Official MBR 2010 NTSC Tier List

[Ripple]

PSing does not decrease shield stun at all in melee.

you need a move faster than frame 7 to actually punish falco harder than grabbing him

 

[JPOBS]

Every ruleset and every stagelist we make affects the balance of the game.

By having bans, we eliminate a big part of Marth's gameplay. Why do you think most modern Marths suck at chaingrabs these days? Because they never need to use it; FD is always banned. ****, spacies sometimes take it off random when they sit down to play friendlies. [also, Marth cgs take a lot of game knowledge and execution to 0-death. Very few people can consistently do it v. opponents who know how to DI]

Its pretty ****ing dumb that an entire different set of skills are tested in a best-of-5 than a best-of-3. It makes no sense. Spacies get a counterpick against everyone (they have 2 good stages against most of the cast - Stadium and either Yoshis/Dreamland, depending on the matchup) but no one can counterpick them back. All because we have a rule allowing players to ban stages, when all the stages (left) are flat and plain as ****. As you said yourself, its not Marths fault Fox gets chaingrabbed. Why do we feel the need to ban that aspect of his character out of the game completely?

I just don't get how Marths get so much **** for executing beautiful combos on FD and then spacies play like absolute *****es on Dreamland and somehow thats more legit.

Well ideally the ruleset should not affect balance of the game, or even take the balance character vs character matchups of the game into account at all. Stages should be added/removed based SOLELY on their influence on competitive play insofar as "fairness", predictability, and reproduction of results are concerned. (like, they shouldn't be random etc etc)
If all the playable stages just so happen to be stages character X excels on, then that's no fault of the character, it is the fault of the system we have chosen to test. If a stage deviates by some arbitrarily big enough margin from the criteria we wish to test in tournament, then it should be banned, regardless of how it affects character matchups.

Now, whether or not the arbitrary set of skills we choose to test in tournament are objectively the "correct" skills to test, is another argument entirely (in reference to your point about how marth gets crap for chaingrabbing but spacies camping is ok).
I don't really have anything to argue in reference to your point about the current ruleset testing different sets of skills in a bo3 and bo5 because that seems to be an unfortunate product of the system rather than the primary objective. I would be in favor of adjusting the stagelist/ruleset if the objective was the ensure that the same set of skills was being tested in both scenarios. I would not be in favor if the objective was to balanace the cast.

For the record, I'm not in favor for banning FD or whatever. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be adding (or removing) stages on the criteria that "X character needs Y stage to better compete with Z character".

 

[Doser]

Within the scope of the physically possible, humans have no limit to their ability. However, everyone can push their bodies to the limit of the physically possible; there is only a lack of effort to do so.

For example, using your reaction time vommentary. The average reaction time is 200 milliseconds. The limit of human capabilities is just above 100 milliseconds. The ability for a person with that average reaction time to reach this mark is not limited; some people will be able to reach it more readily or easily, but the ability to reach that point is not limited.

I am not suggesting that humans can literally grow wings and fly if they "tried hard enough". Good Lord.


Edit: I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I suppose my faith in several people's ability to understand that a statement is not always meant to be taken at its extreme cases at all times is misplaced.

Do you not understand where I'm going with this?

If you take the weaker stance (which it seems to me that you're doing) that humans are able to push themselves to the physical limit, you aren't actually making a point.

The statement, "Within the scope of the physically possible, humans have no limit to their ability." is exactly the same as: "Humans are capable of doing what they are capable of doing." This is a tautology.

So either you are supporting a clearly false stance (which you admit to being untenable) or you are just posting a tautology.

 

[odinNJ]

PSing does not decrease shield stun at all in melee.

you need a move faster than frame 7 to actually punish falco harder than grabbing him

really? I remember seeing a post in s2j's thread about ps -> gentlmening because it was faster

 

[Ripple]

it is faster. it negates shield drop lag, but not shield stun.

jab is faster than grab

 

[odinNJ]

it is faster. it negates shield drop lag, but not shield stun.

jab is faster than grab

Thus ps shield drop jab is faster than shield drop jab. So it does have a use in this situation.
YOU DARE BRING DAIRS INTO MY SHIELD, YOU
MUST DIE

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Well ideally the ruleset should not affect balance of the game, or even take the balance character vs character matchups of the game into account at all. Stages should be added/removed based SOLELY on their influence on competitive play insofar as "fairness", predictability, and reproduction of results are concerned. (like, they shouldn't be random etc etc)
If all the playable stages just so happen to be stages character X excels on, then that's no fault of the character, it is the fault of the system we have chosen to test. If a stage deviates by some arbitrarily big enough margin from the criteria we wish to test in tournament, then it should be banned, regardless of how it affects character matchups.

Now, whether or not the arbitrary set of skills we choose to test in tournament are objectively the "correct" skills to test, is another argument entirely (in reference to your point about how marth gets crap for chaingrabbing but spacies camping is ok).
I don't really have anything to argue in reference to your point about the current ruleset testing different sets of skills in a bo3 and bo5 because that seems to be an unfortunate product of the system rather than the primary objective. I would be in favor of adjusting the stagelist/ruleset if the objective was the ensure that the same set of skills was being tested in both scenarios. I would not be in favor if the objective was to balanace the cast.

For the record, I'm not in favor for banning FD or whatever. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be adding (or removing) stages on the criteria that "X character needs Y stage to better compete with Z character".

I think we are largely in agreement on most of these points. I was just quoting you to make a jump off into a broader argument.

To quote Ken from KoC commentary: "You can ban neutral stages now!? What is this?"

We have to go back and re-evaluate why we give each player a ban, especially since, unlike other fighting games, we allow the winner to switch characters after game 1. What is the purpose of bans, and what does it accomplish toward the goal of creating a fair ruleset? Cause, from my perspective, the end result is simply a balance shift in favor of top tiers (spacies mainly) while penalizing high-mid tiers (Marth with no FD, DK with no FD, Bowser with no Yoshis, Pikachu with no FD, Puff with no Dreamland, Peach with no FD, ICs with no FD, etc etc) with little to no other benefits.

Maybe it made sense in an era where we had controversial stages on, and the TOs compromised by allowing players a way to avoid their most hated stage, but with such a small stagelist, I don't see the point. Its an unnecessary rule that causes an artificial balance shift.

 

[JPOBS]

Understood.

 

[KrIsP!]

I'd be fine with getting rid of bans, I feel like..I use my ban but i wouldn't mind if I lost it I'm still getting CPed to a disadvantageous sage but in return able to to CP whatever stage I want and our stage list is so small.

Real talk, Ness vs. YLink.

I was looking at dem old *** matchu up charts and its 70:30 Ness. I think HBox has a counter? I'd like to see a low tier grand finals. He uses puff and character locks YLink, then switches to ness, then back to puff to keep peach away and rely on winning a single game with puff. but I dunno why Ness wins the matchup. So discuss tiers for once.

 

[Bones0]

Within the scope of the physically possible, humans have no limit to their ability. However, everyone can push their bodies to the limit of the physically possible; there is only a lack of effort to do so.

For example, using your reaction time vommentary. The average reaction time is 200 milliseconds. The limit of human capabilities is just above 100 milliseconds. The ability for a person with that average reaction time to reach this mark is not limited; some people will be able to reach it more readily or easily, but the ability to reach that point is not limited.

I am not suggesting that humans can literally grow wings and fly if they "tried hard enough". Good Lord.


Edit: I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I suppose my faith in several people's ability to understand that a statement is not always meant to be taken at its extreme cases at all times is misplaced.

How hard someone can try is a physical limit in and of itself. Your argument is ******** anyways because even with infinite effort, no one is going to PS every laser. The large majority of lasers are PSed in prediction, NOT reaction. Lasers travel fast enough that at most distance you can't wait for the visual cue of Falco's gun coming out. You also can't PS depending on your shield size and if you're dashing towards them and stuff like that. If you're going to make a claim that someone can achieve 100% PSing, then the burden of proof is on you. Until then, everyone else is going to just be rational and assume no one will ever play perfect because there's never been a single game of any sport that's ever been played perfect.

Every ruleset and every stagelist we make affects the balance of the game.

But that doesn't mean we have to intentionally balance the game with the rule set. If we just ban stuff based on how good it is for a certain character in the current metagame, we might miss out on later development. People could have easily seen all the chars that chain grab spacies and deem the stage broken, but whether the spacies are top tier or garbage tier overall shouldn't affect the legitimacy of chain grabbing. Either you view it as a character weakness like you should, or you view it as the stage ruining what could be top tier characters. The latter perspective is inherently flawed because you're basically assuming that your opinion of their tier spot is correct, and also that it will never change. What if 2 years from now we have a bunch of Marth development to the point that all of the neutrals seem very advantageous for him. Should we then start banning stages that he likes to CP (as many people have suggested doing for Fox on PS)? Of course not.

Also, everything JPOBS said.

I think we are largely in agreement on most of these points. I was just quoting you to make a jump off into a broader argument.

To quote Ken from KoC commentary: "You can ban neutral stages now!? What is this?"

We have to go back and re-evaluate why we give each player a ban, especially since, unlike other fighting games, we allow the winner to switch characters after game 1. What is the purpose of bans, and what does it accomplish toward the goal of creating a fair ruleset? Cause, from my perspective, the end result is simply a balance shift in favor of top tiers (spacies mainly) while penalizing high-mid tiers (Marth with no FD, DK with no FD, Bowser with no Yoshis, Pikachu with no FD, Puff with no Dreamland, Peach with no FD, ICs with no FD, etc etc) with little to no other benefits.

Maybe it made sense in an era where we had controversial stages on, and the TOs compromised by allowing players a way to avoid their most hated stage, but with such a small stagelist, I don't see the point. Its an unnecessary rule that causes an artificial balance shift.

The reason we have bans is because you want players to play on the most fair stages possible while still encouraging stage diversity. Player strike to the first stage, which is obviously the fairest solution, and I think everyone's happy with it. For bo3s, we allow players to ban the best cps so that game 1 isn't the sole decider of the set. While it is certainly possible for players to break even the best cps, it just makes more sense to play on each player's slightly less character-biased cp. Why should a set with Marth/Falco make them play game 1 on a struck stage they both agree on, then they play on FD and DL where it's significantly more difficult to win based on their opinion of how good of a cp it is. Allowing that ban means they'll stick to the other 5 stages that are deemed by the players to host tighter battles than on DL and FD (which get banned).

Bo3s play just how they should: a short version of a bo5. Obviously some characters benefit more from bans than others, but this just goes back to balancing the cast with the rule set. Even if you think Marth gets wrecked by bans, that doesn't mean it's unfair. It just means Marth is a worse character. Personally, I think the best solution to this discrepancy is to just have a single rule set where everyone plays bo5 at least until top 8/4 where they start playing bo7. Bo7s also play different than bo5, but I don't hear people complaining about bo7's favoring certain characters even though the system's character bias is just as big as with bo3's (if not more so, just because there's so many cps being played).

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I have a flight to catch so I'll make this quick..

But that doesn't mean we have to intentionally balance the game with the rule set. If we just ban stuff based on how good it is for a certain character in the current metagame, we might miss out on later development. People could have easily seen all the chars that chain grab spacies and deem the stage broken, but whether the spacies are top tier or garbage tier overall shouldn't affect the legitimacy of chain grabbing. Either you view it as a character weakness like you should, or you view it as the stage ruining what could be top tier characters. The latter perspective is inherently flawed because you're basically assuming that your opinion of their tier spot is correct, and also that it will never change. What if 2 years from now we have a bunch of Marth development to the point that all of the neutrals seem very advantageous for him. Should we then start banning stages that he likes to CP (as many people have suggested doing for Fox on PS)? Of course not.

This is all gibberish.

You're arguing against yourself. Player bans are a community construct. I'm arguing for the removal of them because I don't see their benefit. What is the point of giving each player a ban if the goal isn't to balance the characters? If they get ***** on a particular stage then oh well sucks for them. None of our remaining stages have any exceedingly random or gamebreaking elements, which in the past were a point of controversy, so we do not need this system any longer.

For bo3s, we allow players to ban the best cps so that game 1 isn't the sole decider of the set.

So instead we have a system where game 1 is the sole decider of the set for one character, and not for the other. Perfect.

[see: game 1: neutral, game 2: neutral, game 3: stadium/dreamland]

Even if you think Marth gets wrecked by bans, that doesn't mean it's unfair. It just means Marth is a worse character.

...

(I'm actually shocked that anybody could actually believe this but...)

A character getting wrecked by a community imposed rule is indeed unfair, and no, it does not make that character any worse.

 

[Bones0]

I have a flight to catch so I'll make this quick..



This is all gibberish.

You're arguing against yourself. Player bans are a community construct. I'm arguing for the removal of them because I don't see their benefit. What is the point of giving each player a ban if the goal isn't to balance the characters? If they get ***** on a particular stage then oh well sucks for them. None of our remaining stages have any exceedingly random or gamebreaking elements, which in the past were a point of controversy, so we do not need this system any longer.

If you had actually read my post, you'd see that I already explained it. Not having bans is just as much of a community construct as having bans is. AGAIN, the point of giving a ban is so that the set is played on the 3 most evenly-matched stages instead of playing game 1 on a fair stage, and games 2 and 3 on unnecessarily radical cps. AGAIN, why would we have Falco/Marth sets play FD/DL when the stages are simply influencing the match more than the rest of the cps? I am not pro-bans because I think we should be playing bo5s with DSRm. If you're going to play a bo3, you might as well add in bans so stages play less of a role. You will play on the same stages in a bo5 as you would in a bo3 with bans, with the exception that you'll have to play two additional cps. Why choose to include the cps that are more likely to benefit a player based on their character choice as opposed to playing skill?

So instead we have a system where game 1 is the sole decider of the set for one character, and not for the other. Perfect.

[see: game 1: neutral, game 2: neutral, game 3: stadium/dreamland]



...

(I'm actually shocked that anybody could actually believe this but...)

A character getting wrecked by a community imposed rule is indeed unfair, and no, it does not make that character any worse.

A character's "goodness" is determined through the lens of the rule set. Without a rule set, you can't determine whether a character is good or bad. All you are saying is that Marth is worse in a rule set with bans than in a rule set without bans. So what? SOMEONE will happen to receive benefits or detriments from rule changes, but that doesn't mean that the rule change is somehow unfair. Even if the community agreed that every match should be on FD, that wouldn't be unfair to spacies. It would just make spacies worse because the rules of the game would be about being good on FD. So long as everyone is playing on FD, it's fair.

You say Marth vs. spacies without bans goes: neutral, neutral, cp.
How do you think low tiers feel? They play: cp, cp, cp. That doesn't mean the rule set is unfair that low tiers have to play on stages that suck for them. They're just bad characters. If you truly believe Marth's only good cp vs. spacies is FD, then obviously he's just not that good of a character. Otherwise, we had better get around to creating a rule set that throws out handicaps left and right based on entirely subjective matchup ratios.

"Oh, man, Mewtwo sucks. Let's let Mewtwo cp Hyrule so that Mewtwo/Marth is more even. Damn, Mewtwo's Hyrule cp is good, but he still loses on all of the other neutrals! We need to find a stage so that Mewtwo/Marth is perfectly neutral for game 1. Otherwise the rule set is unfair to Mewtwo."

This doesn't even BEGIN to address concerns about matchups that some people disagree on. For instance, I think Marth is an absolute beast on PS, and I would consider it on par with FD. If I thought a Marth might cp PS, I would probably ban PS instead of FD because the platforms don't help Falco combo hardly at all, and all they do is end up making juggles lead into tippers more easily and giving Marth from difficult CG maneuvers. This is obviously just my opinion, but just because I hold a minority opinion doesn't mean we should adjust the rule set regardless. If you try to start altering the rule set to make it fair for every character, you end up with a cluster**** that has to get updated every time a character's metagame gets improved (which happens at every single tournament; it's just in such small increments so that you can't always tell until 5 years later and you have Ken fsmashing shields like he just learned to C-stick yesterday).

If your character doesn't excel in the rule set, it's a fault of the character, not the rule set because a rule set can't be wrong. Rule sets are entirely subjective. If the community as a whole feels like bo3s should have bans so that we don't have to play OP cps unnecessarily, then that is the standard by which we determine a character's strength. You can say Marth is a good character that is nerfed by bans just the same as I can say Fox is a good character that is nerfed by no bans.

 

[Xyzz]

I think both Bones and TCB have some good points there, and it's entirely arbitrary (what happened to him? :D) which ruleset is better suited for competitive play. Just stop playing Bo3s and start doing Bo5 from bracket onwards already
I would've always jumped to the conclusion of just saying "yeah, getting rid of the worst two stages in a bo3 where you don't play out a majority of the stages is a no-brainer", but I feel TCB brings up a super relevant point for the practical application here (:

Also: Why hasn't anyone mentioned to EthereaL that this crouch jumping thing is far more similar to shortening Illusions than powershielding? Actually it's easier than getting shortened illusions (which I think about everyone notable can already do with >98% accuracy or sth), because the inputs are closer together.

 

[odinNJ]

^^ i agree
. The main difference comes in that power shielding comes on reaction and the timing depends on the position of the two characters. Whereas shortening illusions/phantasms has a set timing

 

[Bones0]

I thought multishining would have been the obvious comparison because I think he said the window is 3 frames, which is the exact same timing as Fox's multishine (3 frames of jumpsquat, and then you press B on the 4th). I can multishine with great consistency. Powershielding things based on a mix of prediction and reaction with only 1 frame of error... not so much.

Anyway, I think no one's really responding because no one thinks his argument that "people just need to try harder and they can be perfect" holds much weight. Sure, that's a great belief to have when practicing and improving, but at some point you have to realize that you will never be perfect, and TRYING to be perfect is almost always suboptimal. If you try to play Melee like you're a human TAS, you'll last about 2 seconds before you've killed yourself or gotten into a stupid situation that the opponent kills you from.

 

[Xyzz]

Multishine timing changes on whether you hit someones shield or not, doesn't it? So I'd say it's harder to do than doing stuff that doesn't ever change

regarding whether it's important to respond to him:

^ me

 

[Dark Hart]

How do you think low tiers feel? Bones, that's horrible logic, and I play Zelda.

"You think your rights aren't being represented? Well then, let me point out this whole group of people whose rights are being represented less than yours"

 

[Bones0]

I'd like to think most low tier mains don't want the rules twisted and warped in their favor just because they play a worse character. It takes away all value from winning when your victory was only a result of a rule set that treats some characters different from others. That is what TRUE unfairness looks like.

 

[Yobolight]

Alright Melee, lets admit that Luigi is better than Mario. Luigi's movement is too good.

 

[Gea]

I'm not sure his movement is what makes him better, but I can certainly be okay with a tier list where Luigi is above Mario

 

[MaskedMarth]

Solution to stage discussion: do what Europe does and run bo5s/bo7s?

 

[KrIsP!]

People need to figure out how to run a tournament first. 3 hours in between pools and bracket

 

[choknater]

yo ness loses to ylink hard

 

[Deleted member]

yo ness loses to ylink hard

i don't think it's that bad, but YL probably wins. i wasn't able to find a way to beat YL upair last time i played the match.

 

[Bones0]

Did you try absorbing them with down-B? That move is so nifty.

 

[Habefiet]

Solution to stage discussion: do what Europe does and run bo5s/bo7s?

IMO Bo7s are unnecessarily long. But Bo3s are unnecessarily short. Should do Bo5s for everything, certainly at least for all of bracket, and just run tourneys more efficiently.

 

[choknater]

it would probably make results more accurate

but all bo5's would probably not fly for a major because of time constraints

that **** would be so tiring and time consuming lol

 

[Beat!]

it would probably make results more accurate

Yes.

but all bo5's would probably not fly for a major because of time constraints

that **** would be so tiring and time consuming lol

Incorrect.

You know most european tournaments do bo5 for pretty much the entire bracket, right?

TCB should dig up that post of his where he explains in detail why doing more bo5s doesn't actually take that much more time.

 

[Gea]

Why can't we devise a way for players not to wander off or play friendlies that people like doing?

 

[knightpraetor]

I would love for the chance to Bo5 the whole tourney.

But we would need more setups. I think that realistically in NC last weekend there weren't enough setups for a Bo5 tourney. However, I could have brought two setups but thought there would be enough since hte last two times I went there were too many setups and they didn't use mine.

If tourney runners said that if enough tvs are brought the tourney will be Bo5 more players will be motivated to bring TVs. Everyone wants a longer set. The better players so that they are not as likely to be off or not warmed up and lose and the worse players so they can get more matches with the better players in tourney.

I wouldn't even mind swiss tourneys if that meant we could get Bo5s.
That would be so much more legit

 

[Gea]

Swiss system is most legit, yes.

 

[knightpraetor]

is a swiss system faster or does it take the same amount of time? i don't really remember exactly what it is

 

[Pengie]

The speed of a tournament run on swiss depends most on the number of available setups. If there's a good ratio of setups to players (I think 1:4 should be the minimum) then it can be run in a pretty efficient manner. Otherwise it can be a a bit of a pain. Also people need to not play friendlies while the tournament's running which, knowing the smash community, is never going to happen.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Shoutouts to Rom for sucking huge **** because people are children.

 

[Twinkles]

shoutouts to no one explaining why because there are even more trolls than normal on the stream

 

[VoiD-]

Shoutouts to Rom for sucking huge **** because people are children.

Who, exactly? Legitimate question.

The commentators kept saying stuff like the canadians were stacking the tournament against M2K (by sending the guy who never beats him instead of the guy who just did? what?) and then there was some talk of splitting, but no one actually split. They then started saying stuff like "this tournament was ruined by some prima donnas""oo good word, you can't call them the b word" and talking about how they were bored and wanted to go home. I mean, it might have been nice if they had used their mains in WF, but how is that being children? Or were you talking about the whole M2K/Unknown game 5 thing?

Like even as I post this the commentators talking about how the tournament is ruined, and I'm not really clear on why.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Mostly M2K/Unknown game 5 and no one knowing the rules (or M2K lying, I honestly don't know which, but clearly no one cares enough to check the rules BEFORE PLAYING THE MATCH).

Winner's Finals was also really stupid, cause it was clear Unknown didn't care/want to play, and it was just a friendly set with no hype whatsoever.

 

[Archangel]

I do find it funny in a sense...

So...Marth really can win a national...if everyone forfeits/sandbags.

 

[Stevo]

RoM 5 was good if you just pretend that Winners semis between Mew2King and Unkown was actually Grand Finals.


Because it basically was

 

[Xyzz]

I do find it funny in a sense...

So...Marth really can win a national...if everyone forfeits/sandbags.

"Doesn't show up" is the main point imho