This goes out to everyone learning Underused Characters

[Patsie]

I never said I did not care about tiers at all. Just because you Play to Win does not mean you automatically care about tiers, either. It depends on how much you Play to Win. Are you saying Azen doesn't Play to Win when he picks characters using Random Select for tournaments or when he consciously goes Low Tier all the way? Are you saying Taj isn't Playing to Win when he goes Mewtwo for most of a tournament, resorting only to Fox when facing really hard opponents?

You can Play to Win and still play as Mewtwo or Pichu. People have done so, I know people who've done so, I've seen people doing so, I've played people doing so. Of course, if they stick to their Low Tiers all the way, they usually don't end up in the Top 5 (unless they're Azen) because eventually, their Low Tiers won't keep up.

I think there's some confusion going on about what 'play to win' means.

From my understanding of the phrase, "play to win" means using any and all advantages you can get that maximize the chances of you winning.

That only makes sense, to me. If you define the term too loosely, then everyone has the intent of 'playing to win' in the sense that their end goal is usually beating their opponent. Very few people 'play to lose,' and when they do, it's because they want to give a pity win or something of that nature. No one plays a game competitively with the intent of losing.

But there are other goals that people have alongside winning. Playing for fun, playing for 'honor,' playing for fairness factor into some people's calculations alongside playing to beat your opponent. But that's not what 'playing to win' means, I think.

It means the people who will use infinites, chaingrabs, camping strategies, etc - any and all advantages that will increase the odds of winning - despite considerations of fairness, fun, etc. At least, that's what I interpret it as. If you just define it as people who have winning as a goal, then it falls under too many people.

You might be right, though, that playing to win doesn't entail abandoning all other goals for the sake of winning; it might just mean that they play more to win than anything. I'm not sure where to set a brightline for that definition.

That's why I don't think Taj is 'playing to win,' by that definition, by picking Mewtwo. You would be completely right if he couldn't play another character more effectively in terms of winning (if he couldn't have a greater chance of winning by playing Fox). However, he realized that he has bigger advantages with Fox, yet he decides to play Mewtwo, even though winning is still a goal. I just think that there are different goals - playing and developing underused characters and/or becoming the best in the nation with a certain character - that play large factors in his decision aside from winning. That's why I don't think he is 'playing to win' by the way we use the term. (Edit: You're also right that he wants to win at tournaments. I've got no doubt that he is fully confident bringing his awesome M2 against no-names, and I know he fully expects to win. I just mean that he would increase his chances by playing Fox, yet he still plays Mewtwo for other reasons than winning.)

The same applies to Azen, I think. You would be right if picking random had a huge advantage in this game that made him win moreso than not counterpicking a character (like in Starcraft), but that advantage doesn't exist in Brawl. Azen plays random characters for other reasons than strictly winning, because he would have more of an advantage by playing either characters he's the best with or characters that trumph his opponent's pick in a metagame.

Basically, I don't think playing to win = wanting to win in general. I think it means using all advantages, cheap or not, to maximize winning.

--

Other than that, I enjoyed the thread. I think developing skillsets with newer characters will enhance Brawl's metagame overall as more variables are introduced. Also, people might do better with characters not showing in tournament statistics. For example, I think TL, Kirby, and especially Pikachu have been incredibly underrepresented in tournaments, mainly because I think they have a ton of potential.

There also might be advancements as people get a bit better handling certain things in the game. I can't back this up because I don't play either character, but I think Sonic and CF's speed might unravel more strategies as people can harness and control it more. That's just an opinion, but I really don't think CF will round out the bottom of the tierlist in the months and years to come.

When I played Melee, I realized that I didn't like the playstyles of Fox/Falco/Marth, but I loved Luigi/DK/Mewtwo despite the fact that they were low-tier. I thought they had a lot of potential despite their tier position, so I played them because of their playstyle. I'm actually kind-of upset now that my playstyle applies to characters that are well-represented in Brawl(GW/Wario/DK), because I normally think that all characters have potential.

Overall, though, I think people will choose a character that will fit their playstyle, and, of all the people the play Brawl now, I bet at least a handful of people per character will find things that make them tournament-viable. I always enjoyed watching the Taj/Simna/Gimpy type-players who could show with low-tier characters, anyway.

 

[Judge Judy]

I main Mario who's outrageously underused. I main him because I love his gimping abilities and juggling abilities. I'm surprised that people do so poorly with Mario, I mean he has so much going for him.

 

[otg]

Peach is an anagram for Cheap. Just thought you might all like to know that.

 

[Linkguy]

Wow.. seems like Yuna gets into a new argument every couple of days on here..

Anyway, i have an analogy. High tier character users are to steroid using athletes, as mid and low tier character users are to honest athletes.

And I know, it doesnt fit perfectly, there are many extenuating factors, but you get the idea. I know there are people who honestly use characters like Snake and MK outta love, which I encourage, but then there are those that use them for the soul purpose of winning... its a shame really.

 

[kimahri51992]

I am trying to get good with Ganandorf, but it isn't going wonderfully... My favorite character will always be Marth (i mained him in Melee, and am still good as him in Brawl), but he got old after twenty straight matches of Marth vs. Marth. So i tried other characters, got good at Ike, but he just wasn't doing it for me, and then i learned i enjoyed playing as Ganandorf of all people. So, yeah, i have a long way to go before being anywhere good as him, but at the least i can beat any COM at level 9 with him. (i don't know if that is saying much, since COM's don't really compare to a human player, but oh well...) Anyway, great original post, it was uplifting!

 

[goodoldganon]

A good thread and an informative post but a lot of low tier players need to learn something. Low tiers are bad, plain and simple. When you win with one, most likely you are the better player. But just because you 'stuck it out with Peach' doesn't make you a great player. A great player plays to their opponents weaknesses and they realize when their current strategy isn't going to work.

Though I disagree with the choice of choosing a character solely because they are good, I can respect the choice and fight my hardest to beat them. My main is DK, my alt is Wolf, and my third is Ganondorf. I realize when DK is outmatched and I hope to combat his weaknesses with Wolf. In my opinion that is the sign of a good player, in any sport. When they realize it's time to change things up a bit.

(P.S. I always root for the underdog though. I wonder if I can find that Fox vs Snake matches lying around here...)

 

[Yuna]

I think there's some confusion going on about what 'play to win' means.

From my understanding of the phrase, "play to win" means using any and all advantages you can get that maximize the chances of you winning.

Playing to Win is the mentality of, umm... Playing to Win. You're willing to use any and all advantages you can get, but it doesn't necessarily mean you will use it. Playing to Win means not limiting yourself from using what's considered "cheap", even if you don't always go for it. It means doing everything in your power to win, although not always to the highest degree.

If that were true, then everyone Playing to Win would have to main Snake or Meta-Knight in order to Play to Win. Just clearing that up.

So in essence, you can play Ganondorf to win. You just won't win much.

Put there are other goals that people have alongside winning. Playing for fun, playing for 'honor,' playing for fairness factor into some people's calculations alongside playing to beat your opponent. But that's not what 'playing to win' means, I think.

But in Competitive Play, Playing to Win is the most important thing... because there's money on the line. It's like David Beckham vs. You in soccer (Penalty Style Only) wíth 10,000 dollars on the line. David Beckham just has tons of advantages in that field. You can't possibly win against him unless he screws up... a lot.

Also, since when is Playing to Win not fun? People often speak of it as if Playing to Win necessitates sacrificing all or most fun. It doesn't.

So he can Play to Win and just use everything he's got or limit himself by not shooting his best, by now using his best aim, by being "honourful" and missing shots to even up the score, by being "fair" by doing the same, yaddi yaddi yadda.

It means the people who will use infinites, chaingrabs, camping strategies, etc - any and all advantages that will increase the odds of winning - despite considerations of fairness, fun, etc. At least, that's what I interpret it as. If you just define it as people who have winning as a goal, then it falls under too many people.

No. You can Play to Win yet not use any of those... because you might not think they're much fun... or because you just like doing other things. And you can still Play to Win... and more importantly, actually win. But if you're not doing them out of a sense of honour and "that's cheap", the you're a scrub.

You might be right, though, that playing to win doesn't entail abandoning all other goals for the sake of winning; it might just mean that they play more to win than anything. I'm not sure where to set a brightline for that definition.

Playing to Win can entail abandoning anything but winning itself. It just doesn't have to (very important distinction... the two are not mutually exclusive but also not mandatory).

Anyway, i have an analogy. High tier character users are to steroid using athletes, as mid and low tier character users are to honest athletes.

And I know, it doesnt fit perfectly, there are many extenuating factors, but you get the idea. I know there are people who honestly use characters like Snake and MK outta love, which I encourage, but then there are those that use them for the soul purpose of winning... its a shame really.

No... read my David Beckham analogy.

Or here's a chess analogy. You, me, chess. Let's say I'm leagues ahead of you in chess. I know of strategies and "combos" you couldn't even dream of. I can read 100 moves in advance. Let's say you suck at chess.

In other words, I'm Zelda and you're Ganondorf. I can now be "honourful" or play to maximize "fun by both sides" or whatever by not going for the first 15 checkmates to let you have a chance, by purposely playing bad moves and sacrificing opportunities, pieces and "stage control" to let you even up the score each time you fall behind.

Or I could just Play to Win since there's 1000 dollars on the line and go for cheap camping, combos, strategies and edgeguarding. My Din's Knight > Your Wizard's Bishop.

 

[Trozz]

I play Random for fun.
I play Snake to win.

 

[MookieRah]

I'd just like to clarify something as Jack Keiser quoted my Play to Learn stuff earlier.

Playing to Learn is what you do when you aren't in a competitive match and you are trying to experiment and discover new things as well as expand your observational skills and overall awareness. Honestly, it's a part of Playing to Win, cause you are trying to learn so you can win, but I wanted to make a distinction simply because the Playing to Win stuff didn't really address a lot of things that could help people understand/learn the concepts it discusses.

Playing to Learn has no influence on character choice. I don't want people to attribute it to low tier maining cause that was not my intention at all. My goal was simply to educate people about the psychology of competitive play and then provide good training methods to help them incorporate it into their play. That's why, for the most part, I try to keep it as general as possible.

 

[UberBen56]

I now main Captain Falcon. He's got a great moveset. Only problem is his b-air. Why shouldn't he be tourney- viable? From reading this thread, I think I'll change that.

 

[Scala]

Or here's a chess analogy. You, me, chess. Let's say I'm leagues ahead of you in chess. I know of strategies and "combos" you couldn't even dream of. I can read 100 moves in advance. Let's say you suck at chess.

In other words, I'm Zelda and you're Ganondorf. I can now be "honourful" or play to maximize "fun by both sides" or whatever by not going for the first 15 checkmates to let you have a chance, by purposely playing bad moves and sacrificing opportunities, pieces and "stage control" to let you even up the score each time you fall behind.

Or I could just Play to Win since there's 1000 dollars on the line and go for cheap camping, combos, strategies and edgeguarding. My Din's Knight > Your Wizard's Bishop.

Smashbros is different than chess in that it's not always a matter of character knowledge (as you're implying by saying 'you can read in advance and use chess strategies your opponent doesn't know of) but rather certain characters get a physical handicap when playing another.

If two equally-competent players played smash bros with each other and one was Ganondorf and the other is Snake, they could better be likened by Snake being able to use his entire army, while Ganondorf starts out 4 pawns short. It's possible to win but there is a handicap regardless of how well you play.

 

[otg]

Yuna is 100% right about this guys. Playing to Win isn't bad, and their is no 'honor' in using bad characters. See my biggest problem with Smashboards right now, is that this is a COMPETITIVE SMASH site, and most of the people that flood these boards now are scrubs who don't understand that.

 

[Jack Kieser]

*epic facepalm*

You know what my biggest problem with Smashboards is right now?

That there are really people who are so self-absorbed that they come into a thread ostensibly designed to motivate, a thread that's only purpose is to motivate players to keep them from giving up, a thread with purely noble intentions, and can over-analyze to the point of being against motivation.

This thread started with a purely positive purpose. The OP didn't place anyone better than anyone else. The OP only tried to motivate the unmotivated, to encourage those who may have been discouraged by a few tourney losses to keep playing who they have the most fun with, instead of dropping their character. The OP never said that any group was better than another, only that both groups were essential parts of a whole community and that it wasn't a bad thing to play an underused character. Then, people come in here and literally turn the thread into an argument on 'playing to win', 'tiers', and 'honorable v. competitive play'. How about this: let's have one thread on SWF that doesn't devolve into petty infighting and serves as a beacon of encouragement to players.

Oh wait, we did. Whoops.

 

[Yuna]

Smashbros is different than chess in that it's not always a matter of character knowledge (as you're implying by saying 'you can read in advance and use chess strategies your opponent doesn't know of) but rather certain characters get a physical handicap when playing another.

If two equally-competent players played smash bros with each other and one was Ganondorf and the other is Snake, they could better be likened by Snake being able to use his entire army, while Ganondorf starts out 4 pawns short. It's possible to win but there is a handicap regardless of how well you play.

Well, people like to equate chess to Smash. And that's as far as you can go when equating them since chess is all mental. Of course, there are chess mindgames.

But my David Beckham example still stands.

Stuff.

Only the OP was worded in a way easily interpreted as Low Tier players being commendable. Indeed, the OP actually says that players using "underused characters" (most often low tiers) should be commended and automatically labeled entrepeneurs. Also, the OP was kinda wrong.

You're not automatically an entrepeneur or worthy of praise just because you choose a Low Tier. No, you are not. You are if actually do something good as your character(s), no matter who they are. As in doing stuff people have never heard of/thought of/done, as in actually pioneering new strats, combos, approaches, styles, etc. Even if the OP wanted to be noble and motivate, it was for the wrong reasons since they were kinda fake.

No one should need motivation to choose a Low Tier. And if someone chooses a Low Tier for said motivation ("You're an entrepeneur! Praised be you!"), then it'd be for the wrong reasons, anyway.

OK... why should they be labeled entrepeneurs? So what if I play Go in the Western world where Go is almost unheard of? Am I an entrepeneur even though I'm currently only 5k and hardly any special other than that I did it all on my own through online play alone? I listen to Eurobeat... which is also quite unheard of in the Western hemisphere. Entrepeneur!

Why are you automatically an entrepeneur for playing an underused character? And why aren't you when you play a character which isn't underused? Noble or not, this thread could have easily turned into a "We're better than you!" thread and referenced by "that" crowd. We've seen too much of that BS going on even before Brawl was released.

Yes, "We're better than you because we play Low Tiers!" has been around for ages, for Melee, for Soul Calibur, for Street Fighter, you name it. It's a BS mentality and "those people" are almost as vile as Scrubs for thinking they're better than anyone not because they're better players but because they play Low Tiers (saying "I'm still a better player!" when losing as a Low Tier... not that smart, especially when the matchup you just lost isn't even that bad (true story)).

The BS "You suck because you play Snake/Meta/Pit/Zelda/Marth/Toon Link/Anyone who's not in the bottom half of the tierlist or quite possibly bottom 1/3rd!"-mentality is alive and well on Smashboards and I've seen too much of it.

A thread that's noble but that might feed that mentality? Not too good. Also, why is it needed? Because there are weak players out there who fall to peer pressure and switch mains when idiots whine about them maining Low Tiers?

Here's my message to people maining underused characters:
Good for you, you hopefully chose your character based on who you like to play as the most and not because of some quest for glory for doing well as a Low Tier/quest for bragging rights/quest for putting down High Tier players no matter what their reasons for playing their characters are... just like most of us. Umm... that's it.

Everyone should choose their mains based on who they like playing as the most. If Mew2King likes winning so much he usually gravitates towards the Top Tiers, then, whatever. If I like playing as Pit, Zelda and Shota-Link because I like their playing styles, good for me. It's inconsequential that they just happen to be really high up on the potential Tier List because that's not why I chose them. I was already playing as Zelda in Melee (much more than Sheik) and wanted to test Pit out ever since he was first announced. Shota Link was also a big "He's cool!"-character for me the first time I played him.

Joe Bloe who just happened to choose Samus? Good for you. I would never tell him Samus is a bad character unless he claims "Samus is Top Tier!" at which point I'd have to tell him the truth.

The point of this Wall of... Story is this:
Play whoever you want to play as. Let others do the same. No group is automatically better than the other based on who they main as. It's not important who you play as, it's only important how you play them and how well they do.

I've never put anyone down based on who they play as (only in jest against people who know I'm clearly kidding, i.e., usually friends). I've never viewed myself as better than anyone as a person or a player or at all based on who they play as. I've never looked down on anyone because of their choice of characters, only for their behaviour. And neither should you.

To reiterate:
Character choice, inconsequential. Reasons for character choice? Quite possibly relevant. What you do with your characters? The only thing that really matters.

I will, however, readily curbstomp anyone who chooses a Low Tier character for either:
* The glory of a Low Tier (being able to say "I main a Low Tier. Worship me!")
* The bragging rights of a Low Tier (similar to the above but more openly as the Glory of a Low Tier-players can just sit by silently while others praise them while the Braggers will most often actually brag)
* The Putting Down Rights of Non-Low Tiers ("You're a bad player and a bad person for playing Zelda!" Oh thanks, now give me those 10 bucks you just lost to me.)
* The "I'm Still Better"-rights of Low Tiers ("I might have lost against you and placed much lower than you but I'm reality I'm a much better player than you (despite never having beaten you or placed higher than you!) because I'm a Low Tier and you're not!").

And similar reasons.

 

[Zankoku]

I main a Low Tier. Worship me!

The best advice is pretty clear. Play low tier to win, not to be special. If you can't win with a low tier, then it wasn't meant to be.

 

[Yuna]

I main a Low Tier. Worship me!

The best advice is pretty clear. Play low tier to win, not to be special. If you can't win with a low tier, then it wasn't meant to be.

My point more summarized (though I wrote long posts to eliminate misinterpretation, deliberate or not). Play whoever you want to play to Win or have Fun. Not to be special.

 

[LuigiKing]

Yuna, why do you even bother arguing with him? He clearly cannot grasp the concept you are trying to get across... I play Luigi because I freaking love the character, and have since SSB64. Just because he is mid tier and pretty much always has been doesn't make me special. Granted I like using a character people don't consider "high tier", but even if he was top tier I would still play him. I don't have fun playing the game as anyone else honestly. But that is my decision, no one elses. It doesn't make you a stupid tier lover if you play Snake or MK to win, and it doesn't make you better if you play Ganon because he sucks. Not a difficult thing to grasp here, let people play who they want.

 

[acv]

am i the only one that gets discriminated for using meta knight and snake?

 

[Jack Kieser]

How about this. Yuna (and whoever else this applies to), ask yourself this question, and be honest with yourself.

Do you understand the message that the OP and the rest of the thread was trying to convey, even if the wording was less than perfect (this is an internet message board, after all)?

If yes, then all of your incessant bickering/nitpicking is unnecessary and only serves to derail the thread.
If no, then that sounds like a personal problem, and you should probably be reading all of the other posts that the TC made illustrating what the point of the OP was.

To be honest, I really hope you answer no, because if you understood the good intentions of the OP and flooded the thread with pessimism anyway, I feel sorry for you.

 

[Blackshadow]

Jack, you're missing the point. Regardless of the OP's intentions, what the OP is spreading is a mentality that Low Tier players should be commended as entrepreneurs, even those who haven't actually done anything worthy of commendation . Yuna's pessimism (as you call it) is warranted in this case. We do not want false mentalities being spread around these boards, there's already enough of that as there is.

As Yuna said:

I will, however, readily curbstomp anyone who chooses a Low Tier character for either:
* The glory of a Low Tier (being able to say "I main a Low Tier. Worship me!")
* The bragging rights of a Low Tier (similar to the above but more openly as the Glory of a Low Tier-players can just sit by silently while others praise them while the Braggers will most often actually brag)
* The Putting Down Rights of Non-Low Tiers ("You're a bad player and a bad person for playing Zelda!" Oh thanks, now give me those 10 bucks you just lost to me.)
* The "I'm Still Better"-rights of Low Tiers ("I might have lost against you and placed much lower than you but I'm reality I'm a much better player than you (despite never having beaten you or placed higher than you!) because I'm a Low Tier and you're not!").

The OP's message is simply promoting the above behaviour, as the members who DO pick up a Low Tier because they think its commendable to do so, will readily use these excuses to defend their inevitable losses.

 

[NESSBOUNDER]

Lol Yuna likes Eurobeat. I no longer feel lonely.

Seriously though, I still think that we're being a bit silly here. Yes, players who do go out and play lower tier characters should be encouraged.

I mean, say now we hear people saying "Snake and Metaknight are the best characters." and decide "Ok. From now on I will play Snake/Metaknight...drone drone drone." Basically what that means is that in a worse-case scenario, nobody will play anything other than Snake/Metaknight...

However, chances are that a lesser used character (Lucario for example) MAY actually have more potential to become a top tier character with application, it's just that everybody is too busy playing Snake or Metaknight to really consider him a viable contender for top tier.

The more people who play a character because they're underused, the more we learn things we didn't know about that character.

Wario for example, was considered a terrible character when Brawl first came out. However, due to a group of dedicated Wario players, most of us actually respect him as a character now because of all the crazy stuff he's capable of doing. None of which would have been found out if it were not for the dedicated Wario mains.

and stuff.

Picking a low tier character isn't the smartest thing to do in a competitive setting, but people who do that more often than not have guts or determination, which are commendable traits.

That is of course unless they use their low tier status for drama.

I enjoy playing characters who I like, but if my main suddenly became bottom tier, I wouldn't continue playing them. It ALMOST happened with Ness and Lucas. I'm a Lucario main now thanks to that chain grab episode, but I still think the PK boys can compete and so they are now my secondaries. Even then, I can play a pretty decent Snake and an OK Metaknight. I learned these characters mainly so I would know how to deal with them.

My suggestion: Learn to play every character at least decently. That way you basically have all the counter-pick options you could ever want.

 

[HulkingRage]

captain falcon is god
i will never stop maining captain falcon

 

[Al_Di_Medola]

you know what sucks?
When Brawl first came out my mains were thought of as ****ty chracters, but now there "top-high tier" and im criticized for it WTF!

 

[Blackshadow]

you know what sucks?
When Brawl first came out my mains were thought of as ****ty chracters, but now there "top-high tier" and im criticized for it WTF!

Welcome to Melee.

 

[Yuna]

How about this. Yuna (and whoever else this applies to), ask yourself this question, and be honest with yourself.

Do you understand the message that the OP and the rest of the thread was trying to convey, even if the wording was less than perfect (this is an internet message board, after all)?

If yes, then all of your incessant bickering/nitpicking is unnecessary and only serves to derail the thread.
If no, then that sounds like a personal problem, and you should probably be reading all of the other posts that the TC made illustrating what the point of the OP was.

To be honest, I really hope you answer no, because if you understood the good intentions of the OP and flooded the thread with pessimism anyway, I feel sorry for you.

I have already said this and you're once more showing symptoms of selective reading:
The OP is noble and wants to encourage people to play "underused characters" (most usually perceived future Low Tiers). However, it's doing this for some reasons which are blatantly wrong.

Like encouraging them by calling them entrepeneurs simply for choosing Low Tiers and implying those who don't play as underused characters aren't automatically entrepeneurs. I'm sorry, what? Random Joe Blow who mains Mario is an entrepeneur and I, who mains Zelda, am not despite the fact that neither of us actually cared where on the Tier List our mains were when we first decided to main them (in act, I had used Zelda as a Secondary ever since Melee, in which she was, like, 5th or so worst in the game!)?

The OP also talks about how one should be commended and encouraged and whatever just for choosing a Low Tier. This is blatantly wrong. One should be commended and encouraged for what one does with one's character, not who one chooses as one's main no matter what the reasons. You're not automatically an entrepeneur just because you just chose Yoshi. What if you suck as Yoshi and don't do anything right? Entrepeneur? My tuchas.

What if I invent an entirely new way of abusing Din's Fire as Zelda, pioneering it and making a name for myself within the Zelda community as "That Cool Swedish Gay Guy Who Looks Like A 15 Yearold Girl Who Introduced the Din's Faroe Lightning Kick Combo"? I'm not an entrepeneur because Zelda ain't Low Tier but Yoshi #16321 who just sucks with him and can't even recover is an entrepeneur per default?

I don't agree with these points and I openly criticized them. The Op might've been noble and had good intentions. But some of those good intentions were based on what I feel are faulty arguments, rationalization and logic.

 

[The Real Inferno]

OK... why should they be labeled entrepeneurs? So what if I play Go in the Western world where Go is almost unheard of? Am I an entrepeneur even though I'm currently only 5k and hardly any special other than that I did it all on my own through online play alone? I listen to Eurobeat... which is also quite unheard of in the Western hemisphere. Entrepeneur!

I take great offense to this bull****, as I have a quite extensive collection of eurobeat and play Go quite often! Harumph!

Edit for something slightly on topic:

you know what sucks?
When Brawl first came out my mains were thought of as ****ty chracters, but now there "top-high tier" and im criticized for it WTF!

Ha, well, that's why I main Random. Before Brawl came out I heard all the complaints about ROB and Dedede being in over just about every fanboy character you can think of. So I got to thinking: "Well...I love ROB. I still have a ROB. I can totally main ROB. I'll show those *****!" And so I did, and I picked up Dedede too because I thought everyone would hate him so I could put them in their place. I was quite surprised (especially with ROB) just how good they really were. I would still main them if I didn't get tired of being told how cheap I was all the time by people I played. That's why now I spread the love to the entire roster.

 

[DKKountry]

My suggestion: Learn to play every character at least decently. That way you basically have all the counter-pick options you could ever want.

My mantra is something along these lines. The amount of characters I don't play seriously in periodic rotation is about equal to the number of mains other people have lol. Maybe I just have a short attention span haha.

 

[GimmeAnFSharp]

I'm curious as to when the poop Wario became so good. That REALLY caught me off guard. I could've sworn there was like, a good while where he wasn't ranking at all in tournaments and all of the sudden people like Futile are eating tournaments alive with his ridiculous aerial antics and armor frames. DK seemed to have come out of nowhere too, just less extreme.

While I don't see much hope for Lucas and Ness because of their elongated throw-break animation (otherwise I think they'd have a pretty sweet chance), I have faith in characters like Sonic and Bowser to come up out of nowhere as quickly as Wario did...

 

[The Real Inferno]

I'm curious as to when the poop Wario became so good. That REALLY caught me off guard. I could've sworn there was like, a good while where he wasn't ranking at all in tournaments and all of the sudden people like Futile are eating tournaments alive with his ridiculous aerial antics and armor frames. DK seemed to have come out of nowhere too, just less extreme.

While I don't see much hope for Lucas and Ness because of their elongated throw-break animation (otherwise I think they'd have a pretty sweet chance), I have faith in characters like Sonic and Bowser to come up out of nowhere as quickly as Wario did...

I would think Bowser stands a better chance of that than Sonic. Fun little story: I ran into a Bowser who put that Infinite Jump technique to very annoyingly good use.

 

[GimmeAnFSharp]

I would think Bowser stands a better chance of that than Sonic. Fun little story: I ran into a Bowser who put that Infinite Jump technique to very annoyingly good use.

Yummy.

10char

 

[Dxt XXII]

7. Remember these words, my Smash Brothers. “A ship is safe in harbor, but that isn’t what ships are meant for.”. Don’t be afraid to get out there and get your hands dirty. Sail that ship, and conquer the seas of this competitive environment in all of its infancy. You can do it!

~Kidd~

Amen

......

 

[Reizilla]

What if I invent an entirely new way of abusing Din's Fire as Zelda, pioneering it and making a name for myself within the Zelda community as "That Cool Swedish Gay Guy Who Looks Like A 15 Yearold Girl Who Introduced the Din's Faroe Lightning Kick Combo"? I'm not an entrepeneur because Zelda ain't Low Tier but Yoshi #16321 who just sucks with him and can't even recover is an entrepeneur per default?

You wouldn't be considered an entrepreneur because you're not going out of you're way to take a risk hoping it works out. Zelda already has something going for her and you would simply be an innovator for coming up with something new. Yoshi on the other hand would be an entrepreneur if he chose him with hopes that he could make Yoshi playable at a high level. Obviously if he can't recover he's a failure, but he would simply be an unsuccessful entrepreneur. Not all entrepreneurs are successful and not all people that play low tiers are entrepreneurs.

The OP already knows his original post is somewhat misleading, but only if you have sand in your ****** and are looking for something to ***** about. Everyone else gets the real point and I'm sure you do also, you just feel like being a douche about it.

 

[MusicalMike]

I didn't mean for all this debate to spring out... I just wanted people who use underused characters to know that it isn't hopeless to win a tournament just because they aren't using Snake, that the metagame is young, and that anything is really possible at this point. Sorry guys.

 

[Gamegenie222]

I do hope that hope that Sonic and Bowser get into higher tiers, but I also hope that Ganondorf get into a higher tier cause of his Flame Choke mindgame, I destroyed my friend with that tactic once, it was fun.

 

[Gamegenie222]

I'll stay true with this and take your word Kidd 01 for it even though Im still figuring out who my #1 main should be. plus this thread made me feel alot better about the tournament scene.

 

[choknater]

Kidd 01, these things are inevitable.

This is why I was surprised, and wanted to honor your thread for how long people were actually being civilized.

 

[rm88]

SSB was thought as game where you could pick your favorite character. That's what I do, I don't care if my characters are Top or Bottom tier. I was a Peach main in Melee and I still am. Kirby was the 3rd worst character in Melee, and I love to play as him. Jigglypuff is a viable worst Brawl character, and I do awesome against Snake with her ^^ I play as Sonic because I like his games, and I decided to second Dedede as soon as he was revealed. Don't play overused/underused characters, play your favorite characters. That being said, beating OU characters with UU characters is awesome.

 

[Yuna]

You wouldn't be considered an entrepreneur because you're not going out of you're way to take a risk hoping it works out. Zelda already has something going for her and you would simply be an innovator for coming up with something new. Yoshi on the other hand would be an entrepreneur if he chose him with hopes that he could make Yoshi playable at a high level. Obviously if he can't recover he's a failure, but he would simply be an unsuccessful entrepreneur. Not all entrepreneurs are successful and not all people that play low tiers are entrepreneurs.

Funny, you just claimed they were. You're kinda contradicting yourself here.

The OP already knows his original post is somewhat misleading, but only if you have sand in your ****** and are looking for something to ***** about. Everyone else gets the real point and I'm sure you do also, you just feel like being a douche about it.

The OP is noble and stuff but it's just another one that's doing the right things for the wrong reasons. And while you and I can grasp what it's about, others will not. Others who already do not will point to it for reference. Because there's already a widespread mentality that High Tier players should be reviled while Low Tier players are honourable and should be worshipped and other BS.

Kidd 01, these things are inevitable.

This is why I was surprised, and wanted to honor your thread for how long people were actually being civilized.

As far as I know, we're still being civil. OK, My Zombie Dog Ate Me isn't since he used words that had to be bleeped out, but I and the majority of posters in this thread certainly are.

Being civil =/= Being 100% positive

 

[Clai]

I didn't mean for all this debate to spring out... I just wanted people who use underused characters to know that it isn't hopeless to win a tournament just because they aren't using Snake, that the metagame is young, and that anything is really possible at this point. Sorry guys.

Your intentions are excellent, and people are putting way too much thought into the wording of your post and not the intentions that you are trying to make.

People, in every field, are trying to create new ideas and innovations wildly outside of conventional subjects. Unfortunately, many of those people fail, crumble and burn up, and few people, if any, care or feel sympathy for them. It's great that they are trying new and creative things, but if the practicality/effort isn't there, then it isn't going to work and they don't deserve to be thought of any different from someone that failed in any other area.

There are people, however, that come out there, take the wildest idea that anyone could think of, and work with it so fantastically that it becomes a sensation. These are the types of people that get praised on tremendous levels, even more than those who are successful in the conventional fields because they knew the risks going into it, they knew the dangers of the unknown potential and went with it anyway. Yeah, maybe someone in a conventional field ends up earning more money than this zealous pioneer, but the very fact that this person succeeded will earn praise and recognition. Would this person have earned more praise if he/she was richer? Maybe. Maybe if he/she knew that he/she would earn more money in another field, maybe that person wouldn't have went on his /her journey. But people take risks for a reason, and if that person is devoted to his work, he/she won't mind the potential trade-offs.

Now to bring it to Smash: it's nice that people play the characters that they like to play as, instead of sheepishly worshipping the tier list. Let it be warned, though, that people who fail at low-tier characters (as in people who don't win even an individual tournament game) will not be viewed any differently from someone who fails the same way with a top-tier character. There is certainly more work to put into a lower-tier character to topple a higher-tier character, and maybe they won't ever reach the top, even with their efforts. However, if they put their hearts into playing with, improving, and ultimately mastering their characters, let their spirit drive on. If they don't win a grand tournament final, but still gets a respectable amount of money and prestige, they should be praised for their efforts. If it is known that one person climbs more to reach the same point as another person, why shouldn't they be praised for taking a bigger challenge? It's okay to take risks, people. Do whatever suits your desires.

 

[GimmeAnFSharp]

The OP is noble and stuff but it's just another one that's doing the right things for the wrong reasons. And while you and I can grasp what it's about, others will not. Others who already do not will point to it for reference. Because there's already a widespread mentality that High Tier players should be reviled while Low Tier players are honourable and should be worshipped and other BS

Thanks for assuming I have no idea about anything. Really appreciated.

I'm well aware of what the OP is saying, and I'm also quite well aware of what will happen regardless of what they say- the fact is, as much as people LIKE to play low tier characters, high tier characters will most certainly be ruling the scene. But take a look at Wario- a month ago, he was mid tier at best! What happened? A couple lucky guys like Futile started figuring the character out, and ever since then he's been a noticeable threat in the tourney scene.

There's OBVIOUSLY the fact that any one character isn't going to be guaranteed to outshine another (barring obvious, infinite situations), but that doesn't mean other characters don't have potential to eventually be able to do so too. I'm sure one day Snake's metagame will start to cap off and people will start to experiment around.

Again, Yuna- I wish you'd be more careful with your rash statements, as I find them rather offensive. I didn't reference this thread because I 100% support it, but because it's a mindset and an idea I think everyone should atleast consider it. I could care less WHAT people think of it- but opinions should be valued whether or not you agree with it.

Well, I'm running in circles now.