Melee v1.0 should take priority over 1.2 in future tournaments

[Kal]

I mean, if we expect this game to have any sort of serious longevity, then it will probably involve some form of playing backups. In that case, I don't think it's outrageous to include a rule like "players may, on request, switch to 1.0. "

 

[Sorto]

My question is, why v1.0 over any other version? I understand that it has certain "glitches" that add slight advantages to more-so weaker characters. And the community in general wants to play a more "balanced" form of melee lol. But what about the weak characters that these changes don't add anything to? They in essence the become even weaker and lower on the tier list by comparison. They may even lose to other low tiers they may have been going even with because of the glitch fixed. Zelda vs Game & Watch comes to mind. Someone mentioned this concept earlier, but I think it is really important to address again because I don't think it got a fair answer. Let me use Game and Watch as my terrible character example, because he is NOT buffed by the glitches in v1.0 at all (as far as I know. If he is, then substitute his name with a lower tier that isn't buffed by the changes). So he is versing a character like Samus, who was buffed by the glitches in v1.0 and now she was given an even larger advantage (even if it was a minimal change) in the matchup. Why should this be the status quo? I can see a very simple argument for v1.2 being the status quo, but why v1.0? By the way, argument for v1.2 being the standard would be something like: v1.2 is the newest release and the most bugs are fixed. Most of the time the game being played competitively by the community (as far as I know), is the newest release of the game. The more turbos, supers, ulimates, and higher versions # becomes the standard lol. Even in this case, they were considered "bug" fixes.

But all of this has moved away from my original question. Besides this balance argument, which may indeed hurt some weak characters, and more so throw them into a lower position on the tier list by making higher tiers and other low tiers have an even greater advantage over them, why should v1.0 be the standard? If a Samus player requested v1.0 and I am a Game & Watch player, should I be able to refuse?

**Also, I just want to make it clear, that I believe having a version standard sounds like a good idea.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

i deffinetly agree with this... its extremly unfair to lower tier players. true glitches that break the game are banned anyway
btw, is extender possible in all ntsc versions? (im guessing yes)

 

[Mahie]

My question is, why v1.0 over any other version? I understand that it has certain "glitches" that add slight advantages to more-so weaker characters. And the community in general wants to play a more "balanced" form of melee lol. But what about the weak characters that these changes don't add anything to? They in essence the become even weaker and lower on the tier list by comparison. They may even lose to other low tiers they may have been going even with because of the glitch fixed. Zelda vs Game & Watch comes to mind. Someone mentioned this concept earlier, but I think it is really important to address again because I don't think it got a fair answer. Let me use Game and Watch as my terrible character example, because he is NOT buffed by the glitches in v1.0 at all (as far as I know. If he is, then substitute his name with a lower tier that isn't buffed by the changes). So he is versing a character like Samus, who was buffed by the glitches in v1.0 and now she was given an even larger advantage (even if it was a minimal change) in the matchup. Why should this be the status quo? I can see a very simple argument for v1.2 being the status quo, but why v1.0? By the way, argument for v1.2 being the standard would be something like: v1.2 is the newest release and the most bugs are fixed. Most of the time the game being played competitively by the community (as far as I know), is the newest release of the game. The more turbos, supers, ulimates, and higher versions # becomes the standard lol. Even in this case, they were considered "bug" fixes.

But all of this has moved away from my original question. Besides this balance argument, which may indeed hurt some weak characters, and more so throw them into a lower position on the tier list by making higher tiers and other low tiers have an even greater advantage over them, why should v1.0 be the standard? If a Samus player requested v1.0 and I am a Game & Watch player, should I be able to refuse?

**Also, I just want to make it clear, that I believe having a version standard sounds like a good idea.

Well, instead of having a bunch of crap characters, you only have a handful of them, it's still better.

If you're not an excellent player, those changes probably won't affect the match-up that much, it's not like they're completely broken buffs that you can abuse, it's just so that low tiers (or at least, some of them) have an easier time in the low vs high matchups, at higher levels of play.

And to anyone that thinks Nintendo knows what they're doing when they tweak things, please think of the kind of metagame we have, then go watch the ingame how to play video again.

 

[Sorto]

Well, instead of having a bunch of crap characters, you only have a handful of them, it's still better.

If you're not an excellent player, those changes probably won't affect the match-up that much, it's not like they're completely broken buffs that you can abuse, it's just so that low tiers (or at least, some of them) have an easier time in the low vs high matchups, at higher levels of play.

And to anyone that thinks Nintendo knows what they're doing when they tweak things, please think of the kind of metagame we have, then go watch the ingame how to play video again.

But some low tiers will now have worser matchups against samus, because of this change. And Samus is NOT low tier. Assuming the only changes taken into account are the sdi properties, link changes, and flame cancel (only because I am not 100% sure on all the changes). Any low tier that isn't Zelda, Pikachu, Link, YL, Bowser will automatically have a slightly worse matchup then they currently have against Samus and the characters I just named. You upped 6 characters and any other character who is not those characters got hurt technically, because there matchups became slightly worse. Yes, this includes high/top tiers, but it also includes mid/low tiers. A handful will do better. But everyone else will arguably do SLIGHTLY worse against those said characters. Hell, if a Game & Watch player has to verse a Samus player, I guarentee you he really much rather have Samus having an Up-B he can di out of. And that advantage exists in the newest releases. Why should he lose that?

Also, I am not saying Nintendo knows how to tweak things. I am saying, isn't it the status quo to use the newest revision of something as the standard. We wouldn't use the beta testing version of melee in tournament (assuming such a thing exist). Just like I assume street fighter II, III, IV players used the newest version of there games generally.

 

[Mahie]

But some low tiers will now have worser matchups against samus, because of this change. And Samus is NOT low tier. Assuming the only changes taken into account are the sdi properties, link changes, and flame cancel (only because I am not 100% sure on all the changes). Any low tier that isn't Zelda, Pikachu, Link, YL, Bowser will automatically have a slightly worse matchup then they currently have against Samus and the characters I just named. You upped 6 characters and any other character who is not those characters got hurt technically, because there matchups became slightly worse. Yes, this includes high/top tiers, but it also includes mid/low tiers. A handful will do better. But everyone else will arguably do SLIGHTLY worse against those said characters. Hell, if a Game & Watch player has to verse a Samus player, I guarentee you he really much rather have Samus having an Up-B he can di out of. And that advantage exists in the newest releases. Why should he lose that?

Also, I am not saying Nintendo knows how to tweak things. I am saying, isn't it the status quo to use the newest revision of something as the standard. We wouldn't use the beta testing version of melee in tournament (assuming such a thing exist). Just like I assume street fighter II, III, IV players used the newest version of there games generally.

Quite frankly, it's rare enough to see a low tiers main with a decent level, but two of them facing each other is even more rare. And like I said, those are not ground breaking advantages that will turn low vs low tiers into 10-0 matchups for the ones buffed. The goal is to give a better chance to a few extra characters at being viable, if not all can be salvaged, I don't know what we can do.

If we were to play the newest version, we'd all play PAL, by the way.

 

[Bones0]

And to anyone that thinks Nintendo knows what they're doing when they tweak things, please think of the kind of metagame we have, then go watch the ingame how to play video again.

I don't think that's fair. They did a pretty damn good job if you compare NTSC with PAL. I could be wrong, but I think every single buff they made was on characters in the bottom half of the tier list, and every single nerf they made was on characters in the top half. Even if we don't like some of the changes like Marth's dair being a meteor, it's still more fair considering almost every character's spike move is a meteor (Mario's fair, Ness's dair, Samus's dair, etc). It's a shame they added meteor cancelling in, or at least a shame they made it so good. Simply removing meteors would make a lot of chars better at edgeguarding and getting early kills. /tangent

 

[LLDL]

It works both ways, 1.2 player should have the right to deny the switch to 1.0.

90% of the copies at a tournament are 1.2. Come on now.

 

[Bones0]

How is the number of copies relevant AT ALL?

 

[Mahie]

Well, I can understand where he's coming from, if there's a limited amount of 1.0s, and it's impossible to buy them anymore, then someone who's never played it will be at a disadvantage, I guess, and will have no way to get around it.


Edit : Regarding NTSC---> PAL changes, I guess you have a point. A few things, they did well.

 

[Sorto]

Quite frankly, it's rare enough to see a low tiers main with a decent level, but two of them facing each other is even more rare. And like I said, those are not ground breaking advantages that will turn low vs low tiers into 10-0 matchups for the ones buffed. The goal is to give a better chance to a few extra characters at being viable, if not all can be salvaged, I don't know what we can do.

If we were to play the newest version, we'd all play PAL, by the way.

It is rare. But gladly we have decided to give Samus favor over game &watch players when they do meet.

You would need a different/modded console to play PAL games. That is the only reason we aren't using it. If PAL could be played on my current gamecube, with my current TV, and this was the same for the general US population, then I believe we SHOULD be using it, because it is the newest release.

Also, I am totally for using v1.0 over any other version. But the argument it makes character X better is kind of ridiculous. Because it also makes character Y worse by comparison.

I believe the most common available version or the newest versions should be the standard for the obvious reasons of easy availablity. New players should be able to play melee and not be handicapped by a hard to find version. And tournament organizers should not have to make sure they own a whole bunch of copies of a hard to find version on melee. Either one has a better argument then the one listed above in my opinion. Most availability, would prob be the way to go since the game is so old. And if the commonist one is v1.0 then by all means make it the standard.

 

[Sorto]

It works both ways, 1.2 player should have the right to deny the switch to 1.0.

90% of the copies at a tournament are 1.2. Come on now.

So are you saying the both can deny eachother?

Example:
Player1 plays Game & watch
Player2 plays Zelda.

Player1 has a better matchup in v1.2 because of the di fix. He would quickly ask to play on 1.2.
Player2 has a better matchup in v1.0 because of the di "glitch". He would quickly as to play on 1.0.

Both would continue to deny the switch.

Who is right in this situation?

I just want to make sure I am understanding your concept.

 

[Bones0]

If that happens, they will have to compromise and play on 1.1.

 

[oukd]

How about...whatever character is at a disadvantage by the current tier list gets the choice in what version they want to play? So in YL vs Falco where 1.0 benefits YL, YL gets to choose 1.0, whereas in YL vs G&W where 1.0 only benefits YL but not G&W, G&W gets to choose 1.2. Or something like that. Basing a rule off the tier list sounds really stupid though especially with matchup discrepancies vs tier position...and enforcing the rule by every single matchup would be too exhausting to organize and difficult to establish.

I like the idea of helping out low tiers but I don't see this working out to be honest <_<

 

[Ripple]

if you want to buff low tiers. play SD remix. (still in beta though)

 

[AXE 09]

90% of the copies at a tournament are 1.2. Come on now.

That's definitely not true. There's more copies of 1.2 yes, but 1.0 is not RARE. Like I said before, when I checked all the discs on the setups at FC, there was maybe a 1:3 ratio of 1.0 discs to 1.2 (oddly enough, I didn't run into any 1.1 versions). And regardless, I don't see why this is a problem if the person wanting to use 1.0 has a copy with him readily available.

In response to Sorto's arguments: "By the way, argument for v1.2 being the standard would be something like: v1.2 is the newest release and the most bugs are fixed."

If you take a look at what "bugs" they fixed from 1.0 to 1.2, it's very obvious that it only hurts the lower tiered characters, and none of the high tiers. Taking out Link's/Ylink's boomerang hookshot cancels? No flame canceling for Bowser? Zelda getting punished for landing an Fsmash/Usmash?

1.2 makes every character who it affects (who are all non-high tiers) LESS tournament viable. I agree that Nintendo did an excellent job at making the game more balanced from NTSC to PAL, but they did the exact opposite going from 1.0 to 1.2.

Giving players the opportunity to make their non-high tier character more tournament viable (even if only by a little bit) is a very good idea in my opinion. Again, none of the high tiers are affected by this. If PAL was available here in the USA, then I would be all for it because it definitely balances out the game. When comparing 1.0 to 1.2 however, newer is not always better, especially for tournament play.

 

[LLDL]

That's definitely not true. There's more copies of 1.2 yes, but 1.0 is not RARE. Like I said before, when I checked all the discs on the setups at FC, there was maybe a 1:3 ratio of 1.0 discs to 1.2 (oddly enough, I didn't run into any 1.1 versions). And regardless, I don't see why this is a problem if the person wanting to use 1.0 has a copy with him readily available.

In response to Sorto's arguments: "By the way, argument for v1.2 being the standard would be something like: v1.2 is the newest release and the most bugs are fixed."

If you take a look at what "bugs" they fixed from 1.0 to 1.2, it's very obvious that it only hurts the lower tiered characters, and none of the high tiers. Taking out Link's/Ylink's boomerang hookshot cancels? No flame canceling for Bowser? Zelda getting punished for landing an Fsmash/Usmash?

1.2 makes every character who it affects (who are all non-high tiers) LESS tournament viable. I agree that Nintendo did an excellent job at making the game more balanced from NTSC to PAL, but they did the exact opposite going from 1.0 to 1.2.

Giving players the opportunity to make their non-high tier character more tournament viable (even if only by a little bit) is a very good idea in my opinion. Again, none of the high tiers are affected by this. If PAL was available here in the USA, then I would be all for it because it definitely balances out the game. When comparing 1.0 to 1.2 however, newer is not always better, especially for tournament play.

I feel you. I just feel as if the tournament version should stay uniform. For example, in the FGC. You wouldn't have most of the xbox's play on the updated and patch versions of marvel, and have one or two setups on the original release version. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you're coming from and those players should get their chance. If they bring a 1.0 to the tournament for such an occasion themselves, then feel free. But let's say someone plays a low tier that I'm not too good against and wants to play on 1.0, but I don't want to. I'm going to be forced to play on that version, without chance of denial, when all of my other matches have been played on 1.2? That doesn't seem right.

Example:
Player1 plays Game & watch
Player2 plays Zelda.

Player1 has a better matchup in v1.2 because of the di fix. He would quickly ask to play on 1.2.
Player2 has a better matchup in v1.0 because of the di "glitch". He would quickly as to play on 1.0.

Both would continue to deny the switch.

Who is right in this situation?

I just want to make sure I am understanding your concept.

The 1.0 player would get a chance to ask, but the 1.2 would get the right to deny in that situation. Like gentlemen's rule sort of.

 

[Sorto]

I feel you. I just feel as if the tournament version should stay uniform. For example, in the FGC. You wouldn't have most of the xbox's play on the updated and patch versions of marvel, and have one or two setups on the original release version.




The 1.0 player would get a chance to ask, but the 1.2 would get the right to deny in that situation. Like gentlemen's rule sort of.

All you did was give the 1.2 player priority. And in a sense made 1.2 the standard. If I am versing a player who gets an advantage from 1.0 and I don't I would be playing suboptimally if I agreed to play on 1.0. And in a case where we both wanted to play on our own version, 1.2 would be able to turn down the 1.0 players request. Just like the gentlemens clause with stage selection. I should only accept if i gain a greater advantage then my opponent. Also, this already goes on without a rule for it based on what's axe has mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[Sorto]

That's definitely not true. There's more copies of 1.2 yes, but 1.0 is not RARE. Like I said before, when I checked all the discs on the setups at FC, there was maybe a 1:3 ratio of 1.0 discs to 1.2 (oddly enough, I didn't run into any 1.1 versions). And regardless, I don't see why this is a problem if the person wanting to use 1.0 has a copy with him readily available.

In response to Sorto's arguments: "By the way, argument for v1.2 being the standard would be something like: v1.2 is the newest release and the most bugs are fixed."

If you take a look at what "bugs" they fixed from 1.0 to 1.2, it's very obvious that it only hurts the lower tiered characters, and none of the high tiers. Taking out Link's/Ylink's boomerang hookshot cancels? No flame canceling for Bowser? Zelda getting punished for landing an Fsmash/Usmash?

1.2 makes every character who it affects (who are all non-high tiers) LESS tournament viable. I agree that Nintendo did an excellent job at making the game more balanced from NTSC to PAL, but they did the exact opposite going from 1.0 to 1.2.

Giving players the opportunity to make their non-high tier character more tournament viable (even if only by a little bit) is a very good idea in my opinion. Again, none of the high tiers are affected by this. If PAL was available here in the USA, then I would be all for it because it definitely balances out the game. When comparing 1.0 to 1.2 however, newer is not always better, especially for tournament play.

If I play game and watch and 1.0 buffs other characters but NOT mine then my character becomes less viable in comparison because all his buffed opponents and the corresponding matchups get worse for him, even if only slightly. Correct?

And to practice, myself and about 3/4 (3 to 1 ratio) of the smash community should look to buy 1.0 versions of melee. That's what your saying right? Otherwise I am at a disadvantage for playing and practicing on the "patched" version of the game.

 

[KirbyKaze]

1.2 all day every day

 

[Sorto]

I agree KK.

And If a majority of the players own and play on 1.2. And these changes really do effect matchups then anyone not owning or practicing on 1.0 is actually at a disadvantage. They won't be as comfortable as the players owning and playing on 1.0. Now again the same is true for the reverse. The 1.0 owners might get used to exploiting glitches that exist in 1.0 only. However if the ownership of 1.0 to 1.2 in the competitve community is 1 to 3 (or about that) then it seems easier to switch to the more available and owned version as the standard. Meaning 1.2 should be the STANDARD in my opinion.

Allow a gentlemens clause if you want. But if a players character does not get buffed in 1.0 then logically that player should refuse the request.

 

[S l o X]

100% of my friends copies of melee are 1.2. (12/12 copies)

 

[Redact]

If PAL was available here in the USA, then I would be all for it because it definitely balances out the game.

Ganon eats it hard in pal, same with yoshi i thought?

ganon seriously drops a whole tier almost

 

[EPsilon933]

Fox/Sheik being broken are more of a problem than Ganondorf being bad

Besides, the top 6 in the game are beyond well balanced as it is. Name a game with as dynamic of a tier list as Melee's over the course of 10 years (regarding the tournament viables, and maybe regarding games that didn't get patched too)

Peach and Marth might enjoy the PAL nerfs. They currently seem to be the ones at 5th and 6th place (is that contradictory to the previous paragraph?)

But what I mean by the top 6 being beyond balanced is that characters fitting the player matter extremely far more than any performance difference among each other. Every human is so different from every other human. Fox may be the best in theory, but he's not the best for many humans. Like players who have no tech skill and can't l cancel will love Peach and techy players would love Fox. Jigglypuff would fit people who can make sense of her multiple air jumps. And you get the idea

And in human play, humans make mistakes. Fox can be the best in theory for forever but no human can ever play at theory level. Human played Fox will mess something up and get punished hard, bringing him down on the list. Peach , bringing her up (She has the most bad matchups of the 6)

 

[ShroudedOne]

Stop purporting that idea, please.

 

[Bones0]

Ganon eats it hard in pal, same with yoshi i thought?

ganon seriously drops a whole tier almost

Ganon is on the top half of the tier list, so making him worse is balancing the game better. The only reason this is counter intuitive is because 90% of the competitive community plays top tiers. Iirc, Yoshi just receives buffs in the form of a slight weight boost and a better fsmash.

This probably isn't the best thread to start this discussion, but I think the idea that tech skill is the only thing stopping Fox from dominating is dumb. He has plenty of exploitable weaknesses that affect people even during times of near perfection in terms of movement, spacing, and move choice.

 

[Tee ay eye]

brawl is the newest smash release, so that should become the competitive standard

 

[knightpraetor]

random question: i heard that in some versions you can't that when ICs grab someone, you can't jab during the blizzard animation until near the end or something. which version is this?

 

[Bones0]

^I would ask in the thread with compilation of all the version differences.

 

[choknater]

i support 1.0 because ic's get more pummel damage

Redact: ganon gets heavy nerfs, but yoshi got significant buffs

and nice avatar btw, just watched that movie last week

 

[knightpraetor]

edit: found it

 

[Cactuar]

Making the standard a move towards removing control from the player during weak multihit moves is not something I support. Part of melee's depth that I appreciate most is that we have control in all situations except wobbling. I'm not going to standardize a rule that would support removing player control to give special consideration to a very small percentage of players.

I would fully support 1.1 if it only added SDI during multihit moves and didn't change any of the other character specific recovery tricks, etc, but that's not how it worked out.

I wouldn't oppose a movement towards this if this gained enough player support to warrant the change either, so if its something you guys feel strongly about, keep the message going.

 

[Deleted member]

brawl is the newest smash release, so that should become the competitive standard

joke's on you, it is the competitive standard.

the joke is on all of us really.

 

[Bones0]

If barlw is a joke, then Dane Cook must be the comedian.

 

[Smasher89]

Search the melee boards for the old glitchlist that listed above 100 glitches with the version diferences.

There sure is some gamebreaking ones, like grounded young link (dont remember if it works on the so called neutrals though) and other stuff.


Something that would be really cool though is if someone can rip the demo version of the game and make it possible to test at tournaments!

 

[Dark Hart]

Yay Zelda

 

[DerfMidWest]

I like how people can't sdi pichu's fsmash in 1.0...

IIRC ness is better too, but I can't remember why :/

1.0 should definitely be standard.

 

[Theftz22]

Ness can charge his yo-yo over the edge for janky edgeguards.

 

[KirbyKaze]

Screw 1.0

1.2 for days

 

[DerfMidWest]

You silly.