Tier List Speculation

[mimgrim]

If it weren't for the fact that pretty much every other match I do is against a 70-30 (and 60-40, but those are generally more bearable) MU, I wouldn't feel the need for a secondary. But alas, that isn't the case and it gets annoying going up against so many up-hill MUs. It either find a different main (of which I absolutely don't want to do, at least not until the next *major* balance patch) or get a secondary (much more desirable outcome). Trying to find a character that covers Tink's bad MUs that also feels good to play is hard though.

 

[Frost | Odds]

Also i don't pretend to know if ICs are busted right now, but their side b is really, really, extremely stupid right now. It's way too good at recovering (I tested some, was able to recover from literally under FD without a jump), it's far too disruptive if it hits with any of the many, many weak hits; and the last hit can't be crouched and uuugghhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Akhenderson]

Also i don't pretend to know if ICs are busted right now, but their side b is really, really, extremely stupid right now. It's way too good at recovering (I tested some, was able to recover from literally under FD without a jump), it's far too disruptive if it hits with any of the many, many weak hits; and the last hit can't be crouched and uuugghhhhhhhhhhh

Man, I remember that when Big D recovered all the way from the bottom with that move, a lot of players in the audience were surprised at how insane that recovery tool was.
I did overhear from Bladewise that side B like that was in melee but I dunno, that seemed a little too good... even for melee standards.

 

[CORY]

side b was stupid in melee, too. you could recover from the corner blastzone of fd with it, just mashing.

 

[Player -0]

If you're talking Nana + Popo I'm not surprised.

If it's Sopo then pretty sure no.

Surprising how so many people don't know stuff

 

[nimigoha]

People also don't know that ICs have an invincible disjointed 42-active frame kill move but

 

[Player -0]

They should. Up-B is dumb.

 

[Deleted member]

I wish to further explore Wario vs Marth. It feels bad and definitely looks bad on paper, but I guess I haven't really explored it as much as I have other matchups, since I had already developed the DK vs Marth matchup really well.
I beat Dart shortly after 3.5 came out with Wario, he switched to Fox game 2 and still lost.

Wario has a few bad MUs that I think are borderline unwinnable though, I think the char can do fine solo in most metas just not one that's fully representative of the overall metgame. Most of his other MUs are doable even if he's at a disadvantage in a good few.

I do not think PM is a solo-character game and to people who say only 4-5 characters truly need a secondary, I say there are 4-5 characters who don't. Matchup spreads are all over the place due to how balanced the cast is and you've gotta find characters to cover your bad matchups in some cases, especially if those bad MUs are super popular characters.

EDIT: also I have a lot of respect for you Max but yeah Sheik probably doesn't need a secondary, but there are tons of characters that do and going "no johns" when people are trying to figure out the optimal way to enter and perform well in a tournament is pretty silly IMO.

i dont speak as a sheik player but as a melee zelda player. even on a character as barren and lacking depth as melee zelda, i was surprised again and again at how much i was able to push the character in the face of staggeringly stupid MUs. project m is simply way less developed than melee is and likely always will be due to having a lot more characters, mechanics, and 13 less years of metagame development.

if you feel that you NEED a secondary, youre giving up too soon and playing to win in the short term rather than playing to improve in the long term. you might truly be playing a bad MU, but you might also innovate a way to win too. its just a new game.

with all due respect to the bowser and ddd players, i think you guys should re-evaluate your MU spreads. as much as i see people say that they both lose a ton of MUs, the good ddd and bowser players -always- perform well, which suggests that maybe they arent as bad as people say.

 

[Foo]

i ddd players, i think you guys should re-evaluate your MU spreads. as much as i see people say that they both lose a ton of MUs, the good ddd and bowser players -always- perform well, which suggests that maybe they arent as bad as people say.

It could also be due to basically nobody knowing the matchups for those characters.

 

[Deleted member]

It could also be due to basically nobody knowing the matchups for those characters.

maybe, but i dont buy that people win strictly on the back of ignorance. not past round 2 anyway.

 

[Ripple]

remember when zelda was considered good and people did well with her in tournaments? its like that with bowser and DDD players, we're not going anywhere but down imo. we're still winning on ignorance, for now

 

[Strong Badam]

Max it's not giving up too quickly when you actually have -3 and -4 matchups. It's entirely unreasonable to expect a player to beat another top level player by such an absurd margin. I have always disagreed with you on your notion that 1-character is the best way to go in this game and it looks like I always will.

I don't think that any character 'hard counters' Fox but I think DK has an advantage over him in his ridiculous guaranteed chaingrab/kill setup. and OOS option.

DK does not have an advantage over Fox. Everyone kills him off of a grab, it's grabbing him that's the problem.
UpB OoS doesn't hit short characters or even tall ones if you have any inkling of how to space on a shield.

Just like a teeny weeny bit of KB growth on Cargo Up throw @ Strong Badam pretty please?

Tagging me and asking for changes is basically harassment. Please stop it.

 

[InfinityCollision]

The assumption that dual maining looks primarily to the short term seems to hinge on the assumption that you don't train both characters thoroughly in every matchup, which is an inherently flawed approach. You're going to get blind picked, you're going to get counterpicked. You'll still have to deal with bad matchups, just not as often. You're doubling down for small gains, but the gains are still there as long as you don't pretend a secondary is a free pass in a given matchup.

 

[Vashimus]

I feel the problem is people don't actually switch to a secondary because they think it will give them a better chance at the matchup. They'll switch because they aren't confident of winning with their main. It sounds like the same thing, but they're two totally different mentalities.

If you're worried about that then you're playing to win, in which case just skip the middle man and pick a character with a superior matchup spread.

 

[Foo]

maybe, but i dont buy that people win strictly on the back of ignorance. not past round 2 anyway.

Not purely off of ignorance, sure, but I can't tell you how many times I tether ledge as zss and they just get up before I even reel in. Stuff like that won't decide a match by itself, but it certainly makes bad matchups easier when your opponent doesn't know why his character wins the matchup.

On topic of secondaries, at this point I'm either gonna solo main falcon or have him as a secondary or something. ZSS matchups against a few characters is just ridiculous. I my last bracket, a falcon player last to a samus player who I then easily 2-0'd and then I got to winners finals and played a really good link (PR'd 5th in my state) and lost a close 3-2 set. In losers, said falcon player met me and finals and beat me (upthrow knee took pretty much every damn stock) and then he went into grands and got three stocked twice before managing to take him to one stock in game 3 (and falcon is pretty good against link too).

Also, I know that whenever I play a DK player in bracket that I don't even have to be better at all, the matchup is just free. If they have a pocket fox or something, then the tables flip. Yes, you won't be as good at either character as you would be with a solo main, but unless you are playing a top tier you will just have to accept occasionally losing matches in bracket to players worse than you because of matchups.

 

[Strong Badam]

Yes, you won't be as good at either character as you would be with a solo main, but unless you are playing a top tier you will just have to accept occasionally losing matches in bracket to players worse than you because of matchups.

(Not a very appropriate quote for this but I wrote this anyway) I hear this a lot and think it's pretty suspect as a concept. It kind of works on the assumption that you have effort points or like, Pokemon EVs that you can divvy up into your characters and it maxes out at one character. So you can have one at 100, or two at 50 each, or maybe 75 each, or something like that, but I'd say that the amount of time it takes to optimize a single character is unreasonably high and you can "almost" optimize two characters in the same amount of time. Something like 99 in one character vs 96-97 in two is the same amount of "effort" because acquiring that last bit of optimization is like going from level 99 to 100 in an RPG; it takes the longest. And unless you're picking an actual top tier that can fight through every matchup, it's far more useful to have two characters than one in the way I described. A fully optimized single character will still more or less lose every time in an unwinnable matchup (Get Stealth Rock'd, Charizard), while an additional mostly optimized character will probably be able to win unless you pick your two characters poorly.

 

[Foo]

(Not a very appropriate quote for this but I wrote this anyway) I hear this a lot and think it's pretty suspect as a concept. It kind of works on the assumption that you have effort points or like, Pokemon EVs that you can divvy up into your characters and it maxes out at one character. So you can have one at 100, or two at 50 each, or maybe 75 each, or something like that, but I'd say that the amount of time it takes to optimize a single character is unreasonably high and you can "almost" optimize two characters in the same amount of time. Something like 99 in one character vs 96-97 in two is the same amount of "effort" because acquiring that last bit of optimization is like going from level 99 to 100 in an RPG; it takes the longest. And unless you're picking an actual top tier that can fight through every matchup, it's far more useful to have two characters than one in the way I described. A fully optimized single character will still more or less lose every time in an unwinnable matchup (Get Stealth Rock'd, Charizard), while an additional mostly optimized character will probably be able to win unless you pick your two characters poorly.

Maybe not everyone has this problem, but whenever I switch between characters I get pretty messed up. When I switch back to zss from falcon I usually find I am trying to shffl too quickly, I'm not wavedashing oos when I should and other things like that. When the opposite happens, I drop combos because I don't expect upair to send at that angle, I try to waveland off platforms like I have zss slipperness, a few times I've tried to wavebounce plasma whip etc. It's not about optimization, it's more about habit and muscle memory. For me, this game is way to fast to think about literally everything you do.

It's probably just a personal thing. I occasionally see some people switch from character to character like it's nothing, and then I occasionally see some spacy players playing falcon and trying to shine oos. It also could be just because I have only been playing smash for about a year now. Maybe after a while I'll have a "mode" for each character or something.

 

[JOE!]

Even if you get really good with one character, wouldn't it make sense to get good with another to cover match ups you at least find annoying?

For example, Samus doesn't like Fire Emblem... but Charizard eats them.
Charizard doesn't like Fox, but Samus goes evenish.

etc

 

[Deleted member]

(Not a very appropriate quote for this but I wrote this anyway) I hear this a lot and think it's pretty suspect as a concept. It kind of works on the assumption that you have effort points or like, Pokemon EVs that you can divvy up into your characters and it maxes out at one character. So you can have one at 100, or two at 50 each, or maybe 75 each, or something like that, but I'd say that the amount of time it takes to optimize a single character is unreasonably high and you can "almost" optimize two characters in the same amount of time. Something like 99 in one character vs 96-97 in two is the same amount of "effort" because acquiring that last bit of optimization is like going from level 99 to 100 in an RPG; it takes the longest. And unless you're picking an actual top tier that can fight through every matchup, it's far more useful to have two characters than one in the way I described. A fully optimized single character will still more or less lose every time in an unwinnable matchup (Get Stealth Rock'd, Charizard), while an additional mostly optimized character will probably be able to win unless you pick your two characters poorly.

the idea is that you get good at the game by playing one character because it forces you to learn to solve new problems with an old toolkit. once you're a top level player in a solidified metagame you basically need to have secondaries to cover bad MUs because you realize your toolkit isn't going to work at that point. we probably agree on that point. my premise here is that we're far from having a solidified metagame with top players, since even our top players still make tons of mistakes or approach MUs wrong (which includes both of us btw). and until we're at that point, you're better off sticking to one character.

i don't get how we can cite that we're so certain about our MUs that we need secondaries but then talk about how everyone loses all these MUs due to ignorance in the same thread, on the same page.

 

[Strong Badam]

the idea is that you get good at the game by playing one character because it forces you to learn to solve new problems with an old toolkit. once you're a top level player in a solidified metagame you basically need to have secondaries to cover bad MUs because you realize your toolkit isn't going to work at that point. we probably agree on that point. my premise here is that we're far from having a solidified metagame with top players, since even our top players still make tons of mistakes or approach MUs wrong (which includes both of us btw). and until we're at that point, you're better off sticking to one character.

i don't get how we can cite that we're so certain about our MUs that we need secondaries but then talk about how everyone loses all these MUs due to ignorance in the same thread, on the same page.

You said earlier that dual-maining is "playing to win in the short term rather than playing to improve in the long term" but also admit that in the end-game ("a top level player in a solidified metagame") you basically need to have secondaries to cover bad MUs. Which is it? Is the end-game so far away that trying to work on a strategy for it... is not considered a long-term strategy?
We just disagree on how early that "end-game" becomes relevant.

To your later point, you can absolutely have enough information about a matchup to be certain of its ratio without every single one of your opponents executing their metagame correctly. You only need two players, one from each side of the matchup, to do so. Say for example (I do not know if this is a true example, I'm just saying using it for the sake of argument) Ripple is really good at the ZSS matchup from playing Oro for years, but decides it's an unwinnable matchup, and picks up a new character for it. He's still going to beat every non-Oro ZSS in the DDD matchup because while Ripple is executing the matchup correctly from DDD's side, only Oro will be doing the same from ZSS's side. Going "hey Ripple, see? you're beating them. must not be as bad of a matchup" is disingenuous to several factors; at the end of the day Ripple isn't going to be beating Oro with DDD and his long-term success in the MU hinges on his ability to use a different character that can handle ZSS properly. It is in fact in his long-term interest to go his secondary that he's hoping to use against Oro against these other ZSS players despite being less likely to win in the short-term, in order to train for the matchup. Again just a hypothetical example, I don't know what Ripple thinks of the ZSS matchup, DDD was just fresh in my mind from a previous discussion.
The same can be said for me vs Lunchables' Toon Link. I'm going to more or less beat every single other Toon Link player with Wario despite the MU ratio because I am playing the matchup better than they are and I'm also a better player. But in a situation where I'm fighting a Toon Link player of similar skill or higher than myself, excuting the MU as well as I am, it becomes actually unwinnable and not only is my best short-term strategy to change characters, so is my best long-term strategy. A long-term strategy can still yield short-term results.

 

[Deleted member]

You said earlier that dual-maining is "playing to win in the short term rather than playing to improve in the long term" but also admit that in the end-game (a top level player in a solidified metagame) you basically need to have secondaries to cover bad MUs. Which is it?
We just disagree on how early that end-game becomes relevant.

To your later point, you can absolutely have enough information about a matchup to be certain of its ratio without every single one of your opponents executing their metagame correctly. You only need two players, one from each side of the matchup, to do so. Say for example (I do not know if this is a true example, I'm just saying using it for the sake of argument) Ripple is really good at the ZSS matchup from playing Oro for years, and decides it's an unwinnable matchup, picks up a new character for it. He's still going to beat every non-Oro ZSS in the DDD matchup because while Ripple is executing the matchup correctly from DDD's side, only Oro will be doing the same from ZSS's side. Going "hey Ripple, see? you're beating them. must not be as bad of a matchup" is disingenuous to several factors; at the end of the day Ripple isn't going to be beating Oro with DDD and his long-term success in the MU hinges on his ability to use a different character that can handle ZSS properly. Again just a hypothetical example, I don't know what Ripple thinks of the ZSS matchup, DDD was just fresh in my mind from a previous discussion.
The same can be said for me vs Lunchables' Toon Link. I'm going to more or less beat every single other Toon Link player with Wario despite the MU ratio because I am playing the matchup better than they are and I'm also a better player. But in a situation where I'm fighting a Toon Link player of similar skill or higher than myself, excuting the MU as well as I am, it becomes actually unwinnable and not only is my best short-term strategy to change characters, so is my best long-term strategy.

once you're a top player and you understand the game, you are moreso playing to win than playing to learn. there's a transition that happens somewhere in there. but you can't get to that point if you keep trying to solve all your problems by switching character because it takes away from the adversity that you need to get good at the game. for an easy reference, i do not know of a single high-end player that co-mained 3+ characters in any game. having players that switch around a lot after they got good is pretty common, but not during that process of improvement. you're probably in the same situation having struggled with DK for years.

ripple is already a top player so him picking up a different character for ZSS makes sense in this situation. that said, i don't think a single MU is so solved that the example is relevant (yet). would you tell captain birdman that he should pick up a different character to fight the 10+ ZSS players that could beat him? because that would be a disaster to his development as a player. but we are all still developing players.

 

[Strong Badam]

No, I totally agree that several players are not at the point where picking up a new character would be beneficial. You just said as some sort of declarative statement that seemed like it was applicable for everyone:

no one needs a secondary

no johns

which I disagreed with heavily, started a conversation based exclusively on top level play about, and you later backpedaled on. I never argued that Random Smasher 87 should pick up a new character to deal with a MU when there are obviously a huge long list of things they can improve on generally as a player.

 

[Boiko]

I feel the problem is people don't actually switch to a secondary because they think it will give them a better chance at the matchup. They'll switch because they aren't confident of winning with their main. It sounds like the same thing, but they're two totally different mentalities.

UGHHH THISSSSS.
I had to play an Ike player at Nova that had beaten my Ness the week before. I consulted Gallo on the side and asked if I should play Samus, since he's played both of my characters. He replied with, "Stop doubting your main. Your Ness is really good. Play Ness, he's your main." So I did, and I won with a 2 stock and a 3 stock. Gallo <3

 

[trash?]

my post didn't really care about low-to-mid level players, because it was about things that push a metagame, which is led by top players and top players only

odds cannot win vs ice climbers using only bowser. that's not a "john", that's a very basic flaw in his play that odds can address over time. to try and dilute basic high-level self improvement by saying it's just an excuse is meaningless

 

[Frost | Odds]

Actually, I think I could've beaten Big D using just Bowser if I'd played better. Just briefly reviewed the set on my own and found a lot of mistakes I made. Nerves are pretty rough.

A good ice climbers, though, would be impossible. So I'm picking up a super sekret sekondary

 

[Deleted member]

No, I totally agree that several players are not at the point where picking up a new character would be beneficial. You just said as some sort of declarative statement that seemed like it was applicable for everyone:

which I disagreed with heavily, started a conversation based exclusively on top level play about, and you later backpedaled on. I never argued that Random Smasher 87 should pick up a new character to deal with a MU when there are obviously a huge long list of things they can improve on generally as a player.

it is applicable for everyone. no one needs a secondary *right now* if you want me to qualify the statement

you and i and ripple are still Random Smasher 87, and if you think you've "solved" a MU this early into a game with this much depth, you havent. i thought it was mutually understood that when we say things like "wario loses to marth" that it was at the meta's level of development right now and totally prone to changing at any time.

we all have a huge long list of things to improve on as players. let's try not to look like all the 2004 falcos complaining about peach and jigglypuff.

 

[trash?]

let's try not to look like all the 2004 falcos complaining about peach and jigglypuff.

this is a pretty bad comparison, considering people switch to fox from falco all the time when fighting those characters in melee

 

[Deleted member]

this is a pretty bad comparison, considering people switch to fox from falco all the time when fighting those characters in melee

that hardly means that falco is bad vs peach though. like we all thought he was in 2004. those players dont need a secondary

 

[Ripple]

@ Frost | Odds you don't need a secondary for ICs. I'll tell you how to play the MU over skype

 

[ChiePet]

No, I totally agree that several players are not at the point where picking up a new character would be beneficial. You just said as some sort of declarative statement that seemed like it was applicable for everyone:

which I disagreed with heavily, started a conversation based exclusively on top level play about, and you later backpedaled on. I never argued that Random Smasher 87 should pick up a new character to deal with a MU when there are obviously a huge long list of things they can improve on generally as a player.

See I agree with this, but feel that Peach has enough positive/neutral MU spread to warrant not having a secondary or just being an over-achiever. I will admit that 3.02 I seconded Pit because he covered all of Peach's somewhat disadvantageous MUs very very well, but RIPInPiece Pit.

I do feel greatful for the changes, though; I strived to be as absolutely solid with Peach as possible knowing her abillity and not 'having' a secondary to lean on. Different mentallity, though.

#RAMBLE

 

[Juushichi]

this is the same thing that all of the ivys who thought the character died after that

as an aside, i think that sheik is really doomed to the same path that she's taken in melee

so many people complain about the character at a comparatively low level that people don't actively play her much, which i think is rather unheard of for a top-5 character and this means that the metagame growth is much lower than it should be. it's ****ing crazy to see how much further optimized just about every relevant character in Melee is compared to Sheik (and Puff, to some extent)

and in pm, you have like... @Umbreon and people who are already good at sheik in Melee playing her (froot, vanz, hats, dreph). i sincerely believe that a lot of people overrate this character in this phase of PM. there are not many strong sheiks with developed punish routes or ways to cover a bunch of options. she still has a weak recovery and air speed.

i sincerely wish there was another top level player who talks about sheik being top 5 who went out and actually showed it.

 

[Deleted member]

this is the same thing that all of the ivys who thought the character died after that

as an aside, i think that sheik is really doomed to the same path that she's taken in melee

so many people complain about the character at a comparatively low level that people don't actively play her much, which i think is rather unheard of for a top-5 character and this means that the metagame growth is much lower than it should be. it's ****ing crazy to see how much further optimized just about every relevant character in Melee is compared to Sheik (and Puff, to some extent)

and in pm, you have like... @Umbreon and people who are already good at sheik in Melee playing her (froot, vanz, hats, dreph). i sincerely believe that a lot of people overrate this character in this phase of PM. there are not many strong sheiks with developed punish routes or ways to cover a bunch of options. she still has a weak recovery and air speed.

i sincerely wish there was another top level player who talks about sheik being top 5 who went out and actually showed it.

i wont speak for the others but i didnt learn sheik in melee, i learned her solely in PM. i'm also quite vocal about her being hard top tier and auto top 5 in the game.

sheik atm is basically **** busted at mid level play and balances out to be very good but balanced at top level play when the opponents have more refined neutral games and can match her absurd edge guarding with their own more refined punishment games. i dont like transform but if she was unchanged into the final version from now she would be fine imo

frankly i think ive done a good job highlighting what sheik is capable of at the top of the metagame.

 

[941]

This is true in melee...IC's are much better at comboing floaties out of a grab in PM. Dthrow -> Fair leads to a lot of stuff, Handoff -> uthrow -> fair leads to a lot of stuff depending on platforms, dthrow squall and even blizzard lead to a lot of stuff...

Why would D-throw > Fair be any different than Melee? What's the difference other than F-air spikes instead of meteors? Also Handoffs on floaties were better in Melee, given that you had a 50% chance to do another handoff, and a 25% chance of a U-throw. I guess U-throw can be followed with Up-B in PM, but that's not easy to land on players that actually know what Up-B does. I've tested D-throw squall and D-throw blizzard, and they don't work very well on light/floaty opponents that know how to DI/SDI up.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

So now that we had Ganon, DDD and Bowser all crack top 4 at a major

WOULD SOMEONE ****ING PLAY PIT

 

[TheGravyTrain]

I was messing around with Pit and he felt great. Then again, just last week he felt like an unbearable piece of crap. All this being on CPU's doesn't help either.

 

[Life]

So now that we had Ganon, DDD and Bowser all crack top 4 at a major

WOULD SOMEONE ****ING PLAY PIT

I don't claim to be a top player by any stretch, but I tried keeping up with Pit after the transition away from 3.02 and I just couldn't stomach it. Not only was he nerfed harder than anyone, but he was nerfed in ways that made him feel bad to play (upB sweetspot, dtilt startup being the two biggest examples). They could have kept the glide speed nerf and given dthrow more KBG and he'd have been fine.

Maybe someday.

I will say that making grounded upB a viable kill option was pretty cool of PMDT tho.

 

[jtm94]

The dude that used ICs vs Odds didn't even main them, if he stayed Kirby idk if he would have won.
I think using multiple characters worked out for him.

Pit felt weird in 3.0, but I could uair juggle, KO with aerial UpB, and do fair > arrow > fair > arrow. Now it's like... Don't do anything. I've seen a person or two use Pit in 3.5 and I struggle to see a diamond in the rough, but he could just have something weird that is somehow overlooked.

 

[ChiePet]

Not only was he nerfed harder than anyone, but he was nerfed in ways that made him feel bad to play.

See this I can understand completely; Understandable that Pit gets nerfed, or even adjusted to genuinely not be broken, but It's like something extremely integral was taken away and he just feels all around sad to play. I miss it. and him.
Another thing I miss a lot is Jiggz; there just seemingly isn't anything to do/being done to make jiggz get anywhere close to what she had in melee. sure, different game different meta different mechanics, but it's almost just off-putting.

 

[DrinkingFood]

I'm still upset that I suggested D-Throw -> Nana footstool -> regrab and someone told me it didn't work when it does

@ DrinkingFood I don't think I got an answer a bit back. I had asked if there's a reason you don't dash attack to hit people/spacies right before they hit the ground from a move like D-Smadh

I do sometimes to throw off tech timing, mostly when they are near the edge. Doing it anywhere else, the weak hit lets them land and act before you can (except at high percent where this doesn't really work) and the strong hit gets your nothing because of the strength and angle.
But generally if you can get a dash attack, you can get a grab. Most of the time you can't get either because they DI'd far enough away

 

[Strong Badam]

By entrants alone, NWM was a major, but the talent pool wasn't quite there. None of what people generally consider to be top 15 were present.

Pit felt weird in 3.0, but I could uair juggle, KO with aerial UpB, and do fair > arrow > fair > arrow. Now it's like... Don't do anything. I've seen a person or two use Pit in 3.5 and I struggle to see a diamond in the rough, but he could just have something weird that is somehow overlooked.

Aerial Arrow combos still work in 3.5; the endlag increase is only on grounded arrows.