On the topic of Fox/Falco hate

[Mithost]

I have zero complaints about falco right now.

 

[B.W.]

Falco's lasers piss me off, but Falco's lasers will always piss me off.

 

[CORY]

Falco's lasers piss me off, but Falco's lasers will always piss me off.

this here, but i'm a superscrub, so that's that.

 

[Vashimus]

Falco pisses me off, but Falco will always piss me off.

Unless I'm Samus. Up B OoS ftw.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

It would be better to make fox's stuff harder to do instead of making his rewards less.

 

[JOE!]

But making his stuff harder apparently is a "no-no", no?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Why? Thats kinda the point. He should be theoretically god tier unbeatable but in reality he is very beatable.

But DSF won a tourney yest with fox so IDKKKK

 

[TheReflexWonder]

It would be better to make fox's stuff harder to do instead of making his rewards less.

Either way, there's a huge gray line that pretty much no one who has an opinion on the matter will be completely satisfied with.

 

[Bryonato]

Fox won a tournament? Must be broken. Just like Pit right? Wins tourney -> broken

 

[Vashimus]

I guess Bowser's ****ed then.

 

[Oro?!]

Why? Thats kinda the point. He should be theoretically god tier unbeatable but in reality he is very beatable.

But DSF won a tourney yest with fox so IDKKKK

If Vro or I won, not a soul would've said Wario or ZSS is broken. Don't get your logic.

 

[SpiderMad]

Vro, Wario?

 

[Oro?!]

After he lost game 1 vs DSF as Diddy, he went Wario and took it to a close game 5.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Vro's wario is legit as hell.

Kyle, did DSF ban yoshi's island (brawl)? if not did cary take him there? just curious cause him and I played that match-up on that stage and I think its definitely a bad stage for foxie

 

[The_NZA]

I've read the damn handbook a long time ago on competitive gaming, just accept sveet that I follow this **** just as hard as you and I just have a different opinion. I believe making Fox's usmash equivalent to the strength of a good usmash rather than an unreasonable one essentially does make fox "harder to play" and does not significantly alter his rewards, since he just has to consistently stay technical for 20% longer. I'm done talking about this and I've presented every viable argument I have. You seem to enjoy picking out individual arguments of mine and arguing them and going "im smart, i derailed him" when i've presented 3-4 additional arguments in every block. This is exhausting. Hopefully the developers read this thread and come to a conclusion and will revisit this character.

As a final advocacy, I think my solution is good because it does not alter Fox's playstyle. He will still feel the same to play as he always has. His combos, movement, mobility, shine game will stay intact. Most matchups may even stay the same. But those situations where Fox usmash's you out of the blue and you weren't playing perfectly resulting in an 80% kill will stop happening. Those pesky situations where once a fox lasers, and safely nair planes you to 85-90% and he can just combo you into usmash will be a little less unreasonable.

You need to accept that Fox's usmash with Brawl shield physics is safer than it ever has been in melee. It has been effectively buffed. Nerfing a small aspect of it will simply make it more reasonable in design, more fun to play against, more worth its risk in using it, and more fun to watch.

 

[The_NZA]

As far as falco goes...I really think his character design is fine although it hurts me to see Falco v. Zelda matches... does shl really have to be as fast as standing laser?

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

delete falco

 

[Oro?!]

Vro's wario is legit as hell.

Kyle, did DSF ban yoshi's island (brawl)? if not did cary take him there? just curious cause him and I played that match-up on that stage and I think its definitely a bad stage for foxie

I don't think so, but DSF definitely has a lot of experience playing on the Brawl stages. In addition the huge middle platform that tilts messes up a lot of chaingrabs, and Vro was relying heavily on Wario's CG.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Oh, I was simply under the impression that the slanted edges all around the stage make fox's shine worthless. Also, the ones at the edges allow wario to edgeguard fox pretty freely. I suppose that isn't enough to sacrifice so much damage output.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I've read the damn handbook a long time ago on competitive gaming, just accept sveet that I follow this **** just as hard as you and I just have a different opinion.

I am fine with that. As you might tell, I talk with many people who have different opinions from me and I often respect their points of view even if they aren't the same as my own. My problem is with your lack of reasoning. I say "lack of reasoning" because you simply don't have any. You repeat the same assertions repeatedly and don't actually back them up despite others countering your statements.

I believe making Fox's usmash equivalent to the strength of a good usmash rather than an unreasonable one essentially does make fox "harder to play" and does not significantly alter his rewards, since he just has to consistently stay technical for 20% longer.

It doesn't make him harder to play, it makes it harder for him to win. And yes, by definition, it does alter significantly alter his rewards.

I'm done talking about this and I've presented every viable argument I have. You seem to enjoy picking out individual arguments of mine and arguing them and going "im smart, i derailed him" when i've presented 3-4 additional arguments in every block.

I enjoy discussing and debating game theory which is why I am here... discussing game theory.

This is exhausting.

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you ever feel like revisiting the topic with me, please feel free to PM me. No hard feelings or anything man.

As a final advocacy, I think my solution is good because it does not alter Fox's playstyle. He will still feel the same to play as he always has. His combos, movement, mobility, shine game will stay intact. Most matchups may even stay the same. But those situations where Fox usmash's you out of the blue and you weren't playing perfectly resulting in an 80% kill will stop happening. Those pesky situations where once a fox lasers, and safely nair planes you to 85-90% and he can just combo you into usmash will be a little less unreasonable.

Well I can agree that he would feel generally the same if this were changed (I would expect a characters combos to feel the same if they are left alone), you are definitely exaggerating if thats how you think every fox stock works. If you are getting "nair planed" to 90% and then usmashed every stock, the problem isn't the opponent, it is you. Hell, I would be embarrassed if that happened to me in a friendly, much less in tournament. (hint: it doesn't work)

You need to accept that Fox's usmash with Brawl shield physics is safer than it ever has been in melee. It has been effectively buffed. Nerfing a small aspect of it will simply make it more reasonable in design, more fun to play against, more worth its risk in using it, and more fun to watch.

What about brawl's shield physics makes fox's usmash better? I thought it was less safe on shield because of how much easier it is to powershield. As far as I am aware, the only buff it received in the engine change is that it is easier to control due to not requiring jump canceling out of a dash.

 

[Phaiyte]

I just wanna say that nerfing the knockback on usmash will make it MUCH easier for him to just plain combo with it against the ENTIRE cast. Bair, uair, another usmash, grab, lots of different options against different characters. It's going to be damn good move no matter what you do to it.

 

[Mithost]

We could give it some more ending lag so if you shield it, you can punish it easier.

 

[Ace55]

I just wanna say that nerfing the knockback on usmash will make it MUCH easier for him to just plain combo with it against the ENTIRE cast. Bair, uair, another usmash, grab, lots of different options against different characters.

I doubt it, knockback and hitstun is directly related.

 

[clowsui]

I knew that you would say that. I understand your robotic view of "optimaizing what is good", but let me just ask you something: there is only one way to play at high level ? funny that you are so worried about doing the "best decisions" all time and yet you have a quote that says: "Playing to win is a terrible philosophy". lol

And don't get me wrong, please, i'm willing to learn, tell me why half the crew are better than marth, please.

you're not at a sufficient level of thinking yet. top level play might involve a lot of different buttons/attacks but the mentality behind it is and always should be the same.

the only way to play at a high level is to pick the best option in as many situations as possible. whether or not this best option is easy to find and whether or not best is easily agreed upon (notice how i said agreed upon; no need to argue about its existence - a best option always exists) is something else entirely, but at the very least the best option will never subtract from your gameplay and overall goal (to take stocks off the opponent) like bad options will.

players get away w choosing suboptimal options because a) their opponent does not know how to defeat the bad option(s) b) their "bad" options are so good relative to the overall pool of options that it's whatever (if Fox is played perfectly this is what happens) or c) the opponent intentionally lets himself/herself be subjected to those options. what is creativity in this context? finding better ways to use your existing tools or finding new tools that are better than the old ones.

also, playing to win is bad because it stunts the growth potential of the player. someone who plays to win will find it much harder to use optimal strategies after they spend a long time winning with suboptimal ones. those who are truly great spend a long time playing to learn, because playing to win and learning how to win is much easier than playing to learn and learning how to learn.

 

[Ace55]

and how other players rate Marth as a character can tell you a good amount of that player's personal ability..

I don't wanna be a **** but you insisted 2.1 Ike was absolute worst in the game quite adamantly and for a pretty long time...

 

[Kink-Link5]

Ike was not the worst but he was definitely around the same boat as Marth in 2.1 in that middle ground.

 

[The_NZA]

My problem is with your lack of reasoning. I say "lack of reasoning" because you simply don't have any. You repeat the same assertions repeatedly and don't actually back them up despite others countering your statements.

.

This is what I'm talking about. You're being an ass. I literally have provided blocks of reasoning and I've attempted my best at answering every assertion and statement. How about you bring up a statement I haven't answered? I literally think I have dealt with every argument countering my statements.

But Sveet, you specialize in strawmen. GO ahead and call me a bad player. Imply that all I do is lose to nair planes and usmashes. I was obviously exaggerating the play style of fox's because I can't provide you with a full flow chart hypothetically talking about every 8 minute match that has been conducted in melee history in fox v. anyone matchups. Obviously Fox can kill with good gimp play, shine game, edge guarding, uairs, and yes usmash. If I really thought fox's usmash their way to every kill than I wouldn't argue to have it nerfed since it would be his only option being exercised. So how about you stop patronizing me when I am arguing it is an overcentralizing and unnecessarily powerful move (something many good players have in this thread agreed with). Stop painting my argument into something stupid (example: "you are definitely exaggerating if thats how you think every fox stock works. If you are getting "nair planed" to 90% and then usmashed every stock, the problem isn't the opponent, it is you. Hell, I would be embarrassed if that happened to me in a friendly, much less in tournament. (hint: it doesn't work") I never ****ing even said that?

In short, I've tried to be civil and keep with the conversation. your trying to exit as a great cool headed mediator who is willing to have a discussion when you specialize in taking my arguments, putting up a strawman semi-related to my argument, and making me sound dumb by knocking down this strawman that wasn't even my argument. You sir are the one without reasoning or logic.

 

[trash?]

I think spacies should be replaced with Mewtwo. Three different kinds of Mewtwo, because I want to play three different kinds of Mewtwo. #diespaciescum

 

[Bryonato]

IMO Falco is annoying but he isn't super obnoxious. Dair and lasers are pretty silly but other than that I don't have any problem with him.

 

[Oracle]

I would probably care more about falco's dumb if I didn't play ROB

 

[Bryonato]

ROB does pretty well vs Falco?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

This is what I'm talking about. You're being an ***. I literally have provided blocks of reasoning and I've attempted my best at answering every assertion and statement. How about you bring up a statement I haven't answered? I literally think I have dealt with every argument countering my statements.

You haven't provided a rebuttal to anything from my last post. You are once again arguing ad hominem. Also, you quoted a single line from my multiquote post. There was at least 1 thing in that post that you completely ignored in this reply.

But Sveet, you specialize in strawmen. GO ahead and call me a bad player. Imply that all I do is lose to nair planes and usmashes.

The point of that post wasn't to call you a bad player, it was to point out that what you were claiming is simply false. I am very sad that was all you got out of it.

I was obviously exaggerating the play style of fox's because I can't provide you with a full flow chart hypothetically talking about every 8 minute match that has been conducted in melee history in fox v. anyone matchups.

Exaggeration has no point in factual discussion. The point of this discussion is to sort through the facts and come to an agreement over whether this should be changed or not. Making wild claims and exaggerations does nothing productive.

Obviously Fox can kill with good gimp play, shine game, edge guarding, uairs, and yes usmash. If I really thought fox's usmash their way to every kill than I wouldn't argue to have it nerfed since it would be his only option being exercised.

Gimps and edgeguards aren't as good in P:M since most characters have ridiculous recoveries. Many characters can get back to the stage with relative ease unless the edgeguarder has a big disjointed hitbox (something fox doesn't have). Uair kills at 130%+ from the ground or around 100%+ in the air (varies based on location) and is susceptible to SDI; players who can consistently SDI uair very rarely die from it (and this is not a superhuman ability).

So no, its not his only KO option, but his other options are unreliable.

So how about you stop patronizing me when I am arguing it is an overcentralizing and unnecessarily powerful move (something many good players have in this thread agreed with).

What is overcentralizing about it? Why is it unnecessarily powerful? You make these claims, but you never support them. Your best bet in supporting them would be to define "overcentralizing" and "unnecessarily powerful" because they are very subjective terms. I find these claims to be simply more exaggerating, but I will wait for your formal post before drawing any conclusions.

Stop painting my argument into something stupid (example: "you are definitely exaggerating if thats how you think every fox stock works. If you are getting "nair planed" to 90% and then usmashed every stock, the problem isn't the opponent, it is you. Hell, I would be embarrassed if that happened to me in a friendly, much less in tournament. (hint: it doesn't work") I never ****ing even said that?

Your exact quote is, "Those pesky situations where once a fox laser, and safely nair planes you to 85-90% and he can just combo you into usmash will be a little less unreasonable". Maybe i'm just having a hard time understanding the quote, but what I got out of it was that you are having a hard time with fox because he can just laser you and "nair plane" you to 90% then combo that into a usmash. What I was trying to express is that it doesn't work like that, period.

In short, I've tried to be civil and keep with the conversation. your trying to exit as a great cool headed mediator who is willing to have a discussion when you specialize in taking my arguments, putting up a strawman semi-related to my argument, and making me sound dumb by knocking down this strawman that wasn't even my argument. You sir are the one without reasoning or logic.

I think this sums up how you've treated the entire discussion thus far:

It seems like the only people arguing about Usmash are the ones arguing to nerf it. The rest of you have just entered in here to verbally masturbate on how the rest of us are bad.

Anytime anyone says anything regarding skill or competitive level play at all, you freak out and think everyone is calling you "bad". Grow the **** up.

 

[Bryonato]

I think we all need to calm down and come to terms with the fact that God gave us Fox and we should be thankful.

 

[JOE!]

Ok, what about the other 38 or so characters that Buddha apparently gave us?

Real talk tho:

Buffing everyone else as an argument seems to involve giving them tools to fight against the melee top tier, comprised of space animals, a spacie-like character (shiek, in terms of he offensive not really properties), and jigglypuff.

The latter character is dealt with by the newer hard-hitters that can stand up to her shenannigans.

Shiek isn't really seen from what I've ... seen.

This leaves the spacies in the equation. Giving many characters anti-spacy technology also skews other matchups. The most obvious example could come from wolf:

Wolf doesn't have the raw "stuff" that his predecessors have, but will be effected by tools created to fight them all the same, or even worse. Other characters that could be effected are those with higher fall speeds (DDD, etc), or those with good pressure games (lucario, etc). So say once we're in the balancing phase and these problems inevitably pop up. Fixing them case - by - case would by proxy buff the spacies again, and leaving them as-is to keep the spacies in line messes with every other matchup in odd ways.

Would it not be simpler to tone down Fox/Falco to be more like Wolf and thus allow a metagame not focused on just them to develop?

 

[Bryonato]

God gave us those too, he just didn't design them in his direct image.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't wanna be a **** but you insisted 2.1 Ike was absolute worst in the game quite adamantly and for a pretty long time...

I said that Ike was bad because his landing was extremely exploitable in a game full of characters with excellent dash grabs, something that was never really exploited like it should have been. I can't force people to play the game correctly. I still don't think Ike is particularly great either.

 

[1MachGO]

Ok, what about the other 38 or so characters that Buddha apparently gave us?

Real talk tho:

Buffing everyone else as an argument seems to involve giving them tools to fight against the melee top tier, comprised of space animals, a spacie-like character (shiek, in terms of he offensive not really properties), and jigglypuff.

The latter character is dealt with by the newer hard-hitters that can stand up to her shenannigans.

Shiek isn't really seen from what I've ... seen.

This leaves the spacies in the equation. Giving many characters anti-spacy technology also skews other matchups. The most obvious example could come from wolf:

Wolf doesn't have the raw "stuff" that his predecessors have, but will be effected by tools created to fight them all the same, or even worse. Other characters that could be effected are those with higher fall speeds (DDD, etc), or those with good pressure games (lucario, etc). So say once we're in the balancing phase and these problems inevitably pop up. Fixing them case - by - case would by proxy buff the spacies again, and leaving them as-is to keep the spacies in line messes with every other matchup in odd ways.

Would it not be simpler to tone down Fox/Falco to be more like Wolf and thus allow a metagame not focused on just them to develop?

You are talking as if the buffs didn't already happen. How many characters in PM 2.5 do Fox and Falco TRULY hard counter? As in, clearly, 60:40 MU or greater? They definitely have their fair share of advantaged MUs but in terms of true hard-counters its probably only a small handful. The PMBR did a pretty good job not adding any characters that have as many exploitable weaknesses as C. Falcon or Ganon in the Fox/Falco MU.

I would actually contend that Sheik counters more characters than the spacies.

 

[JOE!]

Which I then point to a far-back post of suspending discussion until the fabled "balance phase" of the game. With 6 characters yet to come, who knows if say Olimar or MK wrecks space animals?

However, what I am referring to is how buffs vs spacies in particular may mess with other non-spacy matchups which could be tricky to work around.

 

[1MachGO]

And I say again, you talk as if buffing the rest of the cast hasn't been done yet.

Also, how would you improve C. Falcon's MU vs. spacies without dramatically changing the way spacies play?

SPOILER ALERT: buff falcon

 

[JOE!]

I never implied it hasn't been done yet, but the direction seems to be that they get tools that help vs space animals. Seeing as characters also change between versions / new characters are yet to come my point is still valid.