Handicaps for Balance

[Scala]

Has the idea of using a handicap to balance the low tier characters vs high tier characters been determined?

Obviously, if this is considered as a decent idea, it's not going to happen until WAY FAR in the future, but I thought it was an interesting idea.


In my mind it would work like this:
Take the god-tier characters and essentially find out what % handicap they need to be considered an average character. For example, snake and metaknight would start out every match with 20%. Medium characters start out at 0%, while low and bottom tier characters would force the opponent to add to their starting % (ie snake starts at 40% vs link because he has 20% naturally and an additional 20% because the opponent is link while link starts at 0%)

Just throwing numbers out there.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Also, I suppose I need to make some clarification stating that handicaps in brawl are different than they are in melee. A 10% handicap doesn't mean that you recieve 10% more knockback, it means you start off with 10% damage on each life and nothing else is different.

 

[JiangWei23]

A good idea that might actually settle the balance issue in Brawl...but good luck implementing this with anybody besides playing with friends. I don't see people willingly following this rule: The lower tiered character players will call for it, while the higher tiered character players will oppose it. Also it seems like overkill to do your Link vs. Snake example.

I might put forward this idea with my friends though. Thanks!

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i think its a good idea too, but it might not ever be implemented.

 

[Camalange]

Not a bad idea, but I'm sure others have thought of this before. I also have a feeling that people won't accept it because they'll most likely say something like "Well it's your choice for playing as a low tier character lolz, no reason why we should give advantages lolz" but again, not a bad idea, just don't see it happening.

 

[TheSnakeEater]

I don't think as much of this as many would, and don't call say I just want high-tiers to rule.

It has to do with the player, not the tier. A really good Fox user in Melee could be given a fair match by a really good Mewtwo'er.

Each character is designed for specific styles of play, and for specific people. Good JPers (of which I am trying to become) could kill a good MK'er, because they know how to play their character.

Only certain characters are honestly beyond their league (Captain Falcon and Sheik, to name a couple), and even then, that's just because of their difficulty to use.

There is no Dan Hikibi (well, maybe CF.)

This idea would make the Tier list reverse every single country or state tourney, because the people are so good, that extra 20% would cause a huge unbalancing.

In short, I don't necessairly oppose this, oh, wait, yes, I do. Not strongly, but still somewhat.

 

[Scala]

I was just throwing numbers out there in the OP, and yes I fully realize that this will probably never be implemented or even considered for competitive play at least until official tiers are out, and even then...

I just think it's just what this game needs for balancing issues. Even if not every character had a + or - %, even if only Link or Ganon had a 10% advantage it would really do a lot for balance.

 

[DanGR]

The game would be much more balanced if MK, Snake, and GaW were removed from the game. This would solve so many issues in balancing that no-one could complain how they can't win tourneys with yoshi. It's just that no tourney host would ever implement this cuz they'd be scared for their rep if it didn't work out. sorry, but no.

 

[PK Hexagon]

The game would be much more balanced if MK was removed from the game. This would solve so many issues in balancing that no-one could complain how they can't win tourneys with yoshi. It's just that no tourney host would ever implement this cuz they'd be scared for their rep if it didn't work out. sorry, but no.

Fix'd.

10chars

 

[Tyser]

Another stupid johns thread.

 

[iEatPikmin]

Wouldn't this make strong but slow characters, like Ike and Bowser, semi unbalanced? And what about team battles?

 

[sleepy_head83]

Another stupid johns thread.

Yeah true. I know it is hard playing as a low tier character, but there will be no progress if we have such things as a handicap or restriction list. Well, this is what i think.

 

[ftl]

It's certainly a way to get balance, but at what cost? It's micromanaging what characters we 'want' to win. I don't like doing that. Most people don't. If you want to handicap characters because they're doing too well, come up with a fair way of determining what the handicap for any particular character should be (I don't see one which is reasonable, personally, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist), and apply it globally, even when it happens to screw over your favorite character.

 

[iMeeHow]

Wow, stupid
there no handicaps if u think MetaKnight is to good then use him...

 

[Yuna]

If you're talking about Casual play: Run wild, nobody really cares what you do unless you do it when playing against them.
If you're talking about Competitive play: No.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Definitely not.

1) if Skill matters more then your place on the tier

Then if player 1 is 4x better then player 2 but player 1 plays Captain Falcon and Player 2 plays G&W should we give player 1 a handicap bonus?
Player 2 will get demolished.
Second some characters will really...really hit hard with a handicap...Ganondorf.


Second far as I knew Tiers were an overall list of performance not an individual match up chart.

So what if someone's high tier and has a low tier counter.... ****?

 

[RizardoLawless]

Falcon should start with at least 200%, so he'll have a chance that he MIGHT lose

 

[danielreece2]

Falcon should start with at least 200%, so he'll have a chance that he MIGHT lose

WTF?

 

[lethminite]

to the people saying 'no'.

he said that it wouldn't be done until much much much later, like when the tier list is settled, and the match up chart completed and checked.

some of the examples used to counter this idea are quite bad.

CF (with 4 skill units, and handicap bonus) v MK (with 1 skill unit) will end in CF winning, yes, but...
wario (with 4 skill units, and no handicap) v MK (with 1 skill unit) will end the same as the above match up.
the fact is, you will lose to someone 4 times as good as you if they want to win.

as for lowtier counter v high tier, you could do it by the match up chart, so if CF ends up countering snake, they can play on equal footing, or even give CF the 10% if he is such a great counter.

since handicaps can only be given in 10%s, you would have to round down, the disadvantaged characters would still be disadvantaged, but not as much, i'd guess most would end up as neutral against each other, or 10%-20% and maybe a 30% for DK v DDD (don't attack the numbers i gave, they are examples)

lastly, ganon would not rule if this was added, giving ganon one free jab would not break him.

i'm not saying you have to agree with this idea, but don't just say 'no' give a reason, and realise that no one is wanting it added now, only when we have the info needed to do it right (which may never happen).
what is uncompetitive about this?

 

[xDarkElement]

Epic fail. Some people suck more than others because of their weight or it gives them an advantage.
Snake = Heavy + Broken = WTFZOMGZBBQZ GOD TIER

 

[cj.Shark]

you know. snake is strong yes. but hed be fixed if they only a. weakened his uptilt, b. made his recovery gimpable like if he gets hit out of it he cant do it again. or make his recovery go at a certain angle like dededes or marios. C) take out boost smashing. if it wasnt for boost smashing. my pit could kill snake with just arrows if i wanted to.

 

[Talvi]

Tiers exist. Live with it. Now go away

 

[acv]

just because you cant adapt,you are bad at the game (which you obviously are) or cant adapt to certain character's doesnt mean certain advantages should happen because the person using the low tier character isnt skilled enough to beat high tier characters.

 

[Scala]

I realize half of you don't like this idea and what I have to say is:
A) It was completely theoretical and was just an idea that I was throwing out there.
B) Everyone seems to think that a handicap increases knockback. All it does it make a player start with a certain percent, and doesn't change the game at all past that. It's different than melee.

Also, to those saying that players aren't good enough to win with their low tier characters when facing high tier characters: I believe it's not always a matter of skill that makes the character lose; some characters are physically handicapped to the point where two players of equal skill playing characters from opposite ends of the tier spectrum will have a definitive result every time: The higher tiered character will win.

And to those saying that I must be bad at brawl since I brought the idea up: **** off, throwing ideas out does NOT reflect skill level in the game. I'm not cocky enough to say that I'll beat any of you in a money match, and all of you don't need to stoop to such low levels as insulting the originator of the idea rather than refuting his ideas. Seriously, this is what I hate about smashboards, everyone is too **** immature to actually put forth a intellectual conversation without trolling and bashing others to give themselves their little ego trip.

 

[skuzzel]

No...


You have the choice to use snake or MK.

Stop complaining because you made the wrong choice.

 

[deepseadiva]

I realize half of you don't like this idea and what I have to say is:
A) It was completely theoretical and was just an idea that I was throwing out there.
B) Everyone seems to think that a handicap increases knockback. All it does it make a player start with a certain percent, and doesn't change the game at all past that. It's different than melee.

Also, to those saying that players aren't good enough to win with their low tier characters when facing high tier characters: I believe it's not always a matter of skill that makes the character lose; some characters are physically handicapped to the point where two players of equal skill playing characters from opposite ends of the tier spectrum will have a definitive result every time: The higher tiered character will win.

And to those saying that I must be bad at brawl since I brought the idea up: **** off, throwing ideas out does NOT reflect skill level in the game. I'm not cocky enough to say that I'll beat any of you in a money match, and all of you don't need to stoop to such low levels as insulting the originator of the idea rather than refuting his ideas[/I]. Seriously, this is what I hate about smashboards, everyone is too **** immature to actually put forth a intellectual conversation without trolling and bashing others to give themselves their little ego trip.

While I don't agree with the handicap idea and the theoretical idea that equal match-ups are determined simply through tier choice, thank you for the refreshing bit of anti-trolling. Seriously people, learn to not only read but to understand words mean stuff.

On to the topic...

It would be a hassle to implement in time.
Brawl is still relatively in its early development stages. Metagames evolve, tiers change, the community moves forward. Snake and MK are at the moment some of the most popular and hyped characters. This results in the community being more open-eyed to the flaws and weaknesses the two characters have and, over time, the collective will be well aware of them. After a bit, Snake and MK will slowly drop down the tier list and finally arrive in their "true" spot.

In laymen terms: Snake/MK are being focused on. Weaknesses will be found. The community exploits them. The tiers change and thus this will become too much of a hassle to implement.

And you're also underestimating characters. So we put handicaps on the current "top tiers"? No, just another tool the mid tier and low tier characters can use seeing as they're "too weak for REAL races - let's give them a head start".

 

[skuzzel]

The point is it's your choice who you use.

What if I said we should give hadicap bonuses for X person because he doesnt use Snake's f tilt?

How is that any diffirent from what your saying?

Not using the best choice makes you worse off, but it doesn't change the fact that you and your oppenant started on equal ground.

 

[acv]

I realize half of you don't like this idea and what I have to say is:
A) It was completely theoretical and was just an idea that I was throwing out there.
B) Everyone seems to think that a handicap increases knockback. All it does it make a player start with a certain percent, and doesn't change the game at all past that. It's different than melee.

Also, to those saying that players aren't good enough to win with their low tier characters when facing high tier characters: I believe it's not always a matter of skill that makes the character lose; some characters are physically handicapped to the point where two players of equal skill playing characters from opposite ends of the tier spectrum will have a definitive result every time: The higher tiered character will win.

And to those saying that I must be bad at brawl since I brought the idea up: **** off, throwing ideas out does NOT reflect skill level in the game. I'm not cocky enough to say that I'll beat any of you in a money match, and all of you don't need to stoop to such low levels as insulting the originator of the idea rather than refuting his ideas. Seriously, this is what I hate about smashboards, everyone is too **** immature to actually put forth a intellectual conversation without trolling and bashing others to give themselves their little ego trip.

handicap does increase damage,its obvious that if they start with more % damage they will receive more knockback making the principle the same as in melee.

any low tier character can beat a high tier character,yet there are some exceptions (ness/lucas vs marth) (DK,/bowser/samus/luigi/mario vs DDD) where a grab means you lose a stock,handicap will not prevent this.the rest of the matchups all solely depend on player skill.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

any low tier character can beat a high tier character,yet there are some exceptions (ness/lucas vs marth) (DK,/bowser/samus/luigi/mario vs DDD) where a grab means you lose a stock,handicap will not prevent this.the rest of the matchups all solely depend on player skill.

So this means CF, Link, and Sonic can beat Snake, MK and Mr. G&W if their skill lvl is far greater right? but what if skill lvl is equal then what happens? >_>

BTW Lucas can escape Marths CG, because i did so before, though it maybe have been the Marth person was too slow to continue it.

 

[HulkingRage]

i feel like brawl is like melee, but different.
i play captain falcon and i can beat my friends that are better then me or the same as me when they play "better" characters.
i don't think low tier characters are bad enough to need a handicap, we just need more people playing them. Captain Falcon will go up on the rankings, just wait

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i feel like brawl is like melee, but different.

Brawl is kinda like Melee in reverse, with the exception of chracters like Marth and Falco who counter/reflected their way in to say the same.

 

[HulkingRage]

Brawl is kinda like Melee in reverse, with the exception of chracters like Marth and Falco who counter/reflected their way in to say the same.

yeah lol
when i play marth i still fair spam, and when i play falco i dont change from melee at all

 

[JigglyZelda003]

is your Sig from the 64 smash? Pikachu sure was fat and blocky then lol >_>

 

[HulkingRage]

yep, lol
10char

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Why "no" is the only logical answer:
No Competitive fighting game has ever employed handicaps to "rebalance" Competitive play!

Now, in, say, Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4, there are different "Damage Levels". The lower the Damage Level, the less Damage each move inflicted. Let's say using Damage Level 4, Zelda's Lightning Kick when Sweetspotted inflicts 44%, on Damage Level 3 32%, on Damage Level 2 19% (I believe this is here default un-deteriorated damage output for it) and on Damage Level 1 9%. However, this is global. Every single character gets affected by it, as opposed to Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4's own handicap systems where you can give out a bunch of really off-the-charts handicaps.

This is pretty much the same as Playing with a 134% (or whatever they play with) lifebar in Tekken 5 or messing around with different lifebar percentages in Soul Calibur (though the tournament standard is 100%). But the important part is that this is done on a global scale.

People don't give out different handicaps to "balance" the game. The game is imbalanced. Live with it. Do not artificially try to re-balance the game. We don't do that in Competitive fighting games. For one thing, we do not change the game. We can fiddle with the game to remove really BS stuff like bad stages and items, but that's true for all fighting games where some techniques, stages (yes, stages, like Boss I-NO's stage in the GGXX-series or Talim's stage in SCII), "items" (Special Versus in Soul Calibur III) and other things are banned for balance and stuff.

But we never dole out different handicaps to balance the game. Captain Falcon sucks. Live with it.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

But we never dole out different handicaps to balance the game. Captain Falcon sucks. Live with it.

poor CF

 

[ftl]

I think it's possible to do it in a reasonable way, but only if you have a tournament league all to yourself. If you have some sort of regular tournament, it's certainly possible to set up ways for characters to get handicapped - for example, the character that won the tournament has his starting percent increased by 8, finalist 4, semifinalists 2, quarterfinalists 1... with this being cumulative across a series. That might work - as time went on, people would have very high incentives to switch to characters that haven't been winning much yet. Might be fun, and seems like it's fair enough.

But it requires some central entity to be running a large number of roughly equivalent tournaments, over the course of a long time. Not going to happen for general play or standalone tournaments. Though I could see it being a an interesting idea if implemented somewhere.

 

[MookieRah]

It is not the community's task to "balance" the game as Yuna stated. We can't do that. Also, the idea that we could establish a system in place to handicap each and every matchup is just plain silly. Amongst the best smashers of melee, people still disagree on tier placements, much less matchups. How are we to establish a handicap for each and and every possible matchup? It's just very unrealistic.

 

[mariofanpm12]

this sounds like a good idea at a glance, but in reality...

it may disbalance the agme even more.

 

[masterspeaks]

You could just give up trying to play Brawl competitively. Write to Nintendo and tell them don't let Sakurai near Smash Bros again. Brawl is an overrated pile of fail if you aren't playing for fun. I still can't figure why old melee vets are even bothering with tripping BS and flawed yomi mechanics.

Anyway, handicaps would merely be arbitrary johns put in place for scrubs, "durr your character is cheap, it needs to be handicapped so I can play sonic and still lose".

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i think brawl is highly overated with plenty of issues but i still play it for 3 reasons

1. no one who i play it with consistently wants to play melee anymore because then my skill is>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than whoever they pick so they only stand a better chance of winning with almost all itmes on in brawl. so its either play melee alone or play brawl with friends.

2. some of the new characters i like enough to keep playing the game anyway, although i still miss Roy and Pichu.

3. i still like Smash as a game just not the way they made brawl.