What will it take to make the heavy characters more viable all around?

[Deleted member]

There is no heavy I can imagine being higher than a mid tier in today's meta. They can make heavies more viable by:

1. Making them faster and giving them more reliable recoveries.. They can be heavy but they don't have to be ridiculously slow.
2. Move away from stage control based movesets and give heavies more versatile options.
3. Make their movesets less risk-reward based and give them reliable punish options.

Heavies don't have to be super combo oriented or be able to recover from the pits of Hell, but the current design of heavies focusing on slow options and stage control means they suffer greatly to any fighter with faster moves or a better recovery.

I asked in another thread: Wouldn't any of those buffs, which some heavies desperately need, make them broken considering their strengths?

 

[Mogisthelioma]

I asked in another thread: Wouldn't any of those buffs, which some heavies desperately need, make them broken considering their strengths?

No. Being heavy is a serious drawback against faster characters since they have much more difficulty escaping combos. And since most heavies have larger hurtboxes they also get hit by more attacks and are easier to edgeguard.

 

[Necro'lic]

There is no heavy I can imagine being higher than a mid tier in today's meta.

The "meta" is not to blame here so much as the mechanics of the game itself doing this.

Imagine, for a moment, that light characters and heavy characters were similarly vulnerable at being comboed into the dirt at earlier percents and that heavies were able to combo light characters easily? Well that isn't a question of the meta surrounding the game, but the game itself changing to make heavies better overall and speedies worse overall.

Doing these things would be easy too. For each of your three examples:

1: While I agree in some cases, you don't actually need to make this a universal buff to have heavies work believe it or not.

2: How do you give more versatile options? For speedies, they get safe moves and combo starters, but how do you allow slow heavies to combo as well as speedies? Higher hitstun! Remove the shackle of damage of a move determining the hitstun of that move and now you can have generally moderate damage poking tools from heavies suddenly become viable combo starter moves.

3: Basically the same as the second point honestly.

Heavies need the game mechanics themselves to accommodate them, because it's very clear that with the outdated Melee based mechanics of all Smash games these days, heavies have to be actually overpowered to be usable because the game's mechanics by themselves cater to smaller, faster characters more than anyone.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

1: While I agree in some cases, you don't actually need to make this a universal buff to have heavies work believe it or not.

I never suggested a universal buff. What I meant was that heavies need faster tools and speeds here and there. Maybe shave off some endlag of Dedede's f-air or improve the vertical distance of Donkey Kong's recovery. I never meant that all heavies should have speed buffs to all of their attacks or movement options.

2: How do you give more versatile options? For speedies, they get safe moves and combo starters, but how do you allow slow heavies to combo as well as speedies? Higher hitstun! Remove the shackle of damage of a move determining the hitstun of that move and now you can have generally moderate damage poking tools from heavies suddenly become viable combo starter moves.

Again, I never said that heavies need to have combo-oriented movesets. Higher hitstun is certainly an option, but I was looking more towards better frame data and hitbox buffs. Heavies need more than one or two moves they can use as reliable punish options or neutral tools.

 

[Necro'lic]

Again, I never said that heavies need to have combo-oriented movesets. Higher hitstun is certainly an option, but I was looking more towards better frame data and hitbox buffs. Heavies need more than one or two moves they can use as reliable punish options or neutral tools.

Well those too. Sorry, I was using more vague terms and drawing a blank on other things needed for a good character like frame data because my mind is stupid sometimes

 

[Deleted member]

What's the current strat to winning with a superheavy even?

 

[Master Knight DH]

Mogisthelioma I'll just repeat a significant part of the post you're responding to:

Heavies need the game mechanics themselves to accommodate them, because it's very clear that with the outdated Melee based mechanics of all Smash games these days, heavies have to be actually overpowered to be usable because the game's mechanics by themselves cater to smaller, faster characters more than anyone.

Kid Icarus Uprising proves this point. The ONLY attacks where Clubs generally don't have the worst frame data in general for any weapon family are melee attacks, and, well, the Combo is stuck to 2 hits instead of the standard 3 while the Dash Attack isn't multi-hit like the Bows and Cannons are. The 2 hit Combo even means it's easier to end up inputting for the finisher when you don't want to, which means more easily suffering cooldown if you're not watchful of a dodge.

Funny how several Clubs are perfectly playable, and at least 3 Clubs have definitely been considered overpowered enough for active ban lists.

KIU's mechanics aren't overly catering to the Clubs either.

• The above mentioned 2 hit Combo, an overall negative in terms of attack speed as mentioned above. The Melee Dash Attack is also not a dash-through.
• Swings in place of Rapids. Enough said.
• The Clubs' Shots often have very high chargeup times, limiting the number of attacks to worry about at a given moment.
• More committal getup recoveries still add susceptibility to read-supported heavy blows and allow the opponent to setup chargeup regardless. (Clubs are just the best at benefiting from both, but far from the only ones.)
• Power usage with plenty of choices, which Clubs would want over tempo for a singular Power, requires scrolling through the Powers. (IMO not too hard to handle, granted, keeping in mind that I'm a lefty who sets Powers to ABXY and all that implies, but I never know who would beg to differ.)
• The Armor Powers have limited charges and only last so long, forcing consideration on when you'd want to invoke them at all.
• Counter can have its automated counterattack aiming capitalized upon.
• Black Hole has only 2 charges and there are Powers that either nullify the vacuum effect (this includes the Armor Powers) or disrupt the bite of burst damage that's guaranteed to follow-up.
• Slip Shot exists. It just requires a full row and column at L2+, is all.
• Bumblebee exists. It just requires a full line and also has forced clockwise movement on the auto-dodge, is all.
• Energy Charge exists. It just suffocates 1 of the 4 center spaces per Level, is all.
• Aries Armor and Trade-Off exist. They just require a full row and column for only the 1 charge provided, is all.
• Reflect Barrier exists for Skyscraper, Babel, Black, and Magnus Clubs. The RB user just has to not be faked out into plenty of ways to punish it.
• Jump Glide for closing the distance can have its momentum disrupted by an attack preventing the dash startup momentum.
• Super Speed for closing the distance has a definite amount of committal movement.

And there's even more to point to, but these are the important factors even in a V100 metagame. Despite these negatives, however, I've been able to prove time and again how I can get by on a weapon type that really has ALL of its threat factor come from the Shots having incredible singleton hit damage and an above average sense of projectile clashing, when its mobility, attack speeds, and Shot chargeup rate are ABYSMAL. Not that I'd want to, but I can't even owe that many of my successes to Grid Reading when my setup alone would suggest Grid Reading being less useful against creativity or steadfast setups. Club mastery in KIU simply has actual reward while still having its still clear risk come from no shortage of factors to really consider.

Long story short, mechanics should just make the likes of the Heavies more methodical with the risk-reward aspect. That would be better than improving their frame data at any rate.

 

[Necro'lic]

Mogisthelioma I'll just repeat a significant part of the post you're responding to:


Kid Icarus Uprising proves this point. The ONLY attacks where Clubs generally don't have the worst frame data in general for any weapon family are melee attacks, and, well, the Combo is stuck to 2 hits instead of the standard 3 while the Dash Attack isn't multi-hit like the Bows and Cannons are. The 2 hit Combo even means it's easier to end up inputting for the finisher when you don't want to, which means more easily suffering cooldown if you're not watchful of a dodge.

Funny how several Clubs are perfectly playable, and at least 3 Clubs have definitely been considered overpowered enough for active ban lists.

KIU's mechanics aren't overly catering to the Clubs either.

• The above mentioned 2 hit Combo, an overall negative in terms of attack speed as mentioned above. The Melee Dash Attack is also not a dash-through.
• Swings in place of Rapids. Enough said.
• The Clubs' Shots often have very high chargeup times, limiting the number of attacks to worry about at a given moment.
• More committal getup recoveries still add susceptibility to read-supported heavy blows and allow the opponent to setup chargeup regardless. (Clubs are just the best at benefiting from both, but far from the only ones.)
• Power usage with plenty of choices, which Clubs would want over tempo for a singular Power, requires scrolling through the Powers. (IMO not too hard to handle, granted, keeping in mind that I'm a lefty who sets Powers to ABXY and all that implies, but I never know who would beg to differ.)
• The Armor Powers have limited charges and only last so long, forcing consideration on when you'd want to invoke them at all.
• Counter can have its automated counterattack aiming capitalized upon.
• Black Hole has only 2 charges and there are Powers that either nullify the vacuum effect (this includes the Armor Powers) or disrupt the bite of burst damage that's guaranteed to follow-up.
• Slip Shot exists. It just requires a full row and column at L2+, is all.
• Bumblebee exists. It just requires a full line and also has forced clockwise movement on the auto-dodge, is all.
• Energy Charge exists. It just suffocates 1 of the 4 center spaces per Level, is all.
• Aries Armor and Trade-Off exist. They just require a full row and column for only the 1 charge provided, is all.
• Reflect Barrier exists for Skyscraper, Babel, Black, and Magnus Clubs. The RB user just has to not be faked out into plenty of ways to punish it.
• Jump Glide for closing the distance can have its momentum disrupted by an attack preventing the dash startup momentum.
• Super Speed for closing the distance has a definite amount of committal movement.

And there's even more to point to, but these are the important factors even in a V100 metagame. Despite these negatives, however, I've been able to prove time and again how I can get by on a weapon type that really has ALL of its threat factor come from the Shots having incredible singleton hit damage and an above average sense of projectile clashing, when its mobility, attack speeds, and Shot chargeup rate are ABYSMAL. Not that I'd want to, but I can't even owe that many of my successes to Grid Reading when my setup alone would suggest Grid Reading being less useful against creativity or steadfast setups. Club mastery in KIU simply has actual reward while still having its still clear risk come from no shortage of factors to really consider.

Long story short, mechanics should just make the likes of the Heavies more methodical with the risk-reward aspect. That would be better than improving their frame data at any rate.

I like that we agree overall, but I highly doubt many people here even know what you're talking about when you use all these terms from KI:U. Including me...

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

I like that we agree overall, but I highly doubt many people here even know what you're talking about when you use all these terms from KI:U. Including me...

It doesn't tell me anything helpful or useful really. It's just deviating from the topic to ramble about something completely irrelevant which makes little sense in context. It reminds me of Homer Simpson's line "Marriage is a lot like an orange, first you have the skin, then the sweet, sweet innards..." but way less funny.

 

[ZephyrZ]

What's the current strat to winning with a superheavy even?

It depends on which heavy, but two things most superheavies tend to excel at are controlling space (thanks to large hitboxes) and grappling.

Most superheavies want to use their huge hitboxes (Bowser Fair, DK Bair / Dash Attack, Zard F-tilt / Nair, Ganon Nair, ect) to make their opponents feel suffocated. Then you can observe their defensive habits when corned and them punish accordingly. Oftentimes cornered opponents will feel pressured to shield which is where their strong grappling comes in.

That's just a really rough guideline though. While they're all under similar archetypes you'll want to play each fighter by their individual strengths to.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

I've been thinking a lot about the heavy from a design standpoint recently. They're based off of traditional fighting game's grappler archetype which is characterized by slow movement, big damage, tons of super armour, command grabs, and the biggest health pools in the game. They have trouble against zoners because they have tons of trouble getting in, but excel against rushdown characters because while they don't win neutral as much as they do, they can tank all of that damage and deal it all back and more once they get their opening.

However, these traits don't seem to translate all that well to the platform fighter. Slow movement makes a character's neutral, disadvantage, and advantage states a ton worse than a faster character's, big damage isn't really a trait exclusive to the archetype since combos tend to do comparable damage for higher tier characters, they don't tend to have much super armour (which isn't a bad thing in and of itself), command grabs are fairly limited in use even for non-heavy characters, and increasing a character's weight is not the same as increasing a character's health in that there are diminishing returns as to how much it improves surviveability because it also makes them more susceptible to combos. So what we get is a character that loses to both zoners and rushdown characters because they have trouble getting in, take more damage in combos, and don't do enough damage to cancel out these weaknesses. On the flip side, their big unga-bunga swings tend to make them some of the best characters in casual play because they're good at catching people who don't know what they're doing.

Without changing Super Smash Bros.'s focus on offensive play, I think there are three ways of making heavies put up more of a fight in competitive play (without making them just say no to hitstun and shield pressure):

1. Give the heavy faster movement options. These options should require more thought to use, but should be fairly safe. For example, Incineroar's Revenge could allow it to dash forward or backward, allowing for cross-ups at close range. If he gets hit before activating it, then the dash is invincible (and maybe goes further?). Or for a less extreme example, perhaps Donkey Kong could jump out of his Dash Attack, allowing him to leap across the stage at a breakneck pace without being a speedster.
2. Make their disadvantage states not suck as much. Change one of their aerial attacks so that they have a decent landing option, and/or a stronger/less predictable recovery move.
3. Give them projectiles that actually allow them to control space. King K. Rool almost has this, but Crownerang is incredibly laggy and can be easily used against him, and Blunderbuss is more useful as a command grab than a projectile.

I'm not a competitive player though, so I could be way off base with this. I just find it an interesting topic due to my aspirations in game design.

 

[ZephyrZ]

Give the heavy faster movement options. These options should require more thought to use, but should be fairly safe. For example, Incineroar's Revenge could allow it to dash forward or backward, allowing for cross-ups at close range. If he gets hit before activating it, then the dash is invincible (and maybe goes further?). Or for a less extreme example, perhaps Donkey Kong could jump out of his Dash Attack, allowing him to leap across the stage at a breakneck pace without being a speedster.

A lot of heavies in Ultimate are really fast, especially on the ground. and all have very potent run and air speeds, with an honorable mention to , who fits the archetype despite not being a true super heavy.

and are the ones with serious mobility issues, so if you count Ridley then the superheavies are split 50/50 between speedsters a snails. Ganondorf has some good burst options in Warlock Kick, Dash Attack and Flame Choke, but they aren't always enough.

Make their disadvantage states not suck as much. Change one of their aerial attacks so that they have a decent landing option, and/or a stronger/less predictable recovery move.

I definitely agree here. I never understood why superheavies, an archetype that are supposed to be long-lived, tend to die so early off stage. K.Rool and Dedede have passable recoveries but DK's and Ganon's are just sad sometimes.

As for landing, I think its no coincidence that the best superheavy at the moment has a frame 6 command grab. Bowser's disadvantage is still terrible but it still demands a ton of respect, since you can't always just shield his landing options.

Give them projectiles that actually allow them to control space. King K. Rool almost has this, but Crownerang is incredibly laggy and can be easily used against him, and Blunderbuss is more useful as a command grab than a projectile.

Superheavies are typically already really good at controlling space, since they have range on their normals often comparable to swordies. Ganondorf also has those good burst options I mentioned earlier, while DK has his famous Dash Attack. Bowser has an incredible arch on his Fair.

KRool and Dedede are the only true zoners of the superheavies though and yeah, they can be underwhelming in that regard. I think their poor mobility and limited burst options means gaining centerstage can be tricky. KRool could definitely have some frames chopped off the end of his Krown toss though, so he could punish his opponent's reactions to it more efficiently. As for Dedede, I think I'd increase the shield safety on Fair and F-tilt so he could play more like a swordsmen, although that wouldn't really cover his mobility issues much.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Heavies will never be viable unless there's a huge paradigm shift in design philosophy. The devs have their heads too wrapped around casual play that they're unwilling to pay attention to the people who actually appreciate the game to the highest caliber. King K. Rool got nerfed into the ground, Ganondorf fell through tiers within the last 8 months, Dedede barely escaped being a low tier (and he's been nerfed twice, with no buffs), and every other heavy remains a mid tier at best. Meanwhile, Cloud, Samus, and Zelda just got huge buffs in the last patch.

The reason why heavies will never be viable is because of the huge divide between them and lightweights/zoners.

Lightweights:

• Always have reliable burst and OOS options
• Can easily cross up
• Are fast and harder to hit than heavies
• Typically have one or more reliable projectiles
• Can combo easily
• Have many different bread and butter strings
• Typically have reliable combos up until late percents
• Can afford to take large risks because they can easily weave out of dangerous situations
• Most (if not all) of their aerials are safe on shield
• Despite the idea that they typically have weak attacks, most lightweights have one or more ridiculously strong and hard to punish attacks
• Following up on the above statement, most of their attacks are hard to punish in the first place
• Have very reliable recoveries
• Have killthrows, for some reason

"Lightweights are balanced because they die faster than other characters and require more hits to land KOs"

Zoners:

• Force the opponent to play their game
• Dominate slow characters
• Easily gain stage control
• Use projectiles, disjoints, or both to control where their opponent can go
• Although not as flashy as lightweights, they still have stellar combos
• Recoveries aren't as reliable but aren't as easy to punish
• Can wall out their opponent ad nauseam
• Still have really good burst options
• Still have reliable OOS options
• Still are good at crossing up
• Still have moves that are incredibly safe on shield
• Their CQC options are much better than they rightfully should be considering the design philosophy behind them

"Zoners are balanced because they have weaker CQC options and rely on setups"

Heavies:

• Are combo food
• Are slow on both the ground and in the air
• Have way less OOS options
• Most moves aren't safe on shield
• Have little or no burst options
• Recoveries are either short, slow, unreliable, or easy to punish
• Only Dedede and KKR have projectiles, neither of which can compete with other projectiles or disjoints
• Typically lack disjointed moves, and the moves that are disjointed lack significant range
• Smash attacks are slow and easy to react to
• Not enough moves have armor to avoid being interrupted
• Can't escape being trapped on ledge or on platforms
• Are big and easy to hit
• Rely on hard reads to score stocks as easily as other characters can
• Have risk/reward based movesets, with the risk usually being greater than the reward.

"Heavies are balances because they can kill earlier and live longer"

I should point out that killing faster is different than killing earlier. Killing faster means a character can erase a stock in a matter of seconds (see Luigi, Pichu). Killing earlier means a single move (or two) can kill at low percents. Lightweights can kill faster will little risk of being punished. Heavies can kill earlier with massive risks of punishment. Zoners can do both, with no more than a moderate risk of punishment.

 

[Necro'lic]

Heavies will never be viable unless there's a huge paradigm shift in design philosophy. The devs have their heads too wrapped around casual play that they're unwilling to pay attention to the people who actually appreciate the game to the highest caliber.

And I've said it before. This idea that the dev team seems to go for with designing and balancing around casual play is the main issue of this discrepancy, and I would posit is the main reason why no Smash game has been closely balanced, with the most "casual" smash, Brawl, being the absolute worst contender in the balance department.

The developers just need to go off and let some more competitively driven people run the design/balance teams. The general simplicity, controls, and sandbox nature of Smash is casual catering enough. Now they need to figure out how to cater to the core audience without compromising the casual people. It can be done, but it seems like, at least when balance is concerned, they don't even try.

 

[ZephyrZ]

The idea that superheavies can't be viable is untrue simply because of the existence of . He may not be a top tier, but he's widely seen as a viable option amongst the competitive community. He's very fast, he's got an amazing OoS option, and he's extremely scary to be stuck in the corner against. Tough Guy also lets him armor through some of his opponent's faster options at lower percents, where for a heavy like him is where it matters most.

Yes he's an exception to the rule, but he's proof that heavies can still be viable.

Its kind of cheating to include in this but its also worth mentioning that PT mains have had increasingly optimistic opinions of Zard as time went on, even before his Nair and F-throw buffs. He proves that heavies can still do crazy things in the right circumstances, as long as they can get their momentum going.

I think Ultimate is actually getting close to understanding how to make superheavies work. Perhaps its possible to see another superheavy get buffed to the point of viability, or even to get another viable one in Ultimate's DLC.

 

[Necro'lic]

The idea that superheavies can't be viable is untrue simply because of the existence of . He may not be a top tier, but he's widely seen as a viable option amongst the competitive community. He's very fast, he's got an amazing OoS option, and he's extremely scary to be stuck in the corner against. Tough Guy also lets him armor through some of his opponent's faster options at lower percents, where for a heavy like him is where it matters most.

Yes he's an exception to the rule, but he's proof that heavies can still be viable.

Its kind of cheating to include in this but its also worth mentioning that PT mains have had increasingly optimistic opinions of Zard as time went on, even before his Nair and F-throw buffs. He proves that heavies can still do crazy things in the right circumstances, as long as they can get their momentum going.

I think Ultimate is actually getting close to understanding how to make superheavies work. Perhaps its possible to see another superheavy get buffed to the point of viability, or even to get another viable one in Ultimate's DLC.

While I like that they are making progress, it's 20 years too late. This slow trundle towards only sort of viable heavies is maddening when it can be done with a simple paradigm shift in what Smash is supposed to be.

 

[meleebrawler]

While I like that they are making progress, it's 20 years too late. This slow trundle towards only sort of viable heavies is maddening when it can be done with a simple paradigm shift in what Smash is supposed to be.

So, where are the super-viable heavies in the competitively minded Project M then?

 

[Necro'lic]

So, where are the super-viable heavies in the competitively minded Project M then?

Not sure why you bring that up? Project M isn't as well designed or balanced as it could be because they try to emulate Melee, which itself isn't a competitively designed game.

 

[meleebrawler]

Not sure why you bring that up? Project M isn't as well designed or balanced as it could be because they try to emulate Melee, which itself isn't a competitively designed game.

Fine, then what about stuff like Balanced Brawl? Were there huge paradigm shifts there?

No, because unless those players happen to main heavy characters, competitive ones most likely would rather maintain the status quo so as to not jeopardize their months of training and results. Can you tell me with a straight face that they would remain impartial in their decision-making?

 

[Necro'lic]

Fine, then what about stuff like Balanced Brawl? Were there huge paradigm shifts there?

No, because unless those players happen to main heavy characters, competitive ones most likely would rather maintain the status quo so as to not jeopardize their months of training and results. Can you tell me with a straight face that they would remain impartial in their decision-making?

Well, from my perspective, if I were given the goal, "make X smash game as perfectly balanced as possible without completely neutering the unique aspects of each fighter", I would sort of be obligated to be impartial. For example, even though Dedede, Zelda, and Link are my current Ultimate mains, I would not give them weird things that don't fit with their characters, like more air speed, more ground speed, or less general endlag respectively. Similar for characters I personally don't care about like Fox, Lucas, or the Belmonts; they would not just be left to the wayside.

But honestly, this aspect of favoritism seems to be a non-sequitur and I don't know why you brought this up either. Is it because Balanced Brawl also doesn't have top tier heavies? If so, then the fact they are working within the rigid framework of a Smash game at all might be the culprit.

As I've said for years now, and even early on in this thread, if you want heavies to be competitively viable, the entire game's systems need to change to become far more manipulative and minute. Things like giving heavier characters naturally more DI than others through a DI formula that has weight as a factor would be one way. Another would be a completely different priority system that is separate from damage, making light and heavy "get off me" tools explicitly better or worse at that purpose without overloading them with too much damage. Or more tools for anti-zoning that all characters can use effectively. Or more ways to recover and fight recoveries than just ledge guarding and edgehogging.

The point I'm making is that the scope of Smash Bros in terms of the actual game mechanics are far too simplistic to make balancing it for competitive work. But you might be asking about how the casual crowd would still be sated with all that complexity. Well the simple answer is the controls would still be simplistic, but the mechanics would not be. Easy to learn, hard to master would still be intact. On top of that, there would be beginner friendly characters still, as there are in every fighter.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

As I've said for years now, and even early on in this thread, if you want heavies to be competitively viable, the entire game's systems need to change to become far more manipulative and minute. Things like giving heavier characters naturally more DI than others through a DI formula that has weight as a factor would be one way.

You'd have to be very careful with this, as it could cause lightweight characters to die even earlier because they can't DI.

Another would be a completely different priority system that is separate from damage, making light and heavy "get off me" tools explicitly better or worse at that purpose without overloading them with too much damage.

There actually is a priority system. You could mess around with it for certain attacks, though I'm not sure if it would be entirely necessary. Most heavies don't seem to have good "get off me" options in general since their frame data isn't that great. In that regard I think simply making certain attacks come out faster would be more effective.

Or more tools for anti-zoning that all characters can use effectively.

I assume you're talking about projectile zoning. To be honest, not every character needs this, as speed is an anti-zoning tool in and of itself. Allowing the heavies to use things like reflectors, projectiles (that are actually good), or more odd moves like Revenge would allow them to deal with projectile zoning better. You can't make it perfect though; the archetype always has issues with zoners even in traditional fighters.

Or more ways to recover and fight recoveries than just ledge guarding and edgehogging.

This mostly just equates to giving them recoveries that don't suck. Other than that, King Dedede is an amazing ledge trapper.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

Heavies will never be viable unless there's a huge paradigm shift in design philosophy. The devs have their heads too wrapped around casual play that they're unwilling to pay attention to the people who actually appreciate the game to the highest caliber. King K. Rool got nerfed into the ground, Ganondorf fell through tiers within the last 8 months, Dedede barely escaped being a low tier (and he's been nerfed twice, with no buffs), and every other heavy remains a mid tier at best. Meanwhile, Cloud, Samus, and Zelda just got huge buffs in the last patch.

The reason why heavies will never be viable is because of the huge divide between them and lightweights/zoners.

Lightweights:

• Always have reliable burst and OOS options
• Can easily cross up
• Are fast and harder to hit than heavies
• Typically have one or more reliable projectiles
• Can combo easily
• Have many different bread and butter strings
• Typically have reliable combos up until late percents
• Can afford to take large risks because they can easily weave out of dangerous situations
• Most (if not all) of their aerials are safe on shield
• Despite the idea that they typically have weak attacks, most lightweights have one or more ridiculously strong and hard to punish attacks
• Following up on the above statement, most of their attacks are hard to punish in the first place
• Have very reliable recoveries
• Have killthrows, for some reason

"Lightweights are balanced because they die faster than other characters and require more hits to land KOs"

Zoners:

• Force the opponent to play their game
• Dominate slow characters
• Easily gain stage control
• Use projectiles, disjoints, or both to control where their opponent can go
• Although not as flashy as lightweights, they still have stellar combos
• Recoveries aren't as reliable but aren't as easy to punish
• Can wall out their opponent ad nauseam
• Still have really good burst options
• Still have reliable OOS options
• Still are good at crossing up
• Still have moves that are incredibly safe on shield
• Their CQC options are much better than they rightfully should be considering the design philosophy behind them

"Zoners are balanced because they have weaker CQC options and rely on setups"

Heavies:

• Are combo food
• Are slow on both the ground and in the air
• Have way less OOS options
• Most moves aren't safe on shield
• Have little or no burst options
• Recoveries are either short, slow, unreliable, or easy to punish
• Only Dedede and KKR have projectiles, neither of which can compete with other projectiles or disjoints
• Typically lack disjointed moves, and the moves that are disjointed lack significant range
• Smash attacks are slow and easy to react to
• Not enough moves have armor to avoid being interrupted
• Can't escape being trapped on ledge or on platforms
• Are big and easy to hit
• Rely on hard reads to score stocks as easily as other characters can
• Have risk/reward based movesets, with the risk usually being greater than the reward.

"Heavies are balances because they can kill earlier and live longer"

I should point out that killing faster is different than killing earlier. Killing faster means a character can erase a stock in a matter of seconds (see Luigi, Pichu). Killing earlier means a single move (or two) can kill at low percents. Lightweights can kill faster will little risk of being punished. Heavies can kill earlier with massive risks of punishment. Zoners can do both, with no more than a moderate risk of punishment.

K. Rool nerfed to the ground? The hell are you smoking/injecting/consuming? Because whatever it is, I want none of it. It's like you skipped update 6.0.0 where K. Rool became a significantly better fighter. Your reaction is typical of those who have strong opinions about characters they know nothing about thereby perpetuating falsehoods.

And define viable. I have to ask this because people often like to talk about making the game better balanced or making a character viable but it's not always clear what they mean. Does it mean that literally every matchup becomes a 50/50? Does it mean that every fighter has an equal chance of winning a major? It seems to me that people always miss the big picture.

In one our locals, one of our top players got 1st place using Incineroar out of a 103 partipants. In the last rounds, he faced against the likes of Palutena, Wolf and Pichu, which are typically considered better characters. This obviously doesn't mean that the tiger should be placing higher on our tier lists because of that. And what is one local from a foreign country when stacked against major international tourneys? The point I'm trying to make is that despite being a perceived low/mid tier, that is fine because the character can compete in the grand scheme of things. So I'd said that is a good description for a viable character; not the best but competent enough with a good player behind him. When I think of someone unviable, I would think of Brawl Ganondorf in general or a character having tools that don't work how they are supposed to like Melee Mewtwo's Confusion and Brawl Bowser's Fire Breath and Bowser Bomb.

While I like that they are making progress, it's 20 years too late. This slow trundle towards only sort of viable heavies is maddening when it can be done with a simple paradigm shift in what Smash is supposed to be.

Better late than never. Play almost any fighting game from the 90s and 2000s, and you'll see how most of them have come a long way in terms of balancing their rosters. It was difficult to not find a broken character or exploit back then that invalidated almost everyone. MvC2 was a fun mess of a game, but the tournament scene was mostly dominated by Sentinel, Storm, Cable and Magneto who are all god tier. It was impossible to find a team that didn't include any variation of them.

Well, from my perspective, if I were given the goal, "make X smash game as perfectly balanced as possible without completely neutering the unique aspects of each fighter", I would sort of be obligated to be impartial. For example, even though Dedede, Zelda, and Link are my current Ultimate mains, I would not give them weird things that don't fit with their characters, like more air speed, more ground speed, or less general endlag respectively. Similar for characters I personally don't care about like Fox, Lucas, or the Belmonts; they would not just be left to the wayside.

But honestly, this aspect of favoritism seems to be a non-sequitur and I don't know why you brought this up either. Is it because Balanced Brawl also doesn't have top tier heavies? If so, then the fact they are working within the rigid framework of a Smash game at all might be the culprit.

As I've said for years now, and even early on in this thread, if you want heavies to be competitively viable, the entire game's systems need to change to become far more manipulative and minute. Things like giving heavier characters naturally more DI than others through a DI formula that has weight as a factor would be one way. Another would be a completely different priority system that is separate from damage, making light and heavy "get off me" tools explicitly better or worse at that purpose without overloading them with too much damage. Or more tools for anti-zoning that all characters can use effectively. Or more ways to recover and fight recoveries than just ledge guarding and edgehogging.

The point I'm making is that the scope of Smash Bros in terms of the actual game mechanics are far too simplistic to make balancing it for competitive work. But you might be asking about how the casual crowd would still be sated with all that complexity. Well the simple answer is the controls would still be simplistic, but the mechanics would not be. Easy to learn, hard to master would still be intact. On top of that, there would be beginner friendly characters still, as there are in every fighter.

Funny, you once pointed out that no one was asking for pefect balance yet here you are advocating for that same idea. Let me give you an appropriate response that might sound familiar to you: "Perfect is the enemy of good". Making a perfectly balanced game does not equate to making a fun game. This doesn't mean that balance should be treated as an afterthought like in Brawl but it shouldn't be the main focus either. Having a diversity of playstyles is more important. People want characters who can do cool and unique **** which in turn will create matchups that are unique and exciting, with the side effect being that some characters are going to be stronger than others. At the very least, you have to make sure that there is no god tier and garbage tier.

I read the article talking about Guilty Gear's mechanics which is brilliant, but that also didn't stop the series from having overcentralizing fighters like Zato/Eddy while Potemkin fell to the wayside so that shows that were still imbalances. Oops (To be clear, I don't think less of GG because of this). And even if you were to provide me more exceptions like Dota 2, they are still merely that, exceptions to the rule. So your mentality is most likely a product of someone who just doesn't have that much experience with most fighting games. Then again, I recall you saying that you are just not that much into the genre.

Despite this, you remain enamored with your own ideas of how the game should be that it also narrows your own view. You are obsessed with perfection even if you don't realize it, as your whole schtick for a while was to go to character threads and create better movesets for them. You can talk the talk of how to make the game "objectively better" without actually doing the work on the logistics, kinda like my grandiose plan to end poverty and fix global warming which would be done already if only world leaders listened to me, but are you really that arrogant to think you are the first person to think of the potential solutions (after all, you've said it for years) yet fail to also see the problems they could create as the previous poster pointed out? You also overlook simple but effective fixes; e.g. if you want heavies to have a get off me option, just buff the frame data on certain moves so they'll have a tool similar to DDD's and K. Rool's Nair. Another example is how they made Mario a better character from Brawl to Smash 4 without replacing a single move and just improving his existing kit.

And I still contest your idea of viability. Most heavies are competitively viable, meaning that they can compete and succeed with the tools that they have. Some of them could use buffs but that doesn't make the previous statement untrue. And this doesn't mean that they don't have uphill battles or that they are very likely to win an EVO, but they are not helpless. Whatever your idea is of a Smash Utopia where every character stand on equal grounds is not going to be reality. We are "doomed" to play multiplayer games were most characters will have an inherent advantage over others. And that's ok. Did you know that in a perfectly balanced game like chess, the whites have still have a slightly higher percentage of win over the blacks? And that's also ok. It's ok to be low or mid tier.

 

[Necro'lic]

You'd have to be very careful with this, as it could cause lightweight characters to die even earlier because they can't DI.

Firstly, I simply said heavies get more DI, not that lighter characters get less, per se. The formula should simply be used to make weightier characters have more than base DI, not the inverse.

Secondly, lighter characters should die faster anyway. Obviously not by removing DI from their defensive options, but you know what I mean.

There actually is a priority system. You could mess around with it for certain attacks, though I'm not sure if it would be entirely necessary. Most heavies don't seem to have good "get off me" options in general since their frame data isn't that great. In that regard I think simply making certain attacks come out faster would be more effective.

This priority system is based off of damage differentials instead of being separate from damage. The latter would allow for far more freedom in designing moves. For example, you can have get off me tools that aren't just overloaded with damage just to outprioritize everything.

I assume you're talking about projectile zoning. To be honest, not every character needs this, as speed is an anti-zoning tool in and of itself. Allowing the heavies to use things like reflectors, projectiles (that are actually good), or more odd moves like Revenge would allow them to deal with projectile zoning better. You can't make it perfect though; the archetype always has issues with zoners even in traditional fighters.

My point with this was that having anti-zoning tools would allow for universal defensive options that happen to favor heavies more, but helps everyone, including zoners, since now there is more design freedom to make them good at more than just zoning. See the motif here?

This mostly just equates to giving them recoveries that don't suck. Other than that, King Dedede is an amazing ledge trapper.

Again, I think you're thinking too simply at the possibilities of what Smash can be. Yes, your solution works, but it also homogenizes the game slightly, since there need to be sucky recoveries somewhere to give weakness to characters. What I meant was more interaction offstage would give excuses for added aerial mechanics and freedom to play offstage for long periods of time by everyone, albeit in different strength levels. One idea I came up with was the air dash. Basically an aerial wavedash that can be done in any direction and can have attacks be used during the movement. Another was your first jump not being used when simply falling off a ledge, giving an extra jump for low offstage play for the one in advantage, which granted can both help and hurt heavies.

Just these two together would make all parties' offstage play more dynamic, and would make sucky recovery buffing unnecessary, since a Ganondorf, to finish someone off at the bottom corner of the stage, could simply run off the ledge, use a super high priority aerial just to gimp them easily due to his reach, then do two jumps, an air dash upwards, and either finish with an airdodge upwards or his Up-B, giving him the freedom to finish off opponents much quicker than usual. Conversely, in disadvantage, he now has air dash to potentially juke an opponent, or attack from a distance with something like UAir to do a reversal, then double jump, then Up-B.

To Ryu Myuutsu

Funny, you once pointed out that no one was asking for pefect balance yet here you are advocating for that same idea.

Sorry but this "gotcha" is weak, considering I said "as perfectly balanced as possible without neutering the unique aspects of the fighters". Which, surprise, does not contradict my older point. And the rest of that paragraph is basically you agreeing with me, so it's obvious that you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I read the article talking about Guilty Gear's mechanics which is brilliant, but that also didn't stop the series from having overcentralizing fighters like Zato/Eddy while Potemkin fell to the wayside so that shows that were still imbalances. Oops (To be clear, I don't think less of GG because of this). And even if you were to provide me more exceptions like Dota 2, they are still merely that, exceptions to the rule. So your mentality is most likely a product of someone who just doesn't have that much experience with most fighting games.

It still isn't a bad framework to go off of either way, and it can still show some things a lot of fighting games overlook.

Despite this, you remain enamored with your own ideas of how the game should be that it also narrows your own view. You are obsessed with perfection even if you don't realize it, as your whole schtick for a while was to go to character threads and create better movesets for them. You can talk the talk of how to make the game "objectively better" without actually doing the work on the logistics, kinda like my grandiose plan to end poverty and fix global warming which would be done already if only world leaders listened to me, but are you really that arrogant to think you are the first person to think of the potential solutions (after all, you've said it for years) yet fail to also see the problems they could create as the previous poster pointed out?

Firstly, perfection in what sense? If you mean "perfect" as in "all characters in this game have a 50/50 matchup with all others", then no, that's an idiotic goal. But I'm not sure what you even mean by perfect.

Secondly, those character threads were always about solidifying ideas and finding problems with my ideas. The problem is very few people responded, which is understandable, but to actually get people to respond, I would need to do something similar to Brawl+ or Project M and make a mod of Ultimate, which I'm not sure is possible to do yet. So for now, I'm working on making my own fighting game using my ideas.

You also overlook simple but effective fixes; e.g. if you want heavies to have a get off me option, just buff the frame data on certain moves so they'll have a tool similar to DDD's and K. Rool's Nair. Another example is how they made Mario a better character from Brawl to Smash 4 without replacing a single move and just improving his existing kit.

I don't overlook simple fixes at all. I just think sometimes they can be a limiter of potential for a character's design. But since you brought up my characte threads, you should know that sometimes I don't really change much about many different moves I cover. In fact, it got to the point where I ended up doing "mini-redesign" threads specifically because most of the character's moveset I would barely change enough to be relevant to the thread. For example with Mario, I literally would only heavily change two moves of his, and of those two, one's purpose within his moveset didn't change at all.

And I still contest your idea of viability. Most heavies are competitively viable, meaning that they can compete and succeed with the tools that they have. Some of them could use buffs but that doesn't make the previous statement untrue. And this doesn't mean that they don't have uphill battles or that they are very likely to win an EVO, but they are not helpless. Whatever your idea is of a Smash Utopia where every character stand on equal grounds is not going to be reality. We are "doomed" to play multiplayer games were most characters will have an inherent advantage over others. And that's ok. Did you know that in a perfectly balanced game like chess, the whites have still have a slightly higher percentage of win over the blacks? And that's also ok. It's ok to be low or mid tier.

Again with this "Smash Utopia" idea. Why can't you see that when I suggest the game changes in X or Y way it's simply to make the currently fairly alright balance or design better than it is? The only reason I can think of that you are having trouble differentiating between someone suggesting things to make things better and suggesting things to make things perfect is that you think the current iteration of Smash is as good as we are going to get. Honestly, I find that notion sad.

 

[meleebrawler]

I don't really care about any potential ideas and how good they might be. I just find the notion that competitive players can do a better job balancing laughable. Either they're ones who play Smash and have their built-up notions and biases getting in the way, or they don't and struggle to understand what makes Smash tick.

Even ignoring that, good luck being taken seriously with the stated goal of making about 6 of an 80+ roster more viable with sweeping engine changes. You either come as biased at best, incompetent at worst if you fail.

Players had their chance with Brawl mods. Don't pretend they were constrained. They could have made Bowser faster. Make whatever physics changes were needed for a stronger combo game. Instead they stuck with what they were familiar with, plus some fan overcompensation. So even they could care less about who exactly is great, as long as they are comfortable with it.

 

[Necro'lic]

I don't really care about any potential ideas and how good they might be. I just find the notion that competitive players can do a better job balancing laughable. Either they're ones who play Smash and have their built-up notions and biases getting in the way, or they don't and struggle to understand what makes Smash tick.

Even ignoring that, good luck being taken seriously with the stated goal of making about 6 of an 80+ roster more viable with sweeping engine changes. You either come as biased at best, incompetent at worst if you fail.

Players had their chance with Brawl mods. Don't pretend they were constrained. They could have made Bowser faster. Make whatever physics changes were needed for a stronger combo game. Instead they stuck with what they were familiar with, plus some fan overcompensation. So even they could care less about who exactly is great, as long as they are comfortable with it.

They might have been constrained by the engine, which is what I meant in that reply to you. But really, that last part about sticking with what they were familiar with is exactly what I've been going against in this thread and the main critique I have of those types of mods.

Even if they weren't at all constrained by the code and could do absolutely anything, I have no doubt in my mind that they wouldn't even imagine doing anything other than trying their best to emulate Melee or 64, or whatever was their favorite smash game.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Can't wait for this thread to blow up agai--oh wait, it already has.

K. Rool nerfed to the ground? The hell are you smoking/injecting/consuming? Because whatever it is, I want none of it. It's like you skipped update 6.0.0 where K. Rool became a significantly better fighter. Your reaction is typical of those who have strong opinions about characters they know nothing about thereby perpetuating falsehoods.

Read the post again, slowly. Then a third time saying it out loud. Repeat this process until it hits you: Context. I was not referring to any form of competitive viability surrounding King K. Rool when I mentioned that he was nerfed. My point was that the developers were swift to make negative changes to him despite most of the competitive community agreeing he needed improvements. K. Rool was a noob stomper with effective punish tools that could humiliate an inexperienced player and convince them that he was broken. As such, the developers took this into account before anything from the competitive scene, and it wouldn't be until months later did he get improvements. That was my point: How little they actually care about competitive Smash.

And define viable. I have to ask this because people often like to talk about making the game better balanced or making a character viable but it's not always clear what they mean. Does it mean that literally every matchup becomes a 50/50? Does it mean that every fighter has an equal chance of winning a major? It seems to me that people always miss the big picture.

Fair enough. By viable, I mean likely to win a tournament consisting of lots of players who take the game to the highest notch. Something like Frostbite, Glitch, Gen, Evo, SSC, Smash 'n Splash, etc., and not just a one time appearance, I mean appearing in top 50/top 32 more frequently than once in a while. I know that sounds like much, but think of how often characters like Pikachu, Palutena, Lucina, Wolf, Joker, Wario, or even Olimar (If you're Dabuz) make it that high up. If someone won locals as Incineroar, good for them! I don't have access to locals in my area (I mean, before the quarantine I was never into the scene in the first place because it was hard to access) so I wouldn't know how well I'd fare in comparison, but that's nice to hear.

 

[MaddaD]

I've been thinking a lot about the heavy from a design standpoint recently.

Dirty Necromancer. Begone from this site!

It's been said time and time again in this thread, so I'll repeat it. Heavies as a whole aren't going anywhere anytime soon without an entire rework, which is unlikely as Nintendo has made their stance on competitive play known.

But heavies are in no way completely unviable. Not until they remove from the game, anyway.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

Dirty Necromancer. Begone from this site!

Sorry, I posted here because I thought the topic was interesting (and didn't want to make a new thread if there was already one for it) but I didn't expect an oddly heated argument between systematic vs. character based changes.

 

[Quillion]

When I first made this thread, I treated the entire heavy/superheavy weight class as one monolith. But now that this thread is back, I have the thought: is it really correct to treat the entire weight class as a single archetype?

We've actually come a long way from the early days of Smash when heavies were all slow mobility, sluggish frame data, unreliable recovery, no projectile brutes. Now we have heavies with good mobility, heavies with something resembling good recovery, heavies with projectiles. And while they're not in the heaviest weight class, there are some "semi-heavies" with a focus on comboing like ROB.

Early on, there were certain "heavy rules" that confined all of them in the weight class to one archetype (not that there weren't differences between the characters). But now, some of these rules are being broken on a character-by-character basis. So is it possible that we should stop treating the weight class like one monolith? Lightweight characters (as in the weight class, not any particular archetype) are more diverse than heavies can hope to be at this point, so would it help to treat heavy characters more literally, as a weight class and not an archetype?

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

When I first made this thread, I treated the entire heavy/superheavy weight class as one monolith. But now that this thread is back, I have the thought: is it really correct to treat the entire weight class as a single archetype?

We've actually come a long way from the early days of Smash when heavies were all slow mobility, sluggish frame data, unreliable recovery, no projectile brutes. Now we have heavies with good mobility, heavies with something resembling good recovery, heavies with projectiles. And while they're not in the heaviest weight class, there are some "semi-heavies" with a focus on comboing like ROB.

Early on, there were certain "heavy rules" that confined all of them in the weight class to one archetype (not that there weren't differences between the characters). But now, some of these rules are being broken on a character-by-character basis. So is it possible that we should stop treating the weight class like one monolith? Lightweight characters (as in the weight class, not any particular archetype) are more diverse than heavies can hope to be at this point, so would it help to treat heavy characters more literally, as a weight class and not an archetype?

I definitely agree. The term does seem to cause people to consider certain characters to be heavies based on how heavy they feel rather than how heavy they are, and sense not all of these characters play the same the seem inconsistent and meaningless. I mean, if we were to say that Snake is a heavy then we'd also have to say Banjo & Kazooie, R.O.B., Simon, Richter, Ridley, Ike, Wario, Terry, Bowser Jr., Samus, Dark Samus, and Piranha Plant are also heavies. The only thing all of these characters have in common is a weight value above 105, and some of these characters are decidedly not heavies by most people. The characters can probably more usefully be described as:

• Grappler ()
  • Characters with slow frame data, powerful attacks, and an above average grab game.)
• Bruiser ()
  • Characters with slow frame data and powerful attacks, but don't rely on grabs like grapplers do)
• Keepaway ()
  • Characters that use projectiles to stay out of reach at all times. They even KO at a distance.
• Trapper ()
  • Characters that use projectiles to control space, and nuke unsuspecting opponents)
• Traditional Fighter ()
  • Powerful characters with a higher focus on neutral.
• Aerial Ace ()
  • Characters better in the air than on the ground.
• Projectile Zoner ()
  • Character that focuses on keeping people away with projectiles before coming in close with KO moves.

EDIT: Even these may not be entirely accurate.

 

[Necro'lic]

When I first made this thread, I treated the entire heavy/superheavy weight class as one monolith. But now that this thread is back, I have the thought: is it really correct to treat the entire weight class as a single archetype?

We've actually come a long way from the early days of Smash when heavies were all slow mobility, sluggish frame data, unreliable recovery, no projectile brutes. Now we have heavies with good mobility, heavies with something resembling good recovery, heavies with projectiles. And while they're not in the heaviest weight class, there are some "semi-heavies" with a focus on comboing like ROB.

Early on, there were certain "heavy rules" that confined all of them in the weight class to one archetype (not that there weren't differences between the characters). But now, some of these rules are being broken on a character-by-character basis. So is it possible that we should stop treating the weight class like one monolith? Lightweight characters (as in the weight class, not any particular archetype) are more diverse than heavies can hope to be at this point, so would it help to treat heavy characters more literally, as a weight class and not an archetype?

Glad you got with the times finally, considering everyone, including me, was basically saying that to you in the first 2 or so pages of this entire thread lol.

 

[Tortfeasor]

When I first made this thread, I treated the entire heavy/superheavy weight class as one monolith. But now that this thread is back, I have the thought: is it really correct to treat the entire weight class as a single archetype?

We've actually come a long way from the early days of Smash when heavies were all slow mobility, sluggish frame data, unreliable recovery, no projectile brutes. Now we have heavies with good mobility, heavies with something resembling good recovery, heavies with projectiles. And while they're not in the heaviest weight class, there are some "semi-heavies" with a focus on comboing like ROB.

Early on, there were certain "heavy rules" that confined all of them in the weight class to one archetype (not that there weren't differences between the characters). But now, some of these rules are being broken on a character-by-character basis. So is it possible that we should stop treating the weight class like one monolith? Lightweight characters (as in the weight class, not any particular archetype) are more diverse than heavies can hope to be at this point, so would it help to treat heavy characters more literally, as a weight class and not an archetype?

I think you're correct that "heavy" is treated more like an archetype, rather than just a simple weight class. They've certainly made some efforts to diversify the archetypes within the heavyweight class, but it still feels like it's held back by some unwritten design rules, such as "attacks are strong, but slow to start-up or with more end lag."

I also feel like being a heavy is mistakenly treated as an advantage. Certainly being a heavy has the advantage of needing more damage to knock off the stage. However, this design philosophy is undercut by the heavies' large size (resulting in being combo food), slow attacks, and generally poor or gimpable recoveries. So, the heavies' major defensive attribute, their weight, is rendered useless by design decisions that make the heavies easier to KO. I'd argue being a heavyweight is at best a wash in terms of whether it's an advantage or disadvantage, but likely it's more of a disadvantage.

On the flip-side, they designers use the philosophy that because lightweights are knocked back further, they should have (generally) excellent recoveries. My experience has been that a lot of lightweights have greater survivability than most heavies simply because their recoveries can get the character back from anywhere and are hard to gimp.

The designers have to understand this before they can really make heavies shine in competitive play.

 

[meleebrawler]

I think you're correct that "heavy" is treated more like an archetype, rather than just a simple weight class. They've certainly made some efforts to diversify the archetypes within the heavyweight class, but it still feels like it's held back by some unwritten design rules, such as "attacks are strong, but slow to start-up or with more end lag."

I also feel like being a heavy is mistakenly treated as an advantage. Certainly being a heavy has the advantage of needing more damage to knock off the stage. However, this design philosophy is undercut by the heavies' large size (resulting in being combo food), slow attacks, and generally poor or gimpable recoveries. So, the heavies' major defensive attribute, their weight, is rendered useless by design decisions that make the heavies easier to KO. I'd argue being a heavyweight is at best a wash in terms of whether it's an advantage or disadvantage, but likely it's more of a disadvantage.

On the flip-side, they designers use the philosophy that because lightweights are knocked back further, they should have (generally) excellent recoveries. My experience has been that a lot of lightweights have greater survivability than most heavies simply because their recoveries can get the character back from anywhere and are hard to gimp.

The designers have to understand this before they can really make heavies shine in competitive play.

Would you be comfortable in saying Mewtwo has a generally easier time surviving than Bowser?

More to the point, all this stuff you mention is only easy to exploit in 1v1. There are other modes to consider, as much as some here may wish there weren't. Team battles and especially free-for alls make it harder for them to be comboed or gimped thanks to constant interruptions from other players, and they can also help in landing devastating hits. These are always glossed over, just because people in these parts aren't used to playing them.

 

[Deleted member]

I think you're correct that "heavy" is treated more like an archetype, rather than just a simple weight class. They've certainly made some efforts to diversify the archetypes within the heavyweight class, but it still feels like it's held back by some unwritten design rules, such as "attacks are strong, but slow to start-up or with more end lag."

I also feel like being a heavy is mistakenly treated as an advantage. Certainly being a heavy has the advantage of needing more damage to knock off the stage. However, this design philosophy is undercut by the heavies' large size (resulting in being combo food), slow attacks, and generally poor or gimpable recoveries. So, the heavies' major defensive attribute, their weight, is rendered useless by design decisions that make the heavies easier to KO. I'd argue being a heavyweight is at best a wash in terms of whether it's an advantage or disadvantage, but likely it's more of a disadvantage.

On the flip-side, they designers use the philosophy that because lightweights are knocked back further, they should have (generally) excellent recoveries. My experience has been that a lot of lightweights have greater survivability than most heavies simply because their recoveries can get the character back from anywhere and are hard to gimp.

The designers have to understand this before they can really make heavies shine in competitive play.

Thank you so much for saying this.

I always say these flaws you mention are exactly why I feel heavy characters as a whole are poor character choices in a 1v1 as they are far too easy to exploit (compared to someone like Fox, who's also combo food, but is very light, so he most likely won't be shutdown 24/7 and zero-to-death'd as easily. His recovery is linear, but still more doable than most superheavy recoveries.)

Superheavies are given oppressive advantage states to offset the horrid flaws, but they (barring Bowser) take too much risk to start. You'll have to be super lucky, otherwise (depending on your rival character) you'll lose an early stock.

Since Smash 4, they've been going the right direction in fixing superheavies with Bowser, who is generally considered high tier in Ultimate compared to the lower ranked superheavies due to having better tools. Sadly, to me, it looks like he's the only superheavy I would consider good at all due to having respectable movement speed, Fire Breath, and a good OoS option, while the others seem low-mid tier at best. Sure, some lower tier superheavies have slightly better recoveries and more reach than Bowser, as well as actual combos, but they still lack what makes Bowser good and suffer for it.

I still hope most (if not all of) them (or at least the ones I used to play) become this good. Until then, I'll continue to be baffled that people play them in competitive 1v1s.

 

[Tortfeasor]

Would you be comfortable in saying Mewtwo has a generally easier time surviving than Bowser?

More to the point, all this stuff you mention is only easy to exploit in 1v1. There are other modes to consider, as much as some here may wish there weren't. Team battles and especially free-for alls make it harder for them to be comboed or gimped thanks to constant interruptions from other players, and they can also help in landing devastating hits. These are always glossed over, just because people in these parts aren't used to playing them.

Fair point, I was speaking in terms of 1v1 play and I acknowledge the situation may be different in 2v2 or FFA. However, given that the title of this thread referred to how to make the heavies more "viable" my assumption was that it pertained to 1v1 competitive play.

As to your question, there are always exceptions and my comments were only meant in a general sense. Generally speaking the high weight of heavy characters is offset by worse or gimpable recoveries, whereas the low weight of light characters is offset by better and less gimpable recoveries.

Let's use your example of Mewtwo, one of the lightest characters in the game. Mewtwo's light weight means he'll get hit offstage much earlier than heavies, generally speaking. However, the designers compensated for this by giving Mewtwo a decent second jump and his Up-B is a teleport protecting him from harm.

Let's take Bowser then. Sure, he's hard to get off the stage, but once you do, he is quite vulnerable. He can be easily gimped and his recovery is so poor that he can only recover from a very limited range offstage. The designers compensated for Bowser's weight by giving him a poor recovery. Or, DK's recovery has limited vertical range and once he uses his Up-B, a well-timed D-air will be enough to put him away.

My overall point was that due to the measures taken to offset a character's weight, heavies often have no appreciable survivability over many lightweights. I find this odd considering that weight is considered to be a defensive attribute. However, it seems the design philosophy for heavies generally leads to a heavies' main defence being undercut by a poor recovery.

 

[meleebrawler]

Fair point, I was speaking in terms of 1v1 play and I acknowledge the situation may be different in 2v2 or FFA. However, given that the title of this thread referred to how to make the heavies more "viable" my assumption was that it pertained to 1v1 competitive play.

As to your question, there are always exceptions and my comments were only meant in a general sense. Generally speaking the high weight of heavy characters is offset by worse or gimpable recoveries, whereas the low weight of light characters is offset by better and less gimpable recoveries.

Let's use your example of Mewtwo, one of the lightest characters in the game. Mewtwo's light weight means he'll get hit offstage much earlier than heavies, generally speaking. However, the designers compensated for this by giving Mewtwo a decent second jump and his Up-B is a teleport protecting him from harm.

Let's take Bowser then. Sure, he's hard to get off the stage, but once you do, he is quite vulnerable. He can be easily gimped and his recovery is so poor that he can only recover from a very limited range offstage. The designers compensated for Bowser's weight by giving him a poor recovery. Or, DK's recovery has limited vertical range and once he uses his Up-B, a well-timed D-air will be enough to put him away.

My overall point was that due to the measures taken to offset a character's weight, heavies often have no appreciable survivability over many lightweights. I find this odd considering that weight is considered to be a defensive attribute. However, it seems the design philosophy for heavies generally leads to a heavies' main defence being undercut by a poor recovery.

It really doesn't matter what mode we're talking about, whatever changes you make targeting one affect all the others. You mention weight being a fake strength due to other weaknesses, but in other modes it gets flipped around. These posts sum it up well:

Not only do I agree with this, but two more things:

A) An 80ish character roster with at least half of them viable for competitive 1v1 is nothing short of miraculous. Overall, the game is actually incredibly well balanced and I've had my butt kicked by pretty much every character in the game at least once regardless of tier placement. If you're good enough, pretty much any character can do some serious damage. It's important not to confine ourselves to thinking that the pros are all there is with respect to character viability. There are plenty of people out there that never go to tournaments or can't afford to travel that are still god-level with characters you wouldn't think could be god-level.

B) While some characters legitimately could use some buffs, it's important to note that the dev team doesn't solely balance characters for 1v1. People complain that most heavies suck in 1v1 but forget the fact that they are absolutely godly in multi-player brawls or 2v2's. Conversely, you have characters that are great at dueling 1v1 (like Shiek, Joker or ZSS), but are actually on the sucky side when it comes to brawls where their combos and kill confirms get interrupted by the chaos. In short, characters are like tools. You need the right one for the job. Smash has a very diverse number of modes and gameplay, hence the devs aren't solely interested in 1v1 tournament results.

This is probably where the "systemic changes" arguments come in, resenting the fact other modes exist and that need to be taken into consideration. If they had their way they'd be treated as an afterthought, because it's not like free-for-alls are competitive anyway, right? Like it or not, characters ultimately still have a greater impact on the match than any (toggleable) item or stage will.

While I get what you're saying, heavies have a huge advantage with raw kill power. Granted, FFA's have a lot of factors to consider (ie. items on/off, smash meter, players ganging up, stock vs time) but generally speaking, a good Bowser has a DRASTICALLY higher chance of winning over someone like Shiek who struggles for kills while Bowser can close out stocks with every Bair, Up Smash or Side B. Again, I could see someone arguing the subject nature of my point, but the fact remains that when you balance a fighter, you can't have speed, weight, reach AND kill power all in the same package without some kind of drawback. If nothing else, I think that's why counterpicking and having secondaries will become an increasingly crucial role in the future of the meta.

If Bowser had an excellent recovery on top of everything, would this not make him extremely difficult to defeat in modes besides 1v1 unless everyone makes a concerted effort to beat him every time?

 

[Quillion]

You know, since there is a 1v1 multiplier to set that apart from other modes, what if the role weight played changed between modes?

I've heard tell that there is a platform fighter that manages to make combos not depend on weight while keeping the survivability benefits on the receiving end of finishers (you'll have to help me remember which game that is). Combos matter way more in 1v1 than in FFA, so maybe that's a way to reconcile differences between modes.

 

[meleebrawler]

You know, since there is a 1v1 multiplier to set that apart from other modes, what if the role weight played changed between modes?

I've heard tell that there is a platform fighter that manages to make combos not depend on weight while keeping the survivability benefits on the receiving end of finishers (you'll have to help me remember which game that is). Combos matter way more in 1v1 than in FFA, so maybe that's a way to reconcile differences between modes.

The only game I know of that uses ring-outs and doesn't have weight impacting combos is Brawlhalla. But it has something else that can impact them: your dexterity rating, which affects the frame data of your moves. If it's low enough, bread-and-butter combos can end up no longer being true. End result is that the closest analogues to Smash superheavies, ones with high attack (damage per hit/knockback) and low dexterity are still worse at performing combos than speedsters, regardless of mode.

This isn't a system change. You'd have to completely rework the knockback values of every single character so that they have dedicated combo and KO moves, like the shotos.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

This isn't a system change. You'd have to completely rework the knockback values of every single character so that they have dedicated combo and KO moves, like the shotos.

Wouldn't that homogenize offense?

 

[meleebrawler]

Wouldn't that homogenize offense?

Got a better idea of how to bridge the combo gap?

The only other solution is doing away with ring-outs entirely and just use plain old health bars to determine winners, making a traditional fighter in other words. That way you have a binary survival advantage with higher health and none of the other factors like recovery muddying things up, and shorter combos wouldn't matter when they're dealing more damage anyway.

Of course, unless this was a spin-off then Smash would be losing it's identity. But hey, whatever it takes to get away from those filthy casuals and into pure balancing for one mode, right? Jokes aside I wouldn't mind this, I just don't pretend that wanting such a thing isn't selfish. There are a number of traditional fighters using Smash-style inputs, like Pokken Tournament and Granblue Fantasy Versus (albeit the latter working like the input characters in Smash where it's less rewarding than the proper inputs).