Brawl - More balanced than Melee? Lie or truth?

[Taymond]

Its to early to know which is more balanced. Right now, people think Meta is god. People once thought the same of Sheik in Melee, but the game evolved, people learned to counter Sheik. The game will only be unbalanced if we cannot find a counter to certain character, yet, I know Diddy and Donky are not great characters but do fine in the Meta match up.

You would not be making or reaching the conclusions your making Yuna if you were around for Melee in 2003.

Yeah but, Sheik never fell the map in any Melee tier list. She was in the top 5 the entire life of the game, she just went from "god" to "oh, this is how a few characters can counter her." She still dominated most of the cast. A couple counters can upset the tier list a little, but they're not going to make drastic changes. You're right, maybe ROB is actually god tier all by himself, but Snake and Meta aren't likely to drop very far.

Our opinions of them as cast-stomping demons aren't perfect, no, but they're not completely ludicrous. It's plainly evident in which areas they're better suited to Brawl's general gameplay. Our vision is not yet complete, there are still things we have to discover, but there's nothing wrong, at this point, about that vision.

There's no reason to assume Snake and Meta won't still be dominating characters the life of the game, is there? They may not necessarily be 1 and 2, but they're not going to fall out of the top 20% of the cast, I'd imagine.

 

[MajinSweet]

I honestly don't see what could stop Snake from being a top tier character. I'm usually not one to jump to conclusion but, he just seems to have everything going for him. Maybe other characters will eventually catch up, I'm not quite sure.

 

[Fletch]

The difference in quality between the best and the worst characters doesn't matter when considering how balanced the game is. Let's suppose that we compare two games, Brawl and Brawl+. Brawl+ is the same as Brawl except a new character has been added who has no attacks and also can't move. This character is obviously the worst character in the game and it's far worse than any other previous character in the game, so now the difference in quality between the best and worst character is a lot bigger. But since that character is never going to be selected anyway (i.e. you could play Brawl+ as though it were Brawl), I would say Brawl and Brawl+ are equally balanced.

This example doesn't make any sense, you can't simply "ignore" characters and then claim a game is 100% balanced. What's stopping you from taking a game like Melee, and ignoring the cast outside of Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth, and then calling it (near) 100% balanced?

 

[DarkKnight077]

more characters = more counter-characters = more balance

woo simple logic

MvC2 doesn't have that.

Soul Calibur doesn't have that.

Metly Blood certainly doesn't have that.

King of Fighter series doesn't have that.

Fatal Fury doesn't have that.

Capcom vs SNK series doesn't have that.

Project Justice doesn't have that.

 

[ColinJF]

This example doesn't make any sense, you can't simply "ignore" characters and then claim a game is 100% balanced. What's stopping you from taking a game like Melee, and ignoring the cast outside of Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth, and then calling it (near) 100% balanced?

Balance is a measure of the decentralisation in the game.

Balance isn't a ratio. Games aren't 50% balanced or 70% balanced. You'll notice I didn't say anything about 100% balance. I merely made a comparison between Brawl and Brawl+.

If those four characters are really only the only viable characters in melee (which is not the case) then the game might as well have had just four characters, and when comparing it to another game, if the other game has more than four viable characters than the latter game is more balanced.

Whether a game is balanced is a very different question from whether development time was well spent ((i.e. whether it was well developed). If only 20% of the characters in the game are viable, we would say it was not well developed, because a lot of development time was wasted. But if that game had 100 characters, then there would still be 20 viable characters, which is a solid number, and we would say the game is quite balanced (and certainly more balanced than a game with four characters, to use a comparison).

A lot of development time can be wasted on poor characters and yet the game can still be balanced. They are completely different concepts. For example, in Pokemon DP there are hundreds of pokemon that don't see much use, but there are still ~50 staple pokemon who for the sake of approximation we would call the viable ones. Fifty is a pretty solid number, so the game is balanced, regardless of how many non-viable pokemon there are.

Now that I have clarified that, you may want to read my original post again.

 

[Fletch]

Balance is a measure of the decentralisation in the game.

Balance isn't a ratio. Games aren't 50% balanced or 70% balanced. You'll notice I didn't say anything about 100% balance. I merely made a comparison between Brawl and Brawl+.

If those four characters are really only the only viable characters in melee (which is not the case) then the game might as well have had just four characters, and when comparing it to another game, if the other game has more than four viable characters than the latter game is more balanced.

Whether a game is balanced is a very different question from whether development time was well spent ((i.e. whether it was well developed). If only 20% of the characters in the game are viable, we would say it was not well developed, because a lot of development time was wasted. But if that game had 100 characters, then there would still be 20 viable characters, which is a solid number, and we would say the game is quite balanced (and certainly more balanced than a game with four characters, to use a comparison).

A lot of development time can be wasted on poor characters and yet the game can still be balanced. They are completely different concepts. For example, in Pokemon DP there are hundreds of pokemon that don't see much use, but there are still ~50 staple pokemon who for the sake of approximation we would call the viable ones. Fifty is a pretty solid number, so the game is balanced, regardless of how many non-viable pokemon there are.

Now that I have clarified that, you may want to read my original post again.

I understood what you were saying, I just don't agree with it. And I didn't want to infer that Melee only had four playable characters, just used that as an example because it was the first thing that came to my head, and they are usually the 4 that are seen as better than the rest.

 

[Banee]

I understood what you were saying, I just don't agree with it. And I didn't want to infer that Melee only had four playable characters, just used that as an example because it was the first thing that came to my head, and they are usually the 4 that are seen as better than the rest.

Suppose their are 2 hypothetical games: Smash 4 and Smash 5. Both games have the exact same physics, dynamics, and stages as Melee. In smash 4 their are 4 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, and Fox. They have the exact same movesets as they do in melee. In Smash 5, their are 5 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, Fox, and Yoshi. Again, with the exact same movesets as in Melee.

Now, obviously, these 2 games are identical in every conceivable way except one includes Yoshi. Yoshi is worse than the other 4 characters in every way and is thus not viable. Therefore, as Yoshi is not viable, no one who cares about competition will play him. This means that any tournament involving Smash 5 will be exactly the same as any tournament involving Smash 4. Thus, they are equally balanced.

I think this proves what the above poster is saying in that the number of un-viable characters in a game has no impact on balance. Now, as he said, if you want to discuss wasted development time in that they wasted time creating movesets for a character that will not be played (Yoshi), thats an entirely different issue. However, the fact still remains from a competitive perspective the games are mirrors of one another.

 

[bigman40]

Suppose their are 2 hypothetical games: Smash 4 and Smash 5. Both games have the exact same physics, dynamics, and stages as Melee. In smash 4 their are 4 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, and Fox. They have the exact same movesets as they do in melee. In Smash 5, their are 5 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, Fox, and Yoshi. Again, with the exact same movesets as in Melee.

Now, obviously, these 2 games are identical in every conceivable way except one includes Yoshi. Yoshi is worse than the other 4 characters in every way and is thus not viable. Therefore, as Yoshi is not viable, no one who cares about competition will play him. This means that any tournament involving Smash 5 will be exactly the same as any tournament involving Smash 4. Thus, they are equally balanced.

I think this proves what the above poster is saying in that the number of un-viable characters in a game has no impact on balance. Now, as he said, if you want to discuss wasted development time in that they wasted time creating movesets for a character that will not be played (Yoshi), thats an entirely different issue. However, the fact still remains from a competitive perspective the games are mirrors of one another.

......wtf? I didn't care about this post until I saw the parts I put bigger. Do you have to use Yoshi after he gets enough BS already? He's decent in this game....

 

[Banee]

......wtf?

I apologize to any Yoshi fans. Its only a hypothetical situation and I had to pick SOME character, so I picked Yoshi.

 

[zzzzzzzzzz]

Suppose their are 2 hypothetical games: Smash 4 and Smash 5. Both games have the exact same physics, dynamics, and stages as Melee. In smash 4 their are 4 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, and Fox. They have the exact same movesets as they do in melee. In Smash 5, their are 5 characters: Marth, Sheik, Falco, Fox, and Yoshi. Again, with the exact same movesets as in Melee.

Now, obviously, these 2 games are identical in every conceivable way except one includes Yoshi. Yoshi is worse than the other 4 characters in every way and is thus not viable. Therefore, as Yoshi is not viable, no one who cares about competition will play him. This means that any tournament involving Smash 5 will be exactly the same as any tournament involving Smash 4. Thus, they are equally balanced.

I think this proves what the above poster is saying in that the number of un-viable characters in a game has no impact on balance. Now, as he said, if you want to discuss wasted development time in that they wasted time creating movesets for a character that will not be played (Yoshi), thats an entirely different issue. However, the fact still remains from a competitive perspective the games are mirrors of one another.

they won't be equally balanced, because, useless characters also affect the game. in one case using ur example, the number of characters to choose from are 4 and the number of viable characters to chose from are also 4. but in the other case its 5 to chose from and 4 that are viable, you need to look at both POVs.

the game consists of all characters so therefore when discussing how balanced the game is you have to include all characters. no game will ever be totally balanced but some games come close. characters may have clear disadvantages and advantages over other characters, but its only when these disadvantages or advantages are extreme and spread over a majority of the cast, that character become useless and others become broken. IMO balance should be looked at based on how well each character does vs the rest of the cast.

soul calibur 2 was a good example of a relatively balanced game. as character from all over the tier list were not only seen in tournaments but they were doing well too.

 

[Banee]

they won't be equally balanced, because, useless characters also affect the game. in one case using ur example, the number of characters to choose from are 4 and the number of viable characters to chose from are also 4. but in the other case its 5 to chose from and 4 that are viable, you need to look at both POVs.

This doesnt tell me how an un-viable character can affect balance, which, unless i'm misreading it, is your point.

 

[zzzzzzzzzz]

This doesnt tell me how an un-viable character can affect balance, which, unless i'm misreading it, is your point.

a game being balanced is based on the game as a whole including all characters, characters don't just disappear when they are not good, if that was the case then if 9 characters out of a cast of 400000000000 has huge advantages over the rest of the cast, you would just ignore the other 399999999991 characters and you have a balanced game? not only that, but this game would be equally as balanced as a game with 9 good characters out of 10?

 

[Yuna]

Banee, your logic is flawed.

How is Smash 4 and Smash 5 equally balanced? In Smash 4, there are four characters that can compete against each other on a pretty level playing field.

Sheik is a good matchup against Marth
Marth is a good matchup against Fox
Fox is a good matchup against Sheik
Meanwhile, Falco is pretty much even against all the other 3

This is balanced. In Smash 5, this same balance still exists, only there's also Yoshi. Yoshi sucks. Yoshi gets owned by pretty much everyone. Yoshi just dies, dies, dies. Yoshi cannot win. In other words, the game is less balanced than Yoshi.

Just because no one will have a viable chance of winning a tournament as him, it doesn't mean that he'll magically disappear from the game or shouldn't be counted towards balance! It works towards the game being imbalanced!

Balance is a multi-layers aspect of a game. Yes, there is such a thing as balance among the tournament-viable characters. But the game is not overall balanced if a large portion of the cast is useless.

Smash 5 wouldn't have been imbalanced with only 1 character out of 5 being unplayable (though that's 20%, actually). But it would definitely be more imbalanced than Smash 4.

 

[DiasFlac]

I personally find brawl more balanced then melee. I'm actually able to play Bowser against a Fox and have a fair chance. In melee I could never really do this without that Fox racking up damage with combos that almost never end.

I'm not going to go into detail as to why I think brawl is more balance then melee because its just my thought and I'd like to keep it that way.

I also like brawl better then melee :D (Online play FTW!!)

 

[Yuna]

I personally find brawl more balanced then melee. I'm actually able to play Bowser against a Fox and have a fair chance. In melee I could never really do this without that Fox racking up damage with combos that almost never end.

I'm not going to go into detail as to why I think brawl is more balance then melee because its just my thought and I'd like to keep it that way.

I also like brawl better then melee :D (Online play FTW!!)

All that proves is that the game has been re-balanced, not that it's more balanced.

The balance has obviously changed since a lot of characters have changed. Fox was visibly nerfed and Bowser was visibly buffed, doesn't mean the entire game is now Balancetopia. But overall, is the game more balanced than Melee?

 

[DiasFlac]

All that proves is that the game has been re-balanced, not that it's more balanced.

The balance has obviously changed since a lot of characters have changed. Fox was visibly nerfed and Bowser was visibly buffed, doesn't mean the entire game is now Balancetopia. But overall, is the game more balanced than Melee?

So you agree that Bowser is top tier?

 

[Narukari]

So many people only see that the original high tier characters are now less powerful in brawl. Since they see that bowser/DK can now beat fox/falco/shiek, they now believe that the new game is more balanced.

What they don't take a look at is the introduction of other characters that are now winning in tournaments. Rob/Snake have become huge where I live. Rob has 2 ranged attacks that tear apart almost every other character at a distance, forcing them to go take to the air to get close to you. Once they get close, Rob has an awesome forward aerial that has a huge range and is quick.

When I start considering the huge advantage of ranged attacks. The characters without ranged attacks start to feel restricted in match ups. This makes only a few characters have the viability to be played at a high skill level.

From my play experience these characters have had an advantage over most of the other characters:

Rob
Snake

And these characters will still be viable to play:

Pit
Metaknight
Marth


Almost every other character will have a very difficulty time trying to get around snake and rob's ranged attacks, to the point where it's almost useless to consider them. Pit, Metaknight, and Marth still have a hard time trying to beat rob/snake, but those three seem to still perform well against all the other characters.

There is still a lot I don't know yet, but from what I see right now there are 5 characters that are good picks in the game, and everyone else just will not perform at all. In melee, you had fox/falco/shiek/marth that are incredible in the game, but you still had many other characters that performed well. Even a well played Mewtwo could do decent against other characters, the gap between relative power between top tier and bottom tier just wasn't so great to the point where nobody could play the bottom tier characters. In Brawl, if you chose the weaker characters, you seem to have almost no chance against the ranged characters in the game.

 

[Knight-errant]

I think it's funny that Yuna doesn't really care that much about the balance as he likes to debate

At any rate, Yuna is really the only one who's given good evidence one way or the other. If you define "balance" as he's defined it, then he's most likely right, and time will prove. However, to know for sure, we're going to have to wait at least a year (maybe more) just to figure out the characters.

 

[Zankoku]

So you agree that Bowser is top tier?

Why would Bowser be top tier? You said that your matchup against Fox is much more even, but Fox himself is not top tier. In fact, I doubt he's even high tier at this point.

 

[Yuna]

I think it's funny that Yuna doesn't really care that much about the balance as he likes to debate

I do care about balance. I started this thread to get to the bottom of it.

People said "It's too early to tell" and I kinda agreed so I left for a while. It seems that was the wrong choice as the past page alone is dominated by people using faulty logic to conclude that Brawl is more balanced when, at this writing moment, it is indeed much more imbalanced from what we know so far than from what we knew about it when I created this thread.

Grab Release chains, Chaingrabs, various locks and infinites, anyone?

 

[Ayaz18]

it matters how you look at it. From one perspective Brawl can obviously seem more balenced on a technical basis, because let's face it there are not ridiculous AT discovered yet that seperates a casual player from a competitive player. On the other side of the spectrum Brawl can feel very unbalenced because certian characters can be so jacked that a person who has never played brawl (but played melee casually) can stand an o.k chance against the brawl "pros" (im looking at you MK). So for now I think Brawl is like abstract art, it can be amazing in ones eyes, but to another it can be nothing but a mess in another's eyes. Just matters how one looks at it

 

[SFJake]

I do care about balance. I started this thread to get to the bottom of it.

People said "It's too early to tell" and I kinda agreed so I left for a while. It seems that was the wrong choice as the past page alone is dominated by people using faulty logic to conclude that Brawl is more balanced when, at this writing moment, it is indeed much more imbalanced from what we know so far than from what we knew about it when I created this thread.

Grab Release chains, Chaingrabs, various locks and infinites, anyone?

In all honesty, I think the game is much more balanced.

In all honesty, the game is also much more broken.

Its odd, but its how I see it.

 

[GofG]

"Everyone loses!" - reading between the lines of Sakurai's words

 

[Yuna]

it matters how you look at it. From one perspective Brawl can obviously seem more balenced on a technical basis, because let's face it there are not ridiculous AT discovered yet that seperates a casual player from a competitive player. On the other side of the spectrum Brawl can feel very unbalenced because certian characters can be so jacked that a person who has never played brawl (but played melee casually) can stand an o.k chance against the brawl "pros" (im looking at you MK). So for now I think Brawl is like abstract art, it can be amazing in ones eyes, but to another it can be nothing but a mess in another's eyes. Just matters how one looks at it

Since when does technical requirements have anythign to do with balance?! AT's and whatnot didn't imbalance the game just because they were AT's. They just made it harder for new players to play on the same level as more experienced Competitive players since they didn't have the techs down.

When we discuss balance, we discuss how the characters fare against each other when two equally skilled people face off. We don't care of Joe Schmoe #392 will get 4-stocked by Techno-driller #45. We care about what will happen when Techno-driller #45 fights Fair-spammer #59 (who are of somewhat equal skill).

Read up on the term "game balance", please.

It's not about easy to play as, it's about ease to win as.

 

[Deleted member]

i agree with yuna to a certain degree

brawl is less balanced than melee if you only look at character match ups, but then brawl's ATs balance help brawl
example, MK vs Link
if a good MK plays link, Link will lose hands down every time. now here where link's jab locks come in, if Link jab locks the MK, then he has a good chance of getting a nice combo off, thus increasing his chances of winning

another example why brawl is just as balanced as melee, is low tier vs high tier

Melee
Pichu vs Fox
extremely hard match, but possible to win, believe it or not but pichu can combo the crap out of fox lol...(i wasnt a noob in melee so dont even try saying that T_T)

Brawl
Ganon vs D3
another extremely hard match when the d3 knows what to do, but ganon does have a chance if he thunderstorms, >b tech chases and uair semi spikes

tldr summary: brawl's characters are unbalanced, ATs balance character match ups

this is just my opinion....

 

[BreakBones]

wouldnt balance be good characters% to the bad characters%. Now isn't it just math, in Brawl there is more characters. Try to narrow it down. There's what..16? new characters how many of them do you know are good and how many are bad. Then go to the veterans, who got bad, who stayed as they where in melee, and who got better. if more got better then worse, the game is more balanced.

Also since there's more characters in brawl that changes everything, now there's more characters to counter others which would change peoples tier positions because if a character that's considered 'good' gets beat easily by a character thats considered 'bad' the bad character is no longer bad because now he's useful to kill people who play as that 'good' character.

P.S this is kinda hard without a tier list

but i would say brawl is more balanced because there are new characters and there's more that are good then bad.

 

[Yeroc]

Banee, your logic is flawed.

How is Smash 4 and Smash 5 equally balanced? In Smash 4, there are four characters that can compete against each other on a pretty level playing field.

Sheik is a good matchup against Marth
Marth is a good matchup against Fox
Fox is a good matchup against Sheik
Meanwhile, Falco is pretty much even against all the other 3

This is balanced. In Smash 5, this same balance still exists, only there's also Yoshi. Yoshi sucks. Yoshi gets owned by pretty much everyone. Yoshi just dies, dies, dies. Yoshi cannot win. In other words, the game is less balanced than Yoshi.

Just because no one will have a viable chance of winning a tournament as him, it doesn't mean that he'll magically disappear from the game or shouldn't be counted towards balance! It works towards the game being imbalanced!

Balance is a multi-layers aspect of a game. Yes, there is such a thing as balance among the tournament-viable characters. But the game is not overall balanced if a large portion of the cast is useless.

Smash 5 wouldn't have been imbalanced with only 1 character out of 5 being unplayable (though that's 20%, actually). But it would definitely be more imbalanced than Smash 4.

So you pedantically berated him for ambiguity (using balance to refer to both the practical scope of the competitive characters and the technical scope of all the characters) then go on to support the essence of his point (see underlined paragraph)? So it's not like you didn't understand what he was talking about. Why not just leave it be until it got to the point where you couldn't tell which type of balance he was referring to?

 

[DiasFlac]

*eats popcorn*

 

[Yuna]

So you pedantically berated him for ambiguity (using balance to refer to both the practical scope of the competitive characters and the technical scope of all the characters) then go on to support the essence of his point (see underlined paragraph)? So it's not like you didn't understand what he was talking about. Why not just leave it be until it got to the point where you couldn't tell which type of balance he was referring to?

Because he said that Smash 5 would be just as balanced as Smash 4. In his mind, balance is only important when it comes to the characters who are considered the Tops, the ones with about an equal chance of winning at the top.

Balance is apparently only important to the small number of the highest echelons. The fact that the rest would be unplayable is besides the points in his mind. In fact, he claimed they would have nothing to do with the balance of the game.

And this is still all relying on the flawed argument that in Melee, only 4-5 characters were usable, which is just not true. Only 4-5 characters were spammed at tournaments, doesn't mean everyone down to didn't Link stand a pretty good chance at winning.

Of course there'll always be such a thing as a balance/imbalance between the most tourney-viable characters, doesn't mean that's all balance is about.

 

[R!S3]

Forgot to mention, the reason you don't hear many notable people compare the balance of Melee and Brawl is because most realize it is simply to early to reach any sort of conclusion.

most intelligent comment in this entire thred...

"L3tz pL4y t3h gaM3 4 fiV3 m0ntHs 4nD p0sT tI3r DiScuZsi0nZ?/???"

 

[Falco_Landmaster]

It's much easier to balance 25 characters than 39 characters. Melee was so unbalanced, and there weren't that many characters. Brawl, I can't tell for sure, but things are much more balanced, even with the number of characters.

It's still too early to tell though.

 

[Yuna]

It's much easier to balance 25 characters than 39 characters. Melee was so unbalanced, and there weren't that many characters. Brawl, I can't tell for sure, but things are much more balanced, even with the number of characters.

It's still too early to tell though.

Everyone down to Link stood a pretty good chance of winning. Everyone down to Mid stood about an equal chance of winning tournaments save for some bad matchups here and there. The fact that people spammed the Top Tiers does not make the game itself imbalanced.

 

[zzzzzzzzzz]

It's much easier to balance 25 characters than 39 characters. Melee was so unbalanced, and there weren't that many characters. Brawl, I can't tell for sure, but things are much more balanced, even with the number of characters.

It's still too early to tell though.

everyone is saying its too early to tell, when will it be a good time to tell? after 6 years? decisions made about balance are not set in stone, we are not trying to come up with a final decision on balance, we are discussing balance as it is right now.

yuna accurately defined what game balance is and people are trying to twist it to help their point. melee had ATs that universally increased mobility, helped with approaching, helped with spacing and reduced lag time of air attacks. IMO this helped balance the game abit. in brawl there are alot of character specific techniques that take away from the overall balance of the game, e.g. Ness being re grabbed, laser locks, etc. so basically i agree with yuna, melee was more balanced.

 

[Banee]

Because he said that Smash 5 would be just as balanced as Smash 4. In his mind, balance is only important when it comes to the characters who are considered the Tops, the ones with about an equal chance of winning at the top.

Balance is apparently only important to the small number of the highest echelons. The fact that the rest would be unplayable is besides the points in his mind. In fact, he claimed they would have nothing to do with the balance of the game.

And this is still all relying on the flawed argument that in Melee, only 4-5 characters were usable, which is just not true. Only 4-5 characters were spammed at tournaments, doesn't mean everyone down to didn't Link stand a pretty good chance at winning.

Of course there'll always be such a thing as a balance/imbalance between the most tourney-viable characters, doesn't mean that's all balance is about.

I suppose it was my fault for not clarifying. But I was strictly speaking of only the top echelons of balance. That is, the very best players against the other very best players.

To use your terminology from a reply to another person, Joe Smoe simply doesnt matter in the balance i'm speaking about. Sure he can use Yoshi and put himself at a severe disadvantage due to the glaring flaws in the character of Yoshi, but he'll have no impact on the top echelons of the tournament unless he is some smash savant who is simply much much better than everyone else. In which case, he would be even better using a stronger character.

As a result of this, the fact that Yoshi is not viable is completely irrelevent. It doesnt matter at all at the top levels of play. No one will use Yoshi, atleast successfully, at the top levels of play (again, unless they are somehow so much better than everyone else they can overcome the Yoshi handicap). Therefore, in my hypothetical 2 games, the top end of tournaments will be exactly the same in either game. Perhaps the lower rounds will be affected somewhat, but they have no impact on the top levels of play. And, as the top end results are exactly the same, we can say the games are equally balanced. Atleast, in regards to the best against the best.

 

[Yuna]

Your argument is still without basis since the game is too new. And from what we've seen so far, it's as "imbalanced" or even moreso than Melee. Have you been paying attention these past few weeks? Some of the crap we've discovered...

And everyone down to Mario could win tournaments (the fact that they didn't doesn't mean anything... I mean, of course more Sheiks are going to win tournaments if there are tons of Sheiks and, like, two good Marios...).

 

[Banee]

Your argument is still without basis since the game is too new. And from what we've seen so far, it's as "imbalanced" or even moreso than Melee. Have you been paying attention these past few weeks? Some of the crap we've discovered...

And everyone down to Mario could win tournaments (the fact that they didn't doesn't mean anything... I mean, of course more Sheiks are going to win tournaments if there are tons of Sheiks and, like, two good Marios...).

You seem to be thinking i'm talking about Brawl, or any specifics for that matter. I'm not. I'm talking merely in hypothetical terms. I'm defending the point another poster made that the number of un-viable characters in a game has no bearing on its balance. For instance, (and this is purely hypothetical. I'm pulling numbers out of the air) if both brawl and melee have 7 top tier characters, they are equally balanced despite the fact that brawl has more overall characters (and thus, more un-viable characters).

To be honest, I have no interest in discussing the specifics of brawl vs melee balance. For what its worth, I feel its too early. However, I feel the idea that the poster brought up is a valid one worth defending. And, if it helps settle the debate slightly (even though the realist in me knows it wont), then it was worth it.

 

[Zankoku]

For instance, (and this is purely hypothetical. I'm pulling numbers out of the air) if both brawl and melee have 7 top tier characters, they are equally balanced despite the fact that brawl has more overall characters (and thus, more un-viable characters).

But that makes no sense. It's like saying Fighter A with a single selectable character is as balanced than Fighter B with 5 selectable characters, four of which are garbage. Or, better yet, that Starcraft is more balanced than Warcraft II, because it has three viable selectable races as opposed to two. Sure, there's only two races to begin with in WCII, but that's still less than three.

 

[Banee]

But that makes no sense. It's like saying Fighter A with a single selectable character is as balanced than Fighter B with 5 selectable characters, four of which are garbage. Or, better yet, that Starcraft is more balanced than Warcraft II, because it has three viable selectable races as opposed to two. Sure, there's only two races to begin with in WCII, but that's still less than three.

I've addressed this in my 3 previous posts. I'm quite tired and dont feel like re typing an argument i've already made.

However, if you do see a flaw in my previous arguments feel free to bring it up. I'm open to debate and disagreement. Provided its logical and not blatantly hostile.

 

[zzzzzzzzzz]

I've addressed this in my 3 previous posts. I'm quite tired and dont feel like re typing an argument i've already made.

However, if you do see a flaw in my previous arguments feel free to bring it up. I'm open to debate and disagreement. Provided its logical and not blatantly hostile.

no one was discussing balance among top tier characters. we were discussing balance of the game. and your logic when speaking of balance of a game is flawed. by your logic please provide an example of how one game can be more balanced than another.

 

[Corigames]

Yeah, I'd like to debate whether people with posts counts in single digits should be putting out opinions on semi-important issues like that of potential tier lists.