Official Viability Ratings v2 | Competitive Impressions

[Hippieslayer]

When it come's to aerials I really think has the best set IMO. Sure their not the strongest and don't pack a punch like the levin sword(cept for fox's uair) but what other character's have kill confirms off of a nair, fair, or dair? two of those being mentioned are guaranteed btw. Also this may be a bit off topic but I also think may have of the best pair of tilts as well. up tilt just racks up so much damage and can setup a 50/50 to up air at high %. and pivot f tilt though.



Bit of a nitpick here but last time I checked Nair and Dair can't autocancel on short hop. Only Bair and Up air can.

Fox has good properties which lets him wreck with his aerials, his aerials in themselves are not the best.

 

[Shaya]

ZSS neutral is pretty fantastic. But her approach is average-ish (probably still better than most, just not great seeing as we can't reliably grab to beat shields).
ZSS neutral is similar to how Marth plays (and other similar trap-mobility based archetypes) in that there's nothing about it that wins or devalues other characters (unless they're low tier trash), but they have innumerable options, especially mid range punishment choices. You wouldn't think Marth ever had great approach in any other Smash game either, sure "fair" but it was never about getting in with the move and more about trying to start a trap scenario.

ZSS neutral can't be bad when she has the best mid range kit in the game after Sheik.
Very few characters can play against her with their game plans and not get disemboweled. They have to master shielding, master passiveness, master anticipation DI/shuffling to avoid follow up hits on our best set up attacks.

However, I'm explaining this aspect not to bolster "ZSS needs to get nerfed" (I genuinely doubt she needs much, if anything); her option spread is very good and it's doubtful that will change with any balance patch. She sits in a precarious spot where her high risk for engaging/approaching while lacking/having average neutral stifling tools balances out with her rewards pretty soundly. While she can play safe, while she can win neutral against most characters, she can't win games being passive against most good characters, and her feather weight and lack of anything GTFO (i.e. fast nairs/etc) is getting her punished for "routine" mistakes a lot harder than most other top tiers, high tiers and probably a few middies too.

Her entire kit requires precision to be on a similar power level to other good characters, the necessity for vertical spacing to be on point for everything she does is exploitable and enhances precision requirements and risk considerably. Her punishment game and ability to combo is almost unmatched, but we've had a lot of "luck" in being able to advance our character quickly through dedicated high level Brawl players and scientists being there for her. I think other characters need to start catching up. The amount of cool/new things being hypothesized and put into practice for Sheik and ZSS is near unmatched right now, of course other characters are going to look like crap 3-4 months down the line while people have been pining for Sheik nerfs/buffs for their character.

 

[Locke 06]

ZSS neutral is pretty fantastic. But her approach is average-ish (probably still better than most, just not great seeing as we can't reliably grab to beat shields).
ZSS neutral is similar to how Marth plays (and other similar trap-mobility based archetypes) in that there's nothing about it that wins or devalues other characters (unless they're low tier trash), but they have innumerable options, especially mid range punishment choices. You wouldn't think Marth ever had great approach in any other Smash game either, sure "fair" but it was never about getting in with the move and more about trying to start a trap scenario.

ZSS neutral can't be bad when she has the best mid range kit in the game after Sheik.
Very few characters can play against her with their game plans and not get disemboweled. They have to master shielding, master passiveness, master anticipation DI/shuffling to follow up hits on our best set up attacks.

However, I'm explaining this aspect not to bolster "ZSS needs to get nerfed" (I genuinely doubt she needs much, if anything); her option spread is very good and it's doubtful that will change with any balance patch, but she does precariously sit in a spot where her high risk for engaging/approaching while lacking/having average neutral stifling tools balances out with her rewards pretty soundly. While she can play safe, while she can win neutral against most characters, she can't win games being passive against most good characters, and her feather weight and lack of anything GTFO (i.e. fast nairs/etc) is getting her punished for "routine" mistakes a lot harder than most other top tiers, high tiers and probably a few middies too.

Her entire kit requires precision to be on a similar power level to other good characters, the necessity for vertical spacing to be on point for everything she does is exploitable and enhances precision requirements and risk considerably. Her punishment game and ability to combo is almost unmatched, but we've had a lot of "luck" in being able to advance our character quickly through dedicated scientists/high level Brawl players being there for her. I think other characters need to start catching up. The amount of cool/new things being hypothesized and put into practice for Sheik and ZSS is near unmatched right now.

Not everyone has a strong aerial finisher, a projectile that works as a combo extender, and a 3rd jump to play with. /jealousy

Some characters have lab coats doing things, but the offensive options just are not there. And the reward for labbing is only okay/situational for some characters with subpar combo strings/games.

Not to say a ton of characters don't need development, but "cool/new things" are not only found because of ZSS/Sheik/top tier player bases; the characters themselves lend their kit to fun labbing.

This is also why Ryu is more developed than many other characters with less time. His kit is not only good, but it is interesting to the labcoats of smash.

 

[HeavyLobster]

ZSS neutral is pretty fantastic. But her approach is average-ish (probably still better than most, just not great seeing as we can't reliably grab to beat shields).
ZSS neutral is similar to how Marth plays (and other similar trap-mobility based archetypes) in that there's nothing about it that wins or devalues other characters (unless they're low tier trash), but they have innumerable options, especially mid range punishment choices. You wouldn't think Marth ever had great approach in any other Smash game either, sure "fair" but it was never about getting in with the move and more about trying to start a trap scenario.

ZSS neutral can't be bad when she has the best mid range kit in the game after Sheik.
Very few characters can play against her with their game plans and not get disemboweled. They have to master shielding, master passiveness, master anticipation DI/shuffling to avoid follow up hits on our best set up attacks.

However, I'm explaining this aspect not to bolster "ZSS needs to get nerfed" (I genuinely doubt she needs much, if anything); her option spread is very good and it's doubtful that will change with any balance patch. She sits in a precarious spot where her high risk for engaging/approaching while lacking/having average neutral stifling tools balances out with her rewards pretty soundly. While she can play safe, while she can win neutral against most characters, she can't win games being passive against most good characters, and her feather weight and lack of anything GTFO (i.e. fast nairs/etc) is getting her punished for "routine" mistakes a lot harder than most other top tiers, high tiers and probably a few middies too.

Her entire kit requires precision to be on a similar power level to other good characters, the necessity for vertical spacing to be on point for everything she does is exploitable and enhances precision requirements and risk considerably. Her punishment game and ability to combo is almost unmatched, but we've had a lot of "luck" in being able to advance our character quickly through dedicated high level Brawl players and scientists being there for her. I think other characters need to start catching up. The amount of cool/new things being hypothesized and put into practice for Sheik and ZSS is near unmatched right now, of course other characters are going to look like crap 3-4 months down the line while people have been pining for Sheik nerfs/buffs for their character.

Really there's hardly anything right now in Smash 4 that needs nerfing, maybe needles or Ryu's utilt locks, but most proposed nerfs are to somewhat polarizing characters and moves that are a little too good vs. certain kinds of characters, and it might be desirable for said moves to be toned down a bit, but the meta will be mostly fine even if they're left untouched. Zero Suit nerfs definitely fall into the latter category, as her need to take risks to really do damage keeps her in check. Slightly toning down Flip Kick would make a lot of characters happy, but overall sorting through these more minor balance issues should be secondary at this point to toning down Sheik to be roughly in line with the rest of top tier. Most other patch changes should be to buffing low tiers.

 

[TriTails]

Luigi probably would have the best set of aerials if it weren't for his F-air having 22 frames of landing lag, or B-air having same FAF frame as his N-air (46 frames). U-air doesn't juggle either because 55 angle.

Also, TBH5 will use 1.1.0? Despite 1.1.1 having the potential of being a balance patch? I can kinda understand it but I also find it to be a little off decision.

But then again it took me 2 days to get used to Luigi's new Fireballs so I can kinda understand that. I'm not exactly hardcore tho.

 

[Shaya]

Not everyone has a strong aerial finisher, a projectile that works as a combo extender, and a 3rd jump to play with. /jealousy

Some characters have lab coats doing things, but the offensive options just are not there. And the reward for labbing is only okay/situational for some characters with subpar combo strings/games.

Not to say a ton of characters don't need development, but "cool/new things" are not only found because of ZSS/Sheik/top tier player bases; the characters themselves lend their kit to fun labbing.

This is also why Ryu is more developed than many other characters with less time. His kit is not only good, but it is interesting to the labcoats of smash.

Don't mind my bluntness, but I am only certainly referring to good characters.
And yes, good tools are pretty helpful, maybe there isn't much to do with a character (doubtful). But every secondary I have (who are mostly seen as mid to low tier trash) I'm successfully able to push in new ways with time investment. I just live in no illusion that it'll result in suddenly top tier character, but the optimal options, the counter to the optimal options, and the mix ups to beat the two is almost always a bottomless primordial ooze for every character. Playing a lot of characters helps promote this, chances are if 1 character has an option, most others do too and it's either slightly better or slightly worse; practicing a character that has it slightly better in one option and then taking that as a focus for other character's developments.

But the main point of that original conclusion was that people aren't as industrious as they can and should be. Not every character has a scientist behind them, or a super well rounded player base who are all working together to produce things. They know what we're here for and how to move forward. Not every character has it lucky, which is a shame. But amidst all the stuff I talk about here, and to some extent rant over (e.g. Luigi), I'm never not labbing or developing things nor assuming nerfs of my "problems" are imminent; then I take it to tournament to prove it's worth.

 

[Locke 06]

Don't mind my bluntness, but I am only certainly referring to good characters.
And yes, good tools are pretty helpful, maybe there isn't much to do with a character (doubtful). But every secondary I have (who are mostly seen as mid to low tier trash) I'm successfully able to push in new ways with time investment. I just live in no illusion that it'll result in suddenly top tier character, but the optimal options, the counter to the optimal options, and the mix ups to beat the two is almost always a bottomless primordial ooze for every character.

I don't mind and I whole heartedly agree that labbing will always push characters more (that's why we do it, and continuously find it entertaining, right?).

Just a comment on the difference between "fun" labbing with characters vs more laborious experiments, which contributes to the gap in development.

For the most part: Those who want to put in the work and lab, would rather develop characters that are rewarding to lab.

Anyways, my comment was also a jab at how optimizing offensive tools is so much easier and popular than optimizing defensive tools.

 

[Shaya]

Defensive things are usually more mindset based whilst aggressive actions are spontaneous and reactive (muscle memory/etc).
It's hard to lab the former, one tends to need human opponents, or a very solid strategy for playing with CPUs or the like (their punishment choices can be optimal and when they can they'll always do them).
Like "don't get hit" or "reset to neutral", almost timeless advice; if you don't know how to do so with your character it may be worth labbing (don't get hit is a pretty solid strategy for practicing with CPUs) but for the most part it's a decision making process difference. When something goes wrong you can probably ask yourself "did I choose to reset to neutral or go out of my way to avoid the hit I knew was coming? No? Whoops".

Funnily enough most of my ZSS labbing is defensive focused (explains the sudden coming out with "sh ad is the second best defensive option in the game after shield") and quick transitions from passive/defensive into killing something. Zero Suit's only real flaws revolve around her risk in her favourite actions and being able to deal with pressure, and this is what has lost me tournament sets before; so it's what I practice.

But I suppose in this case the line between defense and offense is blurred. I want to focus on my defensive movements so I can more freely act out aggressively and avoid being punished as much as possible.

 

[Sir Tundra]

Main issue with Fox's aerials is that they're not very useful for edgeguarding and this poses a problem for Fox. None of the other contenders being discussed have this problem at all. Really good onstage though.

You know I totally forgot about fox's offstage game while discussing about his aerials.

They really our amazing for onstage no doubt with the insane properties.

 

[Rizen]

Adding to the good aerials conversation, Ganon's aerials, especially Uair are really good and it's mainly his mobility and recovery limiting them. They have huge range and a lot of power which is great for stopping recoveries.
On the down side, they aren't quick or good for chaining. It's hard to say who has the best aerials because many play different roles. Ganon's definitely a contender for best aerial attacks not factoring in mobility but the category is subjective.

 

[L9999]

So I've been reading the thread for some time and I'm been wondering (Unintended ZeRo joke), does anyone in this world remembers Bowser Jr. exists? Seriously, if it wasn't for my friend who plays him, I would forget that he exists completely.

 

[Nobie]

Speaking of Luigi and labbing, there's something that the Level 9 CPU Luigi does that I hardly ever see in tournament that seems very effective.

CPU Luigis will use Cyclone in neutral as a whiff punish. If you throw out an attack expecting Luigi to be there, he'll halt his momentum with Cyclone and then come swinging right in. If it looks like he's in danger (e.g. it doesn't look like Cyclone will beat whatever the opponent threw out), he'll just spin away.

Is this something that's only feasible when you have CPU-level reaction times, or is it something that real Luigi players can incorporate into their game plan?

 

[Pyr]

Speaking of Luigi and labbing, there's something that the Level 9 CPU Luigi does that I hardly ever see in tournament that seems very effective.

CPU Luigis will use Cyclone in neutral as a whiff punish. If you throw out an attack expecting Luigi to be there, he'll halt his momentum with Cyclone and then come swinging right in. If it looks like he's in danger (e.g. it doesn't look like Cyclone will beat whatever the opponent threw out), he'll just spin away.

Is this something that's only feasible when you have CPU-level reaction times, or is it something that real Luigi players can incorporate into their game plan?

It has enough end lag to get punished on wiff by a lot of faster characters. That, and a bunch of mid level Luigi's are afraid to stale their crutch move.

That said, it catches a LOT and leads to a tech chase on successful hit if you do it right, or sends them safely away if you don't let them fall out on the ground, since it's really hard to tech properly (from my experience vs people).

That said, it doesn't do much damage compared to a reaction BAir, which is safer, does more damage, and stuffs just as much as D-B.

 

[Thinkaman]

Balanced Brawl was mentioned a page back, so forgive both my lateness and narcissism as I try not to derail the current conversation. (Spoilers though: ZSS is so solid of a #2 that I think the odds of her being #3 are comparable to the odds of her being secretly #1, and not for any lack of confidence in Sheik.)


Balanced Brawl had to nerf characters, because buffing everyone to the level of Meta Knight would be stupid. Nerfed MK is an infinitely more interesting character, just like nerfed Smash 4 Diddy is an infinitely more interesting character.

We also directly nerfed Snake and re-did abuse throws for Falco, DDD, Pikachu, and a few less obvious cases; we also re-made ICs entirely. Technically a few misc changes here and there were also nerfs, even one on Ganon.

In retrospect, I think we would have been more accurate and gotten more well-rounded results with less effort if we had balanced towards a lower target--i.e. more nerfs and fewer buffs. (Or rather, more moderate buffs.) It would have been nice to be able to trim Marth, Olimar, and maybe ZSS down a bit, and obviously investigate MK's new standing within that environment further.

However, we were held back by the political ramifications of throwing nerfs around; it doesn't matter if the mod was slightly better if way fewer people downloaded it. Furthermore, it would have required more vision and testing on our part, even if it would have been easier overall! In contrast, it was an straightforward beginning to start with bringing MK in-line with the other top tiers, and base everything off of that. (We balanced MK first, in less than 10 minutes, and over the course of years never changed MK again.)


Overall, people focus too much on power level and tier position when it comes to character changes--those things are just by-products of the process. The real objective is to improve the quality and integrity of the content, making changes that just make the game better. Balance is only one component of this, and frankly a sort of secondary one. This is the worst thread in the world to point this out, but in comparison to the more important elements, the nitty gritty of which characters are top ten is pretty arbitrary and #whatever.

Like, if DDD has a chainthrow infinite, that crap has gotta go--and in the moment we are making that design decision we don't give a pikachu's posterior about the balance ramifications for DDD. It's like if you discover a human trafficking ring in your hometown and want to arrest them, but someone is worried about the impact arresting them will have on the local economy.


In summary, here is a fun list of increasingly amateur game dev design statements.

2nd-year design student - "Luck is actually a really good game mechanic. I am not afraid to put lots of luck in my games. Luck can add depth."
1st-year design student - "Luck is a strictly bad game mechanic. I want to design perfect games without luck, like Chess. Removing luck adds depth."
12th-grade aspiring designer - "Balance is overrated. It's actually better for games if they are imbalanced. Imbalance adds depth."
11th-grade aspiring designer - "Balance is the most important part of a game, and it's better to buff than nerf. Balance adds depth."
10th-grade aspiring designer - "Games are way too complex. The more simple a game is, the better it is. Simplicity leads to depth."
9th-grade aspiring designer - "The more complex a game is, the better and it is. Complexity leads to depth."
8th-grade aspiring designer - "The harder a game is, the better it is. Difficulty adds depth."
7th-grade aspiring designer - "I would make a great game designer because I have so many ideas! DEEP IDEAS."

Armchair expertise in most fields consists of a series of dramatically assuming sweeping, short-sighted philosophies, followed by equally dramatic realizations that a given perspective is wrong paired with a sharp over-correction that eschews all nuance, terminated by an inevitable assertion of one's appreciation of the DEPTH of it all.

Anyway, on the subject of things lacking depth, I believe we were talking about Luigi. Carry on.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Sooo, I don't want to brag or pressume things about my country (Mexico) Or anything. But can we agree that Mexico is starting to catch-up and actually have very good players? This happened on a Mexican tourney and i'm getting impressed by it. What do you guys think?

What are you talking about? Mexico has always been quite competent in smash, it's just that they don't really have any presence on SWF.

When it come's to aerials I really think has the best set IMO. Sure their not the strongest and don't pack a punch like the levin sword(cept for fox's uair) but what other character's have kill confirms off of a nair, fair, or dair? two of those being mentioned are guaranteed btw. Also this may be a bit off topic but I also think may have of the best pair of tilts as well. up tilt just racks up so much damage and can setup a 50/50 to up air at high %. and pivot f tilt though.

Point has already been made but Fox aerials really wouldn't work out nearly as well if it weren't for the rest of his moveset and his properties. Why is Fox nair one of the best nairs in the game? Because his DA and utilt - both among the best of their kind in this game - are easy and reliable setups for it and because weak nair links into dash usmash at the right percent. Same goes for dair. Part of why bair is so awesome is that put Fox into a perfect position to keep the opponent guessing between getting dash grabbed or hit by utilt.

It's his low startup lag on jump, fast falling speed, low short hop height, dash speed and the way his ground moves work together with his aerials that make Fox such a strong and complete character. By themselves his aerials are nothing special though. Most characters couldn't really do **** if they had them.

 

[bc1910]

If anything, I think Ganondorf is a fantastic counterpick character. Sometimes you feel like you lose to the character and not the player. Sometimes you just need something that punishes REALLY hard for all those reads you make. Ganondorf works well for that role.

I think the issue with Ganondorf now is that his "I am tanky and punish insanely hard" USP is no longer much of a boon because Ryu does it better. There's just not much reason to use him at this point beyond character loyalty.

 

[Wintropy]

To reiterate what I've said before, I think there's this state in Smash that's best described as character loyalty critical mass. In other words, even when 99% (to cite a made-up hyperbolic statistic) of competitive entities believe that Sheik is the objective best character in the game, you still decide it's worth your while to shift the token on the character select screen to somebody different. Tourney-goers pick top-tiers because top-tiers get the best results with the greatest consistency, but even so, there has to be a reason why you decide, "I don't want to pick Sheik, I want to pick this relatively weak character because I think this is a cool character."

 

[Nobie]

Balanced Brawl was mentioned a page back, so forgive both my lateness and narcissism as I try not to derail the current conversation. (Spoilers though: ZSS is so solid of a #2 that I think the odds of her being #3 are comparable to the odds of her being secretly #1, and not for any lack of confidence in Sheik.)


Balanced Brawl had to nerf characters, because buffing everyone to the level of Meta Knight would be stupid. Nerfed MK is an infinitely more interesting character, just like nerfed Smash 4 Diddy is an infinitely more interesting character.

We also directly nerfed Snake and re-did abuse throws for Falco, DDD, Pikachu, and a few less obvious cases; we also re-made ICs entirely. Technically a few misc changes here and there were also nerfs, even one on Ganon.

In retrospect, I think we would have been more accurate and gotten more well-rounded results with less effort if we had balanced towards a lower target--i.e. more nerfs and fewer buffs. (Or rather, more moderate buffs.) It would have been nice to be able to trim Marth, Olimar, and maybe ZSS down a bit, and obviously investigate MK's new standing within that environment further.

However, we were held back by the political ramifications of throwing nerfs around; it doesn't matter if the mod was slightly better if way fewer people downloaded it. Furthermore, it would have required more vision and testing on our part, even if it would have been easier overall! In contrast, it was an straightforward beginning to start with bringing MK in-line with the other top tiers, and base everything off of that. (We balanced MK first, in less than 10 minutes, and over the course of years never changed MK again.)


Overall, people focus too much on power level and tier position when it comes to character changes--those things are just by-products of the process. The real objective is to improve the quality and integrity of the content, making changes that just make the game better. Balance is only one component of this, and frankly a sort of secondary one. This is the worst thread in the world to point this out, but in comparison to the more important elements, the nitty gritty of which characters are top ten is pretty arbitrary and #whatever.

Like, if DDD has a chainthrow infinite, that crap has gotta go--and in the moment we are making that design decision we don't give a pikachu's posterior about the balance ramifications for DDD. It's like if you discover a human trafficking ring in your hometown and want to arrest them, but someone is worried about the impact arresting them will have on the local economy.


In summary, here is a fun list of increasingly amateur game dev design statements.

2nd-year design student - "Luck is actually a really good game mechanic. I am not afraid to put lots of luck in my games. Luck can add depth."
1st-year design student - "Luck is a strictly bad game mechanic. I want to design perfect games without luck, like Chess. Removing luck adds depth."
12th-grade aspiring designer - "Balance is overrated. It's actually better for games if they are imbalanced. Imbalance adds depth."
11th-grade aspiring designer - "Balance is the most important part of a game, and it's better to buff than nerf. Balance adds depth."
10th-grade aspiring designer - "Games are way too complex. The more simple a game is, the better it is. Simplicity leads to depth."
9th-grade aspiring designer - "The more complex a game is, the better and it is. Complexity leads to depth."
8th-grade aspiring designer - "The harder a game is, the better it is. Difficulty adds depth."
7th-grade aspiring designer - "I would make a great game designer because I have so many ideas! DEEP IDEAS."

Armchair expertise in most fields consists of a series of dramatically assuming sweeping, short-sighted philosophies, followed by equally dramatic realizations that a given perspective is wrong paired with a sharp over-correction that eschews all nuance, terminated by an inevitable assertion of one's appreciation of the DEPTH of it all.

Anyway, on the subject of things lacking depth, I believe we were talking about Luigi. Carry on.

You've mentioned before that you think Mewtwo, Zelda, and Ganondorf/Charizard/whoever(?) is a pretty damn good low/bottom tier. Could you elaborate on that?

 

[TriTails]

It has enough end lag to get punished on wiff by a lot of faster characters. That, and a bunch of mid level Luigi's are afraid to stale their crutch move.

That said, it catches a LOT and leads to a tech chase on successful hit if you do it right, or sends them safely away if you don't let them fall out on the ground, since it's really hard to tech properly (from my experience vs people).

That said, it doesn't do much damage compared to a reaction BAir, which is safer, does more damage, and stuffs just as much as D-B.

Really?

When I ram into people with my self-cyclone all I get is them punishing me because instead of getting trapped in the move, they get sent upwards.

Seriously though. Cyclone could've been a MUUUUUUCH better move if it linked properly on the ground. Given the different hitboxes on the terrain, I believe they can make Cyclone link better on the ground while keeping the shaky glue in the air. Gives Luigi one more move to work with as he would no longer be punsihable for landing a hit while not making his Cyclone kills ridiculous and preserving his Down-B gimps.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

It's also worth mentioning that Marth's counter attack is an arc from bottom to top so it covers a slightly wider range than Ike's and lasts one frame longer (5-7 vs 5-6). These factors are most important while countering moving recoveries off-stage.

------------------------------------
IMPORTANT:
In other news, in the MI Smash 4 FB group we were notified by one of the TOs that TBH 5 will be running patch 1.1.0 even though there is a patch on the 30th (TBH is the 2nd-4th).

I don't agree with this especially since we'll easily have a data dump by then like last time (right?) but they are doing it so no one is surprised and everyone plays at their best. Whatever... but if Marth gets buffs and I have to play 1.1.0 Marth over there I'll be pissed.

Regardless of how much that shouldn't happen, I can see why it is. You wouldn't want to main someone who's options are suddenly different right before a big tourney. For most this isn't a problem, but sometimes, entire gameplans change (DK and Diddy are notable for this).
I still think that given the speed that data dumps cone out, playing 1.1.0 seems a bit redundant.

 

[Browny]

To reiterate what I've said before, I think there's this state in Smash that's best described as character loyalty critical mass. In other words, even when 99% (to cite a made-up hyperbolic statistic) of competitive entities believe that Sheik is the objective best character in the game, you still decide it's worth your while to shift the token on the character select screen to somebody different. Tourney-goers pick top-tiers because top-tiers get the best results with the greatest consistency, but even so, there has to be a reason why you decide, "I don't want to pick Sheik, I want to pick this relatively weak character because I think this is a cool character."

What about the part where we are playing a video game and we get the most enjoyment out of it by not only playing 1 character despite there being 53 others.

If people are that intent on only picking the best option and never doing anything else in order to succeed, they shouldn't be wasting their time playing fighting games and be a professional gambler.

 

[Wintropy]

What about the part where we are playing a video game and we get the most enjoyment out of it by not only playing 1 character despite there being 53 others.

If people are that intent on only picking the best option and never doing anything else in order to succeed, they shouldn't be wasting their time playing fighting games and be a professional gambler.

That's what I'm saying.

People go for their favourite characters. It isn't as simple as "pick this character because they're the best", it's complex.

So yeah, in theory it's better to pick Ryu over Ganondorf because he can do what 'Dorf does but more so, but it's more than a paint-by-numbers case. There's something that inspires people to pick Ganondorf instead. It isn't a big deal, I'm just responding to the theory that it's down to character loyalty to keep with the otherwise inferior character in the tourney scene.

EDIT: To refer to a more concrete example, most everybody believes Mario is a better character than Doc, but there will inevitably be people who decide to play Doc instead. Maybe it's because they want to style with the weaker fighter (the Dan Hibiki effect), maybe they just prefer the character's physics - either way, there's a reason why they go for the character they enjoy most, even if it's the inferior option. No accounting for taste. Which is why I think that it's fair to say "there's no reason to go for X over Y because Y is objectively better than X", but it isn't and can't be the fundamental rubric by which character selection is determined.

 

[DanGR]

If sheik nerfs weren't percieved as this looming, hypothetical inevitability (patches), we'd see more players give in. I think 1 balance patch without sheik nerfs would go a long way in reassuring these potential sheik players of her continued dominance.

 

[LancerStaff]

What about the part where we are playing a video game and we get the most enjoyment out of it by not only playing 1 character despite there being 53 others.

If people are that intent on only picking the best option and never doing anything else in order to succeed, they shouldn't be wasting their time playing fighting games and be a professional gambler.

This is a rather slippery slope... Go ahead and pick your favorites, but you shouldn't be complaining that people play to win.

 

[HFlash]

The front page video on ESAM talking about tier lists is pretty relevant to the conversation we are having. You guys should check it out.

 

[HeavyLobster]

That's what I'm saying.

People go for their favourite characters. It isn't as simple as "pick this character because they're the best", it's complex.

So yeah, in theory it's better to pick Ryu over Ganondorf because he can do what 'Dorf does but more so, but it's more than a paint-by-numbers case. There's something that inspires people to pick Ganondorf instead. It isn't a big deal, I'm just responding to the theory that it's down to character loyalty to keep with the otherwise inferior character in the tourney scene.

EDIT: To refer to a more concrete example, most everybody believes Mario is a better character than Doc, but there will inevitably be people who decide to play Doc instead. Maybe it's because they want to style with the weaker fighter (the Dan Hibiki effect), maybe they just prefer the character's physics - either way, there's a reason why they go for the character they enjoy most, even if it's the inferior option. No accounting for taste. Which is why I think that it's fair to say "there's no reason to go for X over Y because Y is objectively better than X", but it isn't and can't be the fundamental rubric by which character selection is determined.

Main advantage Dorf has is much lower tech skill requirements. There are a few other advantages like edgeguarding, but Ryu definitely is better at the whole "do tons of damage at once" thing overall. Doc is also mostly weaker but better at edgeguarding when compared to Mario. Most of these situations involve at least somewhat different playstyles and at least some small niche over the mostly better alternative, with the only purely outclassed character right now being Lucina.

 

[Nobie]

Theoretically, Ganondorf is different from Ryu in that while Ryu has one truly, truly outrageous KO move, Ganondorf is packed to the gills with them. Of course, Ryu's one KO move is way better because not only can you set up into it but it's faster and hits just as hard.

If anything, perhaps the tweak Ganondorf needs is to have more moves be like Up Smash or the opposite: Either quick startup with brutal end lag (similar to Shoryuken), or slow startup with quick recovery. Even if both types of moves have exploitable weaknesses (and they should), it would let Ganondorf play a scary bait and punish game in neutral that could lead to KOs.

 

[DunnoBro]

Ganondorf just needs actual consistent and safe set-ups into those strong ass moves.

Tech chase starting jab, a dark dive that lets him actually retain frame advantage and follow-up would be cool too.

 

[adom4]

Ganondorf just needs actual consistent and safe set-ups into those strong *** moves.

Tech chase starting jab, a dark dive that lets him actually retain frame advantage and follow-up would be cool too.

Flame choke's good enough for tech chases, but if the jab as a bit bit faster it would be huge since he'll have a good get off me move, Ganondorf has a lot of trouble with characters that can pressure him up close, F-tilt is godly but up close it's too slow at times.
Captain Falcon has the same problem with Falcon dive, the endlag after the grab is way too much, Ganon/Falcon shouldn't be punished for landing a move.

 

[Kung Fu Treachery]

I really have a problem with moves that have giant amounts of startup and endlag (and not just because my character of choice is full of them). If a move is slow to start, you have to work really hard to find an opening for it, but the payoff could be worthwhile, and you can still recover if you miss. Conversely, if a move has tons of endlag, then it can surprise people as a mixup, but if your opponent reads it, you're in for some pain. What is the strategic use of a move that takes forever to start and forever to cool down? Style? It's basically saying "here's a move that may as well not exist, because you can never use it."

 

[~ Gheb ~]

If sheik nerfs weren't percieved as this looming, hypothetical inevitability (patches), we'd see more players give in. I think 1 balance patch without sheik nerfs would go a long way in reassuring these potential sheik players of her continued dominance.

I dunno. Part of me wants to agree with you but at the same time just about everybody gave in to the Diddy bandwagon when he was still the best character. I think it's really just that Sheik isn't *that* much better than the next best characters [Diddy clearly was] and that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to simply prefer other characters over her.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

there are plenty of legitimate reasons to simply prefer other characters over Shiek

Yessssssssssss
Someone said it

 

[Pazzo.]

Sheik is clearly dominant now... And I think that's fine.

Really, all she needs is a needle nerf. A rushdown character shouldn't be able to camp.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

A rushdown character shouldn't be able to camp.

And yet...
The difference is that Sonic has already been nerfed enough in my opinion.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Sheik is clearly dominant now... And I think that's fine.

Really, all she needs is a needle nerf. A rushdown character shouldn't be able to camp.

There's nothing wrong with a good rushdown character being able to camp.

When a character with a rushdown game as good as Sheik's is able to outcamp just about everybody then things get kind of messy though.

 

[Wintermelon43]

To reiterate what I've said before, I think there's this state in Smash that's best described as character loyalty critical mass. In other words, even when 99% (to cite a made-up hyperbolic statistic) of competitive entities believe that Sheik is the objective best character in the game, you still decide it's worth your while to shift the token on the character select screen to somebody different. Tourney-goers pick top-tiers because top-tiers get the best results with the greatest consistency, but even so, there has to be a reason why you decide, "I don't want to pick Sheik, I want to pick this relatively weak character because I think this is a cool character."

This isn't true for Bowser mains though. Don't pick Bowser, Pick Sheik

lol (If you don't get it, ZeRo said this on his Bowser Video

 

[Conda]

Reading this discussion for the past 5 pages, I'd like to say this: When thinking about character viability, something that is important is how viable a character is for YOU.

People who change mains a lot can attest to the decision process being quite complex. Here are some different reasons why:

• Sometimes you tell yourself you should main the character you like best so you feel good developing your abilities with them and unlocking potential/repping them.

• Sometimes you think a character you're playing WELL is boring to play nonetheless so you look for someone more enjoyable.

• Sometimes you try and find a character that you naturally gel with better than the others - like finding a hobby irl that you're naturally talented/gifted in. This is a true thing, some oddball characters (ie Jigglypuff, Robin, PacMan) just work really well for how some people's brains calculate options and make decisions on-the-fly. Hungrybox + Jigglypuff fit in a way that Hungrybox + Fox wouldn't. We all have a brain, and our brains are wired differently and thus it makes sense we'd ALL be better with some kinds of characters compared to others.

• Sometimes you switch between fundamental styles - defensive vs aggressive, combos vs traps/reads, mobility vs methodical-pacing. For a more simple explanation - Defensive players vs Aggressive players play differently at a fundamental level, and sometimes players don't really know what they do best. You may be a good aggressive player, but maybe your mind can make BETTER decisions more quickly if you really learned a more defensive character. Or maybe you THINK you're great with combo-characters, but REALLY your brain is more suited to the bait&punish style of more chain-focused characters.

• Insert any number of other 'grass is greener'-esque reasons.

And then all of this stuff changes. You may go from enjoying chains to enjoying combos, from enjoying no-projectiles to wanting the versatility of a projectile in your kit, from enjoying mobility to wanting someone a little more 'your pace'.
And then on top of it all, you start weighing what you 'enjoy' against what you feel you're 'good' at. Weighing the 'characters' that fit you vs the 'playstyles' that fit you vs the 'options' that fit you. And then comparing them against what you actually ENJOY. And could see yourself enjoying for YEARS. It can feel endless.

It's pretty much the only reason I personally practice - to find the character that gels with me perfectly. Like Fox in Smash 64. Which will likely never happen because now he moves like he's on crack all the time and I start doing stupid reactive crap because I'm not a dexterous player. Most people won't know what kind of player they are until they discover, through time, what kind of player they AREN'T.

For the record, my best character is probably Ness but I don't enjoy playing him 75% of the time even if I'm winning. I always feel I want to be able to move differently and not be as vulnerable in disadvantaged states offstage - it just rubs me the wrong way at a gut level. And these things can be difficult to figure out for developing players.

 

[DanGR]

I dunno. Part of me wants to agree with you but at the same time just about everybody gave in to the Diddy bandwagon when he was still the best character. I think it's really just that Sheik isn't *that* much better than the next best characters [Diddy clearly was] and that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to simply prefer other characters over her.

You make a good point.

Perhaps it'd be more accurate to apply my theory to top tier characters in general, instead. Maybe people won't pick up sheik per se, but a sudden halt in balance changes to sheik/zss/fox/diddy/rosalina/etc. might encourage players to reevaluate their character choices. On the other hand, if those characters don't receive nerfs, it's fairly likely other characters will receive buffs. So who knows.

 

[Conda]

You make a good point.

Perhaps it'd be more accurate to apply my theory to top tier characters in general, instead. Maybe people won't pick up sheik per se, but a sudden halt in balance changes to sheik/zss/fox/diddy/rosalina/etc. might encourage players to reevaluate their character choices. On the other hand, if those characters don't receive nerfs, it's fairly likely other characters will receive buffs. So who knows.

Funny conversation, I think it's more complex than you guys may accidentally be making it seem.

Sheik is a very non-vanilla character and expecting everyone to enjoy playing her doesn't take into account what you need to really compete at high levels - a sort of oneness. A player who gels perfectly with Ness isn't gonna do better with Sheik if they're not built to utilize that sort of character to their max potential.

Not any boxer could learn how to kickbox just as well as they box - it's not like they could just switch to kickboxing if they felt they'd make more money doing that instead. It requires a different set of abilities - some inherent, some learnt. Some boxers could switch over for sure, very flexible athletes/fighters, but some boxers are really tuned for boxing, not kickboxing. The best boxer may not be the best kickboxer even with equal training.

Some people are built for certain things, and not everyone flows the way with Sheik that you need to to do better than someone you flow better with.

It's why you see some players use an under-utilized character in a characteristically different way, because their brains make better moment-to-moment choices with that character than other players do.

 

[DanGR]

Conda I meant for the theory to be ceteris paribus to save time. But yeah, I agree with what you're saying.