As I've been discussing match ups over the last year+, I've noticed that far too many people simply do not have a general understanding of what they're supposed to talk about in match up debates. This is most relevant in SWF. Other fighting game communities would flame the **** out of you for some of the garbage you guys spew in match up discussions.
I'm feeling incredibly generous on this fine Sunday afternoon, so I suppose I'll break it down for you guys.
First, I would like to cover the difference between "Fighting the Player" and "Fighting the Character."
Fighting the player is the only real way to beat top tier characters. You can't expect to rely on your character's tools up against the opponent's tools to win you the match. For example, Marth vs Snake. Snake's spacing tools and excellent stage control allow him to counter a lot of Marth's standard gameplay. He can't rely on his SH Fair and dtilt zoning to shut down his opponent like he can against a lot of other characters. Let's take this match for example:
RoyR vs Razer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSC8Ts8LL0
We see here that in this match RoyR was CLEARLY the better player than Razer. He outplayed him in all aspects by reading his opponent and positioning himself and his sword properly throughout the match to let him win. This is how a lower tiered character beats a character that clearly has the advantage over him when you look at the Character vs Character. Sure, Marth has a few tricks on Snake here and there, but when you look at the big picture, Snake is clearly a superior character.
What I'm trying to explain here is that you can't say a character has the advantage over another character by going solely off of what you see at tournaments or how you do vs your friends. It doesn't work like that. When you guys start bringing in BAITING and MINDGAMES into a match up discussion your whole point of view practically becomes invalid. Baiting and mindgames are intangibles, you can't discuss them. They don't show how a character matches up against another, just the player vs the other player.
You have to draw the line when it comes to the human element. That line is this: You assume that both players are masters with their characters and will make minimal mistakes. They are capable of placing well in tourneys at a high level of play. When you look at a character you are looking at their tools and their attributes and how they can be used. If you are savvy in fighters then you would know that a fast move with good range will be used for zoning, moves with little recovery will be good pokes, projectiles will be used for projectile zoning etc etc.
Fighters are all the same for the most part. When you are looking at character vs character you are more or less cutting out the human element, but at the same time it's still there. Obviously, a CPU won't bring out a character's full potential, so you have to acknowledge that a human will be playing the character. HOWEVER, do not go beyond that point. Once you do, things start getting really messy. You start getting into mindgames and baiting etc. The effectiveness of those things also varies player to player.
So when you look at character vs character, these are essentially the things you should be discussing:
• Range, safeness, and recovery of attacks. I already went through this stuff above. If, for example Meta's dtilt clearly outranges, outspeeds, and out prioritizes your opponent to the point of they can't really get around it then that's a solid advantage Meta has over a character right there.
• Air speed, especially in Brawl. Because of the reliance of aerial approaches in Smash due to their safeness, this can become a significant factor. Aerial zoning is very important as you don't have to commit to your action compared with other fighters. And you can short hop which is big.
• Punishment. Does the character you are discussing have good, fast punishing moves? Good OOS options? (see Marth's DB) Good aerial counters? (see Meta's up b/tornado) What can these moves do to shut down certain aspects of your opponent's game?
• Kill moves. Can your character RELIABLY and SAFELY kill your opponent? Some characters lack these moves and can really make landing the kill on an opponent difficult. A lot of characters have to completely rely on waiting for their opponent to completely mess up in order to kill them. (for example GW trying to kill Marth)
• Recovery.. meh sorta kinda. This is something Smash has different over other fighters and people somewhat overrate it. The on-stage game matters way more, off stage is what, 10% of the match? Maybe less.
• Grab game matters too. Especially in Brawl, as grabs can be used to put your opponent into very bad positions where you can continue to pressure them/trap them and deal damage.
Basically, what it all comes down to is can this character take control of the match? Can they STAY in control? If they lose it by messing up, do they have the tools to quickly put a stop to their opponent's momentum and regain the control and momentum of the match? That's what it comes down to. Control and breaking out of control.
None of this "I play Peach and always do well vs Marth's in tournament, I don't think Marth has the advantage it's probably around even" should EVER.. EVER be raised in a discussion. Like I said, other, smarter communities would flame you hard for making such foolish statements. If a Peach player says, "I'm good at fighting Marth" , that's irrelevant. Peach isn't good at fighting Marth, that's relevant.
Up hill fights are just one huge mindgame (for the one at a disadvantage). This is because Smash relies heavily on option select because a lot of stuff you can do you simply don't have to commit to. You can see stuff coming and 75% of the time you won't be able to punish because it's safe. So sometimes it's all about figuring out your opponent. Other times, you can completely rely on your character's tools to dominate. Like how Marth can frame trap a lot of characters with his dtilt. That's not mindgames, that's pure character abuse.
Smash is a weird game.
I'm feeling incredibly generous on this fine Sunday afternoon, so I suppose I'll break it down for you guys.
First, I would like to cover the difference between "Fighting the Player" and "Fighting the Character."
Fighting the player is the only real way to beat top tier characters. You can't expect to rely on your character's tools up against the opponent's tools to win you the match. For example, Marth vs Snake. Snake's spacing tools and excellent stage control allow him to counter a lot of Marth's standard gameplay. He can't rely on his SH Fair and dtilt zoning to shut down his opponent like he can against a lot of other characters. Let's take this match for example:
RoyR vs Razer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSC8Ts8LL0
We see here that in this match RoyR was CLEARLY the better player than Razer. He outplayed him in all aspects by reading his opponent and positioning himself and his sword properly throughout the match to let him win. This is how a lower tiered character beats a character that clearly has the advantage over him when you look at the Character vs Character. Sure, Marth has a few tricks on Snake here and there, but when you look at the big picture, Snake is clearly a superior character.
What I'm trying to explain here is that you can't say a character has the advantage over another character by going solely off of what you see at tournaments or how you do vs your friends. It doesn't work like that. When you guys start bringing in BAITING and MINDGAMES into a match up discussion your whole point of view practically becomes invalid. Baiting and mindgames are intangibles, you can't discuss them. They don't show how a character matches up against another, just the player vs the other player.
You have to draw the line when it comes to the human element. That line is this: You assume that both players are masters with their characters and will make minimal mistakes. They are capable of placing well in tourneys at a high level of play. When you look at a character you are looking at their tools and their attributes and how they can be used. If you are savvy in fighters then you would know that a fast move with good range will be used for zoning, moves with little recovery will be good pokes, projectiles will be used for projectile zoning etc etc.
Fighters are all the same for the most part. When you are looking at character vs character you are more or less cutting out the human element, but at the same time it's still there. Obviously, a CPU won't bring out a character's full potential, so you have to acknowledge that a human will be playing the character. HOWEVER, do not go beyond that point. Once you do, things start getting really messy. You start getting into mindgames and baiting etc. The effectiveness of those things also varies player to player.
So when you look at character vs character, these are essentially the things you should be discussing:
• Range, safeness, and recovery of attacks. I already went through this stuff above. If, for example Meta's dtilt clearly outranges, outspeeds, and out prioritizes your opponent to the point of they can't really get around it then that's a solid advantage Meta has over a character right there.
• Air speed, especially in Brawl. Because of the reliance of aerial approaches in Smash due to their safeness, this can become a significant factor. Aerial zoning is very important as you don't have to commit to your action compared with other fighters. And you can short hop which is big.
• Punishment. Does the character you are discussing have good, fast punishing moves? Good OOS options? (see Marth's DB) Good aerial counters? (see Meta's up b/tornado) What can these moves do to shut down certain aspects of your opponent's game?
• Kill moves. Can your character RELIABLY and SAFELY kill your opponent? Some characters lack these moves and can really make landing the kill on an opponent difficult. A lot of characters have to completely rely on waiting for their opponent to completely mess up in order to kill them. (for example GW trying to kill Marth)
• Recovery.. meh sorta kinda. This is something Smash has different over other fighters and people somewhat overrate it. The on-stage game matters way more, off stage is what, 10% of the match? Maybe less.
• Grab game matters too. Especially in Brawl, as grabs can be used to put your opponent into very bad positions where you can continue to pressure them/trap them and deal damage.
Basically, what it all comes down to is can this character take control of the match? Can they STAY in control? If they lose it by messing up, do they have the tools to quickly put a stop to their opponent's momentum and regain the control and momentum of the match? That's what it comes down to. Control and breaking out of control.
None of this "I play Peach and always do well vs Marth's in tournament, I don't think Marth has the advantage it's probably around even" should EVER.. EVER be raised in a discussion. Like I said, other, smarter communities would flame you hard for making such foolish statements. If a Peach player says, "I'm good at fighting Marth" , that's irrelevant. Peach isn't good at fighting Marth, that's relevant.
Up hill fights are just one huge mindgame (for the one at a disadvantage). This is because Smash relies heavily on option select because a lot of stuff you can do you simply don't have to commit to. You can see stuff coming and 75% of the time you won't be able to punish because it's safe. So sometimes it's all about figuring out your opponent. Other times, you can completely rely on your character's tools to dominate. Like how Marth can frame trap a lot of characters with his dtilt. That's not mindgames, that's pure character abuse.
Smash is a weird game.
