Tier List Speculation

[Downdraft]

I would rather have broken fun, tbh.
Fun is not a direct function of balance either.
It is, however, a direct function of game mechanics.

There are alternative Smash Bros games if we want to play weak or lame versions of our characters.
It's too bad Brawl- doesn't have a big competitive scene. It's broken fun, but the brokenness is too much for many players. PM is the only game that can find the medium between good design, competitive balance, and fun for both players. 3.5 doesn't have this balance. In many ways, it is less fun and poorer designed than 3.02. The nerfs went too far. Competitive balance also wasn't achieved. I don't know what the PMDT's major goals were, but as a player I'd consider 3.5 bad. Top players left, some characters are practically dead now, support has dwindled, certain characters were given slaps on the wrist while others fell several spots or tiers in the tier list. The list goes on. Many players defected to Melee or Smash 4, which would have been avoidable if the design and balancing had been handled in a manner that favored the people that had invested serious effort into PM. Some characters are so different that one has to essentially throw away the hundreds or thousands of hours of practice and experience that one has put into their character, but what's the time and support of x amount of players?

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

I never mentioned anything about rotations. My point was that characters that have been good or great in Melee, Brawl, or Smash 4 have been allowed to remain that way while characters that aren't have their futures in doubt. Why can't everyone be as good as Project M Fox for instance? His 3.02 contention was "dealt with" to where he's now at the top, which is silly.

I'll have to stop you there. IMO, PM Fox should never be held as the golden standard for any balance. Know what happens when you balance the cast around a busted character? A busted game. 3.5 isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. Most of the characters are pretty solid.

 

[ChiePet]

Pretty much this honestly.

In a game with 40+ characters, the fact that as a whole only a handful are mentioned as overly good/bad with the rest being in a big ol' heap of "just right" is a damn fine job by the PMDT.


On a side note seeing as this is a wider group, I may as well get y'all opinions:

Spoiler

||| -2 |||

||| -1 |||

||| -- |||

||| +1 |||

|||+2 |||

​

This is the current Charizard MU spread after a few light discussions. Where do you guys feel your characters stand vs the lizard?

vs. Peach is 50:50, she hasn't lost enough from Melee to PM for her to not still control HW characters regardless of their air-space control, although saying 50:50 doesn't mean his Jab, RAR NAir, FAir, and Ledge Guarding with sweetspotted DTilt aren't pain in the a****. Oh, and the MU is also one that goes to 60:40 in his favor on Dreamland; he and Fox are the ONLY two characters that benefit more than she does on Dreamland, odd since it's her best stage, but that Up B and the Open space are enough to drive Peach crazy.

tl;dr imo.

EDIT: wish I had a bit more info than broad stroking it, but if it helps validate this at all, SillyKyle and VaNz, and a certain point during the Peach MU Discussion thread all said the same thing, but I mean really to me all but maybe 5-6 Char in the Game Peach either Beats or has even MU against. lol

 

[DMG]

Catering to people that played a lot is basically saying "We won't nerf your character cause you broke the 1000 hour benchmark". Maybe design? But not balance

 

[Bazkip]

and whoever it was talking about buffing his fthrow, it's already pretty much a strictly better peach fthrow, with similar power/growth, but a lower angle.

This is false. It's worse asides from dealing 3% more. Has higher base knockback but but the drastically higher growth on Peach's fthrow means that Peach's will always kill earlier. Angle is the same on both.

Not to say that it's bad by any means, it's definitely a solid throw, but the vast majority of the time it's probably a better idea to go for dthrow > followup to kill/get them offstage.

 

[CORY]

ah, thanks for that clarification, bazinator < 3

 

[otheusrex]

I think 3.5 is a step in the right direction, but it's like a whole troupe marching forward with a sloppy and uncoordinated first step. They'll get there.

One of the biggest problems i believe is that they lack dedicated mains for each character

 

[Foo]

@ CORY Twas I who suggested the lower iasa on float as well as the fthrow (and bthrow). Thing is, while ganon fthrow isn't bad, there's almost never a reason to use it. When I said "buff" I mostly meant rework. In my head, I see it as a REALLY low angle throw (semispike) that doesn't really scale that much and wouldn't outright kill or gimp by itself except on like falco or wolf at high %s. The purpose would just be to force some characters to recover low so ganon could set up for things like tipman gimps, stomps, bair edgeguards etc. etc. Would be alot more interesting than justdthrow into hit them as far as you can and hope they die.

Not sure how low angle you could make it without it being ******** on fast fallers, and it may be impossible but idk. Just throwing it out there.

 

[PlateProp]

I never mentioned anything about rotations. My point was that characters that have been good or great in Melee, Brawl, or Smash 4 have been allowed to remain that way while characters that aren't have their futures in doubt. Why can't everyone be as good as Project M Fox for instance? His 3.02 contention was "dealt with" to where he's now at the top, which is silly. I have no problem with top tiers when most of the cast is at or near that level, which 3.5 actually took efforts to prevent. The wrong character is being balanced around.

First, where are all the arguments that Zelda is bad?
Second, I doubt many will agree with Link being good.
Third, no one's asking for PM Minus. Rather than swear, how about you post evidence that both characters are in a good spot or achieve high level success with them yourself? Without any citations or explanations, your claim has little merit IMO.

Red1 / Hero of Time's placement at aftershock shows that link is good.

Also the general consensus of everyone in the thread is that all characters are definantly good barring ICs and Olimar due to glitches (and even then these characters are still good.)

Also the entire point of 3.5 was for DESIGN, not balance. They didnt want 3.02 where everyone was supposed to be balanced to Fox and too many things were stupid or broken.

 

[Chevy]

There are alternative Smash Bros games if we want to play weak or lame versions of our characters.
It's too bad Brawl- doesn't have a big competitive scene. It's broken fun, but the brokenness is too much for many players. PM is the only game that can find the medium between good design, competitive balance, and fun for both players. 3.5 doesn't have this balance. In many ways, it is less fun and poorer designed than 3.02. The nerfs went too far. Competitive balance also wasn't achieved. I don't know what the PMDT's major goals were, but as a player I'd consider 3.5 bad. Top players left, some characters are practically dead now, support has dwindled, certain characters were given slaps on the wrist while others fell several spots or tiers in the tier list. The list goes on. Many players defected to Melee or Smash 4, which would have been avoidable if the design and balancing had been handled in a manner that favored the people that had invested serious effort into PM. Some characters are so different that one has to essentially throw away the hundreds or thousands of hours of practice and experience that one has put into their character, but what's the time and support of x amount of players?

I never understood how having you're moves changed meant that you "threw thousands of thousands of hours away". Even for Zelda, who got majorly changed, it's not like you're back at square one. You still understand the character's physics, gameplan, and 90% of their moveset. Most of your follow-ups most likely still work, you just have to play around with the new stuff. There's a lot more to growing as a player than specific things that work because of the numbers attached to your moves.

 

[Tokei]

Red1 / Hero of Time's placement at aftershock shows that link is good.

Even with Odds performance using bowser, I think we generally agree that he's not high up on tier lists. He's got some heavy disadvantages and poor matchups, which leads people to calling him a "bad character" relative to the rest of the cast.

I'd say the same thing goes for link in 3.5. Even if he's decent enough to get results, he's is weak versus the metagame and could handle a few small buffs (he's not suffering nearly as much as bowser, but he's still not "good").

 

[PlateProp]

Even with Odds performance using bowser, I think we generally agree that he's not high up on tier lists. He's got some heavy disadvantages and poor matchups, which leads people to calling him a "bad character" relative to the rest of the cast.

I'd say the same thing goes for link in 3.5. Even if he's decent enough to get results, he's is weak versus the metagame and could handle a few small buffs (he's not suffering nearly as much as bowser, but he's still not "good").

Bad relative to the cast =/= bad character

 

[ChiePet]

I think 3.5 is a step in the right direction, but it's like a whole troupe marching forward with a sloppy and uncoordinated first step. They'll get there.

One of the biggest problems i believe is that they lack dedicated mains for each character

I'm completely lost here and I think it's just due to not getting the context of the latter half of it;
Elaborate what you mean when you say they lack dedicated mains?

 

[Downdraft]

I never understood how having you're moves changed meant that you "threw thousands of thousands of hours away". Even for Zelda, who got majorly changed, it's not like you're back at square one. You still understand the character's physics, gameplan, and 90% of their moveset. Most of your follow-ups most likely still work, you just have to play around with the new stuff. There's a lot more to growing as a player than specific things that work because of the numbers attached to your moves.

I agree with you to an extent, but 3.02 Zelda is an exception. Before 3.5, she was heavily dependent on her special attacks. 3.5 Nayru's, Din's, and (to a lesser extent) Farore's are significantly inferior to previous versions. They used to be very good (not OP) attacks, but now they're all average. Adjusting to the changes to her standard attacks, smashes, and aerials was easier since they weren't the core of her gameplay. Those changes aren't as upsetting. It's what she lost with the new Nayru's, Din's, and Farore's that really set her back. The older versions all helped her to approach or encourage approaches. 3.5 Zelda is forced to approach good opponents with much weaker options. Aerial Nayru's is less safe. Telecanceling is less safe than Teledashing. The new Din's doesn't cover approaches as well nor does it force approaches. The 3.02 (2.6b) versions of her special attacks compensated for the fact that she had poor ground and aerial mobility. The 3.5 versions are much less effective at covering the same weaknesses she's always had.

 

[Frost | Odds]

Even with Odds performance using bowser, I think we generally agree that he's not high up on tier lists. He's got some heavy disadvantages and poor matchups, which leads people to calling him a "bad character" relative to the rest of the cast.

I'd say the same thing goes for link in 3.5. Even if he's decent enough to get results, he's is weak versus the metagame and could handle a few small buffs (he's not suffering nearly as much as bowser, but he's still not "good").

I'm actually pretty sure that Bowser is better than Link in this version, if not by terribly much.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I agree with you to an extent, but 3.02 Zelda is an exception. Before 3.5, she was heavily dependent on her special attacks. 3.5 Nayru's, Din's, and (to a lesser extent) Farore's are significantly inferior to previous versions. They used to be very good (not OP) attacks, but now they're all average. Adjusting to the changes to her standard attacks, smashes, and aerials was easier since they weren't the core of her gameplay. Those changes aren't as upsetting. It's what she lost with the new Nayru's, Din's, and Farore's that really set her back. The older versions all helped her to approach or encourage approaches. 3.5 Zelda is forced to approach good opponents with much weaker options. Aerial Nayru's is less safe. Telecanceling is less safe than Teledashing. The new Din's doesn't cover approaches as well nor does it force approaches. The 3.02 (2.6b) versions of her special attacks compensated for the fact that she had poor ground and aerial mobility. The 3.5 versions are much less effective at covering the same weaknesses she's always had.

This pretty much is what i meant by '3.0 had good characters, with tools that were too free'
and now you have 3.5 Zelda, who is still really good, but you need to put more effort in.

Then again, i think i should back out of a conversation about zelda, i think i hold too much bias, after playing vs her for a year in 3.0
(flatmate mained zelda)

 

[Phan7om]

I'm completely lost here and I think it's just due to not getting the context of the latter half of it;
Elaborate what you mean when you say they lack dedicated mains?

Since I agreed with what he said, what I got from it was...

3.5 being the "first" step from 3.02 is sloppy and uncoordinated since a good handful of the characters are not used by players who are good (good meaning they are a significant threat in say a regional or national) AND know a lot about their character and matchups, so creating proper design and balance is a bit difficult because its not 100% clear if those characters are being pushed to their full potential.

Ex. Say a character x is rarely used and only used by a certain handful of players who arent exactly labeled as "good". How would we know that x has some hidden tool that would greatly shift its tier position? Later down the line in another patch a "good" player picks up x and discovers that tool, thus creating imperfect design and balance.

 

[Rizner]

Since I agreed with what he said, what I got from it was...

3.5 being the "first" step from 3.02 is sloppy and uncoordinated since a good handful of the characters are not used by players who are good (good meaning they are a significant threat in say a regional or national) AND know a lot about their character and matchups, so creating proper design and balance is a bit difficult because its not 100% clear if those characters are being pushed to their full potential.

Ex. Say a character x is rarely used and only used by a certain handful of players who arent exactly labeled as "good". How would we know that x has some hidden tool that would greatly shift its tier position? Later down the line in another patch a "good" player picks up x and discovers that tool, thus creating imperfect design and balance.

Or the issue of character enjoyment and viability can be taken into account. Why are no high level players issuing these characters? Likely their design.

Red1 / Hero of Time's placement at aftershock shows that link is good.

Also the general consensus of everyone in the thread is that all characters are definantly good barring ICs and Olimar due to glitches (and even then these characters are still good.)

Also the entire point of 3.5 was for DESIGN, not balance. They didnt want 3.02 where everyone was supposed to be balanced to Fox and too many things were stupid or broken.

Someone doing well with a character doesn't mean much until it's a large scale. It can be attributed to being outplayed, or lack of matchup awareness, matchups they found along the bracket, among other things. Just because someone plays a matchup better or is a stronger player that didn't mean their character is good overall.

 

[PlateProp]

Or the issue of character enjoyment and viability can be taken into account. Why are no high level players issuing these characters? Likely their design.


Someone doing well with a character doesn't mean much until it's a large scale. It can be attributed to being outplayed, or lack of matchup awareness, matchups they found along the bracket, among other things. Just because someone plays a matchup better or is a stronger player that didn't mean their character is good overall.

They asked for evidence as to Link being good, I provided.

And when the general consensus is that every character is good, that kinda pops a hole in that

 

[ChiePet]

Since I agreed with what he said, what I got from it was...

3.5 being the "first" step from 3.02 is sloppy and uncoordinated since a good handful of the characters are not used by players who are good (good meaning they are a significant threat in say a regional or national) AND know a lot about their character and matchups, so creating proper design and balance is a bit difficult because its not 100% clear if those characters are being pushed to their full potential.

Ex. Say a character x is rarely used and only used by a certain handful of players who arent exactly labeled as "good". How would we know that x has some hidden tool that would greatly shift its tier position? Later down the line in another patch a "good" player picks up x and discovers that tool, thus creating imperfect design and balance.

Or the issue of character enjoyment and viability can be taken into account. Why are no high level players issuing these characters? Likely their design.

Agreed, and fully understand as well. There should be more insight involved, either way.

 

[FreeGamer]

Zelda has all these great normals and no speed or pressure tools to apply them with. It's sad, really.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Found this
http://shoryuken.com/2015/05/21/hum...hting-games-or-why-blocking-isnt-always-easy/
super relevant for when we're talking things like reaction time

Zelda has all these great normals and no speed or pressure tools to apply them with. It's sad, really.

Also I disagree with this, the existence of din's fire is a pressure tool by itself, you don't really need to go to the opponent and force them into mix-ups when you can force them to come to you and deal with your disjoint and power or risk getting locked down into safely spaced attacks

 

[eideeiit]

After a few tries I managed an average of 27 frames on that Millia test with 23 being the best. Ugh. But this type of a reaction is the kind that improves with experience, right? Any sources or info on where it will cap out? I know the theoretical human reaction limit is 100ms, but what about when the reaction is choice based?

 

[Jaedrik]

Bad relative to the cast =/= bad character

No--actually, if we're talking about balance.
Balance, as an idea, cannot be conceived of without something to be relative to. Balance in any sense, you see, is ordinal, that is, lists are comprised of first, second, third, so on, and it is not cardinal, that is, measured in some quantity. Without another character, thus a cast, to compare to, a character cannot be labeled bad, because bad is, again, a comparative term. Oddly, think of balance as a scale. If there is weight, there must be a counterweight to, ahem, balance it out.

 

[941]

Or the issue of character enjoyment and viability can be taken into account. Why are no high level players issuing these characters? Likely their design.

I feel this is a bit understated. As an ICs player, I can say that the reason most players choose not to pick them up isn't because they aren't considered strong or viable, but rather because they don't seem well designed. This is probably because they have to work so much harder than most of the cast, while at the same time are less forgiving. Some of my friends have even said I shouldn't play them and just stick to the characters I can do well with despite having much less experience with those characters. Many people (including myself) have said that they are a bit underrated because they are very underrepresented, but I can say there are some very good reasons that they are underrepresented.

This is just one example, but I'm sure it applies to many other characters. My point is that there will always be underrepresented characters as long as there are characters with lower skill-floors, but greater or equal reward.

 

[Foo]

I feel this is a bit understated. As an ICs player, I can say that the reason most players choose not to pick them up isn't because they aren't considered strong or viable, but rather because they don't seem well designed. This is probably because they have to work so much harder than most of the cast, while at the same time are less forgiving. Some of my friends have even said I shouldn't play them and just stick to the characters I can do well with despite having much less experience with those characters. Many people (including myself) have said that they are a bit underrated because they are very underrepresented, but I can say there are some very good reasons that they are underrepresented.

This is just one example, but I'm sure it applies to many other characters. My point is that there will always be underrepresented characters as long as there are characters with lower skill-floors, but greater or equal reward.

I think that another reason people aren't playing ICs is that, in my experience at least, people REALLY hate playing against them and get really salty, not in a good way either. Kinda carry's over from melee, but ICs are just... bull**** if I am perfectly honest. Having double characters just completely break things and it is INFURIATING to play against. For instance, in the zss matchup this can happen. Oh, you spaced bair perfectly on popo? Nana grabbed your foot. Oh, you spaced it to hit both of them, but nana was a little far back? Well, popo blocked it so now you just lost your stock have fun. It's also infuriating that double characters means double hitlag when trying to combo them, which can not only ruin your muscle memory, but also makes many combos just not work. There's an IC player in my state, and he said that he is "really used to everyone getting salty about ICs" Main reason I hate them is because they force you into a really lame playstyle and just aren't fun to fight at all. For instance, in the zss matchup you have the tools to beat them in neutral 80% of the time without that much thought, but you can very easily lose a stock for a single slip-up I personally don't think ICs really fit into PM well, inherently badly designed character imo. "Here's two characters that both kinda suck but it's ok because they break the game in several ways and if they grab you, you are basically dead."

(Bonus quote from that same ICs player. "If you are playing against ICs correctly, you won't be having fun.")

Bad relative to the cast =/= bad character

A character being good or bad is completely relative to the rest of the cast in the context of balance and tier lists. The only time you'd look at a character is "too good" without it being "too good relative to the cast" is for changes related to game design.

 

[MEnKIRBZ]

This game's meta isn't that well developed yet and a lot of characters have plenty of untapped potential. We really just need ice climbers to be fixed as of right now. Maybe a slight buff or slight nerf here and there, but nothing big

 

[Warzenschwein]

Having just lost to a Melee Peach, let's rant about Peach's Dsmash:

Dafuq is this damage, just keep the knockback and tone the damage down, why does a low commitment ****ter move have to possess such a ******** gimmick.

 

[Beorn]

They asked for evidence as to Link being good, I provided.

And when the general consensus is that every character is good, that kinda pops a hole in that

I think the problem here is you play squirtle breh... One of Links better matchups. Link is definitely not good. Though in this game that's not say too terribly much.

 

[PlateProp]

I think the problem here is you play squirtle breh... One of Links better matchups. Link is definitely not good. Though in this game that's not say too terribly much.

It's an even matchup lmao

 

[Scuba Steve]

Plate, why do you say things with such certainty when you still suck so bad

 

[Sardonyx]

Found this
http://shoryuken.com/2015/05/21/hum...hting-games-or-why-blocking-isnt-always-easy/
super relevant for when we're talking things like reaction time


Also I disagree with this, the existence of din's fire is a pressure tool by itself, you don't really need to go to the opponent and force them into mix-ups when you can force them to come to you and deal with your disjoint and power or risk getting locked down into safely spaced attacks

While I do agree that dins is a good pressure tool, it's also incredibly easy to deal with. Just shield it and it goes back to her, or hit it with a move that can clank. It's a good pressure tool, but with some incredibly easy counter play. I'm not discrediting your post in anyway, just saying that it's easy to counteract for any of the people who will scream broken if they get hit by it (people at my locals do this whenever I play her lol)

 

[PlateProp]

Plate, why do you say things with such certainty when you still suck so bad

Squirtle can stuff all of link's projectiles with water gun ( and push bombs back with it at that) meaning link cant truely force you to approach like he can with other characters

I find it funny when people try to shut squirtle players down by saying they suck, when every squirtle player is aware that every squirtle player sucks lmao

 

[Foo]

Yeah, imma chip in as a Zelda hater here. I've thought she was underrated for a while now, but not that some people are placing her high tier, I'm gonna have to disagree. She seems to have real problems with people running circles around her. Dins doesn't really do too much. I usually just run in and shield it or just clank it. I think she's still pretty good, just not high tier. Somewhere in upper mid.

 

[Kaeldiar]

[quote mentioning something along the lines of "Zelda's normals are good, but she doesn't have speed or ability to apply them"]

Also I disagree with this, the existence of din's fire is a pressure tool by itself, you don't really need to go to the opponent and force them into mix-ups when you can force them to come to you and deal with your disjoint and power or risk getting locked down into safely spaced attacks

Okay, this? This is exactly how Zelda is SUPPOSED to function. She is a defense-oriented character, and her game should be "force the opponent to come to you, then abuse disjoint/power." It makes me really really happy to see someone who understands that :D Thank you, DrinkingFood.

Now the sad part, it doesn't really work in 3.5...Only having one 'item' to control the stage is really weak. Zelda gets outcamped by a lot of characters (Fox, Sheik, Mario to name a few). It's especially weak when you consider that after it is hit, you have to wait for it to come back to you before you can use it again. It's even weaker when you realize that a SHIELD will clank with it. All you have to do is hit/shield Din's, and you have instantly dealt with it. Then, Zelda has to wait for the return trip before she gets a projectile or any way to pressure. In 3.02, she had 3 of them. This allowed her to apply pressure at multiple places. You can't control the stage well enough with 3.5 Din's, but you could with 3.02 Din's.

So tl;dr I completely agree with your assessment of how Zelda should function, but I don't think that the current form of Din's allows that

 

[jtm94]

Saying Zelda's din's fire forces anything is hilarious. I love how you can camp Zelda with any character faster than her with relative ease because you can shield or hit dins and it effectively disappears. This is why her old dins was bad because it actually did less than it does now because you repeatedly swipe them away or ignore them and there's no repercussion unless you DI into it and eat a janky gfycat combo.

What it does help with is extending combos she isn't fast enough for, following up on tech chases by limiting options, or edgeguarding.

 

[Hylian]

I love playing against IC's, and I love playing as them. *shrugs*. I don't see people's problems with having to play a match-up differently than others. You would most likely hate a majority of other fighting games lol. I also think camping or running away from IC's has never been the best strategy in any game they've been in. I love playing against them because they force you to be aggressive but very precise, and to make really quick decisions in your combo tree instead of just going through the motions of a combo.

 

[Foo]

I love playing against IC's, and I love playing as them. *shrugs*. I don't see people's problems with having to play a match-up differently than others. You would most likely hate a majority of other fighting games lol.

The issue isn't different, it's different in a bad way. Notice I never actually said the word different in my post, I said they force you to play really "lame." All match ups force you to play differently to a degree (unless you are a character like fox, sometimes), but it's not bad for most characters. For instance, I have to play REALLY differently against a character like link, but I really enjoy it and it's lots of fun.

However, against ICs, in my experience, it's the opposite of what you said. Since their punish game is so strong, but getting them is harder, there are a few things that shut them down somewhat, but the other moves you have just don't. So it comes down to just spacing them out and trying not to get caught with wavedash oos or grabs. Also, it's really dumb that some characters just aren't allowed to grab ICs. Some characters have quick enough fthrows with low hitboxes to work, but some characters like zss just get hit for landing a grab.

Also, the combo thing, at least for zss, is COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE. The combo tree is the other way around. Unless you seperate them, the combo tree is MUCH MUCH smaller because you have 6+ frame smaller windows for combos. Zss combo game is generally really deep and dynamic, but not against ICs. To do any decent comboing, you have to seperate them, but then while I am going for a follow up after nair, I get whacked by the other IC.

In the future, if I meet an ICs player that doesn't suck, I may just forfeit. Even if you win, it's incredibly frustrating, infuriating and completely unfun. Also, though I know it isn't, it FEELS totally unfair.

 

[Hylian]

Different in a "bad" way is completely subjective. You did say they force you to play "lame" which I think is absurd lol. I don't think playing defensive against IC's is good with most characters at all.

In a lot of peoples experience it's the opposite of what I said, and I think they are all wrong/crazy and just assume camping IC's is a good idea because someone mentioned it somewhere once, or they saw M2K do it without actually thinking about the reasoning behind it. Yes, IC's punish game is strong...when they grab you and are synched. When you camp you just leave them a ton of opportunities to grab you by setting up favorable stage position with desynchs and burst movement. They can't abuse their burst movement when you are in their face and generally crumble to pressure. It's also very hard for both of them to shield a lot of stuff because nana is six frames behind, meaning you have to shield that much earlier with popo a lot of the time. IC's like having a lot of room in neutral, and claiming stage position against them through aggression is a tactic that is extremely good against them.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the combo thing. ZSS has no problem combo'ing IC's, go have some fun in frame advance if you don't believe me. IC's are a very good combo weight for most characters. When I say I love that I have to think when I'm comboing IC's I mean I love that I will hit one, and then combo them while keeping my eye on the other ready to switch to attacking the other climber at any moment, or decide in what way I can best keep them separated while hitting both. I almost never just focus on one. Hitting both of them and them staying together only really happens at low %'s, considering nana and popo often end up having different %'s, and nana won't DI. If you are going for a follow-up after you connected a nair and then you get smacked by the other IC...maybe you should have gone after the other IC instead of running past them?

I mean, I'm not trying to convince you to like playing against IC's or anything...I don't really care. I just think it's amusing how many people try to camp them thinking it's the best thing to do. I can't remember the last person I lost to in tournament who tried that against me, usually I just sigh in relief knowing that my they are going to give me a ton of chances to grab them and free stage control, which is a lot easier on me mentally then it is on them. IC's don't have good defensive options, the players that excel against them the most are the ones who abuse that(or play peach loool).

Also IC's grab combos on ZSS suck . They only truly have dthrow into ledge hand-offs, dthrow dair never works if DI'd properly against her.

Edit: The first IC player I played was wobbles way back in like 2005/2006. He made me love the character so much from just playing against him. I love playing against them probably more than I love playing them, which is why I wish more people played the character. I love the insane amount of thought that goes into the character on both sides of match-ups.

 

[DMG]

I guess it depends on how far you take the camping. Camping IC's in ways that don't allow you to punish their mistakes very aggressively (MK separates Nana after 1 tornado and then goes nuts, instead of backing away) is very wrong, but having an abundance of caution before their initial goof-up seems warranted for most chars.