wow thats sounds interesting...im assuming characters can move sideways as well..
but could you imagine how looonggg crew battles would be if this was used
-
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!
LFM/LFC somebody set us up the gong, MK is not a dirty word
- Thread starter isthattim?
- Start date
wow thats sounds interesting...im assuming characters can move sideways as well..
but could you imagine how looonggg crew battles would be if this was used
I LAG
Smash Lord
i dont like this game they should make mk atleast move 2 spaces n the max movement should be like 5 otherwise mk is going to get gang ***** in 1 turn by 3 captain falcons. and i dont think the items are a good idea. But very interesting game would be great for 10vs10 crews
S.D
Smash Master
Yeah my MK beat 3 Falcons at a hunter meet.
Low tier mains would destroy this form of crews. Imagine Meteor's Ness moving 8 spaces at will
Low tier mains would destroy this form of crews. Imagine Meteor's Ness moving 8 spaces at will
tedeth
Smash Master
Oh man our crew would **** with this system
I think it would be fun but maybe not the best for competition. At least not without ALOT of trial and error beforehand.
I think it would be fun but maybe not the best for competition. At least not without ALOT of trial and error beforehand.
SummonerAU
Smash Lord
tedeth
Smash Master
It wouldn't be too bad if you think about it strategically. Yes you would leave you higher tiers exposed BUT if you kept say a mid tier character back with the high tier they would be fine and wouldn't be ganged up on as badly.
Toby.
Smash Master
The mario death squad would do well with this system.
3 marios fireball spamming at once...delicious.
3 marios fireball spamming at once...delicious.
AdmiralComrade
Smash Journeyman
lol now in edition to ur crew 1 member must be able to play extreme smashboards chess =P but.. cant u like camp squares and make sure ur all together and stuff? hmm
well the flaw in this in camping squares. theres no explination about that, then it becomes a chess game ftw whoever can strategise the best with chess peices get the upper hand and low teirs can just run the whole board w/o a SS teir like metaknight being able to chase them ie. metaknight wont play any matches????? which defeats the purpose of 3 and 4 not playing
BESIDES does it matter if 3 and 4 doesnt play? i mean.. all in all ur all aiming for the 1 goal, to win.
Edit:
Further on the metaknight/ high tiers. they WONT be able to compete with these, they will be force to sub into a low tier until theres sumhow a guy in the corner and they are 1 step away.. but thats just stupid.. most players would avoid the MK player and only attack if they subbed a lower tier. ie the person who mained snake or MK etc would never play their main??
and he didnt really explain what happens when u play a match.. i mean if u finish playing a match can an opponent then move towards ur square and then play a 2v1 (ie easy 2v1 set up after baiting the opponent for 1v1) soo engaging 1v1 would be a bad idea if a team sticks near to eachother. so in a nutshell they'll just play a replica of the "cold war" whos confident enough to play a 1v1 and win enough stocks to render the 2v1 useless for the opponent (which will end up with a 2v2 i guess...so if say 1v1 the challenger takes off X stocks. 2v1 would have higher side favoring the 2*v1 side. unless ur FTS' DK vs Snake + DDD on jungle japes... then u will move on the 2v2. this will end up to the stronger side...soo overall ... gah cbf thinking atm...=P its late)
what happens if u lose all 5 stocks? does it matter?
Ganging on the weaker members on the team??
i need answers!!!
well the flaw in this in camping squares. theres no explination about that, then it becomes a chess game ftw whoever can strategise the best with chess peices get the upper hand and low teirs can just run the whole board w/o a SS teir like metaknight being able to chase them ie. metaknight wont play any matches????? which defeats the purpose of 3 and 4 not playing
BESIDES does it matter if 3 and 4 doesnt play? i mean.. all in all ur all aiming for the 1 goal, to win.
Edit:
Further on the metaknight/ high tiers. they WONT be able to compete with these, they will be force to sub into a low tier until theres sumhow a guy in the corner and they are 1 step away.. but thats just stupid.. most players would avoid the MK player and only attack if they subbed a lower tier. ie the person who mained snake or MK etc would never play their main??
and he didnt really explain what happens when u play a match.. i mean if u finish playing a match can an opponent then move towards ur square and then play a 2v1 (ie easy 2v1 set up after baiting the opponent for 1v1) soo engaging 1v1 would be a bad idea if a team sticks near to eachother. so in a nutshell they'll just play a replica of the "cold war" whos confident enough to play a 1v1 and win enough stocks to render the 2v1 useless for the opponent (which will end up with a 2v2 i guess...so if say 1v1 the challenger takes off X stocks. 2v1 would have higher side favoring the 2*v1 side. unless ur FTS' DK vs Snake + DDD on jungle japes... then u will move on the 2v2. this will end up to the stronger side...soo overall ... gah cbf thinking atm...=P its late)
what happens if u lose all 5 stocks? does it matter?
Ganging on the weaker members on the team??
i need answers!!!
unreon
Smash Ace
That Smashboard game is stupidly complicated.
Why would you choose MK and be limited to not being able to initiate a fight with anyone? He's a completely wasted space. Not only that, he claims that this determines the "varied skills" of the crew, but if you're limited in combat options because of your chosen main, then you won't even get to choose the terms of the fight. A MK will be sodomised from three sides by MTR, TCR, and a fukking Falcon.
Not to mention you picked a **** unit (MK) due to choosing a tier list TOTALLY INDEPENDANT FROM THE RULES OF THE BOARD. An inverse relationship between MK's usefulness in Brawl compared to the Board is NOT the answer here. FFS the board is ********.
Not to mention how much time this would take. You know, I could actually also, like, just play the game.
I spent way too much effort burning the brains behind that turd of a game. It's moronic.
You know what, I just made up a game myself. It's called SmashHat and it involves 10v10 crews. There will be 4x 1v1s, and 3x 2v2s at a time. There are three hats. Two are identical and involve drawing numbers 1-10. The first four numbers match for 1v1s, the last six match for 2v2s. The third and final hat have all of the items and modes that you can customise in those wonky Brawl battles. Each person involved in that match draw up a stipulation, and those are applied.
Crew with most stocks wins.
SmashHat>>>>>>Smashboard.
EDIT: I can't believe I wasted 8 minutes of my otherwise productive life detailing how unbelievably sad this Smashboard idea is. I'm not blaming the guy who linked it, but the KrazyKirby whatever who came up with it needs a blowjob.
Why would you choose MK and be limited to not being able to initiate a fight with anyone? He's a completely wasted space. Not only that, he claims that this determines the "varied skills" of the crew, but if you're limited in combat options because of your chosen main, then you won't even get to choose the terms of the fight. A MK will be sodomised from three sides by MTR, TCR, and a fukking Falcon.
Not to mention you picked a **** unit (MK) due to choosing a tier list TOTALLY INDEPENDANT FROM THE RULES OF THE BOARD. An inverse relationship between MK's usefulness in Brawl compared to the Board is NOT the answer here. FFS the board is ********.
Not to mention how much time this would take. You know, I could actually also, like, just play the game.
I spent way too much effort burning the brains behind that turd of a game. It's moronic.
You know what, I just made up a game myself. It's called SmashHat and it involves 10v10 crews. There will be 4x 1v1s, and 3x 2v2s at a time. There are three hats. Two are identical and involve drawing numbers 1-10. The first four numbers match for 1v1s, the last six match for 2v2s. The third and final hat have all of the items and modes that you can customise in those wonky Brawl battles. Each person involved in that match draw up a stipulation, and those are applied.
Crew with most stocks wins.
SmashHat>>>>>>Smashboard.
EDIT: I can't believe I wasted 8 minutes of my otherwise productive life detailing how unbelievably sad this Smashboard idea is. I'm not blaming the guy who linked it, but the KrazyKirby whatever who came up with it needs a blowjob.
luke_atyeo
Smash Hero
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,215
can I have a smashhat?
AdmiralComrade
Smash Journeyman
yes u can has
but yeah its too flawed to be implemented..
keep it simple. thats what i say~
but yeah its too flawed to be implemented..
keep it simple. thats what i say~
S.D
Smash Master
Jason you forgot to add that all matches are to be played on custom stages designed by the owner of the SmashHat. Otherwise, I like your game 
Pirate.
Smash Apprentice
smashhat made me lol.
I think the smashboard thing is a cool idea, and because pratically everything about it is variable, each community can iron out the flaws they see and make it fair and suitable for themselves (if they actually want to use that system).
The biggest flaw i saw in the smashboard (along with everyone else) was the brawl SBR tiers determining movement of person based off of their chosen char. The brawl tier list isn't really like melee's and smash 64's where it was determined 'mostly' by a characters speed and ability to combo. The brawl tier list is mostly based off of tournament results, which is influenced heavily by popularity/ how easy a character is to play, and the educated opinions of the SBR. Brawl is a game heavily influenced by matchups, so the tier list doesn't represent a simple best-> worst character list which is 'moreso' apparent in the other games' tier lists. Also It seems a bit dumb that personal character preference can give a HUGE natural disadvantage/advantage when suddenly dumped onto the board, when it wasn't even specially engineered around the tiers.
OKSO: maybe another way of determining movement could be:
{
Each team has a total of 10 movement points to allocate. They can split them up however they want, as long as they are whole numbers. so lets say.
Team A has players a, b, c, d.
a can have 3 moves each turn.
b can have 2 moves each turn.
c can have 3 moves each turn.
d can have 2 move each turn.
Team B has players e,f,g,h. (although by this time im sure you understand).
e can have 5 moves each turn.
f can have 3 moves each turn.
g can have 1 move each turn.
h can have 1 move each turn.
Ok well, this could be done a bunch of different ways:
First way is: Both Teams spend all their movement points blind to eachother, and then the match begins, where each players movement is revealed at the same time.
Second way is: Teams take turns at assigning points (showing eachother who has been assigned what). Example:
Coin flip? to determine who assigns points first.
Team A assigns b 3 movement points.
Team B assigns e 5 movement points.
Team A assigns... etc.
Third way: Most complex way (and pretty fundamentally broken unless its tweaked), again, teams take turns at assigning points, but can assign them to their opponents in their turns.
Rules:
When an opponent assigns one of your (changed point of view to make it easier to explain) players with movement points, it is deducted from YOUR total.
A player cannot exceed his total when assigning points to his own players.
A player cannot exceed his opponents total when assigning points to enemy players.
If your opponent assigns points to your players on his turn, you must assign points to his players on the immediate following turn.
if he assigns points to his own players on his turn, you must assign points to your own players on your immediate following turn.
Turns go by this system: 1:2:2:1:2:2
Trump Rule: Each player must have a minimum of 1 movement point. (all allocation must allow this to be possible when the final counts are done)
}
And as for how long it'd take to move each player between each conflict/battle thing, there could be a quick 30second timer where all moves had to be made. (which could be worked out by the player/s not playing in the last game, while it was happening)
Conclusively: Using this system won't prevent players 3 and 4 from not being able to battle, it will just give them more opportunities to if their team leader/opponent wants them to. It will possibly add a new fun element to crews so its not just singles, and i guess it might even the playing ground, allowing teams to 2v1 certain players on the other team if they can't beat them 1v1.
Conclusively 2: My attitude to this thing seems to change the more i write. I think it's pretty forgettable, but it could catch on i guess, i wouldn't appose it if a tournament organiser decided to use the smashboard, but i wouldn't go out of my way to try and get it implemented.
Conclusively 3: I vote for the smashhat idea, but only if the hats are prizes, and the winner has to wear them at every smash related event after that.
Conclusively 4: tl;dr.
I was bored and couldn't sleep. >.>
I think the smashboard thing is a cool idea, and because pratically everything about it is variable, each community can iron out the flaws they see and make it fair and suitable for themselves (if they actually want to use that system).
The biggest flaw i saw in the smashboard (along with everyone else) was the brawl SBR tiers determining movement of person based off of their chosen char. The brawl tier list isn't really like melee's and smash 64's where it was determined 'mostly' by a characters speed and ability to combo. The brawl tier list is mostly based off of tournament results, which is influenced heavily by popularity/ how easy a character is to play, and the educated opinions of the SBR. Brawl is a game heavily influenced by matchups, so the tier list doesn't represent a simple best-> worst character list which is 'moreso' apparent in the other games' tier lists. Also It seems a bit dumb that personal character preference can give a HUGE natural disadvantage/advantage when suddenly dumped onto the board, when it wasn't even specially engineered around the tiers.
OKSO: maybe another way of determining movement could be:
{
Each team has a total of 10 movement points to allocate. They can split them up however they want, as long as they are whole numbers. so lets say.
Team A has players a, b, c, d.
a can have 3 moves each turn.
b can have 2 moves each turn.
c can have 3 moves each turn.
d can have 2 move each turn.
Team B has players e,f,g,h. (although by this time im sure you understand).
e can have 5 moves each turn.
f can have 3 moves each turn.
g can have 1 move each turn.
h can have 1 move each turn.
Ok well, this could be done a bunch of different ways:
First way is: Both Teams spend all their movement points blind to eachother, and then the match begins, where each players movement is revealed at the same time.
Second way is: Teams take turns at assigning points (showing eachother who has been assigned what). Example:
Coin flip? to determine who assigns points first.
Team A assigns b 3 movement points.
Team B assigns e 5 movement points.
Team A assigns... etc.
Third way: Most complex way (and pretty fundamentally broken unless its tweaked), again, teams take turns at assigning points, but can assign them to their opponents in their turns.
Rules:
When an opponent assigns one of your (changed point of view to make it easier to explain) players with movement points, it is deducted from YOUR total.
A player cannot exceed his total when assigning points to his own players.
A player cannot exceed his opponents total when assigning points to enemy players.
If your opponent assigns points to your players on his turn, you must assign points to his players on the immediate following turn.
if he assigns points to his own players on his turn, you must assign points to your own players on your immediate following turn.
Turns go by this system: 1:2:2:1:2:2
Trump Rule: Each player must have a minimum of 1 movement point. (all allocation must allow this to be possible when the final counts are done)
}
And as for how long it'd take to move each player between each conflict/battle thing, there could be a quick 30second timer where all moves had to be made. (which could be worked out by the player/s not playing in the last game, while it was happening)
Conclusively: Using this system won't prevent players 3 and 4 from not being able to battle, it will just give them more opportunities to if their team leader/opponent wants them to. It will possibly add a new fun element to crews so its not just singles, and i guess it might even the playing ground, allowing teams to 2v1 certain players on the other team if they can't beat them 1v1.
Conclusively 2: My attitude to this thing seems to change the more i write. I think it's pretty forgettable, but it could catch on i guess, i wouldn't appose it if a tournament organiser decided to use the smashboard, but i wouldn't go out of my way to try and get it implemented.
Conclusively 3: I vote for the smashhat idea, but only if the hats are prizes, and the winner has to wear them at every smash related event after that.
Conclusively 4: tl;dr.
I was bored and couldn't sleep. >.>
planetstereo
Smash Ace
AHHHHHH too much writing, brain is frying......
I just had a weird idea, SBR Monopoly!!!!!
I just had a weird idea, SBR Monopoly!!!!!
isthattim?
Smash Ace
that could actually work
and would probably be more fun
+ it wouldn't need 20 people and 20+hours
tedeth
Smash Master
You landed on my hotel. WE FIGHT NOW!!!
Classic.
Classic.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
mayfair=4 stocks for owner 1 for person who landed.
Toby.
Smash Master
Unreon pwned so hard.
All this talk reminds of when a played smash brothers shots at a friends house. People play as normal, with those sitting out acting as referee(s).
If something cool happens, its a shot. Simple, but quite amusing.
Shots didn't happen as often in brawl though. It's more of a melee game imo.
All this talk reminds of when a played smash brothers shots at a friends house. People play as normal, with those sitting out acting as referee(s).
If something cool happens, its a shot. Simple, but quite amusing.
Shots didn't happen as often in brawl though. It's more of a melee game imo.
S.D
Smash Master
99 stock, shot for every stock lost.
Good game imo.
unny invented the incredible game Smashhat in 10 seconds, where it took crazykirbykid 2 years to invent SmashBoard XD
Good game imo.
unny invented the incredible game Smashhat in 10 seconds, where it took crazykirbykid 2 years to invent SmashBoard XD
AdmiralComrade
Smash Journeyman
frankly i dont see why the concept of being pro in 2v1 and 3v1 need to be applied im brawl CREWS its not testing each individual, its as a whole.
screw it lets make 3v1 tourneys ftw!
screw it lets make 3v1 tourneys ftw!
S.D
Smash Master
lol
2v1 and 3v1 in brawl is omega stupid. The solo player can just be release grabbed -> pummel infinitely between 2 opponents, then finished off with release grab -> smash.
2v1 and 3v1 in brawl is omega stupid. The solo player can just be release grabbed -> pummel infinitely between 2 opponents, then finished off with release grab -> smash.
AdmiralComrade
Smash Journeyman
lol but to smash board apparently 3 v 1 and 2 v 1 req skill luls thats so epic fail =P
yeah, it has its problems lol. i just thought it was interesting and different. and anyway, the only way you should get in a 2v1 or 3v1 match is if you are using a much higher tier character, so you should have a quite large advantage anyway. theoretically it balances out. theoretically that is lol.
ComboTurtle
Smash Lord
tiers arent as much of an advantage as 2v1
EverAlert
Smash Master
Ugh. Brawl and Melee's tier lists are made in exactly the same way, the exact same way every tier list is made for every competitive game. Tournament results, character matchups, metagame. Read this. FFS, I'm used to explaining misconceptions about tier lists to people outside of the community, but having to explain it to someone inside of the community is a first.
And here's an idea.
Doubles Crews.
AdmiralComrade
Smash Journeyman
lol doubles crew sounds awesomer idea than smashboard =o works with 4 ppl as well. w/ the carry on stock idea as well i guess. and it can have a 2v1 carry on for you smash board lovers
E_alert, it's not about HOW the tier list is put together by the community, it's about WHAT the tier list means. And brawl's tier list isn't as top to bottom best to worst as other fighting games are. What he's saying is that despite, say, DK being -much- higher than zelda on the tier list, DDD will stomp DK but have a lot of trouble with zelda.
Pirate.
Smash Apprentice
I've read that essay before... I wasn't really trying to compare the process in which each was made, moreso just the relevance of tiers to the games and to the 'smashboard'. The fact that there are 3v1s and 2v1s in Smashboard kind of make the tier list irrelevant for the most part, so it shouldnt be included in any part of it.
That quote also just said It was 'mostly' determined by speed and ability to combo i wasn't saying that they were oblivious to/ignored tournament results/matchups/metagame, moreso that, in melee and 64 characters speed and ability to combo were a pretty important factor in determining tournament results/matchups/their metagame.
Also, tier lists arn't just number crunching tournament results and matchups
But yea, i wasn't really arguing that there were different methods of construction, just trying to make a contrast between how the melee and brawl tier lists should be interpreted differently.Marc said:
EverAlert
Smash Master
Enigmalik - As far as I'm concerned, they're very much number crunching. A vote is simply an unbiased way to reach a consensus amongst a group, and says nothing of the actual process. But yeah, I see what you're saying (about you comparing it to SmashBoard). My main issue was the way you portrayed tiers and I suppose I got a bit carried away. xD
In terms of interpretation, I disagree (see my response to Iso). Tier lists universally mean the same thing. A reflection of the (current) metagame, stating the overall effectiveness of the characters relative to one another. "Interpreting" a tier list is little more than looking at the current metagame. But the tier list itself doesn't actually make a statement about anything other than character rankings (ergo, there's nothing to "interpret", everything about it is cold hard fact presented in an unbiased manner). That's basically my point.
Eh, sorry if I'm being an ***, but this isn't exactly rocket science, and I don't revel in explaining things to those who should know better. Also we should take this to PM, I don't want to derail this thread even further. >.>
Yay, text wall. >.<
In terms of interpretation, I disagree (see my response to Iso). Tier lists universally mean the same thing. A reflection of the (current) metagame, stating the overall effectiveness of the characters relative to one another. "Interpreting" a tier list is little more than looking at the current metagame. But the tier list itself doesn't actually make a statement about anything other than character rankings (ergo, there's nothing to "interpret", everything about it is cold hard fact presented in an unbiased manner). That's basically my point.
lol, pretty sure he said "is determined by" and "is based off." Sounds like he's talking about how a tier list is put together to me! But let's say you're right and his argument was about what it means. If you read the article I linked, you would know that tier lists, always, list characters in the order of their overall effectiveness. That's what tier lists are: character rankings. Nothing more, nothing less. The example you gave about DK proves nothing other than that Zelda counters Dedede (by the way, the definition of a counter is a character who has a good matchup against another character that is higher on the tier list). Melee had counters, as do other fighting games. Brawl is no different in this sense. Your argument proves nothing.
Eh, sorry if I'm being an ***, but this isn't exactly rocket science, and I don't revel in explaining things to those who should know better. Also we should take this to PM, I don't want to derail this thread even further. >.>
Aye. Also, further research/stalking reveals that Chu actually had the same idea and is (I think) trialling it. It's an interesting idea; I'd love to see it attempted firsthand. Maybe at a future meet?
Yay, text wall. >.<
ComboTurtle
Smash Lord
**** smashboard imo
Ok, the main point I disagree with you on is this: "Tier lists universally mean the same thing". (Actually, after reading my following post and yours, the point we seem to disagree on is whether the tier list can/should be used to figure out the likely outcome of an individual match. Anyway...)
Tier lists aren't completely universal. Yes, they rank characters in their 'general' effectiveness. But when you're talking about the likely outcome of a match between two characters, as in the smashboard scenario, the tier list can be misleading.
Taking my example of DDD vs Zelda. In the smashboard scenario, zelda would be given far more spaces to move in a turn than DDD. In theory, this compensates for DDD being a 'more effective' character from his placement in the tier list. Yet, if they were to fight, with players of equal skill, DDD would lose. That is the fundamental problem behind smashboard importing the brawl tier list to determine movement spaces.
Brawl's tier list is far more spread out, and indicates far less about a likely outcome of a match than a tier list for Guilty Gear or Street Fighter does.
You won't find a matchup like DDD vs zelda in Guilty Gear. If a low tier character is low, they're low because they lack safe pokes/rushdowns/frame advantages/ability to combo off random hits. (Yes, those affect tournament results, matchups and metagame) A low tier character will almost certainly be at a disadvantage against a higher tier, albeit less of a disadvantage than brawl's matchups.
Also, "...but this isn't exactly rocket science". It most certainly isn't. This is trivial. We're arguing about absolutely pointless crap.
tl;dr version: Brawl's tierlist is way vaguer and more useless than tierlists for better balanced fighting games and I wish Brawl was balanced tighter.
End rant.
So defiled, wanna be in our leftover crew?
Tier lists aren't completely universal. Yes, they rank characters in their 'general' effectiveness. But when you're talking about the likely outcome of a match between two characters, as in the smashboard scenario, the tier list can be misleading.
Taking my example of DDD vs Zelda. In the smashboard scenario, zelda would be given far more spaces to move in a turn than DDD. In theory, this compensates for DDD being a 'more effective' character from his placement in the tier list. Yet, if they were to fight, with players of equal skill, DDD would lose. That is the fundamental problem behind smashboard importing the brawl tier list to determine movement spaces.
Brawl's tier list is far more spread out, and indicates far less about a likely outcome of a match than a tier list for Guilty Gear or Street Fighter does.
You won't find a matchup like DDD vs zelda in Guilty Gear. If a low tier character is low, they're low because they lack safe pokes/rushdowns/frame advantages/ability to combo off random hits. (Yes, those affect tournament results, matchups and metagame) A low tier character will almost certainly be at a disadvantage against a higher tier, albeit less of a disadvantage than brawl's matchups.
Also, "...but this isn't exactly rocket science". It most certainly isn't. This is trivial. We're arguing about absolutely pointless crap.
tl;dr version: Brawl's tierlist is way vaguer and more useless than tierlists for better balanced fighting games and I wish Brawl was balanced tighter.
End rant.
So defiled, wanna be in our leftover crew?
EverAlert
Smash Master
But when you're talking about the likely outcome of a match between two characters, as in the smashboard scenario, the tier list can be misleading.
The SmashBoard scenario doesn't apply to tier lists in the first place. We're talking 2v1 and 3v1 with SmashBoard; tier lists only assume 1v1. Also, what you're saying applies to all tier lists. Naturally, because counters exist, tier lists can't be taken as an absolute prediction of a given matchup. I'm not arguing the opposite and never was.
Taking my example of DDD vs Zelda. [snip] That is the fundamental problem behind smashboard importing the brawl tier list to determine movement spaces.
Most of that is void since, like I said, because of how SmashBoard works it doesn't apply to tier lists anyway at a gameplay level. But yes, SmashBoard is silly for importing the tier list.
Brawl's tier list is far more spread out, and indicates far less about a likely outcome of a match than a tier list for Guilty Gear or Street Fighter does.
Again, tier lists are a reflection of the current metagame. In that sense, Brawl's is just as accurate as Guilty Gear's or Street Fighter's. Though of course, Brawl's will naturally be less mature, as Brawl itself is a much younger game. That goes without saying.
You won't find a matchup like DDD vs zelda in Guilty Gear.
If you're talking about counters (sounds like it to me, at least), I have a hard time believing that Guilty Gear (or any other competitively played game, although I am sure there are a few) has no counters. Maybe it does, and maybe Brawl at the moment has more counters than is typical of fighting games, but like I said, Brawl is incredibly young, so that is only natural.
Basically I'm saying there's nothing unusual about Brawl and its tier list relative to other games, at least in the sense that the metagame is not as developed as it could/will eventually be.
Honestly, it sounds like we don't even disagree but are getting mixed up with words.
The SmashBoard scenario doesn't apply to tier lists in the first place. We're talking 2v1 and 3v1 with SmashBoard; tier lists only assume 1v1. Also, what you're saying applies to all tier lists. Naturally, because counters exist, tier lists can't be taken as an absolute prediction of a given matchup. I'm not arguing the opposite and never was.
Taking my example of DDD vs Zelda. [snip] That is the fundamental problem behind smashboard importing the brawl tier list to determine movement spaces.
Most of that is void since, like I said, because of how SmashBoard works it doesn't apply to tier lists anyway at a gameplay level. But yes, SmashBoard is silly for importing the tier list.
Brawl's tier list is far more spread out, and indicates far less about a likely outcome of a match than a tier list for Guilty Gear or Street Fighter does.
Again, tier lists are a reflection of the current metagame. In that sense, Brawl's is just as accurate as Guilty Gear's or Street Fighter's. Though of course, Brawl's will naturally be less mature, as Brawl itself is a much younger game. That goes without saying.
You won't find a matchup like DDD vs zelda in Guilty Gear.
If you're talking about counters (sounds like it to me, at least), I have a hard time believing that Guilty Gear (or any other competitively played game, although I am sure there are a few) has no counters. Maybe it does, and maybe Brawl at the moment has more counters than is typical of fighting games, but like I said, Brawl is incredibly young, so that is only natural.
Basically I'm saying there's nothing unusual about Brawl and its tier list relative to other games, at least in the sense that the metagame is not as developed as it could/will eventually be.
Honestly, it sounds like we don't even disagree but are getting mixed up with words.
S.D
Smash Master
I would disagree insofar as that the tier list is horribly skewed in the middle to bottom section, mainly due to the fact that half the reason people aren't winning with/using certain characters, thus propelling their metagame, results etc is because people who main certain characters simply suck.
Take Lucas for example. Not a great character but certainly not the worst, yet he ranks second last on the lastest tier list. Why? Because the Lucas mains are ****ing terrible at the game. This contributes a lot. The top section of the tier list is basically a perpetuation of what works and what people have come to recognise as the best characters. IMO the bottom half of the tier list could be totally random and it wouldn't mean a thing because of the sheer lack of involvement with those characters, thus the stagnating of their metagame and performances. They are simply lost to obscurity.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
posted so it isnt lost in all this tier ranting
its great to see actual smash discussion, instead of the hate that has really dominated these boards alot recently.
sd brings up points reminiscent of the tier wars imo. you are right sd, but i disagree that it is only in the lower tiers. as new things are discovered, and the game evolves, most characters move. there is alot less movement up higher, but in early melee tier lists, mario was very high. he is now at the bottom of mid.
i think anything could still happen to the tier list, and that the tier list is more of a snapshot of the metagame at this moment in time.
sd brings up points reminiscent of the tier wars imo. you are right sd, but i disagree that it is only in the lower tiers. as new things are discovered, and the game evolves, most characters move. there is alot less movement up higher, but in early melee tier lists, mario was very high. he is now at the bottom of mid.
i think anything could still happen to the tier list, and that the tier list is more of a snapshot of the metagame at this moment in time.
EverAlert
Smash Master
Obviously tier lists will change as the game develops. They don't predict the future. They speak for the current metagame. In other words, what you said doesn't refute anything S.D said.
S.D - Honestly mate, I'm too tired to make a proper post about it, but I will say that you have a point. However, I don't think that necessarily invalidates what I was saying; naturally character popularity will affect the metagame, which in turn affects the tier list. It's still accurate to the metagame even if there are forces skewing the metagame. :/
Going to bed for real now. Gords stopped me going to sleep by MSNing me. Silly Gords!
S.D - Honestly mate, I'm too tired to make a proper post about it, but I will say that you have a point. However, I don't think that necessarily invalidates what I was saying; naturally character popularity will affect the metagame, which in turn affects the tier list. It's still accurate to the metagame even if there are forces skewing the metagame. :/
Going to bed for real now. Gords stopped me going to sleep by MSNing me. Silly Gords!
S.D
Smash Master
I would agree that brawl is still early on in its development, that being said I also think that the top tier is almost set in stone. MK is the most dominant character ever seen in a smash game and I don't see anything changing that, period. In terms of character potential, he is maxed out in every aspect.
Owing to the absolute dominance of the top few characters, it's very hard to see the mid to low tiers ever achieving any upward mobility simply because nobody can win with them and nobody wants to put time into them when they know that an MK or Snake of equal skill to their own will always come out on top.
EA - I wasn't in any way trying to discredit what you were saying, simply making my own observations on what i saw as a minor flaw in one of your otherwise quite accurate arguments.
I personally feel that while the current metagame is spoken for and represented by the tiers, there isn't enough representation of enough characters to form an empirical and totally accurate list.
If it were somehow possible to weigh character performance in accordance to the actual number of people playing the character then it would be far more accurate imo.
Owing to the absolute dominance of the top few characters, it's very hard to see the mid to low tiers ever achieving any upward mobility simply because nobody can win with them and nobody wants to put time into them when they know that an MK or Snake of equal skill to their own will always come out on top.
EA - I wasn't in any way trying to discredit what you were saying, simply making my own observations on what i saw as a minor flaw in one of your otherwise quite accurate arguments.
I personally feel that while the current metagame is spoken for and represented by the tiers, there isn't enough representation of enough characters to form an empirical and totally accurate list.
If it were somehow possible to weigh character performance in accordance to the actual number of people playing the character then it would be far more accurate imo.