Just pick a top tier.

[SmashChu]

This will be my last post regarding this matter, considering that you are just repeating yourself, and have long ago stopped providing any interesting or meaningful argument.

Projection

Also, it wont be your last post because I conned you into doing this before. I could just do it again.

Oh please, you can just shove it You made a huge analysis of my experience based on NOTHING but the date upon which I entered Smashboards.

No, it's that I'm smart and your not. Here is what I did.

Brawl came out in March of 08 and was planned for December of 07. This means you were one of the many users who joined here during the Brawl rush/ New game will often mean new users, ones who may not have graced here before. This means that you on;y know Brawl, not Melee. And since you've been here for a short time, you don't know what you are talking about, just repeating the doctrine. Your post reflect this.

You. Sir. Are. An. Ignoramus. Please repeat as often as necessary to ingrain this message into your skull. There are different types of skills. To say that the skill necessary to be able to beat someone on a stage in which someone has no familiarity and turtles spontaneously ram you up the butt is the same skill necessary to beat someone with no items on in a neutral stage doesn't even make any sense.

Your argument was there was no skill, now we have different types of skill?
They should know the stage. It is in the game
They can use the turtles to attack foes. They should know that too.
If they were better, why did he/she lose.

I never said it was the same skill. You inferred that. But, using the stage to your advantage is skill.
A skill is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both.
He used his skills to beat his opponent. He knew the stage and what to do, and he won. it was skillful. But now you want to camp them rather then admit that you lack this nessisary skill (and instead play without it an call yourself good.)

It is the same thing as saying that because I am skillful at poker, makes sense that I should be able to own you at DDR. The status "skillful" only applies to the context of which it was earned in, no more.

I'm a little lost on what this is responding to, but I assume it's this.
It Makes you good with items.
Items take skill
Therefore, the item user is skillful. It's just none of you can use them. If items were on, the balance of Smash would falter. CPU won Evo because he knew them better then Marth.
The example is flat out wrong. Items are in Smash and are a part of Smash Bros. They are even part of the balancing possess. Poker and DDR are two different events. They are obviously different skills independent of each other. Items are a part of Smash Bros, so if you lose when items are on then you are not that skillful in Smash because items are part of the game.

Lol, do not pull that "inability to change" crap on me. What I posted was simply my preference. It is the same god****ed preference that you have to play with items, with no flexibility towards playing without. It is a choice. YOU have the ability to host item tournaments. Go out and do it if you care so much. If it really is a better format, people will catch on and start hosting their own. What will not help is playing random competitive players with items on and lol'ing at them about how much they suck universally at all things, because apparently skill is that easily transferable.

I will continue to pull that line because you are unable to change. You don't understand items, but assume they are bad because Smashboards tells you they are. Again, you've only been here a short while, making me believe you have not come to these conclusions by yourself but because the forum told you. Not to mention, your post bleeds of personal anger over items.

Other fighting games do not outright ban stuff. Marvel vs Capcom 2 is broken but allows everything. Most fighting games are holistic, but Smash is exclusive. How then, can competitive players say they are good at Smash when they play exclusivly. The Lucario example proves why they are not good. They can not play holistically. The minute they step out of their ridged metagame do they become a deer in the headlights. They do not know what to do. But they are the best. BUT THEY LOSE. It's inconsistency gone mad.

Never get so set in your way, you can not change.

 

[Laos Oman]

Brawl came out in March of 08 and was planned for December of 07. This means you were one of the many users who joined here during the Brawl rush/ New game will often mean new users, ones who may not have graced here before. This means that you on;y know Brawl, not Melee. And since you've been here for a short time, you don't know what you are talking about, just repeating the doctrine. Your post reflect this.

First of all, Brawl and Melee are different games entirely. One needn't know one to be capable in the other.
Secondly, join date doesn't reflect on ability to form one's own opinion. Look at my join date. Now get this: I fully support the ISP project, I prefer Ivysaur over Squirtle/Charizard and my favourite stage is Distant Planet.

Your argument was there was no skill, now we have different types of skill?
They should know the stage. It is in the game
They can use the turtles to attack foes. They should know that too.
If they were better, why did he/she lose.

Know what else is in the game? Stage selection. So that you don't have to play stages like Mario Bros. - they're fun, and I often play them casually, but they simply don't measure the skill that competitive play aims to measure.

I never said it was the same skill. You inferred that. But, using the stage to your advantage is skill.
A skill is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both.
He used his skills to beat his opponent. He knew the stage and what to do, and he won. it was skillful. But now you want to camp them rather then admit that you lack this nessisary skill (and instead play without it an call yourself good.)

Valid point, but again, it's a different kind of skill, and just not the kind competitive play wants to compete in.

I'm a little lost on what this is responding to, but I assume it's this.
It Makes you good with items.
Items take skill
Therefore, the item user is skillful. It's just none of you can use them. If items were on, the balance of Smash would falter. CPU won Evo because he knew them better then Marth.
The example is flat out wrong. Items are in Smash and are a part of Smash Bros. They are even part of the balancing possess. Poker and DDR are two different events. They are obviously different skills independent of each other. Items are a part of Smash Bros, so if you lose when items are on then you are not that skillful in Smash because items are part of the game.

Know what else is part of the game? Item switch. Yadda yadda different skill.

Other fighting games do not outright ban stuff. Marvel vs Capcom 2 is broken but allows everything. Most fighting games are holistic, but Smash is exclusive. How then, can competitive players say they are good at Smash when they play exclusivly. The Lucario example proves why they are not good. They can not play holistically. The minute they step out of their ridged metagame do they become a deer in the headlights. They do not know what to do. But they are the best. BUT THEY LOSE. It's inconsistency gone mad.

Well, yeah. They are the best under certain rules. If you change the rules, they're going to lose. That doesn't invalidate their best-ness (I know it's not a word) under the rules they're used to.

 

[Untouch]

"Seriously, why would you bother playing a lower tier character? "

This is super smash brothers not super smash meta knights.

 

[SmashChu]

First of all, Brawl and Melee are different games entirely. One needn't know one to be capable in the other.
Secondly, join date doesn't reflect on ability to form one's own opinion. Look at my join date. Now get this: I fully support the ISP project, I prefer Ivysaur over Squirtle/Charizard and my favourite stage is Distant Planet.

It does when his post reflect ignorance of not being here a while. Although, it's not the time, it's that he wasn't here during Melee.

Know what else is in the game? Stage selection. So that you don't have to play stages like Mario Bros. - they're fun, and I often play them casually, but they simply don't measure the skill that competitive play aims to measure.

It still takes skill, so there is skill being ignored. Thus, the point still stands.

Valid point, but again, it's a different kind of skill, and just not the kind competitive play wants to compete in.

Still skill though. We are getting into cherry picking skills? It's still not holistic.

Well, yeah. They are the best under certain rules. If you change the rules, they're going to lose. That doesn't invalidate their best-ness (I know it's not a word) under the rules they're used to.

So, they are not THE best.

What annoys me about competitive Smash is they shoehorn everything. Rather then actually test tings, they say "No no, this won't do," and tend to give a scenario of why it's bad. It Melee, items were off because a Bom-omb could fall in front of your attack. Well, now you can turn off explosive creates. But, nope, they still keep items off. Just change bomb to glide toss and it is the same thing.

It's really that they don't try to adapt and just play in a bottle neck and call themselves the best despite they suck when any other rule is changed (despite it is default settings). If it's a game of skill, to be good at Brawl, then why is competitive Brawl only concerned with 25% of the game?

 

[Prawn]

There is an item standard ruleset, instead of *****ing about it go hold your own tournament and change our minds. The fact still stands that the smash community does NOT accept the idea of items whatsoever, since SSB64. If you're looking to change it then do something instead of *****ing on an internet forum.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Or at least ***** in your own thread ^_^. This is so off topic it's ridiculous.

 

[stingers]

No it's not!

 

[Prawn]

furrealz.

10furrealz.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

No it's not!

Pff, you just want to keep reading the tears, butthurt, and stupidity. Oh wait, that's why I'm still subscribed too.

I retract my statement.

 

[unsung-unit2291]

It does when his post reflect ignorance of not being here a while. Although, it's not the time, it's that he wasn't here during Melee.


It still takes skill, so there is skill being ignored. Thus, the point still stands.


Still skill though. We are getting into cherry picking skills? It's still not holistic.


So, they are not THE best.

What annoys me about competitive Smash is they shoehorn everything. Rather then actually test tings, they say "No no, this won't do," and tend to give a scenario of why it's bad. It Melee, items were off because a Bom-omb could fall in front of your attack. Well, now you can turn off explosive creates. But, nope, they still keep items off. Just change bomb to glide toss and it is the same thing.

It's really that they don't try to adapt and just play in a bottle neck and call themselves the best despite they suck when any other rule is changed (despite it is default settings). If it's a game of skill, to be good at Brawl, then why is competitive Brawl only concerned with 25% of the game?

Most people label games competitively by relation of the amount of skill needed to do well in a competitive scene; that thirst to be better is motivation for a lot the reason people get into it.

In a skill based game, people pit there abilities agents one another to see who is better. In this type of situation, people want luck to be non-existent; luck based factors can allow an otherwise worse player to win.

The sheer fact that items appear at random locations, and some being stronger than others, is a combination of factors that would otherwise put a luck-based spin on a game that the players that take the game seriously would want to avoid.

 

[SmashChu]

Or at least ***** in your own thread ^_^. This is so off topic it's ridiculous.

All topics go off topic. It's rare for a thread to stay completely on topic. Conversations tend to take turns.

Most people label games competitively by relation of the amount of skill needed to do well in a competitive scene; that thirst to be better is motivation for a lot the reason people get into it.

In a skill based game, people pit there abilities agents one another to see who is better. In this type of situation, people want luck to be non-existent; luck based factors can allow an otherwise worse player to win.

The sheer fact that items appear at random locations, and some being stronger than others, is a combination of factors that would otherwise put a luck-based spin on a game that the players that take the game seriously would want to avoid.

Poker is played competitively. Poker is a luck based game. So, no, in a skill based game, luck can be a major factor. Football has a coin flip to see who plays first, which could effect the outcome of the game. Again, luck based factor in a competitive game. So no, it's not an attribute of a skill based game.

 

[Prawn]

Thanks for not addressing the points of my post :O

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Conversations that tend to take turns tend to get locked. I'm pretty sure the only reason this one hasn't is because no one took Stingers seriously to begin with.

Also. You are clearly f*cking terrible at Poker if you think it's luck based.

 

[Holty]

SmashChu, Poker is approximately 80% skill and 20% luck. The best poker players are those who can analyze their environment and draw conclusions based on the strength of their hand, pot odds, knowledge of his/her opponents and their betting habits and when to bluff/push a pot. Ever heard of professional Poker players? Yeah, some win tournaments over, over and over again - you're telling me that's completely luck based?

There's a reasons items aren't activated in offical tournaments; they can make a scrub beat a very experienced player. I'm not gonna return to this thread. Feel free to reply and act as if your opinion is 100% correct over practically everybody else's in the Smash community.

EDIT: Don't conclude that your opinion is correct simply due to your longer subscription on here. I signed up a few months ago. I've played since SSB64. So just don't.

/PlzLockDisThread

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

EDIT: Don't conclude that your opinion is correct simply due to your longer subscription on here. I signed up a few months ago. I've played since SSB64. So just don't.

But clearly because you joined late in the game, you are poorly informed, have no real idea how to play either of the previous games, and are mentally controlled by the hivemind of Smash Boards' elitist, unskilled players.



Omg this thread makes me lol so much you have no idea.

 

[Mit]

Smash Bros. is a party game. It isn't even a fighting game.

You know what the "competitive Smash" scene has done to said party game? Tried their hardest to turn it into a fighting game, because we can get more fun out of it that way. Fighting games are fun to play. You can sink hours into training, and hours into sparring with opponents to increase your skill.

However, SmashChu appears to be trying to argue that a party game is indeed a real fighting game. I think you need to talk to more fighting game communities. Most probably don't even know the extent at which competitive rules change the game. Why? Because they instantly dismiss the game because it's not a fighting game to them, it's a party game.

And they're right. It is. The competitive community changes things up though to leave the basic template of a typical fighting game, and it works out well enough to have more than a few gigantic online communities supporting the competitive scene, and consistently hold tournaments and keep the scene alive worldwide.


None of that would exist if the game were played with everything turned on. Yes, there would be tons of new elements like more stages and items. Except it wouldn't be as fun. No one would get serious about it. It would only take a few times 'losing because the hammer spawned right next to your opponent instead of you, and you lose because of it' before most players would quit. Or they get tired of playing an entirely different game within their game (Mario Bros. level). It's a party game, and not a fighting game, and party games are not fun to play at the same level as a competitive fighting game.

When Brawl came out me and a group of friends played with items and all stages for months before we got tired of it. Then we started turning it all off and playing competitively, and now that same Wii has played over 50,000 Smash Bros. matches.

 

[Laos Oman]

Poker is played competitively. Poker is a luck based game. So, no, in a skill based game, luck can be a major factor. Football has a coin flip to see who plays first, which could effect the outcome of the game. Again, luck based factor in a competitive game. So no, it's not an attribute of a skill based game.

In poker, the skill exists in making the most of your luck. You could receive a 2-6 and still get a straight, but the better option would be to fold and wait for better cards. Making such trade-offs concerning risk and reward is where the skill in poker lays.

In Brawl, many items don't reflect that. If a Superspicy Curry spawns in front of you, you have little reason not to pick it up - besides forcing you to run, there is no penalty. For more information, check out the Item Standard Play thread.

 

[SmashChu]

SmashChu, Poker is approximately 80% skill and 20% luck. The best poker players are those who can analyze their environment and draw conclusions based on the strength of their hand, pot odds, knowledge of his/her opponents and their betting habits and when to bluff/push a pot. Ever heard of professional Poker players? Yeah, some win tournaments over, over and over again - you're telling me that's completely luck based?

Poker, like all card games and all gambling games, is one of luck. Is there skill involved, yes. This is why there are better players, but luck is ultimately the barrier that can hold you back. Despite being a better player, you can get dealt bad hands all night and the river an turn against you. All you can do is try to make the most of it, and that's what poker players do. Fold bad hands, get others to fold,

There's a reasons items aren't activated in offical tournaments; they can make a scrub beat a very experienced player. I'm not gonna return to this thread. Feel free to reply and act as if your opinion is 100% correct over practically everybody else's in the Smash community.

No no no no. You have it all wrong.

First, you assume that items are all luck. They are not. Where they spawn is, but nothing else is random. Just like what you said in poker, players are playing though the luck. Items also tend to spawn near the losing player, so even if someone is getting stomped, by items, they can get one. But the opposing player can put pressure to get his items. The defending player can try to put up good defense until they can snag the item. There is a lot of choices, ones that try to get though the luck.

Poker is entirely luck based. All skill is trying to get though the luck, but it will ultimately hold even the best player back. The only thing random about Smash is the fact items spawn.

Everyone tend to call someone who wins with items a "scrub." I call them a better player. They used the items better. My porblem with competitive Smash is still the same "Say were are the best but play with a rule set where we don't have to worry about things we can't beat." People give 1001 reasons why items are bad, but after the Meta-Knight debates, I can see it's just to avoid things you can not deal with.

EDIT: Don't conclude that your opinion is correct simply due to your longer subscription on here. I signed up a few months ago. I've played since SSB64. So just don't.

I explained how I used join dates as a means of ignorance. I explained it a few pages back.

In poker, the skill exists in making the most of your luck. You could receive a 2-6 and still get a straight, but the better option would be to fold and wait for better cards. Making such trade-offs concerning risk and reward is where the skill in poker lays.

And I would agree.

In Brawl, many items don't reflect that. If a Superspicy Curry spawns in front of you, you have little reason not to pick it up - besides forcing you to run, there is no penalty. For more information, check out the Item Standard Play thread.

Not most, but a select few. I'd agree the Curry is, but many others are not. The dragoon is dodgable. FSs are dodgeable. Hack, you can even beat down someone with an assist trophy. Despite what I have said, yes, not every item should be one like not every stage should be on (although most of them should).

 

[Zip.]

Has this vid been shown yet? LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGh4ZU4H5Hk

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Guys stop, you're hurting me. Poker is not luck based. Good players DO NOT PLAY BAD HANDS. It is entirely upon how you play your good hands.

It's also up to reading your opponents to see what exactly is the borderline for "good/bad" hand. And if people play here like I think they do, which is aggressively, you can usually call on them every time since they're likely just chasing and will probably die with a King high at the river.

 

[TheZizz]

Even though this topic should have nothing to do with items I am compelled to interject that hammers are NOT = instant GG

 

[SmashChu]

Guys stop, you're hurting me. Poker is not luck based. Good players DO NOT PLAY BAD HANDS. It is entirely upon how you play your good hands.

It's also up to reading your opponents to see what exactly is the borderline for "good/bad" hand. And if people play here like I think they do, which is aggressively, you can usually call on them every time since they're likely just chasing and will probably die with a King high at the river.

Have you ever played poker?

It doesn't matter how good you are if your opponent gets pocket aces all night. You'll lose. The worse play can win on luck alone. You can also get bad hands all night. You can fold bad hands, but when the blinds are raising, you'll have to play a hand eventually. And even when you have a good hand, you can lose to a better hand. Example: I hade an A/10 off. My friend had a 2/3 suited. He played it and won with a pair of threes. At the turn, I had a much better hand, but the river was against me.

Team Fortress 2 has crits and is still a competitive skill based game.
World of Warcraft has many luck based factors, but it is still competitive.

Smash has spawning items. Wow.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

World of Warcraft isn't even a good example, lol. It is pretty terribly broken right now. Warlocks pulling Smash Balls and critting with Conflagrate + Chaos Bolt = instawin.

You clearly do not play Poker enough, because these types of inconsistencies do not happen over a long period of time. Lol, please, go whine about someone's join date some more. Probably wimped out after one night of bad hands.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This is still going on?

The only time I question who I play is when the MU is terrible, 30:70 or worse, or I'm playing doubles where people don't want me playing certain characters for whatever reason.

 

[Swordplay]

Although I was not a member of this forum at the time, there was a time in smash history where people debated whether items could be tourney legal as much as people debated meta knight. In creating the competitive smash scene, we decided not to take the items route but it could have gone the other way. There were some really good reasons as to why items could be used in competitive play.

Look up Item standard play if you don't believe me. The system works.

==================================================

I've had a reputation for maining nad picked ONLY low tier characters.

My main is Link of course and he has plenty of hard matchups. Some people choose to pick one character to rule them all. I went a diffrent route. I choose to utilize the counterpick matchup system and low tier surprises.

Play 5-6 low tier characters in order to cover most of your bad matchups the same way 1-2 high tier characters would. It is a lot more work can be worth it. Picking a low tier character has often given me the surprise benefit in the 1st round and its true that this is only a one trick pony. But I have 4-5 other characters to select from when I go to counter picking. And these characters are either close to even or have an advantage allowing me to take advantage of lock of matchup knowledge. The system works for me and I do well in tourney's, I use to test playing top/high characters and focusing on them and I don't see any significant difference in how I do.

===============

I really didn't see anybody in this thread bashing any top players with poor mains that win. It's because they were successful. The difference between crazy and genius will always be success. Bottom line is that if your winning good job. If your loosing. Change it up and find something that works. You can do anything you want. It's just a ****ing game.

/rant and hopefully /thread

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Sigh, the item argument had to be revived. I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that Item Standard play is in existence, it's nothing new, just that "some" people were arguing about the relevance that item play has to one's ability at the game in general.

If the 5-6 characters thing works for you, then whatever lol. You have the right idea though, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to pick characters, because everyone wants something different from this game.

 

[Timic83]

tf2 can have crits and random damage turned off

 

[Shadic]

Maining Link is like trying to choosing to race with one leg. Sure, you can do it competitively if you're dedicated enough. But if you want to win above all else, get a friggin' race car that does most of the work for you. (Hai MK)

 

[Holty]

Maining Link is like trying to choosing to race with one leg. Sure, you can do it competitively if you're dedicated enough. But if you want to win above all else, get a friggin' race car that does most of the work for you. (Hai MK)

What's your main reason(s) for maining Link then? Just curious.

 

[Shadic]

I don't play Brawl any more. Link is viable enough in Smash64, Melee, and B+. (Especially the first and the last.)

And Metaknight and DK are my best characters in regular Brawl. Metaknight should be obvious, and DK is fun. If I need to win, the choice is obvious.

I don't like Snake. Grenade camping and broken tilts are boring.

 

[TechnoDreamer]

I could not go win millions of dollars in poker stars. Poker has elements of randominity, but the chances that I will get nothing but dominating hands are so low that my ignorance of tactics in the game would cause me to lose nonstop. Based on probability theory it's obvious to say that if two players played an infinite number of games, the better one would certainly win more money.

 

[-Ran]

Team Fortress 2 has crits and is still a competitive skill based game.
.

TF2 crits are disabled for competitive play.

 

[Atlus8]

Just pick Mag-f***en-neto!

 

[Big-Cat]

Just pick Mag-f***en-neto!

You forgot Storm and Sentinel.

 

[Swordplay]

Cable too.....

Seriously MVC was all marv

(needs tatsunoko vs capcom already)

 

[phi1ny3]

Eeewwwww, rusty ROB disease, the result of all the 08 ROBs going MK because their character was overrated to begin with

At least the rest of high B-low A have been doing relatively well

*razzberry*

Aside from my rude gesture, the people mentioning that not everyone can play a top tier character is pretty true. I will say however that most of these characters embody quintessential elements that are strong aspects, and I also believe these are relatively easy to pick up on and are more universally understood by anyone who's good enough to pick up on the core of this game.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

I don't play Brawl any more. Link is viable enough in Smash64, Melee, and B+. (Especially the first and the last.)

And Metaknight and DK are my best characters in regular Brawl. Metaknight should be obvious, and DK is fun. If I need to win, the choice is obvious.

I don't like Snake. Grenade camping and broken tilts are boring.

Link is pretty much in the same place in the tier list in every game he's in. Link is more "viable" in 64 because in all likelihood, you won't be facing people who've got 0->deaths down (or in Link's case, Bthrow him off the stage with any character at 0% and lol at his recovery).

I could not go win millions of dollars in poker stars. Poker has elements of randominity, but the chances that I will get nothing but dominating hands are so low that my ignorance of tactics in the game would cause me to lose nonstop. Based on probability theory it's obvious to say that if two players played an infinite number of games, the better one would certainly win more money.

Infinite number of games? The difference between skill usually shows itself within one tournament game, at most two if you've got astronomically bad luck.

 

[Bad!]

i play teh low tiers cause they are my fav chars

 

[Furbs]

With forward from Sanford Kelly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGh4ZU4H5Hk

Seriously, why would you bother playing a lower tier character? You're not gonna win. You're into competitive smash bros; if you're not the best then you're just wasting your time. I mean sure, we all have our low tier secondaries...for ****s and giggles in drunk friendlies at 3 AM, or for a $2 entry low tier side event, but why waste your time playing them seriously? Even if you win your locals, do you really think you can go out and win a large tournament with them? Don't be delusional...

There are "exceptions." #1 on the NY Power Rankings: an Ike named San (unrelated to Sanford Kelly above (note that NYC isn't included on the NY Power Rankings)). He beats good players like Jesiah and PikaPika on a what I understand to be consistent enough basis to be ranked #1 in the state, so I'll assume he's really good. But at the end of the day, no matter how well he does with Ike in New York, why bother? There's no reason to use Ike over MK or Snake. When he goes national, what happens? Hell, regional even. I'd be willing to bet that the top 5 in NYC could beat San, but that remains to be seen. If San goes and destroys Anti and Shadow and Ninjalink and Snakeee and Jash, you can quote me and make me look like an idiot. Of course it's nothing against San as a player, but the fact he uses a low tier just destroys it for him.

Unless you can beat everyone in the entire world with your low tier character, it's just pointless. Being the best low tier main means nothing if you're not actually winning tournaments. It's cool that Reflex has the best Pokemon Trainer and Ray Kalm has the best Ganondorf, but they still don't win. They're not exactly in the strongest regions, either.



The same thing applies to all low tiers. Just stop it, pick up MK or Snake or Falco or Diddy or someone that wins tournaments and just enjoy your tournament winnings.

I'm sorry, who are you?

let people play the game they want to, isn't that just better for you?

 

[Shadic]

Link is pretty much in the same place in the tier list in every game he's in. Link is more "viable" in 64 because in all likelihood, you won't be facing people who've got 0->deaths down (or in Link's case, Bthrow him off the stage with any character at 0% and lol at his recovery).

Link is more viable in Smash64 because of the game mechanics. A top Link player in Smash64 CAN beat a Pikachu, Fox, or a Kirby of equal skill. This is not the case in Brawl.

And he's mid-tier(ish) in Melee.