• 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!

Official BBR Tier List v5

Status
Not open for further replies.

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
I don't think Wario is tough for Sonic. Isn't that some 08 logic behind that?
Slight disadvantage. 55:45, 6:4 at worst.



Oh no, no, no.
Sonic is STILL bad.

He's just not as bad as the current tier list, or preconceived notions of the character, have made him out to be.
This is all people need to start doing. My character is bad, but not THAT bad.

So Rob sucks, DK sucks and G&W sucks. What to do to those guys?
Well G&W gets to stay above them forever. The other two, well ROB WON 3 TOURNAMENTS SOME WEEKEND AGO HE'S GOOOOOOD

@Lzr: Figure out who sucks less.
That's all Brawl is really.
 

-LzR-

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,649
Location
Finland
Slight disadvantage against a not so popular top tier isn't really that bad to get a special mention.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
Well G&W gets to stay above them forever. The other two, well ROB WON 3 TOURNAMENTS SOME WEEKEND AGO HE'S GOOOOOOD
ROB is probably better than GW though. Doesn't he do significantly better against ICs, Diddy, Marth and Snake? Can't think of anything except DDD where GW does notably better [at least not a character that matters].

:059:
 

Coney

Smash Master
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
4,160
Location
Rapture Farms
can't we start a discussion about using handicaps in brawl?

Should be the player's choice imo.

I don't really like pikachu being viable, so let's start soon, mk?
this is a really interesting idea i think

pierce did it in a match against someone at KTAR 4 and it got me to thinking, i usually just eat ~35% in lasers from falco before charging in anyway, if i could just set the handicap to 40% or so it would allow me to jump right into the match

i don't see anything wrong with a players assigning themselves free damage, though there may be unforeseen consequences i guess
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,643
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
Assuming you ignore the glaringly obvious problems with it being arbitrary and completely unecessary, the problem with players assigning themselves damage is that it removes the possibility for follow ups from the things that would have caused that damage.

I.e., say you give yourself 40% at the beginning of a match against a Falco. Who's to say that is fair when if the Falco got the CG "naturally" he could potentially follow up for 40% more damage or even possibly a re-spike for the kill. Trading those opportunities / mixups is not equal to the flat gauranteed damage that you would give yourself.

No Falco player in their right mind would give up a real change grab and followups for gauranted damage from some kind of handicap.

You cannot quantify the value of these kinds of chain grabs by the damage alone, the positional advantages and mixups are another unquantifiable and valuable part of the tactic.

Furthermore, once you start giving yourself a 40% handicap, you open to door to any other number of handicaps by "fast forwarding" via dangerous presumptions and basically remove the point of "playing" in the first place. You might as well just base matches off of some kind of probability algorithm at that point.

It doesn't matter that you "will probably take the damage anyway". You will probably lose two stocks in most of the games you play-- should we just throw those two stocks away and play one stock matches? Why not just give Ice Climbers a free stock since they will probably get one anyway via gauranteed chaingrabs? Etc. etc.

This kind of prevention via assumption is very silly and completely ruins the point of playing the game in the first place.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
MMM, you do realize that this is exactly the whole point he was trying to get at? The only counter argument you have are based on your bias as a Falco player tbh

:059:
 

_Kain_

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,154
MMM, you do realize that this is exactly the whole point he was trying to get at? The only counter argument you have are based on your bias as a Falco player tbh

:059:
No it's true. Falco's can get more DMG then just the 40% from a single CG. By starting off with 40% that eliminates any possibilities of follow ups after the CG. I was gonna agree with the handicap thing but MMM's point is pretty much correct
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,643
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
I'm not in any way biased by Falco, I was just using him as an example because DeDeDe taking damage from Falco to avoid chaingrabs is very applicable since I was talking to Coney about such a topic. I also play DeDeDe (basically my co-main) and I would not in any way think that it would be fair or a desirable change to give myself damage prior to the match beginning.

If you are going to give yourself free damage in the match by eating projectiles, etc. until you are over a given % then by all means go for it.

Assigning that damage "as a handicap" before the match starts or as some kind of agreement is a no-go though.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
No it's true. Falco's can get more DMG then just the 40% from a single CG. By starting off with 40% that eliminates any possibilities of follow ups after the CG. I was gonna agree with the handicap thing but MMM's point is pretty much correct
I don't question the truth behind his post. I know that Falco can do more damage if the opponent starts with 0%. However, that's exactly what coney wants to avoid and from a competitive point of view there's nothing wrong by giving yourself a handicap in order to avoid it. What logical reason would MMM have to protest against it if it wasn't for the fact that he plays Falco?

Edit @ MMM:

You still don't give me solid LOGIC on what's wrong with giving yourself a handicap. As long as a host doesn't explicitly ban it it's just another tool that the game offers you and you're free to use it. And as long as it doesn't break the game or is overcentralizing you shouldn't ban it. What you consider "fair" is not really relevant.

:059:
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
I'd rather not be trying to metagame my opponent's character through a % handicap

Edit: you should play for damage, not handicap it on. If % did not affect damage or combos, I'd be all for it. If it was like Street Fighter where the same combo or string works regardless of the other guys health, then sure I have no problems with my opponent. But if my "zangief" combo only works when my opponent has 80% or more health, and he opts out to start with 79% health, I'm definitely not gonna be pleased.
 

Coney

Smash Master
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
4,160
Location
Rapture Farms
well that does make sense, the follow-up from the dair both off-stage and on-stage can lead into edgeguarding or correct reads that do more damage, and artificially upping my own damage takes away falco's tools to do such a thing. i didn't consider that the 40% handicap not only takes away falco's CG, but his superior positioning afterward

see, there's one of those consequences, hahah
 

_Kain_

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,154
I don't question the truth behind his post. I know that Falco can do more damage if the opponent starts with 0%. However, that's exactly what coney wants to avoid and from a competitive point of view there's nothing wrong by giving yourself a handicap in order to avoid it. What logical reason would MMM have to protest against it if it wasn't for the fact that he plays Falco?

:059:
By giving himself a handicap he is basically cheating the game in many ways. If he just wants 40% to avoid the CG then he should just camp til he gets that high. But by giving himself 40% he is essentially taking himself out of many possible situations, some that could even end up in him losing a stock from one grab, basically change the outcome of the MU. Same could be said of other characters. I could start off at 60% against PIkachu so he can't CG Wolf, but by doing so I eliminate the possible 0 death he could get on me, or the position he can put me in from the follow up from the CG
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,643
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
I don't question the truth behind his post. I know that Falco can do more damage if the opponent starts with 0%. However, that's exactly what coney wants to avoid and from a competitive point of view there's nothing wrong by giving yourself a handicap in order to avoid it. What logical reason would MMM have to protest against it if it wasn't for the fact that he plays Falco?

Edit @ MMM:

You still don't give me solid LOGIC on what's wrong with giving yourself a handicap. As long as a host doesn't explicitly ban it it's just another tool that the game offers you and you're free to use it. And as long as it doesn't break the game or is overcentralizing you shouldn't ban it. What you consider "fair" is not really relevant.

:059:
I have given you nothing but solid logic. I could easily turn your point around and say that you are only biased because you do not wish to take the damage from Falco. Again, I am only using Falco in this example because he is applicable; your attempts to find bias in my logic are merely convenient to your own bias and stance against my points.

I could easily use Pikachu vs Falco and say that I, as a Falco player, do not believe I should be able to handicap myself against a Pikachu-- and I do say that.

There is something wrong with it because you are taking an advantage away from one character and giving it to another via artificial means. I do not think Falco "deserves" this opportunity because I main him. I think he (and Pikachu, and anyone else) deserve to have it because they have it.

There is no motive behind my posts other than to remain true to how the game mechanics work. Finagling a way around them by giving free damage is unacceptably exterior and far too open to any number of issues.

There are handicaps in nearly every fighting game, but they are constantly removed from competitive environments due to the issue of slippery slope that they create. It is desirable to be on an even playing field in terms of settings, because we are looking for who is the best at the game itself, not who is the best at changing their settings to match their opponent.

Note that "even playing field" does not imply anything in regards to character matchups. It implies that you are both playing the same game with the same rules. You're both starting the match with the same conditions, etc.




By giving himself a handicap he is basically cheating the game in many ways. If he just wants 40% to avoid the CG then he should just camp til he gets that high. But by giving himself 40% he is essentially taking himself out of many possible situations, some that could even end up in him losing a stock from one grab, basically change the outcome of the MU. Same could be said of other characters. I could start off at 60% against PIkachu so he can't CG Wolf, but by doing so I eliminate the possible 0 death he could get on me, or the position he can put me in from the follow up from the CG

Exactly-- thanks for that summary :)
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
There is something wrong with it because you are taking an advantage away from one character and giving it to another via artificial means.
1.) So does counterpicking. Can we ban that too, please?
2.) Artificial? Not at all. It's a part of the game that we are free to use.

There is no motive behind my posts other than to remain true to how the game mechanics work. Finagling a way around them by giving free damage is unacceptably exterior and far too open to any number of issues.
But the handicap IS a game mechanic and it's not exterior in the slightest.

And just think about it: If you give yourself a 30% handicap, you start each stock with 30% scoring an overall handicap of 90%. It's not like you can blindly throw it out and get some huge advantages of it.

:059:
 

Shaya

   「chase you」 
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
27,654
Location
/人◕‿‿◕人\ FABULOUS Max!
NNID
ShayaJP
It would just literally make Pikachu and Falco less viable
and that would be ****ing sexy.

Wario would ..... maybe have a harder time...
well not really...

what Falco would want to set himself to like... 70% each stock to avoid a wario cg... rofl

would also make mew2king less viable because my god that kid practices a billion 0% based combos that range up to like 80%.
You'd hope that he'd somehow fall apart trying to remember an infinite number of combos at 10% intervals between 0 and 50%.
 

_Kain_

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,154
It would just literally make Pikachu and Falco less viable
and that would be ****ing sexy.

Wario would ..... maybe have a harder time...
well not really...

what Falco would want to set himself to like... 70% each stock to avoid a wario cg... rofl

would also make mew2king less viable because my god that kid practices a billion 0% based combos that range up to like 80%.
You'd hope that he'd somehow fall apart trying to remember an infinite number of combos at 10% intervals between 0 and 50%.
Agreed except the M2K part. He doesn't even need those combos and all your doing is putting yourself closer to death against a player that is amazing at killing you :awesome:
 

Shaya

   「chase you」 
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
27,654
Location
/人◕‿‿◕人\ FABULOUS Max!
NNID
ShayaJP
Oh but for the sake of clarification, I am not seriously suggesting it is a good idea.

It's even been brought up many many many many times before.
Smash scene will always be stubborn in changing anything and EVERYTHING.

It's why they haven't banned diddy kong yet.
 

$up@ N0v@

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
222
Location
MD
If handicap were allowed, wouldn't Lucarios just boost themselves to like 90%? Doesn't seem too fair to me...

/lurking
 

Shaya

   「chase you」 
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
27,654
Location
/人◕‿‿◕人\ FABULOUS Max!
NNID
ShayaJP
If handicap were allowed, wouldn't Lucarios just boost themselves to like 90%? Doesn't seem too fair to me...

/lurking
Yes, but then Lucario's wouldn't have the chip damage they get on you prior to getting to that higher percent to assist in killing.

And his unique ability is still a double edged sword.

Please explain?
Doesn't Everyone Hate Diddy Kong?
 

TheReflexWonder

Wonderful!
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,704
Location
Atlanta, GA
NNID
TheReflexWonder
3DS FC
2492-4449-2771
The problem with handicaps is that it allows people to bypass a very important part of gameplay. Some characters may aim for low-percentage combos and set-ups to succeed (like Meta Knight vs. Snake, for instance).

Either you really don't care about the damage (in which case you're a masochistic Lucario, you hate having to think about getting in at the beginning and want the pressure taken off, or you're a sandbagging jerk), or you don't want to have to deal with a potentially fatal problem in your character. If your character could have a chaingrab started on him until 30%, and you fear getting chaingrabbed so much that you want to bypass that altogether (say, by parking yourself on a platform and only getting hit in the air), you should still have to deal with potential combos and set-ups that the opponent uses. If it's better for the opponent to wait it out and get that chaingrab instead, then he shouldn't be forced to forgo his opportunity.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
The problem with handicaps is that it allows people to bypass a very important part of gameplay. Some characters may aim for low-percentage combos and set-ups to succeed (like Meta Knight vs. Snake, for instance).

Either you really don't care about the damage (in which case you're a masochistic Lucario, you hate having to think about getting in at the beginning and want the pressure taken off, or you're a sandbagging jerk), or you don't want to have to deal with a potentially fatal problem in your character. If your character could have a chaingrab started on him until 30%, and you fear getting chaingrabbed so much that you want to bypass that altogether (say, by parking yourself on a platform and only getting hit in the air), you should still have to deal with potential combos and set-ups that the opponent uses. If it's better for the opponent to wait it out and get that chaingrab instead, then he shouldn't be forced to forgo his opportunity.
Why? Because you say so?

:059:
 

TheReflexWonder

Wonderful!
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,704
Location
Atlanta, GA
NNID
TheReflexWonder
3DS FC
2492-4449-2771
Because everyone should have to start on a level playing field. As far as I'm concerned, this is no better than saying "re-grabbing Ness or Lucas is banned." We shouldn't buff or nerf specific characters just because some people would like a better matchup.
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,643
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
Because everyone should have to start on a level playing field. As far as I'm concerned, this is no better than saying "re-grabbing Ness or Lucas is banned." We shouldn't buff or nerf specific characters just because some people would like a better matchup.
This, well said.

In his example, "level playing field" is not subjective because it implies that everyone start with the same settings. Saying that we needed to "level the playing field" by altering settings to achieve more desirable character results would be subjective, which is essentially what this rule would be doing.
 

bigman40

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
3,859
Location
Just another day.
1.) "Level" playing field is entirely subjective. Playing against my opponent on his CP isn't a level playing field either.
2.) Regrabbing Ness and Lucas should be allowed
3.) Why shouldn't we if the option is given to us by the game itself? Why is it OK for character X to be nerved by a CG but not by a handicap?

:059:
1) Playing on a CP is irrelevant in this case because you have won the first match and being counter-picked. You have the same advantages when you have lost. This "level" playing field matters the most on the first match.

2) If you claim that should be allowed, then why hurt other character's metagames that have substantial merits from percent based chain-grabs?

3) It's not given by the game itself because you're taking out the choice given from the opposing player. The person to choose whether they get chain-grabbed or not is up to them from the beginning. Adding in an external factor (even though it's internally in the game) eliminates present matchups that are set through standard play.

At any rate, I would much more have discussion on changing damage ratio as that is a better topic than using handicap.
 

TheReflexWonder

Wonderful!
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,704
Location
Atlanta, GA
NNID
TheReflexWonder
3DS FC
2492-4449-2771
1.) "Level" playing field is entirely subjective. Playing against my opponent on his CP isn't a level playing field either.
2.) Regrabbing Ness and Lucas should be allowed
3.) Why shouldn't we if the option is given to us by the game itself? Why is it OK for character X to be nerved by a CG but not by a handicap?

:059:
MMM explained why it isn't subjective.

Ness and Lucas should be re-grabbed all day.

The game also gives us the option to play on 75m with items on High for a Coin Battle. We want to maintain a standard. As far as nerfs and buffs go, a chaingrab is something that cannot be taken out of the standard game (unless we raise the damage ratio, which is, again, a change that is, in essence, arbitrary)--Wario will be able to chaingrab DK. We didn't make the game, but if we want to play the game, we should deal with it. There is no buff or nerf in that; the game is what it is. Adding handicaps effectively changes the game into something it isn't, and it is catering to a specific (and small) portion of the community, which is something that a standard ruleset shouldn't do.

I maintain that the game isn't significantly healthier and more competitive by adding the handicap setting, so there's no reason to bother with it. Just learn to play around it or pick a character you can handle playing in the competitive scene.
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,643
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
Who's to say what "should" and should not be though? It's still completely subjective, not to mention that you CHOOSE to DOWNGRADE your OWN setting.

:059:
It has been made ABUNDANTLY clear that this is not a downgrade, it should be obvious at this point. Using this setting would be an ADVANTAGE for anyone who would use it.



As far as nerfs and buffs go, a chaingrab is something that cannot be taken out of the standard game (unless we raise the damage ratio, which is, again, a change that is, in essence, arbitrary)--Wario will be able to chaingrab DK. We didn't make the game, but if we want to play the game, we should deal with it. There is no buff or nerf in that; the game is what it is.
This.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
Edit: Nvm, this isn't worth it. If you want to continue using a broken ruleset, ignoring completely viable options for improvement and QQing about MK like little babies all day long then have fun.
 

bigman40

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
3,859
Location
Just another day.
By placing a handicap on yourself is permanently avoiding a character's strength that he has gained through unaffected (standard in brawl rules) settings. The opposing player has no say whether you can place a handicap on yourself, and from there, everyone with matchup problems from characters with percent based chain-grabs will gain advantages from artifical buffs.
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,643
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
Remind me again then, why do we play with 3 stocks and 8 minutes? Why shouldn't we just "deal with it" and have 2 stocks and 3 minute or whatever to game gives us? Adding a stock and a couple of minute changes the game into something it isn't and it is catering to a specific (and unaware) portion of the community, which is something that a standard ruleset shouldn't do.

:059:
We play with 3 stocks and 8 minute timer because the game lets us choose to do so. You and I agree on this point and general philosophy. Should someone want to host a tournament on Coin match, or 5 stocks and a 1 minute timer, they would be free to do so, as they should be. This is one of the reasons I am strongly opposed to a "required" ruleset and think that a recommendation is the best way to go. This game's greatest achievement is its ability to be played many ways.

Regardless of what ruleset you decide on, you must agree that a tournament's rules must be enforced and must be equal for all participants. This is where the ability to toggle handicaps becomes incompatible with competition. The act of changing the handicap directly conflicts with the requirements of an equal playing field for all participants because it DIRECTLY seeks to make the playing field unequal. This is the purpose of a handicap. This is why it cannot and does not exist in serious competition.

Your issue is that you view the act of players having the ability to toggle this handicap as "an option as to their preference". I suppose you could argue your way into claiming that is open to interpretation, however the vast and overwhelming majority would argue that the purpose of the competition would then be a statistical endeavor in an effort to find whoever could get the "magic number" rather than a focus on the gameplay itself.

This would be incredibly undesirable in a competitive environment for a fighting game and much more suited for Strategy or RPG gameplay, given the immense lack of depth that lies in simply adjusting one's handicap compared to the vast statistical options available in genres more suited to that style of play.



Edit: Nvm, this isn't worth it. If you want to continue using a broken ruleset, ignoring completely viable options for improvement and QQing about MK like little babies all day long then have fun.
Aw, you gave up before I could completely counter your argument :(

:p Seriously though, I'm not QQ'ing about MK in the slightest. Now you're just resorting to name calling and flaming.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
Seriously though, I'm not QQ'ing about MK in the slightest. Now you're just resorting to name calling and flaming.
If it doesn't apply to you ... I'm not talking about you ;)

ITT: Shadowscrub84 is still in the BBR without any knowledge or skill at this game whatsoever. You should create a Back Room for Super Theory Brothers because that's the only place where you're actually useful.

Edit: Although I actually doubt you're even useful there.

:059:
 

bigman40

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
3,859
Location
Just another day.
Lol, how would using handicap help us against MK? It'll only put us closer to death against him. Handicap doesn't do **** towards nerfing MK in the slightest that you somehow see.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,917
Location
Europe
Lol, how would using handicap help us against MK? It'll only put us closer to death against him. Handicap doesn't do **** towards nerfing MK in the slightest that you somehow see.
You've missed my point but it's OK. I left it vague and it probably doesn't apply to you in the first place.

Let's just drop the subject and get back to talking about Yoshi and Sonic.

Edit @ below

Another one who hilariously misses the point

:059:
 

-LzR-

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,649
Location
Finland
Putting like 30% to you from the beginning of the match against MK...

The match starts with him trying to time you out without even having to get that lead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom