The SBR Balancing Project - Debate

[Delvro]

I strongly agree with Crow about the danger of over-balancing individual characters... one of the things I love most about brawl is that every character has such a unique moveset.

I don't agree with the "buff everyone except the very strongest" idea... I do think that there should be, on average, more buffs to the characters than nerfs, because:

1) I personally don't enjoy the game at metaknight's power level (or very close to it), and I feel like buffing all the characters to that level would inevitably reduce the uniqueness of many of them. I feel that characters need to have unique strengths and weaknesses to have a fun fighting game, and metaknight doesn't... really have any weaknesses. I would support changing metaknights archetype so that he's a quick, light-weight character that has trouble KO'ing... but that would involve nerfing some of his current KO moves.

2) I feel that with some characters it would be important to nerf a move while buffing another to keep the concept that the character is designed around intact.

Best of luck if this project gets off of it's feet... it will definitely be difficult.

 

[GodotAA]

this is stupid... i know ill play it less depending on if marth gets a favorable balance

 

[The Executive]

This would make the game loads more fun, and I could main puff again.

This. Make with the patching plz.

 

[Blad01]

Hum, i don't really like the idea...

1) It is WAY TOO EARLY to consider "balancing the game". Some low tier characters are misunderstood by example, and buff them would be too much... By example, Samus. I know that nobody will agree with me, but i know a very good Samus around here (The best in France, right now). His name is Gemini, you can find some of his vids on Youtube), and he utilising Samus in a way... That makes her very good. I don't think that buffer his Charge beam, his Bair or his Fsmash, (or making the bombos explode on contact O_O) as Rohins propose, would be balancing the thing...
(But Rohin's proposition is pretty good actually, so it's not a really good example).

2) Additionnally to the first point, our opinions are biased. That is obvious, i don't think i have to explain.

3) Changing the game with a hole community is VERY difficult. People won't agree on some points, they will be angry about some changes, etc...

4) I feel like we should either only buffer low tier characters or only nerf top tier characters. The will to buffer AND nerfe characters is pretty irrealistic.

Actually, my opinion is not definitive yet... But i think that we should wait 1 or 2 years (so at the end of 2009, or 2010) before considering this kind of project...
Or, the best solution would be to nerf the OBVIOUS broken moves :
- Snake Utilt's range
- DDD Grab range
- MK's UP B and Tornado

But still, this is a interesting project.

 

[Wind Owl]

Hmm, I looked up Gemini, and I must say I wasn't really feeling any rage from him.

 

[Blad01]

Hmm, I looked up Gemini, and I must say I wasn't really feeling any rage from him.

Ahah, i never said that Gemini was better than Rohins. But you just show me a combo ^^ (ok, it is amazing, but still ) I'm talking about general play.

But anyways, Gemini is not the whole point of my post ^^

 

[M.K]

Wow, I just can't agree with this at all. In my opinion, Brawl is as balanced as Melee (with the one exception being Meta-Knight). I don't think we need these "hacks" in order to balance the game. What if we had said this back in Melee times? "Let's nerf the Shine and UpSmash of Fox!". That's pretty much absurd. What about us people who don't have access to these types of hacks? We are screwed.
This is a horrid idea, SBR....I will literally lose hope for the competitive scene of Brawl if this is ever instituted as tourny standard. Every character in Brawl is fine how they are, hacking isn't even part of the **** game. If this was an option IN GAME, I would support ...but, it isn't.
Does the SBR just refuse to listen to us about the Meta-Knight ban? Do something already!!

 

[Watchful_Eye]

I didnt read the whole thread, so maybe Im repeating someone else..

A Character is only as good as the people playing them. I am afraid that a famous character would be nerfed too hard, just because he is "cooler" and a lot of people play him.

Or imagine you are a really good player who is able to win almost every tourney.. suddenly, he himself has influence to the "felt" balance of a character: When he wins too often, other people might say "Blah his character is to strong, the Soandso-Smash is imba".
Or the searching for new ATs: If all characters are balanced and someone playing a specific character finds out a pretty useful AT - doesnt this brake the balance, so that his other attacks have to be weakened?
Or..

Ok, I hope you got my point.
I feel a huge danger of "exaggerating" the rebalance in this community.

If I could deal with that tool and would like to use it, I would only use it very VERY careful - maybe *slightly* nerfing MK and *slightly* buffing some low/bottom tier characters.

Trying to make a "mid tier" out of every character can is supposed to fail.

Edit: After reading, I agree with Blad01's Post on Page 3.

 

[WilldaBeast]

Hmm,

I'm not sure where I stand on this.

I realize that the game is not balanced, but I just don't think that we need to do this. It seems very.. pointless. There will always be people who can't get Ocarina for some reason or another or simply don't want to use it on their home console, so it seems like you will alienate a definite group of people from playing competitive smash. Then there are the people who want to switch from casual to competitive, there is no guarantee that they will receive these "patches" and will be playing smash different from everyone else.

That being said,

This is also a good idea because there will be no more tiers, no more anti-tier protesters. No more Metaknight domination. It would be a good idea. Emphasis on idea. If you can get it right that is.

Also, to me it seems to make more sense to, instead of nerfing the good characters, make all the bad characters better. It might take a little longer, but I'm sure it would satisfy more people, like the melee players who want a faster paced game. I think that is all I have to say about this.

 

[Watchful_Eye]

Making the bad characters better is generally the same as weakening the good ones - every ability is only good or bad in comparison to others.

 

[Blad01]

Making the bad characters better is generally the same as weakening the good ones - every ability is only good or bad in comparison to others.

Not at all. Do you want a game where every character overpowered, do you want a game where every character "normal", or do you want a game where every character is weak ?

 

[WilldaBeast]

Making the bad characters better is generally the same as weakening the good ones - every ability is only good or bad in comparison to others.

Not at all. Do you want a game where every character overpowered, do you want a game where every character "normal", or do you want a game where every character is weak ?

It makes no difference, because they will all be the same, so what would it matter? Though I think having all characters powered up makes a more interesting game.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Too many people are misunderstanding this. There has been no SBR decision on the matter. No consensus whatsoever. We only want to figure out the codes for the properties I described above so we could actually entertain the idea of possibly doing this. Nothing else.

This likely will not happen, even if all the codes are discovered, so you people need to calm down.