Should balance patches/updates exist?

[the8thark]

Should balance patches/updates exist?

In Melee/brawl there was no constant updates to the character balance. The players just worked out who was the best what the glitches/best ways to fight were. Sure this meant the tier list existed and was a good indication of the rough chance of a character winning a tournament, player skill excluded of cause.

But if there ill be multiple balance patches in SSB4, that could potential change the tier lists, would you agree with this happening, to fix glitches or tome up or down certain moves. What is your opinion on this?

 

[Rymi]

there should be bring intrest into it plus mess up tier list..........i love it

 

[Deleted member 269706]

I think that's one reason that the conquest mode exists, so that they can track the data of how popular certain characters are. Plus with all of the world-wide stats and stuff, Nintendo is tracking a lot of information. I feel as though there will be some balance updates at some point in the future. Almost like how items in Team Fortress 2 get buffed/nerfed with each update. It'll be similar to that.

 

[the8thark]

Almost like how items in Team Fortress 2 get buffed/nerfed with each update. It'll be similar to that.

Blizzard as we know does the same thing,

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

I do have a feeling that any balance updates might only apply to online matches.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

The simple answer is yes. No game should be left to stagnate in all its flaws.

The full answer is far more complex, unfortunately. For instance, I feel it would be very bad for the game to have rapid updates. Can you imagine the meta being tampered with on a monthly basis? The game needs time to be explored. I would want patches to happen 6 to 12 months apart minimum. Also, I would change my answer to "no" if I knew an incompetent fool were in charge of the patches. Nintendo makes me nervous because, historically, it has balanced the game based on hurt feelings. Melee Link lost his psuedo-spike up-B in the transition from NTSC to PAL as part of a nerf. Apparently, Link (an extremely low tier non-competitive character) was "too good".

Using Smash 4 as an example, Little Mac was all the rage in For Glory for the first few weeks. He is super strong on the ground because he is super bad in the air. He balances out nicely. However, if that same guy were in charge of balancing, Little Mac would be nerfed into oblivion. He'd be left with an OK ground game and still a terrible air game just to satisfy all the "Little Mac is OP" shouting.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

They already exist. At least according to the description of the last update.

Anyway, of course. It's good for the series and improves the game and balance, making it even better for competition.

 

[the8thark]

They already exist. At least according to the description of the last update.

Anyway, of course. It's good for the series and improves the game and balance, making it even better for competition.

Yes very vague quality of life patches. You are correct. But what about editing the characters themselves? That's more what I meant.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Yes very vague quality of life patches. You are correct. But what about editing the characters themselves? That's more what I meant.

Palutena's aerials have differences now. So yes, been done.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I do have a feeling that any balance updates might only apply to online matches.

This would be weird.

 

[Zol]

When I constantly hear about characters such as Palutena and Rosalina having ****ed up advantages against a huge chunk of the roster

Yes, I think it's about time balance patches exist. This way, we wouldn't end up constantly seeing the same 2-4 characters taking up 80% screen time at tournaments. This is partly what makes Smash boring to watch and tedious as **** to play.

 

[Mysteltainn]

I'd be shocked and a little appalled if there weren't patches to be honest, and I'd be quite disappointed in Nintendo. In this day and age, many of the most popular games have balance patches to keep longevity in a game and diminish what the majority of players may consider a "toxic meta". An example of a toxic meta was Meta Knight in Brawl, or Falco / Fox / Marth in Melee.

Vastly popular games like League of Legends and DotA do this all of the time to either buff or nerf a champion's presence in a team fight or their duelling capabilities.

Now, going back to Smash Bros., this rule can also apply it its own way. If certain characters have too much priority (oh, hey there Sheik, Rosalina and ZSS) against the vast majority of the cast, or perhaps lack priority vs the vast majority, then nerfs / buffs through patches can go a long way; game-breaking bugs can also be addressed through patches. Balance changes on Smash Bros. would benefit everyone, both casual and competitive gamers alike in my opinion. Not only would they make the game more interesting to watch casually (does anyone really find watching Marth, Fox and Falco dominate screen time in Melee? If you do, no offence, but many don't), but it would also give the competitive players new goals to work toward (new match-ups and new characters who are all of a sudden viable).

All of this being said, patches don't come without their problems, too. Problems that go hand-in-hand with LoL / DotA. One browse through these games' forums will show you their communities. Narcissists who feel they're entitled to everything and whiny children who make countless threads complaining about X character being too strong / weak. Now, imagine the Miiverse community complaining... Oh God help us all. If people think that Nintendo will change something because they don't like it, then they're going to be more inclined to complain about it rather than sit down and consider if they've done absolutely everything possible to try and counter their enemy.

 

[Dinoman96]

Should there be balance patches? Of course. Will there be balance patches? Who knows.

When I constantly hear about characters such as Palutena and Rosalina having ****ed up advantages against a huge chunk of the roster

Yes, I think it's about time balance patches exist.

Pfffft. Speaking as a Palutena main, I think she could use some buffs.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

When I constantly hear about characters such as Palutena and Rosalina having ****ed up advantages against a huge chunk of the roster

Yes, I think it's about time balance patches exist. This way, we wouldn't end up constantly seeing the same 2-4 characters taking up 80% screen time at tournaments. This is partly what makes Smash boring to watch and tedious as **** to play.

I don't see why Rosalina should be nerfed. She has some very obvious weaknesses that can be taken advantage of after all.

 

[LunarWingCloud]

The fact the Luma just soaks up damage for free isn't really fair. Just someone on the other side of the Rosalina fence saying something. Also before it's mentioned, no, being able to get rid of Luma doesn't balance that. It's not that fair that a lot of characters basically have to knock out a shield before they can get to the character behind it.

 

[Zol]

Pfffft. Speaking as a Palutena main, I think she could use some buffs.

if the complaints i hear about her anti-recovery move are true, they should nerf the **** out of that. everytime i see it mentioned, it's always said that it hits from way too far away.

I don't see why Rosalina should be nerfed. She has some very obvious weaknesses that can be taken advantage of after all.

I'm just going by what I constantly hear. When there's a huge chunk of players saying one character is stupidly overpowered, something's up.

But they're playing on the version with a ****ty button layout, so I'm not 100% sure about that one.

 

[Exaggeratedhonesty]

Rosalina is the only fighter that I just can't seem to beat, it's like my mind goes blank when i fight her.

But I say yes, Because, As we all know, A Balance patch a day keeps the project M's away.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

The fact the Luma just soaks up damage for free isn't really fair. Just someone on the other side of the Rosalina fence saying something. Also before it's mentioned, no, being able to get rid of Luma doesn't balance that. It's not that fair that a lot of characters basically have to knock out a shield before they can get to the character behind it.

At the same time though, you're basically screwing up Rosalina's approach tactics, and there are some fighters who actually can slip past the Luma and get right at Rosalina's face.

 

[Exaggeratedhonesty]

At the same time though, you're basically screwing up Rosalina's approach tactics, and there are some fighters who actually can slip past the Luma and get right at Rosalina's face.

And I an't one of em.

 

[Strofirko]

Rosalina is more a strategy character keep the luma close to her to gets high defense,keep the luma far to a major area of attack but rosalina opened to attacks.
And olimar was very nerfed instead to just getting more pikmin to win,now he has to balance the quantity of the pikmin to recover more easily,adding more strategy to the metagame,instead to be just "press down+b to win".

Maybe adding more time to the luma respawn time would fix the problem,but I dunno.

 

[Tenchi Boom]

I don't like the thought of characters changing all the time, it will get stupid. It makes me think of things like if Ness's down throw to fair spam being changed/removed, it will completely change his tactics and MY FUN. Don't like to think about that at all.

They did it with PSASBR and it pretty much nerfed ****ed up Nariko's combo game and it really pissed me off. Yet, they gave characters already cheap some buffs.

 

[Scamper52596]

I'd say that all they really need to do in order to balance Rosalina a bit more, in my opinion, is to just keep the Luma from respawning for a few extra seconds. Any time I get rid of the Luma, I see that as my chance to really get something done and cause some damage, but the Luma just comes back too quickly for me to really do all that much most of the time.

 

[Zol]

I don't like the thought of characters changing all the time, it will get stupid. It makes me think of things like if Ness's down throw to fair spam being changed/removed, it will completely change his tactics and MY FUN. Don't like to think about that at all.

They did it with PSASBR and it pretty much nerfed ****ed up Nariko's combo game and it really pissed me off. Yet, they gave characters already cheap some buffs.

at the same time, not everyone wants to feel that they are obligated to pick up a character they probably dont want to use, just to counter one tactic.

i'm pretty sure there are Meta Knight users that are absolutely pissed that he got nerfed, but in the perspective of almost anyone who didn't use Meta Knight, it was much needed.

I didn't want to have to pick up Lucario (even though he turned out to be fun to play as), but characters like Snake and Marth forced me to.

i think it's better to change things up, rather than keep a balance system where certain characters are completely useless against certain others.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

I'm against the idea of patching Smash in general. This Smash is already very fairly balanced at least from the perspective on a non-competitive player who puts a lot of time into it. Every character has strengths and weaknesses, and yes certain attacks are going to be considered OP because someone hasn't figured out how to counter a move or find a way to properly avoid it. I'm fine with changes from game to game because that forces the reinvention of play style every few years, but updates would ruin hours of effort people put into the initial version.

The fun of Smash to me kind of was there is a tier list for the better players, but at the same time if you didn't take advantage of every thing in the game it was pretty fairly matched. The complaints on Little Mac are the worst since Little Mac isn't awful to deal with once you figure it out. Yes nerf a character who already has a bunch of weaknesses put in to avoid him being OP. Sakurai put all the time and effort into given characters strengths and weaknesses in the first place, so why change all of the work that went into balancing in the first place? Smash is more fun when you've had time to develop your play style, and sure it forces a more evolving play style and changes tier lists with updates, but it also robs Smash of a lot of what makes it so distinctive in the first place and the time we first put into learning the game.

The potential to ruin certain characters or make them less fun to play as by nerfing certain elements is way too high with these sorts of things. Me personally, in Smash 4 every character is fun to play as already, which is a testament to how well they've done the characters in the game in comparison to Melee and Brawl, where this wasn't the case. Nerfing some moves could take away some of the things that make characters fun to play as. Again you nerf Little Mac and he becomes worthless. I wouldn't want to see characters I love suddenly become worthless to me as a player, or lose their luster. The characters always having their traits made Smash so enjoyable, don't rob me of it.

 

[Phenomiracle]

I would like to say yes, since I do believe they are necessary.

Part of me screams a loud NO, since, in Sakurai's twisted troll of a brain, Zelda would be considered OP and nerfed into the next century.

 

[GrandHc]

Yes in hopes it os mostly handled by Namco-Bandai

 

[Xzsmmc]

Yes. Better balance is always a plus. Just keep Sakurai far away from it. Poor poor G&W.

 

[the8thark]

I'm against the idea of patching Smash in general.

Your post, I agree with 100%.
But Nintendo could do what Blizzard does. Blizzard buff and nerf things based on how often they are used. If something is used by 95% of the player base, Blizzard considered it OP (not cause of it's power, but because everyone feels it's a must have and not a choice). Nintendo could do the same and see if every 2nd online match is vs a Little Mac for example, they could edit Little Mac (or any other character) to ensure players are facing a variety and not the same 1-2 characters over and over in online mode.

 

[KingTeo]

This is a toughy. I can see the benefits from both sides for sure. There are definitey people who could use balancing, but at the same time..I gotta say I'm against the idea of balancing patches. The players should be the ones to adapt around the game, not the other way around. I feel as though unless there was a game-breaking glitch that rendered Sm4sh unplayable, balance patches would kill the interest in the game faster than if there were none.

The simple answer is yes. No game should be left to stagnate in all its flaws.

I'm also loving how ironic this statement is when you consider Melee.

461

 

[Riskman]

Firstly, no.

Secondly, IF they were to do them, I would be okay with it if it were maybe 3-4 years down the line, and there were one or two characters who were clearly far too good and one or two character who were clearly absolutely awful. 3-4 years is an incredibly long period of not doing anything to a game though, so I highly doubt it would happen.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I'm also loving how ironic this statement is when you consider Melee.

That's where my other points come in. Melee needed updates, but the few updates it received were generally bad, pointless, and inadequate.

 

[Zol]

Melee had updates?

 

[Tino]

I would have to say no. The game is already as balanced as it is so I don't see any reason why there should be an update for it.

 

[the8thark]

Melee had updates?

The PAL release had fixes the NTSC release didn't I believe.

 

[Archimedes]

Only things that are completely broken imo.

Other then that I think it might be troublesome if they are major changes. Though im not an expert on this subject im just speculating the community's reaction

 

[Wiley]

As long as each patch offers clear details about what is being changed (the more information the better... frame data etc.)
I think this is fine. I also feel like Nintendo's only focus would be to step in if things were really broken in anyone's hands. Doubtul, as usual, that they will cater to the more competitive scene, as they spent quite a bit of time testing and always seem to stubbornly feel they've found balance. Luckily, so far, the game is pretty solid. I could do without Yoshi teleport snapping back to the edge when landing with Uspecial. And yet I think the Wario "reverse trajectory" glitch looks funny and fitting. So I don't know where I actually stand on this... but I'd be much happier with a Nintendo that listened and communicated (i know they listen, just as a pair) to grow with us, instead of leaving their precious masterpieces on our doorsteps and saying, figure it out!

Love the game so far though... and why isn't it NOV 21st TODAY

 

[Niala]

I don't mind patches as a concept, but I can see some potential issues with it. Imagine if patches existed in Melee-- what if they got rid of Wavedashing? They could do the same thing with Smash4, as we find important techniques, patch them out of the game to keep it as Sakurai intended. That's why I'm afraid of them, it has the potential to completely ruin Smash4.

But as long as they're just balancing the fighters, a-ok. I don't mind a tier list that hops around a bit.

 

[Hayzie]

The fact the Luma just soaks up damage for free isn't really fair. Just someone on the other side of the Rosalina fence saying something. Also before it's mentioned, no, being able to get rid of Luma doesn't balance that. It's not that fair that a lot of characters basically have to knock out a shield before they can get to the character behind it.

Luma as a character alone would be a terrible one, the worst in Smash. Luma is essentially an extension for Rosalina's Smash, but it's also her Special as well. Luma moves alone aren't super great, albeit they can lay some damage to make up for it. Rosalina is open to take combos when Luma isn't even near her. I'd say she's one of the balanced and unique characters. At least, certainly moreso than Little Mac.

A good Rosalina will give you trouble, but that's because it's a good Rosalina. Tip: we don't attack Luma 95% of the time. Dodge Rosalina when she's up close & personal and the rest is mind games. A lot of players focus on Luma thinking that you won't simply jump over him and go straight for her, which a lot of the time will be facing the opposite direction trying to get Luma to attack you.

 

[Wiley]

I think it's a sad realization that most of us would be more worried about Nintendo taking away than adding. It just shows such a break in our ability to communicate as players.

This kind of developer > player relationship is so dominant in todays gaming world. Look at Minecraft, look at all the current Mobas, they are shaped with the players and the developers constantly. It's an amazing outcome and it keeps the games alive and current. Why not ADD wavedashing? So many outcomes are possible, we just have a stubborn system. And the terrors of learning completely new ways of playing after so much time was invested is far less daunting... when it happens sooner rather than later. Look how fast people are already getting comfortable with characters that had huge changes from previous games, or newcomers themselves. We are an adaptable bunch...
I would be completely happy with this being the final Smash Brothers (for a long time or just in general) if only we had that kind of relationship with Nintendo :/

 

[LosTimeTurner]

to change anything but characters im ok with because changing the character is like trying to master a new one because your old technique is no longer there