Big-Cat
Challenge accepted.
With the large size of the roster, I'm wondering if having multiple characters may be necessary. I'm thinking it might be best to have around three characters for matchup purposes. I'm already looking at .
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
That's not going to happen. But here's a tip, when you're facing someone at a tournament, ask them if they're ok going random (instead of the usual). I've found that a lot of the time they'll agree. At least at smaller onesMy hope is that random stage select is implemented to some degree in tournaments. Part of the reason I want this is that it would (potentially) force people to use character they might not have otherwise based on the stage.
I don't really think the roster size will influence that though, since ultimately the game will still boil down to a handful of significantly stronger characters.
This came up a few times in GamerGuy09's Discussion of Stage Legality in Smash Bros. Ultimate thread. Basically, since stage select appears first and character select second, you will potentially have the opportunity to avoid unfavorable match-ups if you have more than one "main" handy. This of course depends on what the legal stage list turns out to be.My hope is that random stage select is implemented to some degree in tournaments. Part of the reason I want this is that it would (potentially) force people to use character they might not have otherwise based on the stage.
I don't really think the roster size will influence that though, since ultimately the game will still boil down to a handful of significantly stronger characters.
So then Pokemon Trainers are exempt from having to pick a secondary.If future tournaments follow the format that the E3 2018 invitational used, then you pretty much have no choice but to try to find three fighters that you want to main.
Man, I hope future tournaments adopt the 2018 invitational ruleset. I loved the idea of choosing 3 characters and having to use all of them before you could stick with one.If future tournaments follow the format that the E3 2018 invitational used, then you pretty much have no choice but to try to find three fighters that you want to main.
It probably depends if a tournament counts the Pokémon Trainer as a single fighter or three fighters.So then Pokemon Trainers are exempt from having to pick a secondary.
I'd hate that, it made sense for E3 since it's in Nintendo's interest to make sure as many characters as possible get shown off but for actual tournaments it'd feel overly restrictive, and basically force everyone to have at least 3 mains, even if it ends up being optimal to have exactly 3 mains it's no fun to be forced to have 3 by the ruleset, that just kills off part of the freedom that makes Super Smash Bros great and I also feel it's anti-competitive in nature. If someone solo-mains Waluigi, becomes the best Waluigi in the world but their other characters are trash since they only play Waluigi, I don't think they should be punished for that, if they can beat everyone with solo-Waluigi then they should be the best player in the world since they've reached the pinnacle of skill and can beat everyone with the rules the game itself has set, not get eliminated because they were forced to play a non-Waluigi character by some overbearing tournament ruleset.If future tournaments follow the format that the E3 2018 invitational used, then you pretty much have no choice but to try to find three fighters that you want to main.
Of course. I've got the impression that this thread is about tournament level Ultimate, and what's best for players who aren't top 100 in the world (might be different for top 100 players). I think that for most players, they'd go the furthest competitively if they focus on one character rather than trying to play two or more (in tournaments). However, some players may get bored if they focus too much on one character, and then it might be worth it to play multiple characters even if their results might suffer a bit because of it. Having fun is, after all, the most important aspect for most Smash players.Really.. It depends which character you want to use.. How much time you have/dedicate for smash .. And how much you know yourself (like what you want out of the game, if you can keep motivated with one or a few characters, and more)
I don't think it's "safe", since it means you'll sacrifice some process for your main. Let's say you have 30 hours to play each week, spending 20 on a main and 10 on a secondary will most likely leave you worse at your main than if you spent 30 hours on your main. Of course, it's possible that the alternative is getting bored and only playing 15 hours per week because of a lack of variety. People are different. Playing more than two characters in tourmaments is rarely worth it. Even top level players rarely pull it off (MkLeo and Tweek could be considered exceptions, although MkLeo tends to focus on Marth and Cloud lately and Tweek tends to focus on Bayonetta and Cloud).But since the meta can shift so much, it's safe to go with at least 1 more character that covers what your main doesn't have. And then it's up to you if you want more.
Solo main one character, and occasionally play a large amount of characters for fun. I've tried using secondaries but I've come to the conclusion that in order for it to be worth it I'd have to invest too much time, time that could be better spent on my main.What's your style?
That or it could also depend on the balance of the Pokemon. If all three of the Pokemon were their own separate characters, and one was top tier and the others were low tier, why would you swap to them outside of things like recovery? It's for this possibility that we might end up with Pokemon Trainer occupying one, three or four tier slots in the tier list, sort of like how Sheilda has a spot in the Brawl tier list.It probably depends if a tournament counts the Pokémon Trainer as a single fighter or three fighters.
Or, alternatively, play different characters to understand the game and differences between characters better (as well as who you like and might be good with, in general or in certain kinds of matchups) and continue on learning general aspects of the game so you can transfer your skills between characters as you get better, rather than stay in one narrow field of view from only playing one.Find out which character you are intrinsically best with.
Play that character.
Practice that character.
Be the best in the world at that character.
If you get to that point and you are not satisfied with the results, then consider other characters.
I agree that everyone should gain maximum enjoyment from the game by messing around with the entire cast, and that declaring who you are going to main day 1 before figuring out how everyone (and you!) work is foolish.Or, alternatively, play different characters to understand the game and differences between characters better (as well as who you like and might be good with, in general or in certain kinds of matchups) and continue on learning general aspects of the game so you can transfer your skills between characters as you get better, rather than stay in one narrow field of view from only playing one.
I'm not saying this is the best way, but I don't think solo maining one character from the start is the best way either.
It depends on the individual. That's why I asked 'what's your style?' You gotta find the way that works for you. And if you don't know or don't want to find out for yourself then sure you can copy what's worked for someone else. If you know something's worked for you, then yeah you can keep on that way if you want and think that'll work best for you.
Gonna nit-pick this. Truly bad matchups are the result of specific mechanical deficiencies (bugs, design failures), not organic standard-distribution of character interactions.Since Ultimate will have the largest roster it just means it's statistically more likely for a very poor MU to occur.
I just meant a bad MU is say 40:60. A very bad MU is 30:70. So with more characters any given character is more likely to have a 30:70 MU solely BC there are more MU's. That's just my hypothesis. A character that's so bad they have a MU that's 30:70 or worse could be considered to not be a viable solo main. If you look at the top tiers in both Melee and Sm4sh I'd argue none of them have a 30:70 MU and are all solo viable.Jamison said:
"Since Ultimate will have the largest roster it just means it's statistically more likely for a very poor MU to occur."
Gonna nit-pick this. Truly bad matchups are the result of specific mechanical deficiencies (bugs, design failures), not organic standard-distribution of character interactions.
First off, matchup ratios are bandied about without any statistical basis. It's meaningless, which is why no one specifies if they are talking about stocks, games, Bo3 sets, Bo5 sets, or what stage policies are in effect, or what precise level of play. It's all playing dress up.I just meant a bad MU is say 40:60. A very bad MU is 30:70.
No, this is a matter of density. In a game with a 1000 character, having one "30:70" matchup is not a big deal. In a game with 2 characters, having one "30:70" matchup is horrendous.So with more characters any given character is more likely to have a 30:70 MU solely BC there are more MU's. That's just my hypothesis.
We still haven't defined what that definition of matchup means, what level of play we're talking about, or what "viable" means.A character that's so bad they have a MU that's 30:70 or worse could be considered to not be a viable solo main. If you look at the top tiers in both Melee and Sm4sh I'd argue none of them have a 30:70 MU and are all solo viable
I feel like "chaingrabs are degenerate and unintended" is about as mainstream of an opinion as you can get.Calling chaingrabs a bug/design failure feels like more of an opinion though. It honestly is coming across as you are projecting what you personally perceive to be issues as a flaw in the game.
Whoa, we definitely don't agree on that.Now take Melee Kirby or Sm4sh Ganon. We both agree they are garbage characters.
Even the "missing" level is hazy. I won almost every area event around St. Louis for 3 years with Brawl Jigglypuff. "Viable?" I mean, my bank always thought the cash I won was viable.
No offense but it's really hard to take some of these points seriously. It really comes across as just you bragging and not trying to actually make a point.Meanwhile, Smash 4 Ganon? Dude, I've picked Ganon unironically in bracket and won. I went all-Ganon, minus a little Ness, when I took a trip to Sweden, and got 2nd in two Stockholm tournaments. (And the Stockholm boys weren't bad!)
This feels harsh TBH. You simultaneously acknowledge it as an opinion and call chaingrabs degenerate. With that said I wouldn't be shocked if there's some video out there with Sakurai saying it was unintended BC it seems like something from what we know about him he wouldn't want in a game. Things like wavedashing were knowingly left in Melee, but weren't intended. Most Melee players wouldn't call wavedashing degenerate.I feel like "chaingrabs are degenerate and unintended" is about as mainstream of an opinion as you can get.
Hard disagree but I can understand the point you are trying to make here.Smash 4 Ganon is comparable to Melee Link.
I think there is some truth behind the worst character not being as bad in consecutive series. I don't personally think "reductions in systematic issues" is the reason. I think less technical gameplay after Melee creates less of a gap between how good characters were for Brawl in general (obviously some "issues" with MK and ICies existed). I think some added Sm4sh mechanics like RAGE or the new ledge mechanics helped to bridge this gap even further. I'd like to say patches helped as well but since they never buffed the Puff there's only so much credit I can give patches.The consistent improvement of the worst characters from Melee -> Brawl -> Smash 4 is entirely due to reductions in systematic issues listed that led to their outlier matchup behaviors.
But you haven't defined what "win" is; a 40:60 game is 15:85 Bo3 set and a 5:95 Bo5 set.I always viewed MU ratios as if 2 equally skilled players played each other on even ground what percent of the time would one character win.
Melee:I've long said top 8 at a major is where I draw the line of viable. (that's just my personal line I've drawn). I think Melee Yoshi and sm4sh Link are good enough to get top 8. I think Melee mid tiers are viable like Yoshi, Pika, Doc, Samus. But I think Melee low tiers aren't viable i.e. DK, Roy, G&W. Qerb getting top 8 at The Big House w/ G&W doesn't seem plausible to me but Duck or Hugo getting top 8 is realistic.
I mean, I don't have much to brag about. I don't and never did make a living off Smash, nor even a top 50 or top 100 player.No offense but it's really hard to take some of these points seriously. It really comes across as just you bragging and not trying to actually make a point.
I'm... not really sure what you are arguing or asking for. Do you want abusive chaingrabs? Are you asserting that they add something to the game, or that they don't ruin matchups?This feels harsh TBH. You simultaneously acknowledge it as an opinion and call chaingrabs degenerate. With that said I wouldn't be shocked if there's some video out there with Sakurai saying it was unintended BC it seems like something from what we know about him he wouldn't want in a game. Things like wavedashing were knowingly left in Melee, but weren't intended. Most Melee players wouldn't call wavedashing degenerate.
The absence of perfection is not the enemy of good. Jigglypuff in Smash 4, patches or not, was a non-trivially better character than Jigglypuff in Brawl.I'd like to say patches helped as well but since they never buffed the Puff there's only so much credit I can give patches.
only relatively so. comparing bayo to puff is much less extreme than comparing brawl mk to puff but she's still a worse character, with the worse edgeguarding, neutering of her only decent tools and random star/screen/blast kos making rest a gamble if they still have 2 stocks.The absence of perfection is not the enemy of good. Jigglypuff in Smash 4, patches or not, was a non-trivially better character than Jigglypuff in Brawl.
I guarantee you, as a Brawl puff main, that Brawl puff is worse than Smash 4 puff.only relatively so. comparing bayo to puff is much less extreme than comparing brawl mk to puff but she's still a worse character, with the worse edgeguarding, neutering of her only decent tools and random star/screen/blast kos making rest a gamble if they still have 2 stocks.
Don't mind me, just white knighting red marth againMissing: