[Official SSB4 Discussion] --- Nintendo announces 2 new Smash games!

[Big-Cat]

Basically, you tend to do things in a stream of consciousness fashion. I'm okay with that. If you want to use some up some of your energy. Post as you have done before and think of it as the cutting floor. Choose which parts you want to keep and possibly improve those parts.

Other than that, I'd cut down on the sweets or beat the crap out of a punching bag; that's always good fun.

I guess we can go on about this summoner type character thing. As you've said, this has been going on for 2090 pages with circular discussion. I'm only still here because this is the only place besides the Gameplay Discussion Group that I can write up my ideas for the sequel in my spare time.

 

[DekuBoy]

I would love for Nintendo to do what Valve do with TF2.

They make say, The Zelda Update. It has stages and costumes and maybe trophies. They release these over the next two years after release. This would expand the games lifespan.

 

[Big-Cat]

Like I've said before, you don't need added content to keep a game alive. Look at Melee, 3rd Strike, and MvC2 which are still being played despite being out for nearly a decade each. You need quality gameplay to keep people going back to it.

 

[SmashChu]

Like I've said before, you don't need added content to keep a game alive. Look at Melee, 3rd Strike, and MvC2 which are still being played despite being out for nearly a decade each. You need quality gameplay to keep people going back to it.

But if there is too little to do, then there is no reason to keep revisiting it/ Think about this: would you rather have the best fighting game ever made, but only have two characters, or a decent one with 40? Smash and MvC are played because they have so much content in them. It is hard for the game to get old. Good gameplay matters, but only to the point of "good enough." Then, there has to be enough there to satisfy the player. World of Warcraft is a great example. The game sells because there is so much too it. The world is very big and there is always a lot to do. If the gameplay was leagues better, but the world was half the size (before expansions) it would have failed. Not how expansions to the games add to the content, not the gameplay. Expansions for WoW make the world bigger and give you more to do. Expansions for Street Fighter (and there are a lot of them) add to the content. The selling point of SSF4 is 10 new characters, not better gameplay.

 

[Big-Cat]

Oh, no, I understand completely. I'm just saying that new content is not the solution to keeping a game alive exclusively. MvC2 and Melee are still being played despite having no added content to them since their initial release.

I'm more than fine with rereleases just as long as they not only make it worth it in addition of content, but also fine-tune the gameplay and the character balance. Giving us DLC like the proposed Zelda Pack wouldn't be worth the purchase as it acts more or less as fluff save for the new stages.

With this in mind, this brings up a question I've thought about in the past. Let's say Nintendo decides to pull a Blizzard/Capcom with updates. Just how much content would they add the first time, especially characters. Melee gave us 14 new characters (6 of them clones) and Brawl gave us 18 (17 if you don't count Toon Link). Would we get around 8 characters for the first release followed by an additional 8? Maybe like this, note these are personal preference:

1. Krystal
2. Ridley
3. Megaman
4. Bowser Jr.
5. K. Rool
6. Isaac
7. Tom Nook
8. Mewtwo

Followed by:
1. Capt. Syrup
2. Toad
3. Starfy
4. Lip
5. Saki or Isa
6. Andy
7. Chocobo (or some SE character)
8. Roy

 

[Pieman0920]

Eh, Street Fighter has sort of built a repututation on releasing a constant stream of updates. If Smash tried to do that, it'd be accused of rehashing just like SF. Now would be that good or not? I guess it might be, as long as they lowered the price, but I'm still a bit skeptical. Smash generally has a lot more content than SF, and odds are they won't update everything equally if they make a quick update.

 

[ElPanandero]

I'm not sure if it would fall into that light. Every war game of the early 00's was WW2 and noone accusesd any one company of rehashing or copying the other (they did, however, crap on the FPS lack of innovationa s a whole). I don't think following another company's good idea is bad, I think not doing is where fault could be found.

If they tried to do it however, and just ended up adding a few new characters all of which were terribly unbalanced, then they would be hated on.

What to look at is the risk: Do it poorly, you fall victim to the hating. Do it well, praised for making a smart decision based off other's success.

 

[DekuBoy]

Wel, the safe route would be downloadable stages, trophies, events and maybe bosses. Characters could be tricky.

 

[Gallowglass]

What they could do is download is parts for stage builder and items. You could get different items like theme parts or traps. I want invisible blocks and other traps.

 

[Pieman0920]

I'm not sure if it would fall into that light. Every war game of the early 00's was WW2 and noone accusesd any one company of rehashing or copying the other (they did, however, crap on the FPS lack of innovationa s a whole). I don't think following another company's good idea is bad, I think not doing is where fault could be found.

If they tried to do it however, and just ended up adding a few new characters all of which were terribly unbalanced, then they would be hated on.

What to look at is the risk: Do it poorly, you fall victim to the hating. Do it well, praised for making a smart decision based off other's success.

It doesn't matter if others do it another genre gets away with it, since what you have to look out is Smash's own genre. Fighting games always get harped on for this, and for good reason. It usually is a pretty poor update with all things considered, and given how Smash hasn't done anything like that, it hasn't had the problem at all. The fact that it takes its time means that it is a legitimatly new game instead of some update that invalidates that old games.

With 3S, what was the point of the first two SF 3s other than making sure that they balanced things? Does anyone really play the Marvel vs. Capcom games from before MvC2? Will anyone be playing SF4 at all when SSF4 comes out? It makes the previous purchase somewhat pointless if you churn out a update after a year or so. With Smash though, each of the three games are so distinct from each other, that they are all still played, and they all feel truly different. In my mind, that's the better route to take with these things instead of just having that one final product, with each of the previous ones being unnecessary filler that works its way up to it.

And quite frankly, with the advent of DLC and what not, I would hope that the whole "updated balancing" excuse that several fighters can use to justify a new version could be solved for one game by patches or something.

 

[ElPanandero]

fair enough, I misunderstood your implications.

 

[augustoflores]

it is unfortunate that he said that there will be no brawl dlc in the future... was there a game in the past that said they won't but eventually gave in to the masses? if there is, then there is still hope for brawl yet.

 

[Big-Cat]

It doesn't matter if others do it another genre gets away with it, since what you have to look out is Smash's own genre. Fighting games always get harped on for this, and for good reason. It usually is a pretty poor update with all things considered, and given how Smash hasn't done anything like that, it hasn't had the problem at all. The fact that it takes its time means that it is a legitimatly new game instead of some update that invalidates that old games.

Just to clarify, Smash is still a fighting game. It's simply a part of its own subgenre just like SF is part of the 2D fighter and Tekken is of the 3D fighter. Anyway, some would say Smash should do this thing because it's been obvious since Melee that the games are unfinished each time they come up. Hell, Brawl had seven planned characters and God knows what other ideas Sakurai had in mind.

With 3S, what was the point of the first two SF 3s other than making sure that they balanced things? Does anyone really play the Marvel vs. Capcom games from before MvC2? Will anyone be playing SF4 at all when SSF4 comes out? It makes the previous purchase somewhat pointless if you churn out a update after a year or so. With Smash though, each of the three games are so distinct from each other, that they are all still played, and they all feel truly different. In my mind, that's the better route to take with these things instead of just having that one final product, with each of the previous ones being unnecessary filler that works its way up to it.

Mind you that each of the SFIII games added characters to justify the release. 2nd Impact had Hugo, Urien, Akuma, and Yang became playable characters. 3rd Strike had Makoto, Q, Twelve, Remy, and Chun-Li added. As for why they simply didn't do it all at once, there are things called time constraints. This is evident by the fact that there are Hugo sprite in the first SFIII.

As for SFII, the first update made the four Devas playable, the second was as a responce to glitches (Dhalsim's teleport glitch) and bootleg updates (This is how Chun-Li got her Kikouken) primarily. Super added four new characters, particularly the fan favorite Cammy and updated the graphics. Super Turbo further balanced the game and introduced Akuma as a boss character. HD Remix is the only update to have not added anything major as the other rereleases.

MvC2 was a radical change from MvC what with the gigantic roster and the new battle system. It was a new game all in itself.

You know, yearly sports games like Madden do it much worse than fighting games. Care to explain why no one cares that they do yearly updates but everyone does every time an updated rerelease occurs for a fighting game? Just be happy that SSFIV is being released for $40 USD.

Also, don't go assuming that they do this on purpose all the time. Had SFIV not sold well enough, we probably wouldn't have gotten Super and they may not even do an update for Super other than possible patches (Chances are they will knowing Capcom).

And quite frankly, with the advent of DLC and what not, I would hope that the whole "updated balancing" excuse that several fighters can use to justify a new version could be solved for one game by patches or something.

It's much harder than that. You can't just add characters, rebalance, add new modes, and fix the online just like that. You have the risk of running into conflicting code (as mentioned for SSFIV), data size distribution limits, and just dividing up the player base radically like that.

 

[Pieman0920]

Really there isn't. Any. Even if there were such a game that originally wasn't supposed to have DLC but then did, its been two years since Brawl was released. If you even have a tiny bit of hope for different type of DLC for Brawl, you're nuts.

EDIT:

@ Kuma: No game that gets a sequel is really ever finished. There could always be mroe characters, modes, mechanics, and all sorts of other things. Its irrelivant because its simply the nature of things. I'm not saying that Smash shouldn't get another sequel, but rather than if Smash does get one, it should have time and effort put into it, and the same should apply to the game that comes after it. Thus each Smash game will have its own unique things that it brings to the table.

Anyways, nothing you're saying is denying what my problem was. Yes some of the games added characters, and that's their excuse for having a new game, but my problem is that it makes the previous games pointless for the most part, and overall makes them seem like a waste of time and money on the part of the consumer. Why should I buy Smash 4 when Smash 5 is just going to come out in a year with four new characters? Why should I bother with Smash 5 either when Smash 6 will come out right after that with a special new boss? This is the problem with most of the recent fighting games that just churn out new versions one after another, and I'd much rather Smash stay on its current path. Sakurai's decision to make each Smash game as if it will be his last is a good mindset in my opinion.

Really though, why are you asking me to justify Madden? If I don't think the repeat fighting game releases are justified, what makes you think I would have sympathy for something that's worse. But just because there is something that's worse doesn't mean that the lesser of two evils has to be tolerated.

As for the DLC comment, I'm just saying that I would think that in the future that patches could probably be made easily enough for gameplay. I'm not suggesting that new modes and certainly not new characters would be avaliable through it.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

You know, yearly sports games like Madden do it much worse than fighting games. Care to explain why no one cares that they do yearly updates but everyone does every time an updated rerelease occurs for a fighting game? Just be happy that SSFIV is being released for $40 USD.

What planet are you from? Everyone hates the yearly Madden releases, or yearly anything being milked for that matter. They're just less vocal about it when it's a regular thing that never seems to go away.

Nintendo generally avoids doing the update/rerelease thing, so I don't know why you'd expect them to do it with Smash. Especially since once they finished making each Smash game, they moved on to other projects rather quickly.

 

[ElPanandero]

Why should you consider an updated smash game an entirely new game? The remakes in SF weren't Street Fighter 2,3, or 4. it was Super and HD remix (or whatever the titles were). And it's not like the games cost an excessive amount. SSFIV is 20$ less than the average game, give it a while and it'll drop to an even more reasonable price.

Getting any sequel makes the old game less valuable. If you don't want to "waste" monrey. don't buy the old. If you want to experience the differences for yourself, do.

 

[lordvaati]

well, let's look at the charts.

with Street Fighter II, it was World Warrior, Hyper Fighting, Championship Edition, Super Street Fighter II, Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix.

with Street Fighter III, it was New Generation. 2nd Impact, and 3rd Strike

with Guilty Gear X2, it was Midnight Carnival, # Reload, Slash, Accent Core, and Accent Core Plus.

and next month we are getting Super Street Fighter IV.

so....nah, I would'nt really want an Super Smash Brothers Brawl: Extra Chaos or whatever update, personally.

 

[Big-Cat]

What planet are you from? Everyone hates the yearly Madden releases, or yearly anything being milked for that matter. They're just less vocal about it when it's a regular thing that never seems to go away.

Nintendo generally avoids doing the update/rerelease thing, so I don't know why you'd expect them to do it with Smash. Especially since once they finished making each Smash game, they moved on to other projects rather quickly.

I'm aware of the hate, but as you said, it's nowhere near as vocal. The rereleases are expected of fighting games as well so there's a double standard going on here regardless of how vocal people are.

As for Nintendo avoiding updates/rereleases, you could say the Pokemon remakes are examples of this along with the new version of the current gen (Yellow and Green, Crystal, Emerald, Platinum) coming out around a year or so after the first two come out. They have just yet to do it with anything besides Pokemon. There isn't another series that I can think of that has done anything like this except for Mario with Super Mario Galaxy 2, and that's mostly because most of the games aren't made for multiplayer or such save for Mario Kart.

For them moving onto other projects, remember that Nintendo is made up of different development teams so it's not like they all work on the same game at the same time. Therefore, it's not too farfetched for them to set up a team for SSB, heck that was the case for Brawl, just like they have a Zelda team, a Metroid team, etc.

For those of you not understanding these rereleases and whatnot, I strongly suggest checking this out.
http://www.destructoid.com/guide-how-to-stfu-about-super-street-fighter-iv-150353.phtml

 

[Pieman0920]

Why should you consider an updated smash game an entirely new game? The remakes in SF weren't Street Fighter 2,3, or 4. it was Super and HD remix (or whatever the titles were). And it's not like the games cost an excessive amount. SSFIV is 20$ less than the average game, give it a while and it'll drop to an even more reasonable price.

Getting any sequel makes the old game less valuable. If you don't want to "waste" monrey. don't buy the old. If you want to experience the differences for yourself, do.

Why should there be an updated Smash if its not a entirely new game? 64, Melee, and Brawl have all been completely different, and I expect the same for Smash 4 and probably 5 as well.

But its not just a matter of monetary value. Its the problem that we'd just be getting a slightly more updated game within the span of a year or so, thus making the previous game pointless to own. This so far has been avoided with Smash, but if you had little updates, then it wouldn't be the case. There is reason to go back and play Melee or Smash 64, but there's little reason to play the original SF3 or Second/Double Impact when you have 3S. What was the point of getting those games anyways when in a year there will be a better game that is essentially the same? Remember at the time the most recent game isn't the old game, so you just get it anyways because its the newest, but then it quickly becomes invalidated because there's a update right behind it. That's what the problem is.

And in regards to Pokemon, yes that's a example of Nintendo rehashing most of the time (I'd say the third version such as Yellow/Crystal/etc is the real rehash here, not the generation skip) but that doesn't mean that Smash Bros should do it too.

 

[ElPanandero]

No one is saying it has to be multiple installments like SF. Why not just one single release that gives us the game that we deserved.

An updated Brawl with more balance (Metaknight Nerfing), some of the forbidden 7 being finished and put in (at the risk of poor balance, but hey, when was the last time they made Mewtwo or Roy good?), and the elimination of Chaingrabs (and if they really loved us, tripping).

I think that Smash is the game that is most necessary (and easier) to do this for, because the game could be so much better with some minor balance tweaks, and we have already made a list outlining which characters could use some nerfs.

 

[Big-Cat]

No one is saying it has to be multiple installments like SF. Why not just one single release that gives us the game that we deserved.

An updated Brawl with more balance (Metaknight Nerfing), some of the forbidden 7 being finished and put in (at the risk of poor balance, but hey, when was the last time they made Mewtwo or Roy good?), and the elimination of Chaingrabs (and if they really loved us, tripping).

I think that Smash is the game that is most necessary (and easier) to do this for, because the game could be so much better with some minor balance tweaks, and we have already made a list outlining which characters could use some nerfs.

At most, I'd go with two updates. Anything after that is overkill and Nintendo milking us like crazy.

I haven't checked the character boards in ages, but I'm sure there are probably list outlines for buffs too (Balanced Brawl, from what I've seen has shown what could be done to fix them).

 

[SmashChu]

No one is saying it has to be multiple installments like SF. Why not just one single release that gives us the game that we deserved.

An updated Brawl with more balance (Metaknight Nerfing), some of the forbidden 7 being finished and put in (at the risk of poor balance, but hey, when was the last time they made Mewtwo or Roy good?), and the elimination of Chaingrabs (and if they really loved us, tripping).

I think that Smash is the game that is most necessary (and easier) to do this for, because the game could be so much better with some minor balance tweaks, and we have already made a list outlining which characters could use some nerfs.

As an aside, remember that Smash is balanced for 4vs, not competitive play. Competitive play removes so much from the game that certain characters will dominate. By removing as much as competitive Smash does, it allows the character who's good in a few areas to excel because only certain traits count anymore. This is why Meta-Knight is considered broken in Competitive Smash but it is Ike is is by far considered a better and more deadly character and is used a lot more online. Also, Meta-Knight is a catch 22. He's not amazing in 4vs and really isn't that threatening unless your REALLY good, and those players are few and far between (I am more afraid of a Pikachu or Lucas then any Meta-Knight). If Meta-Knight is nerfed to much, he'll become a garbage character.

Also, most fans will not go out and buy a re release of Brawl because it has "better balance." Most people see the game as pretty balanced (or enough to their needs) and don't see the need to shell out more money for the same game. This also goes back to you're comment Kuma: People will shell out more money for content, but not for a slightly better game.

 

[ElPanandero]

@chu

What you say makes a lot of sense, but if most people won't buy the game for balanced reasons, the people who want the balance, would buy it.

just a thought

 

[Big-Cat]

Until you give us explicit proof, stated by Sakurai himself, that the game was balanced for four player free for all with items on and two minute time limits, I can't believe you. You've been asked several times for this and we've yet to see a confirmation.

I do agree that people will not go ahead and buy an update if it was just a balance fixer. It has to be worth getting as well with new characters, stages, etc.

Most people see the game as pretty balanced (or enough to their needs) and don't see the need to shell out more money for the same game

Just how many people say this or are you pulling stuff out of nowhere?

 

[SmashChu]

@chu

What you say makes a lot of sense, but if most people won't buy the game for balanced reasons, the people who want the balance, would buy it.

just a thought

The problem is it wouldn't be in the best interest of time. Why go back to an old game to do tweaks that wont bring in a lot of revenue when you can work on something different. It wouldn't bring in a lot of sales.

Until you give us explicit proof, stated by Sakurai himself, that the game was balanced for four player free for all with items on and two minute time limits, I can't believe you. You've been asked several times for this and we've yet to see a confirmation.

How is it NOT obvious? Look at how all the games have progressed. Link and Yoshi have been low for all three games. To believe it as true would be to accept they did a horrible job three times in 10 years or that something is wrong with the tier list. Heck, Link was nerfed in Brawl. Why would they nerf a bad character? Or maybe it was because Link was actually good in Melee. Notice how his Up B on the ground is weaker. His Sword Spin was VERY powerful in Melee.

It would only make sense to say it was balanced for 4vs because the whole idea is a 4 player free for all.

The Dojo
What is "Super Smash Bros."?
It's a brawling, battling, action-packed video game that features a varied roster of characters for four-player simultaneous melees!
64's commercial
Notice how it calls it a 4 player slam fest

The game is made and designed around 4 player battling. To say it wasn't balanced around 4vs would be to say they designed the balance against what they designed the game around. It would only make sense that they designed the balanced around 4vs. this would also explain the discrepancy between 4vs and the competitive community.
I do agree that people will not go ahead and buy an update if it was just a balance fixer. It has to be worth getting as well with new characters, stages, etc.

Just how many people say this or are you pulling stuff out of nowhere?

Leave Smashboards and you'll see. This is why the "Teirs are for queers" exist.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

No one is saying it has to be multiple installments like SF. Why not just one single release that gives us the game that we deserved.

An updated Brawl with more balance (Metaknight Nerfing), some of the forbidden 7 being finished and put in (at the risk of poor balance, but hey, when was the last time they made Mewtwo or Roy good?), and the elimination of Chaingrabs (and if they really loved us, tripping).

I think that Smash is the game that is most necessary (and easier) to do this for, because the game could be so much better with some minor balance tweaks, and we have already made a list outlining which characters could use some nerfs.

It's pretty selfish to be asking for a Brawl update (or one for SSB4 later), I don't think those of you asking for it realize how terrible the effort/reward ratio is. Especially if you're asking for "balance" or whatever you specifically fancy. If you got bored of the game the first time, you're probably gonna end up bored with the touch-up.

4P

Let's not forget that "4-player Battle Royal" was the title for 64 during the original planning phase.

Also, anyone asking for better competitive balance might as well be asking for the game to come with a complimentary free bar of gold. Balancing 39 characters is bad enough, 50 or so is exponentially worse.

 

[Big-Cat]

How is it NOT obvious? Look at how all the games have progressed. Link and Yoshi have been low for all three games. To believe it as true would be to accept they did a horrible job three times in 10 years or that something is wrong with the tier list. Heck, Link was nerfed in Brawl. Why would they nerf a bad character? Or maybe it was because Link was actually good in Melee. Notice how his Up B on the ground is weaker. His Sword Spin was VERY powerful in Melee.

It would only make sense to say it was balanced for 4vs because the whole idea is a 4 player free for all.

The Dojo
What is "Super Smash Bros."?
It's a brawling, battling, action-packed video game that features a varied roster of characters for four-player simultaneous melees!
64's commercial
Notice how it calls it a 4 player slam fest

The game is made and designed around 4 player battling. To say it wasn't balanced around 4vs would be to say they designed the balance against what they designed the game around. It would only make sense that they designed the balanced around 4vs. this would also explain the discrepancy between 4vs and the competitive community.

I've already been through this, but I cannot see how you can balance a game where there are four players, items on, and stage hazards. The four players part is what, to me, makes it insanely hard to balance if it's even possible. This is because three of those four players can gang up on another or something else entirely. Then there's the possibility that you may have only two characters in a match so now we have to balance these characters for a completely different situation. Basically, there's too much going on to get a reasonable assessment on how balanced a character is.

Also, if you want nerfs, explain then why characters like Sheik, Fox, Marth, Samus, and such were nerfed especially when Fox's trophy description mentions that his fuerza is one on one fights. At the same time, some characters that were lower tiered got buffs. Gee, I wonder if the tier list had something to do with it.

Leave Smashboards and you'll see. This is why the "Teirs are for queers" exist.

Unless other forums don't count, I tend to see general complaints regarding Brawl and not just at SRK (no surprise there), but also at IGN and Gamespot.

Let's not forget that "4-player Battle Royal" was the title for 64 during the original planning phase.

Also, anyone asking for better competitive balance might as well be asking for the game to come with a complimentary free bar of gold. Balancing 39 characters is bad enough, 50 or so is exponentially worse.

I always interpreted that as it being named that partly because the N64 was the only console at the time to offer 4-player multiplayer.

As for balancing, yeah, it's a hassle, but there are ways to make easier such as implementing fail-safe mechanics. Since you love Sirlin so much, take a look at this:

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-3-fairness.html
Here some more as a summary and PDF handout from one of the GDC:
http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/balance/GDC 2009 sirlin handout6.pdf

 

[overgamer]

As for balancing, yeah, it's a hassle, but there are ways to make easier such as implementing fail-safe mechanics. Since you love Sirlin so much, take a look at this:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-3-fairness.html

On the site (sorry for the wall of text):

***The Tier List

During the balancing of Street Fighter, Kongai, and my card game called Yomi, I used a similar approach with playtesters. I think this approach doesn’t really depend on the genre, and the key idea is managing the tier list.

The term “tier list” is, I think, a term from the fighting game genre. It means a ranking of how powerful each character is from highest to lowest, but it also accepts that such a list cannot be exact. Instead of ranking 20 characters from 1 to 20, the idea is to group them together into “tiers” of power. Remember that if a divine being handed you a 100% perfectly balanced game, that players would still make tier lists. You should accept the existence of these lists from players as a given, and its your job to manage this list.

In Kongai and Yomi, I even gave the players a template for the tier list that is most useful for me as a designer. First, I tell them to think of three tiers: top, middle, and bottom. Then I tell them about the two “secret tiers” that I hope are empty.

0) God tier (no character should be in this tier, if they are, you are forced to play them to be competitive)
1) Top tier (don't be afraid to put your favorite characters here. Being top tier does not necessarily mean any nerfs are needed)
2) Middle tier (pretty good, not quite as good as top)
3) Bottom tier (I can still win with them, but it's hard)
4) Garbage tier (no one should be in this. Not reasonable to play this character at all.)

My first goal of balancing is to get the god tier empty. Of course some character will end up strongest, or tied for strongest, and that is ok. But a “god tier” character is so strong as to make the rest of the game obsolete. We have to fix that immediately because it ruins the whole playtest (and the game). Also, the power level of anything in the god tier is so high, that we can’t even hope to balance the rest of the game around it.

My next goal is get rid of the garbage tier characters. They are so bad that no one touches them, and it’s usually pretty easy to increase their power enough to get them somewhere between top, middle, and bottom. If they are somewhere in those three tiers (which gives you a lot of latitude actually), at least they are playable.***

Do you think they really cared about balance when they made Brawl?
And at the god tier thingy, it just reminds me MK. No offense though.
What in the hell did they think when they made him?

If they could just do some more testing/balancing on SSB4 before actually releasing it, it would not hurt.

 

[ElPanandero]

Meh, I'm over the idea of a rebalanced game. While I would like to see it. Toise and Chu have pointed out the holes with the argument.

As for Tiers. Tiers do exist and are mostly credible, though I think making them so public and depended upon is the problem. Tiers do outline character's in order of strength, but the reason the metagame gets so prominent with certain characters is because of a prevalence of people using them solely for the reason that they are high tier.

 

[Big-Cat]

Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about it. However, it depends on how the tier list is organized.

If the tier is organized by matchups, players who main a certain character can find out their matchups against other characters, bad matchups in particular. There are two ways I see tier lists:

1. Which characters are best against X character.
2. What matchups does my character need to work on in order to find possible advantages even in bad matchups.

All in all, it all depends on how you take it. Some take it as "Don't use this, use that one because it's good." I see it as, "Okay, what can we do so that we aren't so low on the tier list." I see it as a challenge that is to be overcome by communities; almost like climbing the corporate ladder.

 

[lordvaati]

uh, Kuma, the way you make it sound, you make it sound like Smash Bros. should be 2-player only, and get a 2-player only update of that. and god tiers don't mean total imbalance. I mean, look at guilty gear XX AC- Eddie has his own bloody tier, yet people say it's the most balanced fighter this side of Soul Calibur II.

 

[Big-Cat]

uh, Kuma, the way you make it sound, you make it sound like Smash Bros. should be 2-player only, and get a 2-player only update of that. and god tiers don't mean total imbalance. I mean, look at guilty gear XX AC- Eddie has his own bloody tier, yet people say it's the most balanced fighter this side of Soul Calibur II.

Nope. I understand why people get this impression of me regarding that, but I want 4-player madness intact. It's just that I believe that it's impossible to balance characters when you have four characters involved as opposed to how well does X character do against Y character without other factors involved.

God tier is something you want to avoid, as the Sirlin page mentions. Nothing, however, is wrong with top tier. God tier is basically ST Akuma or around that area that makes the character the only one worth playing competitively. Nothing's wrong with tiers, but the quality difference between the top and the bottom matters. I've yet to play Acent Core , but let's take a look at how the tier list is set up:

http://kayin.pyoko.org/GuiltyGear/actiers.html

Based off of matchup points, the balanced character would have 110 points in total against the other 22 characters. The lowest is Anji with 96.5, 13.5 below the average mark while Eddie is 13 above. From this, it does seem very balanced.

Just for the heck of it, I'll pull out a SFIV tier list for comparison:
http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2008/oct/17/street-fighter-4-tiers-character-rankings/

The balanced mark is 120 here. Sagat is 28 points above with Dan 27 below. Now, to try to get some kind of normalization. The distance between Eddie and the average mark is about 12%. The distance between Sagat and the average mark is 23.3%. If my normalization was accurate, it would seem like you're likely correct in saying it's the most balanced fighter considering IV is considered one of the best balanced. Then again, IV was the initial release, Accent Core wasn't.

Just for a note, 3rd strike has about 35%.

 

[overgamer]

@KumaOso
Zappa is B- in GGAC? No way, he's much lower. O.o
Are you sure that tier list is recent enough?

Anyway there's no way to compare games like GG and SF4 with Melee or Brawl.
It's so different style...

 

[Big-Cat]

It was just a tier list I found. If you can find me a more recent one, go ahead.

Anyway, I would say that you can compare them, but not in the sense you're probably think of. People still use matchup charts just like the others; now only if I could find a completed chart for Brawl. Smash Wiki has a lot of blanks (definitely says something about the game).

For Melee, though, using the same method I used for GG and SF, the balanced character would have 125 points (or 1250 depending on if you use decimals or not). Fox has 166 points, and Mewtwo, if I added correctly, 93 points. Fox was 32.8% above the mark, with Mewtwo 25.6% below. These numbers are actually greater than 3S since Sean, based off of that tier list was 39% below the mark, therefore, Melee was better balanced than a SF game because the distance between the top and bottom percentage wise is smaller.

Mind you of course that the tier list I used was from the Smash Wiki which uses a 2007 tier list. The same goes for 3S.

 

[wiitubeaccount]

i hope that the next won't be as campy as brawl and will be as epic as melee!

 

[JOE!]

So, what changes do you all think will occur to the current roster next time around?

For example, From melee->Brawl, Mario got FLUDD, Link got a chargeable Up B, and Falcon's Golden nipples got shinier.

I for one think if PT is still in, is gonna get some Seismic Toss action

 

[ElPanandero]

Well I think as a whole, the characters with tether-only recoveries (Olimar, ZZS, Ivysaur) should have have a way to hit edge-guards and then still recover. Multiple uses perhaps? Worked in Brawl +

 

[augustoflores]

players get the ability to choose their own <premade movesets> in the char select screen. (this is another extention to my user customization idea but revamped for those with a less creative, more limited mind)

How this will work or look like:
remember playing marvel vs capcom 2 when you choose magneto and his "assist type select" menu pops up and you can choose Projectile Type, Capture Type, or Launcher Type? well in this case, only look at the assist type select, can you visualize the three things listed above as:
Ganondorf: Physical, Magical, Sword
pokémon trainer: Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, Sinnoh, next (hopefully)
Lucas: kumatora, lucas (whatever I'll probably get flamed at for this)
etcetera...
pretend it isn't assist type select, pretend it is called moveset select.

 

[lordvaati]

players get the ability to choose their own <premade movesets> in the char select screen. (this is another extention to my user customization idea but revamped for those with a less creative, more limited mind)

How this will work or look like:
remember playing marvel vs capcom 2 when you choose magneto and his "assist type select" menu pops up and you can choose Projectile Type, Capture Type, or Launcher Type? well in this case, only look at the assist type select, can you visualize the three things listed above as:
Ganondorf: Physical, Magical, Sword
pokémon trainer: Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, Sinnoh, next (hopefully)
Lucas: kumatora, lucas (whatever I'll probably get flamed at for this)
etcetera...
pretend it isn't assist type select, pretend it is called moveset select.

hmm. or something like that could apply for different Final Smashes, kind of like SF3 or SSF4.

 

[Pieman0920]

Moveset select wouldn't work in the slightest. Heck, its nothing like what MvC2 had in the slightest. Its more like....You know, how Sheik, PT, and ZSS work, but you can't switch mid battle.