melee is that they are mostly done on the best characters! brawl has only the good characters chaingrabbing.'


Also, you are supposed to put your sig in your control panel, not post the image file at the end of every post.

&& i post my file because my other sig doesnt fit my fc [even dough its at the bottome of my name] i juss post my file in it. 2 be different from teh others....&& only good char. were do u come from. mostly everygood char in brawl has ah chaingrab so wat are your talking about. && they can do it on the best char. For instance : ic chaingrab is hard to do on char like mk && snake. dass were hobbling come into play. Mk has piviot grab chaingrab. Snake has edge chaingrab

 

[1048576]

I just said that. If the player with the advantage does everything wrong while the player with the disadvantage does everything right, sure, they could win. But it doesn't happen! *ALMOST* never ever ever. The one with the advantage would have to screw up royally, not just human mistakes but just stupid BS mistakes that no good player is expected to make.

They are unwinnable matches. It is an auto-win. Anyone saying "Once in a blue moon..." is just deluding themselves or talking about people of a relatively low skill level.

Thanks; we're done here.

 

[LinIsKorean]

Yuna wins. We have to assume that in a competitive environment both players know the matchup, and that they are at the same skill level. Assuming this, certain matchups are unwinnable. Even though they will make some mistakes, because they are human, we have to assume that they will not make a series of monumental mistakes that will lead to their defeat, because otherwise, they are not top players. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but you get my point.

On a side note, I don't think you can really measure how balanced a game is compared to another, at least when the characters and movesets are this diverse.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

What part of "Pros make mistakes, but nowhere near the amount required for CF to win against MK unless the MK is having a horrendously bad day, which is not what we're going to be assuming because then no match-up is ever unwinnable since if one side just keeps screwing up every single thing while the other plays perfectly, every single match-up in existence is winnable!" was too Vietnamese cho mày hiêu'?

I've never seen a Pro Metaknight get gimped by a Diddy within ten seconds of the match either.

Every match-up is winnable, the chances are very slim in each scenario.

 

[Justblaze647]

I've never seen a Pro Metaknight get gimped by a Diddy within ten seconds of the match either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLWmsDhpDk4

...

yeah.

 

[Binx]

After reading the last 2 pages it seems like a whole lot of stupid, and then you've got Yuna explaining why it's stupid, then you have stupid people not understanding they are stupid. Man wacky stuff.

In all seriousness though, how could people try to argue that there are not match ups that can't be won. There are, this game isn't balanced that well, especially after tactics discoveries that have been made. In all fairness though melee has some match ups like that as well, Sheik against half the cast is basically unwinnable at high levels of play. What made that game more balanced than this game is that you had 4/5 characters that were all amazing and could beat everyone including themselves with no true counters while taking a great deal of skill. In Brawl you have only 1 character like this, its basically like Sheik in melee if she was the only character who could L cancel. After that you have another 4 or 5 characters who do have counters and are pretty good, I personally prefer melee because then I can stay 1 character throughout the tournament and if I know my match ups I can feel like i'm playing on an even keel vs everyone, with the only aspect being skill not which character they picked.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLWmsDhpDk4

...

yeah.

I was saying it to suggest that video.

...with lack of clarity.

 

[LinIsKorean]

I see why some people are getting confused though. It becomes based on what you see as the prerequisites for the unwinnable matchup. Some people assume that it is possible to win if your opponent makes large enough mistakes, and this is true. However, we are considering these matchups under the thought that they will be played at the top level of play, where mistakes like this are NOT made. At upper levels of play, there will be mistakes, but they will not be so monumental as to turn the tide of the matchup. If someone does make a big enough of a mistake to lose the matchup, they are not playing at a top level of play.

When we discuss unwinnable matchups, we're assuming that the players playing are at this top level of play. Thus, they will not make monumental mistakes, otherwise they would not be top level players.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I see why some people are getting confused though. It becomes based on what you see as the prerequisites for the unwinnable matchup. Some people assume that it is possible to win if your opponent makes large enough mistakes, and this is true. However, we are considering these matchups under the thought that they will be played at the top level of play, where mistakes like this are NOT made. At upper levels of play, there will be mistakes, but they will not be so monumental as to turn the tide of the matchup. If someone does make a big enough of a mistake to lose the matchup, they are not playing at a top level of play.

When we discuss unwinnable matchups, we're assuming that the players playing are at this top level of play. Thus, they will not make monumental mistakes, otherwise they would not be top level players.

Even at high levels of play players can make huge mistakes that cost them a game.

In the video above M2K made a huge mistake that cost him a stock, putting him at a huge disadvantage in which he couldn't come back from.

What I'm saying is this.

If match-ups were played perfectly, no one would take any damage in any non neutral match-up. Thus it is about making mistakes and capitalizing upon them.

We are all human, even the top players can make grave mistakes, the match-up is impossible on a perfect player, we aren't perfect players.

 

[LinIsKorean]

When people make big enough mistakes that would cost them the match, they are NOT playing at top levels of play. Am I saying M2K is not a top player? No, but when he makes a big enough mistake that it puts him at a monumental disadvantage, he is not playing at a top level of play.

Again, I'm not saying matchups are supposed to be played perfectly. There WILL be mistakes made. However, if these mistakes are so great that they cost the player the game, they are not playing at a top level of play during that match. It doesn't matter who it is, if it was Azen, M2K, or even Ally that made this large mistake, they were not playing at a top level of play during that match.

In the example you mentioned, M2K was not playing at a top level of play during those first seconds of the match. In top levels of play, the mistakes are equal in proportion by both players, if one makes a monumental mistake while the other does not, it is not top level play.

 

[RDK]

Before this debate goes any further, "top level of play" needs to be specifically defined in order to prevent the kind of misinterpretations we're having here. You're both arguing two completely different terms.

 

[Yuna]

On a side note, I don't think you can really measure how balanced a game is compared to another, at least when the characters and movesets are this diverse.

All this means is that it takes a lot more work and comparing.

I've never seen a Pro Metaknight get gimped by a Diddy within ten seconds of the match either.

Freak accidents happen.

Every match-up is winnable, the chances are very slim in each scenario.

So you think that, say, C018's D3 could randomly just suicide twice and just screw up the infinite every single time he tries it and allow Bum's DK to just **** the hell out of him for the last stock and lose?

But you see, matches where one side is just making monumental mistakes do not count. Those are just matches where one player sucked, either because they suck or because of a brain freeze.

And by this logic, nothing is ever impossible in Competitive gaming as long as it can be done.

I mean, I guess losing your 2nd jump as Wario and then getting grabbed doesn't mean you're dead. The opponent could just screw up the grab release infinite or choose not to do it. Getting whacked without jumps with a semi-spike pretty far from the stage does not mean you're dead either. The opponent could follow you and hit you towards the stage because they feel like it! Up B:ing as Marth three Marios away from the stage can work! If your opponent attacks you so you get your Up B back.

Up B:ing into the edge of FD as most characters does not mean you are dead! If your opponent jumps off and gives you a whack (and you tech it if you get stagespiked)! Getting grabbed by D3 does not mean a loss of a stock (almost) if your character can get infinited! Because he could screw up the infinite!

Combos are not guaranteed at all! You could screw up the timing! When on the last stock, if you suicide, you might not lose the match... if there's a blackout before you die!

After reading the last 2 pages it seems like a whole lot of stupid, and then you've got Yuna explaining why it's stupid, then you have stupid people not understanding they are stupid. Man wacky stuff.

You must be new here. This is pretty much what every thread on SWF is like nowadays.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Random Diddy note:

If you let the person grab release from the side-B hump and they DI in then you can footstool them. Most MK players make this mistake because they like to chase people down with D-air/F-air/N-air, all of which can get Diddy humped fairly easily. The second mistake is that most MK's don't know about the footstool, so they (stupidly) DI toward Diddy after the grab release hoping to punish with an air attack.

To call an MK player who goes off the stage to try and gimp Diddy as making is mistake would be unwise though. The MK player SHOULD follow Diddy-and should also suspect the Side-B. It is a risk-reward scenario pretty much, where the Diddy player is at a disadvantage (but, unlike many characters, can actually DO something to MK if he tries to intercept).

Oddly enough Diddy (I think) also gets his Side-B back after a grab release Side-B footstool, though I'm not 100% positive here (I need to do tests/stuff, for some reason I've gotten to Side-B twice without having been hit and I haven't figured out why, but I think it is from grab release side-b).

 

[1048576]

How is this hard to understand? You have two players of equal skill. You can suppose each player has a 50-50 shot of outsmarting the other one in a given time interval.

 

[LinIsKorean]

Before this debate goes any further, "top level of play" needs to be specifically defined in order to prevent the kind of misinterpretations we're having here. You're both arguing two completely different terms.

Yes, I realized this and I mentioned the definition most people are talking about.

I see why some people are getting confused though. It becomes based on what you see as the prerequisites for the unwinnable matchup. Some people assume that it is possible to win if your opponent makes large enough mistakes, and this is true. However, we are considering these matchups under the thought that they will be played at the top level of play, where mistakes like this are NOT made. At upper levels of play, there will be mistakes, but they will not be so monumental as to turn the tide of the matchup. If someone does make a big enough of a mistake to lose the matchup, they are not playing at a top level of play.

When we discuss unwinnable matchups, we're assuming that the players playing are at this top level of play. Thus, they will not make monumental mistakes, otherwise they would not be top level players.

And @ Yuna true I suppose, but I still find it hard to quantify how much "balance" is in a game. (At least ones where characters have different movesets and such.)

 

[CRASHiC]

After reading the last 2 pages it seems like a whole lot of stupid, and then you've got Yuna explaining why it's stupid, then you have stupid people not understanding they are stupid. Man wacky stuff.

In all seriousness though, how could people try to argue that there are not match ups that can't be won. There are, this game isn't balanced that well, especially after tactics discoveries that have been made. In all fairness though melee has some match ups like that as well, Sheik against half the cast is basically unwinnable at high levels of play. What made that game more balanced than this game is that you had 4/5 characters that were all amazing and could beat everyone including themselves with no true counters while taking a great deal of skill. In Brawl you have only 1 character like this, its basically like Sheik in melee if she was the only character who could L cancel. After that you have another 4 or 5 characters who do have counters and are pretty good, I personally prefer melee because then I can stay 1 character throughout the tournament and if I know my match ups I can feel like i'm playing on an even keel vs everyone, with the only aspect being skill not which character they picked.

This post is so fuddled, I can't tell if you think it is more or less balanced. One one side, you say sheik ***** half the cast and only 4 to 5 charecters are tourney worthy.
But then you say that only 1 on Brawl is, but then turn it around and say that the game can be won by counter picking.
The fact is that there are more tourney worthy characters in brawl. Thus making the game more balanced.

 

[Yuna]

And @ Yuna true I suppose, but I still find it hard to quantify how much "balance" is in a game. (At least ones where characters have different movesets and such.)

You do this by looking at the character.

In Brawl, how wide is the gap between the tiers and the characters (every single one of them), from top to bottom and from best to 2nd best to 3rd best, etc. Then do the same for Melee.

The game where the gap is smaller is the more balanced one.

 

[Amarkov]

This post is so fuddled, I can't tell if you think it is more or less balanced. One one side, you say sheik ***** half the cast and only 4 to 5 charecters are tourney worthy.
But then you say that only 1 on Brawl is, but then turn it around and say that the game can be won by counter picking.
The fact is that there are more tourney worthy characters in brawl. Thus making the game more balanced.

I can invent a game where every character is tournament worthy. Just give every character a 0-death combo against one other character. Now every character is viable as a counterpick, so the game must be balanced. Right?

 

[Huber]

I can invent a game where every character is tournament worthy. Just give every character a 0-death combo against one other character. Now every character is viable as a counterpick, so the game must be balanced. Right?

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

IMO that is one of the most balanced fighting games in existance. Anyone who plays it would probably agree.

 

[Banee]

I can invent a game where every character is tournament worthy. Just give every character a 0-death combo against one other character. Now every character is viable as a counterpick, so the game must be balanced. Right?

Well yes, the game would be perfectly balanced. However, the game would be uninteresting (bad) competitively. A game can be balanced and still be a bad game.

 

[thesage]

I can invent a game where every character is tournament worthy. Just give every character a 0-death combo against one other character. Now every character is viable as a counterpick, so the game must be balanced. Right?

Smash 64 is the most balanced game ever.

 

[Deathcarter]

You do this by looking at the character.

In Brawl, how wide is the gap between the tiers and the characters (every single one of them), from top to bottom and from best to 2nd best to 3rd best, etc. Then do the same for Melee.

The game where the gap is smaller is the more balanced one.

Then the argument that Brawl is young actually has some merit. Although Brawl's gameplay has stalled, we still have not ironed out the matchups and the tier list is a complete mess.

Still, the gaps between the tiers are about the same for each game:
- They both have about 4 characters capable of domination (Fox, Falco, Shiek, and Marth vs. MK, Snake, DDD, and Falco). Don't make a big deal about DDD and Falco being in the same grouping as Meta. Those 2 dominate everyone else better than Meta does and they can compete on an almost equal footing with him as well. 15.3% vs. 10.8%

-Then Brawl has the advantage here since Melee has 4 characters (Peach, CF, IC, and Jiggly) who are clearly good enough to compete (though not able to win consistently) while Brawl has Marth, R.O.B., G&W, Wario, Olimar, Diddy, Pikachu (?), and Lucario (?) to fill that role. 15.3% vs. 21.6%

-Melee turns the tables since their next tier, the one that holds the characters that could place, but never win, is about the same length as Brawl's (Dr.Mario, Ganon, DK, Samus, Luigi, and Mario vs. DK, Kirby, Wolf, Ice Climbers, Peach, Pit, Toon Link, and Zero Suit Samus). Melee wins here since this tier actually does slightly better against their top tier than Brawl's does. 23% vs. 21.6%

-Next is Roy, Link, Pikachu, Young Link, Zelda, & G&W vs. Zelda, Fox, Bowser, Luigi, Shiek, Sonic, Ike, and Mario (?). 23% vs 21.6 %

-Finally for unplayable tier, it is Ness, Yoshi, Bowser, Kirby, Pichu, and Mewtwo vs. Ness, Lucas, Samus, Yoshi, Pokemon Trainer, Jigglypuff, Ganon, Link, and Falcon. 23% vs. 24.3%


I honestly think they are about equal in balance, which is not much at all.