Why I Don't Think Brawl Is A Good Game (Challenge to Talhoffer)

Originally Posted by Aura Pulse

I agree. I came to this conclusion.



I said that it all boils down to human skills. Did you just skim my post or did you read it....?

All I am saying is that anything can happen in a match to predict the outcome.

BACK ON TOPIC

That was a typo.

I'm saying you're wrong. If you go against M2K using Metaknight you will definitely lose.

And why is this off topic? It's clearly related. >_>

Why do all the best players use Metaknight? Coincidence, I suppose?

That's not completely true. There are some very good ICs, Dededes, Snakes, Falco's, G&Ws, etc. But that's only to be expected. MK is the best character in the game by quite a lot. Of course he is going to be played more. Who was played the most in Melee? Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth.

Fox is infinited by the Ice Climbers, Sheik, and Pikachu

To be fair, the ICs can infinite every character in the game with 3 different grabs. And some characters it is possible to infinite Hobble (lol I forgot how to spell the technique...) with even their UThrow.

And a Sheik at Jeff's skill level will beat him almost every time.

And a Pichu and M2Ks level in Melee would get beat by M2K almost every time.

Low tiers were bad in Melee too.

So, that leaves Yoshi, Sheik, Sonic, Peach, Pit, DK, Kirby, Lucario, Wario, Diddy, Game and Watch, Falco, Snake, and Meta, who aren't hard countered by an infinite grab.

Now I don't know much about the Dedede vs DK matchup, but I do know that Dedede's down throw is an infinite on DK.

There were infinites in Melee too. Remember Wave-Shining? Hell the ICs could infinite the entire cast back in Melee, too. Melee and Smash 64 were not balanced by any sense of the word. But I do agree that Brawl is terribly un-balanced, too.

Originally Posted by Teekay

Let me simply this for you:

Brawl is a good game because I have fun with it
I win

See Kitsune's post.

Originally Posted by TheBuzzSaw

(1) It is waaaaaaay hard to balance any game. I understand your frustration, but no one foresees how character X or move Y will suddenly dominate the game. Nintendo is stupid for not allowing balance patches.

It's not even an issue of balancing a game, we already know that's hard, but most of the infinites and other ridiculous stuff are VERY easy to pull off, and I find it unbelievable that the devs did not catch half of them.

(6) There is nothing we can do about this one. Sakurai wanted everyone to win. He does not like it when one player dominates another even though that one player may have worked for it (heaven forbid).

Heh, and the funny part is that I think that Sakurai entirely went about his objective in a very wrong and horrible way.

Instead of one person dominating the other person through skill, one person dominates the other by using a different character. -_-

Originally Posted by Kitsuné

(I have not read this thread.)

I'm judging TheBattler and Buzz are the only people who said anything smart in this thread, and everyone else cried their scrubby hearts out.

Thank you sir.

Originally Posted by Aura Pulse

My own opinion which does house common sense on the matter. A tier is basically the result of numerous tests to see how each fighter or character fares against another, as far as i'm told.

You're either describing a Tier List or a Matchup chart.

Matchups = character vs. character, who has the advantages in the matchup based on their traits.

Tier List = The ranking of characters from best to worst with certain assumptions, usually based on matchups.

Tiers = The idea that certain objects in a ruleset are better than other objects as long as the objects are different. In this case, the ruleset is Smash Brothers, and the objects are the different characters.

BUT, this gets completely thrown up in the air seeing as each Brawl between humans, varying in experience or skill which by the way can not be organized into units in real life, (for example, you can't walk up to me saying "HA! I'm 4.97 units more experienced than you are! Therefore I win in Brawl!")

And, if you would have done just a tiny bit of research into the matter (hint: google "Smash wikia Tier List"), you would realize that the Smashboards Tier List, as well as the Tier Lists of other fighting games, is under the assumption that all characters are being played to the currently known, human peak of play. That peak of play would include the infinites and tricks figured out by humans playing the game.

So basically, the outcome of a match between humans are random at best.

Not if they are both at the same and high skill level.

It all depends on the person's skill, and the overall directions of a match, the item appearances and possesions (this, i believe is why most people don't like to use items in Brawl matches?)[/QUOTE]

People don't like to use items in a match because they are truly random, and the players have no idea which and where the item is going to pop up. Not to mention many of Brawl's items are severely overpowered.

and the stage itself. Now, the CPU's no matter what skill level, are already given "instincts" i guess you could say. For example a level 9 Ganondorf will most likely beat a level 4 Ness. The higher the level the better "qualities" of the moves and reaction times. It's far easier to judge characters with CPU matches where both fighters are the same level, but EVEN then the outcome is up in the air, it's just leaned toward one of them due to skill and moves.

And your assumptions are false because a Tier List does judge human skill.

Overall tiers don't matter for US, the human players as it always boils down to experience and skill, which can never be judged approximately.

Of course it boils down to skill; a guy who has no idea what he is doing with Meta Knight will be beaten by a guy who's been playing Captain Falcon for a year.

Originally Posted by Toon Flink

Yes.

TheBattler stop over complicating things... The majority of people who own and play Brawl don't care about every single bell and whistle that makes the game bad.

That' totally fine.

Every game has flaws.

And Brawl has some horrible flaws in it's inherent design philosophy, as well as the results of that design philosophy.

Originally Posted by Aura Pulse

I agree. I came to this conclusion.

I said that it all boils down to human skills. Did you just skim my post or did you read it....?

All I am saying is that anything can happen in a match to predict the outcome.

Which is why in a matchup chart, most characters don't have 100:0 matchups (except for Ganondorf vs. Ice Climbers).

[QUOTE=Som;2864078]That's not completely true. There are some very good ICs, Dededes, Snakes, Falco's, G&Ws, etc. But that's only to be expected. MK is the best character in the game by quite a lot. Of course he is going to be played more.

[QUOTE]Who was played the most in Melee? Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth.[.QUOTE]

Sheiks are rare at tournament competitions. Marths are common, though, but Foxes and Falcos are no more common than Captain Falcons, Peaches, Samuses, or Jigglypuffs at Melee competitions. Then after that, most Melee tournaments featured somewhat uncommon characters, such as Ganondorf, and Dr. Mario. Finally, Links were rare, but appeared, at tournaments.

[

To be fair, the ICs can infinite every character in the game with 3 different grabs. And some characters it is possible to infinite Hobble (lol I forgot how to spell the technique...)

Wobble.

Low tiers were bad in Melee too. Now I don't know much about the Dedede vs DK matchup, but I do know that Dedede's down throw is an infinite on DK.

Dedede's down throw is an infinite on everyone, lol. Basically, Dedede has an easy time Wall of Paining DK, and all of DK's advantages, strength and reach, are equaled by Dedede and his hammer. Dedede just totally outclasses DK, except that DK has a spike. Big whoop.

There were infinites in Melee too. Remember Wave-Shining? Hell the ICs could infinite the entire cast back in Melee, too.

That's true, but Fox's Waveshine required a ton more button inputs and effort than the infinites in this game, and it only worked on half of the cast.

To perform Fox's Wave infinite combo, you have to hit them with the Reflector very up close, short hop, wavedash, short hop forward, down air, L-cancel it, then repeat.

To perform Marth's infinite on Ness, Lucas, and Wario, you have to grab them, pummel, let them escape, grab again.

The presence of an infinite in a fighting game sucks balls, but at least Fox's infinite required some semblance of skill, so does the Ice Climbers infinites in Melee and Brawl.

Melee and Smash 64 were not balanced by any sense of the word. But I do agree that Brawl is terribly un-balanced, too.

Actually, funny you bring it up, Smash 64 was pretty brokentastic, even though people always bring it up as the most balanced Smash game. L-canceling was way too strong in that game and defensive options were not strong enough. If you hit someone with an aerial attack, you can l-cancel and eliminate ALL the lag, and virtually keep any character in an unbreakable combo with nearly every character except for Samus. For high level play in 64, getting hit once pretty much meant the end.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Watch this video first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMdj-i5w6U4

Now, tell me how to win in this situation. Sheik, camping on the ledge at the beginning of the game, with her chain out. If she catches Ganondorf, he is trapped for a bit, either he gets damaged or he is pushed off the stage. Sheik's chain is longer than Ganondorf's limbs and outprioritizes most of his attacks.

Just wait in the other side of the stage, if sheik want to win the match she need to move and atack you, then you can atack
The guy from the video who is using ganondorf is very stupid.

Originally Posted by smallville boy

Just wait in the other side of the stage, if sheik want to win the match she need to move and atack you, then you can atack
The guy from the video who is using ganondorf is very stupid.

Well, for one, the Ganondorf is a CPU.

For second, the Ganondorf could head to the other side of the stage, but Sheik's attacks are faster than Ganondorf's, and a hit and run tactic is very easy to use, ESPECIALLY on Ganny. And in a head to head match, Sheik still has many advantages over Ganondorf, especially due to having fast attacks and Ganon being extremely sluggish in both run speed, air speed, and attack speed. So, right there, when Ganondorf has a chance to fight Sheik, he stands a very small chance.

Then, the Sheik runs back, and sits there again.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Well, for one, the Ganondorf is a CPU.

For second, the Ganondorf could head to the other side of the stage, but Sheik's attacks are faster than Ganondorf's, and a hit and run tactic is very easy to use, ESPECIALLY on Ganny. And in a head to head match, Sheik still has many advantages over Ganondorf, especially due to having fast attacks and Ganon being extremely sluggish in both run speed, air speed, and attack speed. So, right there, when Ganondorf has a chance to fight Sheik, he stands a very small chance.

Then, the Sheik runs back, and sits there again.

For one, that xplains the stupid reaction of ganondorf.

For second, no matter that sheik's attacks are faster than ganondorf's, he is more powerfull, ganondorf can beat sheik if sheik come to ganondorf. Ganondorf can win against that sheik's trick, is just about strategy. If you haven't brain you losse, if you have brain you can win.

Originally Posted by smallville boy

For second, no matter that sheik's attacks are faster than ganondorf's, he is more powerfull, ganondorf can beat sheik if sheik come to ganondorf. Ganondorf can win against that sheik's trick, is just about strategy. If you haven't brain you losse, if you have brain you can win.

It matters alot of if Sheik's attacks are faster. Theoretically, faster attacks are better than more power.

Fighter A takes 1 second to swing, but his swing does 100 damage.
Fighter B takes half a second to swing, but his swing does 1 damage.
There is hitstun.

Theoretically, fighter B will always win the fight, because he can keep on nailing fighter A, until fighter A dies.

So, most of Ganondorf's attacks are MUCH SLOWER than Sheik, one of the reasons why Ganondorf is considered bottom tier.

Heck, Sheik can close in on Ganondorf, corner him, and whip the chain out. His limbs and grab reach are shorter than her chain's length. If he ever wants to damage her, the best he can do is the Ganon Kick, but if Sheik blocks the Ganon Kick, she just throws him and whips out the chain. He is screwed.

If Ganondorf is the first to attack, then Sheik can automatically win. Sheik simply shield grabs the attack, pummels or throws him, and then whips out the chain.

If Sheik is the first to attack, then she doesn't automatically win. However, Sheik just needs to shield grab once to beat Ganondorf.

I would call those nearly insurmountable odds.

You're all forgetting that Brawl has Lucas, and his sexiness counters all the fail.

Originally Posted by Som

That's not completely true. There are some very good ICs, Dededes, Snakes, Falco's, G&Ws, etc. But that's only to be expected. MK is the best character in the game by quite a lot. Of course he is going to be played more. Who was played the most in Melee? Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth. To be fair, the ICs can infinite every character in the game with 3 different grabs. And some characters it is possible to infinite Hobble (lol I forgot how to spell the technique...) with even their UThrow. And a Pichu and M2Ks level in Melee would get beat by M2K almost every time.

I never said there weren't good players of other characters. But the best players use MK. xP

Originally posted by TheBattler
And a Sheik at Jeff's skill level will beat him almost every time.

Originally posted by Kistune
No one said you can't be good with Ganondorf. At lower levels of play ONLINE, you can't use any experience as a staple.

Come to think of it, though, I don't think I've ever used Ganondorf against a Shiek. I'll try this.


I like Brawl, it's a fun game. However, I'd be lying if I said I was completely satisfied with it. I wanted to treat it like a real competitive fighter, but you really can't given the imbalances. Casually, with its monster list of modes and the multiplayer, it's pretty good. Competitively...ouch.

Wobble.

No. Wobbling was the technique in Melee that Wobbles the Phoenix made popular. The one where you grab them and use the pummel attack as an infinite. Hobbling in Brawl is very different. Hobbling is when you do a throw and footstool them with Nana then Ice Block them so they get up and get grabbed again. Against certain characters it can be infinited with all 4 grabs.

Dedede's down throw is an infinite on everyone, lol.

Ummmm no it isn't. Only if you tech chase. Which isn't an infinite. He can only infinite grab 5 characters (Mario, Luigi, Bowser, DK, and Samus). And there are quite a few characters he CAN'T chain grab at all. For a full list scroll down a little ways here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=224054 to find all the characters he can chain grab, infinite, and can't chain grab.

That's true, but Fox's Waveshine required a ton more button inputs and effort than the infinites in this game, and it only worked on half of the cast.

And Dedede's infinites only work on about an eighth of the cast. And his infinite requires fairly good timing.

Actually, funny you bring it up, Smash 64 was pretty brokentastic, even though people always bring it up as the most balanced Smash game. L-canceling was way too strong in that game and defensive options were not strong enough.

They called it Z-Cancelling back in original Smash. Which is why a lot of people think that L-Cancelling refers to the button L, when it doesn't.

It could be very broken at times. But everyone had a chance. A good Link/Samus stood a chance against Pikachu. Whereas no bottom/low tier characters in Brawl (save for maybe a really well played Yoshi) stand an actual chance against MK. The existence of those ridiculous combos in Smash 64 meant that each character could still win at almost any time. Sure it may have been completely broken and annoying and fairly unbalanced, but it was much more balanced than Brawl.

For high level play in 64, getting hit once pretty much meant the end.

Not quite. If you had very good DI and spaced really well you wouldn't get 0-death comboed very often, or not at all. Isai is a good example of this.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Come to think of it, though, I don't think I've ever used Ganondorf against a Shiek. I'll try this.

Make sure they know how to use the chain. You stand a decent chance if they don't, but if they do, you'll see how rape it is.

Originally Posted by Somber Stare

No. Wobbling was the technique in Melee that Wobbles the Phoenix made popular. The one where you grab them and use the pummel attack as an infinite. Hobbling in Brawl is very different. Hobbling is when you do a throw and footstool them with Nana then Ice Block them so they get up and get grabbed again. Against certain characters it can be infinited with all 4 grabs.

Gotcha.

Ummmm no it isn't. Only if you tech chase. Which isn't an infinite. He can only infinite grab 5 characters (Mario, Luigi, Bowser, DK, and Samus). And there are quite a few characters he CAN'T chain grab at all. For a full list scroll down a little ways here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=224054 to find all the characters he can chain grab, infinite, and can't chain grab.

Sorry, I meant chaingrab. But it looks like he can chaingrab 2/3s of the cast...

And Dedede's infinites only work on about an eighth of the cast. And his infinite requires fairly good timing.

Not nearly as much as Fox's waveshine. I was arguing that a Fox player who has mastered it almost deserves to be able to use it (not really, but almost).

They called it Z-Cancelling back in original Smash. Which is why a lot of people think that L-Cancelling refers to the button L, when it doesn't

Yeah, sorry, Z-Cancelling.

It could be very broken at times. But everyone had a chance. A good Link/Samus

Not Samus. >_> Samus could not combo, nor could she combo. IF you try to combo her, you eat a bomb or screw attack. If she tries to combo, well...none of her moves flowed well in enough into each other, especially not fair and especially not uair.

Not quite. If you had very good DI and spaced really well you wouldn't get 0-death comboed very often, or not at all. Isai is a good example of this.

There was very little DI in 64. >_> In fact, you could only combo out of moves like Samus' fair or uair.

Wow. I missed a lot in my absence.

The result is always the same. It's hilarious. Scrubs yell that skill takes priority over character selection, but they refuse to acknowledge that certain characters have blatant advantages over all other characters. If one guy brings a knife, and the other guy brings a machine gun, go ahead and try claiming that "the fighter with the most skill will win". Sure, the guy with the gun could lose if he was an idiot and did not know to disable the safety before firing. Otherwise, it is fairly obvious that the guy with the gun is going to win pretty much all the time.

Meta Knight is the best character. Snake is the next best character. Accept it. If you refuse to accept that, go out and win tournaments with the character of your choosing. The invitation is always open, but everyone is too busy with their lives to prove a point.

The tier list refers to top level play. If you don't play competitively, the tier list has no meaning for you. Stop criticizing a community you are not a part of!

@TheBattler - I agree that the devs could have foreseen many of the abusable techniques with proper testing, but you have to remember what kind of people these devs are. They test for its "party quality" and "general balance". They do not use any "cheap" techniques or find the shortest path to victory. They tally the number of laughs and call that success.

There was very little DI in 64.

Maybe not a lot, but a master of smash DI, someone who can do it almost every time, like Isai, was almost impossible to do a huge combo on.

Not nearly as much as Fox's waveshine. I was arguing that a Fox player who has mastered it almost deserves to be able to use it (not really, but almost).

Sure, but anyone who spends enough time on it would master it. IC CGs are considered difficult to master, but spend enough time (might be a TON of time) and you'll master it so you can do it everytime.

Not Samus. >_> Samus could not combo, nor could she combo. IF you try to combo her, you eat a bomb or screw attack. If she tries to combo, well...none of her moves flowed well in enough into each other, especially not fair and especially not uair.

Fair enough. One horrible, bad character that can't be used at high levels.

What Smash 64 was, however broken it could be at times, was a fairly balanced game at high levels. Great spacing was key. Don't get hit and DI well and you won't get combo'd. Play stupidly and get 0-deathed by almost every single character. Melee was in no way a balanced game. The high tiers were fairly balanced and close together. A few below that could place in tourneys. But the low tiers were just bad. Now in Brawl... ok so it got waaaay less balanced.

Here's an example. Sure SSB64 may have had some ridiculous combos. Look at this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqEkI...e=channel_page But if you let yourself get hit by that then you deserve it, got outplayed, outskilled, and need to get better.

Now, though, I agree that Ganon vs Sheik in Brawl is pretty ridiculous, but Ganon is bottom tier. Bottom tiers were hard countered by a lot of people in Melee, too.

I see you like talking about Marth's infinite grab releases a lot. But here's the thing, that's what counterpick is for. If you win with Ness/Lucas you might want to switch to a different character if you know that the player you're playing against plays a decent Marth (and they can ban/limit those chain grabs. I haven't checked the rules recently so I don't quite completely remember, but I remember that the SBR rules limit the amount of CGs you can do with Dedede and ICs to prevent this kind of thing). I mean, and I'm going out on a limb here, if you counter pick(/pick after you win) to Ness/Lucas/Wario when you know that your opponent plays Marth you DESERVE to get CG'd. You didn't choose correctly, you made a mistake, they use that mistake to win.

Ice Climbers cannot infinite with the Hobble (SDI), nor can they use UThrow to Hobble with.

Ice Climbers never had their chain grabs limited by the SBR, except for stalling purposes.

Marth does not have a chain grab on Ness or Lucas thanks to EIDI, nor is his chain grab an infinite to begin with (he moves forward slightly each grab).

Dedede doesn't have an infinite on Mario, Luigi or Samus until at least 127% (the actual figure is unknown afaik, but Reflex mashed out of a single Dedede pummel at 127% at FAST1, proving that it is at least not an infinite till after 127%). Additionally, Dedede does not infinite Bowser; chaingrabbing Bowser requires a small step forward.

Pikachu does not infinitely chaingrab Fox. The chaingrab is escapable at around 100%.

No, Brawl was not made to please both crowds. It was made specifically with limiting competition in mind, as evidenced by interviews with Sakurai. As said earlier in the thread, "Brawl was made so that anyone can win regardless of skill," which is the complete opposite of catering to the competitive community.

You can DI out of a LOT of **** in Smash 64. In some ways I think Smash 64 has the best DI, Slide DI ftw. <3

And no, Sheik is not rare at Melee tournaments. >.>

Just a few discrepancies I noticed while browsing the thread.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

-For more serious/tournament players:
They'll all end up picking MK or Snake for the most part. So more serious players aren't going to get variety. That's -as far as I know- not as important as winning to them. Also cheaper techniques are normally banned -eg MK infinite cape. So really if you want to play seriously you ought to put strategy into selecting a main.

You're mistaken. Many, many competitive players simply choose which character they feel most comfortable with, regardless of tier. For me that's Ice Climbers; I placed 5th at the last tournament. Hell, the player who placed 2nd is a Wolf main, and the player who placed 1st, while a tier whore, actually seconds ZSS and used her in the grand finals. It's not all Meta Knight and Snake by any means.

It just goes to show; we're not averse to casual play as you might think. We're oft caught playing with items on or playing Mario Kart at smash meets and the like. We just like that extra challenge and replayability, which is where competitive play and tournaments come in. Sure, winning is the most important thing in tournaments, but in general it's all about having fun (even if in our own unique, misunderstood way).

And no, we don't ban things because they're "cheap". Things get banned due to utter dominance, brokenness or plain stalling (which isn't really a competition issue but more of a logistics one). What you call cheap is usually not the same thing as what we call broken.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Watch this video first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMdj-i5w6U4

Now, tell me how to win in this situation. Sheik, camping on the ledge at the beginning of the game, with her chain out. If she catches Ganondorf, he is trapped for a bit, either he gets damaged or he is pushed off the stage. Sheik's chain is longer than Ganondorf's limbs and outprioritizes most of his attacks.

Don't put yourself in that situation. Don't allow her to activate the chain jacket. Don't run into it while it's out. Don't jump into the rape.

If you force her to come to you, you have a chance. Stop whining and realise that every character, every character has bad matchups, even Meta Knight. You chose the worst character in the game as your main, so did you really expect anything but bad matchups across the board? Your matchup with Sheik isn't unwinnable, so get over it.

If you care so much about winning, either get good enough with Ganondorf to cover that matchup, or pick another character. It's your own damn fault for picking that character, don't blame the game for your inability to handle a matchup. Call Melee "more balanced" if you want, but it's not like it didn't have its own share of unviable characters and terrible matchups.

Ice Climbers cannot infinite with the Hobble (SDI)

From what I remember they can. Maybe not once the enemy gets to a ridiculous percent, but a good portion of the characters can be infinited with the Hobble(or damn near. Enough to kill them because you've gotten them to high percentages). And they don't even really need that because they can infinite CG with their other 3 throws.

nor can they use UThrow to Hobble with.

It can be done on certain characters, but it can be DI'd out of and is really hard to do if your opponent knows how to use DI.

Ice Climbers never had their chain grabs limited by the SBR, except for stalling purposes.

Huh... I was going off memory and for some reason I thought that they had limited it to 5 straight CGs then you had to let them go...

It's your own damn fault for picking that character, don't blame the game for your inability to handle a matchup. Call Melee "more balanced" if you want, but it's not like it didn't have its own share of unviable characters and terrible matchups.

This.

From what I remember they can. Maybe not once the enemy gets to a ridiculous percent, but a good portion of the characters can be infinited with the Hobble(or damn near. Enough to kill them because you've gotten them to high percentages).

It's not infinite. The opponent can SDI toward an edge, which ends the hobble. Even with perfect hobbling from the center of FD, an opponent can escape taking less than 50% (for BThrow, and I imagine a lot less with FThrow/DThrow).

It can be done on certain characters, but it can be DI'd out of and is really hard to do if your opponent knows how to use DI.

No, it can't. You can technically UThrow to Footstoll some characters, but you cannot actually hobble that way, the distance between the footstool and the ground is too great. That's why hobbling doesn't work on Yoshi's Island Brawl and other slantey stages, because the (very slight) slant screws up hobbling.

Huh... I was going off memory and for some reason I thought that they had limited it to 5 straight CGs then you had to let them go...

Not by the SBR. There was one TO in Texas that freaked out about Ice Climbers and limited the grabs to 5 at one point, but that was only for the tournaments that one guy ran and was never endorsed by the SBR. In any case, it didn't work, Ice Climbers can still infinite you with even a 1-throw limit. This rule has never been applied to Dedede, btw.

Originally Posted by Somber

Maybe not a lot, but a master of smash DI, someone who can do it almost every time, like Isai, was almost impossible to do a huge combo on. Sure, but anyone who spends enough time on it would master it. IC CGs are considered difficult to master, but spend enough time (might be a TON of time) and you'll master it so you can do it everytime. Fair enough. One horrible, bad character that can't be used at high levels.

Okay, yeah, I guess I am wrong then.

What Smash 64 was, however broken it could be at times, was a fairly balanced game at high levels. Great spacing was key. Don't get hit and DI well and you won't get combo'd. Play stupidly and get 0-deathed by almost every single character. Melee was in no way a balanced game. The high tiers were fairly balanced and close together. A few below that could place in tourneys. But the low tiers were just bad. Now in Brawl... ok so it got waaaay less balanced.

Yessir, I guess Smash 64 was balanced when everyone had the possibility of doing a 0-death combo. It's a bit broken, but not unbalanced.

Here's an example. Sure SSB64 may have had some ridiculous combos. Look at this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqEkI...e=channel_page But if you let yourself get hit by that then you deserve it, got outplayed, outskilled, and need to get better.

Now, though, I agree that Ganon vs Sheik in Brawl is pretty ridiculous, but Ganon is bottom tier. Bottom tiers were hard countered by a lot of people in Melee, too.

But not quite to that extent. A great Pichu player could at least put some damage in on a great Fox, but a great Falcon's going to have a huge problem putting a dent on a great Game and Watch.

I see you like talking about Marth's infinite grab releases a lot. But here's the thing, that's what counterpick is for. If you win with Ness/Lucas you might want to switch to a different character if you know that the player you're playing against plays a decent Marth (and they can ban/limit those chain grabs. I haven't checked the rules recently so I don't quite completely remember, but I remember that the SBR rules limit the amount of CGs you can do with Dedede and ICs to prevent this kind of thing). I mean, and I'm going out on a limb here, if you counter pick(/pick after you win) to Ness/Lucas/Wario when you know that your opponent plays Marth you DESERVE to get CG'd. You didn't choose correctly, you made a mistake, they use that mistake to win.

I'm more or less talking about counterpicking as Marth, not just a Marth vs. Ness match.

Originally Posted by e_alert

Ice Climbers cannot infinite with the Hobble (SDI), nor can they use UThrow to Hobble with.

Sorry.

Ice Climbers never had their chain grabs limited by the SBR, except for stalling purposes.

Who said that?

[

Marth does not have a chain grab on Ness or Lucas thanks to EIDI, nor is his chain grab an infinite to begin with (he moves forward slightly each grab).

Dedede doesn't have an infinite on Mario, Luigi or Samus until at least 127% (the actual figure is unknown afaik, but Reflex mashed out of a single Dedede pummel at 127% at FAST1, proving that it is at least not an infinite till after 127%). Additionally, Dedede does not infinite Bowser; chaingrabbing Bowser requires a small step forward.

Pikachu does not infinitely chaingrab Fox. The chaingrab is escapable at around 100%.

Sorry, when I've been unjustly interchanging chaingrab with infinite.

I mean, in my mind, though, a chaingrab that gets the opponent to kill level is still ri-****ing-diculous.

And no, Sheik is not rare at Melee tournaments. >.>

Sorry, not rare. But she was not nearly as overused as Marth despite her being top tier for a long time.

Don't put yourself in that situation. Don't allow her to activate the chain jacket. Don't run into it while it's out. Don't jump into the rape.

Well, duh. And if the Sheik is GOOD?

If you force her to come to you, you have a chance.

lol

Stop whining

Who's whining? The Ganondorf example just so happens to be one that's applicable to me, but I've never played a Sheik who knows the trick.

and realise that every character, every character has bad matchups, even Meta Knight.

No he doesn't. In the most recent Brawl matchup chart, NONE of his matchups dip below 50:50.

so get over it.

lol

If you care so much about winning, either get good enough with Ganondorf to cover that matchup,

Impossible.

or pick another character. It's your own damn fault for picking that character, don't blame the game for your inability to handle a matchup.

I don't exactly 100% care about winning, I care about having fun, and it's not fun for me if someone can beat me almost 100% of the time due to a game flaw.

My combination of reflexes and thinking makes Snake the perfect character for me, so I could care 100% winning. The Ganondorf example is just an example that I understand pretty well only because I use the guy who gets mauled by it, so I can argue for it. So, please, stop

Call Melee "more balanced" if you want, but it's not like it didn't have its own share of unviable characters and terrible matchups.

Brawl definitely has the same share, but Melee's matchups were not nearly as bad or sprinkled with 80:20 matchups. The bad characters were definitely bad, and you had only a couple of weird disadvantageous matchups, like Jiggs vs. Pika, or Ganon vs. Sheik, or IC vs. Peach. But, like I said, the Melee more balanced than Brawl argument is an entirely different monster altogether

It seems to me like you're the kind of person who gives up when faced with bad odds. Ganondorf can beat Sheik, you can laugh at me if you want, but in the end the matchup is quite winnable and all you want to do is ***** about how hard it is. Stop blaming the game; if you want to argue how flawed the game is, use a character as an example who is not quite clearly going to do badly against every other character, because that means nothing. I could just as wrongly argue that SFIV is a bad game because El Fuerte has extremely bad odds against X character, when in reality that character is just ****.

And yes, Meta Knight does have bad matchups. If you bothered to actually do some research, you'd find that he has bad matchups with Diddy, Wario, Falco and Snake, and counters to Meta Knight are one of the most hotly debated topics in the community. If you're going to present character-specific arguments, check the character boards; summary threads are almost definitely outdated in some way or another (speaking of which, so is the Smash Wiki, never use it for anything kthx).

Who's whining? The Ganondorf example just so happens to be one that's applicable to me, but I've never played a Sheik who knows the trick.

You are quite clearly whining; half your posting in this thread has been about how bad the matchup between Canondorf and Sheik is (and it's not even Ganondorf's worst matchup lols). By the way, how can you possibly argue this example with no (good) matchup experience and one video of a CPU dummy getting owned to go off of? I've beaten Meta Knights before using Ganondorf (in a tournament setting, before you ask >.>), and Sheik is certainly not going to be a worse matchup than that.

Who said that?

Som did. Although to be honest, most of what you responded to in that portion wasn't directed at stuff you said.

Originally Posted by e_alert

It seems to me like you're the kind of person who gives up when faced with bad odds. Ganondorf can beat Sheik, you can laugh at me if you want,

See, I'd like to not "laugh at you," but then you go ahead and say things like this:

but in the end the matchup is quite winnable

Yes, the matchup is "quite winnable" if the Sheik is not that great. A good Ganondorf, of which I am neither denying nor confirming that I am one as I have not been to a Brawl tourney, will ALMOST NEVER be able to defeat a good Sheik.

And almost the same thing can be said about a good DK and a good Dedede. DK is completely outclassed by Dedede.

and all you want to do is ***** about how hard it is. Stop blaming the game;

Uh, I can actually blame the game and the devs, because the chain jacket is a bug that would have been quite obvious to catch if they just had 39 guys play one character a piece a character each day for 39 days and 10 minutes, and try out every move on them.

if you want to argue how flawed the game is, use a character as an example who is not quite clearly going to do badly against every other character, because that means nothing. I could just as wrongly argue that SFIV is a bad game because El Fuerte has extremely bad odds against X character, when in reality that character is just ****.

Do you want to know WHY I've been using Ganondorf as a-oh, hold up, you ask the more appropriate and fleshed out question later. Keep reading.

And yes, Meta Knight does have bad matchups. If you bothered to actually do some research,

Do you mean research like looking at the latest matchup chart for Brawl from Smashboards?

Oh yeah. I DID do that, sir.

you'd find that he has bad matchups with Diddy, Wario, Falco and Snake,

You're joking, right?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=226315

According to the Meta players, Meta has an even-advantage matchup with those very characters you just named.

Snake players agree, while Wario and Falco players say that Meta has an even matchup with them. The Diddys state that Meta's advantage is a bit more pronounced.

Now, who's actually doing some research? I guess not me, huh?

You are quite clearly whining; half your posting in this thread has been about how bad the matchup between Canondorf and Sheik is (and it's not even Ganondorf's worst matchup lols).

Can you see why half of my posts have been about Ganondorf?

Because I mentioned Ganondorf as my main character, several other posters basically went "tl;dr" and assumed I hate Brawl because I chose a bad character (sound familiar?). Then, they decided to "console me" by telling me that tiers don't matter, and that I need practice, and that Ganondorf really isn't a bad character.

So I answer them. THAT'S why half of this topic seems like it's been a TheBattler Whines About Ganondorf topic. But I suppose it actually is somewhat my fault, because I painted the bullseye on my chest by stating Ganondorf as my main.

By the way, how can you possibly argue this example with no (good) matchup experience and one video of a CPU dummy getting owned to go off of?

I know Ganondorf's reach and hitboxes very well, as well as the priority on his moves. Combined with his poor movement and mobility, it's VERY easily to judge the matchup with just the Ganondorf side, because I know that nothing he has barring the Wizard's Foot that has a hitbox that can get through that chain, and while I've never fought a good Sheik before, I know the Wizard's Foot gets outprioritized by the chain.

Then you take into consideration that Ganondorf has only two options, besides getting owned, in the starting seconds of a Sheik matchup: he can either make the first move, or get spaced out by a good Sheik who will then use the chain which sits just outside of his attack reach. If Ganondorf makes the first move, which generally sucks if you're playing Brawl, then he risks being shieldgrabbed. Sheik then throws him, and the dance begins again.

If the Ganondorf keeps on failing at the game, which he almost assuredly will due to his lagtastic attacks, then he is screwed.

If I said that the matchup is unwinnable, I don't mean it in the literal sense, but when Smashboards Gannies rate their chances of beating a Sheik at being 5-95, then I don't think saying it's unwinnable is a stretch at all.

and Sheik is certainly not going to be a worse matchup than that.

No, she is a worse matchup than that.

And like you said, Ganon vs. Sheik isn't even his worst matchup. His worst matchup is five points, whoop de doo, harder for him (0:100 against Ice Climbers).