Multi-maining, counterpicking shenanigans, and the future of this game

[1MachGO]

So way back when, during the smashmods days, there was this thread about discussing P:M's metagame. P:M wasn't as popular then as it is now, so the topic didn't get a ton of traffic, but I proposed a couple ideas which I believe are worth speculating about again. Keep in mind, this is all theory.

1. "Character spreads" and how dedicated maining might become a thing of the past:

P:M has a huge roster of unsolved characters. Since so many of them are well equipped, it makes me wonder how effective dedicated mains will be as the metagame progresses. While I do expect tradition to withstand for a while, I feel like it is only logical that the majority of characters will have at least one, two, or several bad match ups and the daunting size of the roster will make main dedication too difficult.

The thing is, P:M is in a peculiar circumstance: here we have a game with a large, viably-diverse and unsolved roster, but its on the foundations of 10+ year old, well-investigated Melee gameplay. Given the size of the community, waiting for the game to develop and investigating MU nuances will be relatively time consuming; one can simply transfer their pre-honed, fundamental skills to a secondary in much less time.

While I don't want to conclude that P:M's meta will revolve around fighting gimmicks with gimmicks, I think there are a lot of elements which may facilitate multi-maining.

Basically, I think there is a lot of potential with competitive players seeking to utilize something I like to call a "character spread". The concept being that players will main two or more characters to cover MU weaknesses and become omnipotent against unexpected threats.

2. Counterpicking problems and potential solutions:

If multi-maining (or "character spreads" as I like to pretentiously call them) comes into practice, how will the character selection process change? Could double-blind pick mindgames become commonplace and slow down tournaments? Would TOs adopt character locking rules? Could stage banning potentially extend tocharacter banning?

Even more interesting, what if matches were played like King of Fighters where you fight with a lineup instead of a single character? The improved crew battle functionality actually facilitates this; players would fight solo crew battles with 2 or 3 different characters (probably set to 2 stocks each) with the last player having stocks being the victor. While this has potential drawbacks, particularly extended match time or alienating traditionalists, there are some added benefits, such as alleviating certain counterpicking problems and encouraging more character development to combat exploited ignorance. Furthermore, a model like this may simply be worth trying since the P:M community is at liberty to explore its own identity as a more balanced game with a huge roster.

3. TL;DR/ what do you think?

As it stands, P:M's improved roster is pretty untouched territory and it the metagame could go in one of several directions. Do you think multi-maining with the intention of having no bad MUs (character spreads) will become popular? Would it be healthy for the game/community? What are some observations you have made or are expecting to take place?

 

[9bit]

I'm into it.

I like the idea of characters spreads much more than just having one main for a few reasons. Firstly because I get bored if I only play one character. Secondly because I think it really does apply in this environment with the vast number of viable characters.

I see the appeal of devoting yourself to one character, to learning every aspect of the character. And good on the people who do that. But I can't. Boring. I also think that learning multiple characters helps you understand the game better. You get a better feel for the whole experience, instead of just a microcosm of it. Makes you more well-rounded and maybe adaptable as a player. I firmly believe you should play as characters in order to help understand how to play against that character.

Like you said the game is young and also kinda old (bcuz Melee), which puts us at a very interesting time in the metagame.

I'm getting too drunk to go on, but I just wanted to say that stuff. I look forward to the discussion that will take place hurr.

 

[SixSaw]

Even more interesting, what if matches were played like King of Fighters where you fight with a lineup instead of a single character? The improved crew battle functionality actually facilitates this; players would fight solo crew battles with 2 or 3 different characters (probably set to 2 stocks each) with the last player having stocks being the victor.

That sounds so awesome.

I've heard that some of the PMBR have been experimenting with a tag-team mode as well, which certainly has a lot of potential to be conducive to what you're suggesting.

 

[Ginge]

I think that crew battle / tag team system would be kinda awesome to see in a tournament.

 

[SSS]

My one problem with Project M is how HUGE the roster size is, and how AMAZING every character is. I literally want to play every character; unfortunately, that means that I have to divide time and energy between characters. I've always had problems picking just one character. In Melee, I find myself debating between Falco, Marth, and Dr Mario. In Brawl, it's even worse. This game is a living hell of viable characters and interesting movesets. Even worse, this game has characters that are NATURALLY EASY TO PICK UP. While there are obviously technical nuances of each character, the basic inputs are the same across the board, unlike a game like Street Fighter or Guilty Gear, where I have to learn a four-button combination just to throw a f**king fireball, and that combination is different for every f**king character.

EDIT: Also, the multi-maining thing kinda worries me at top levels of play. I feel like we wouldn't ever be able to see someone truly understand a character and play that character to its FULLEST POTENTIAL. Mango knows Fox to his fullest potential. Peepee knows Falco to his fullest potential. Hungrybox knows Jigglypuff to her fullest potential (read: backair and rest). I just feel like that won't happen if everybody is playing 3 characters. The highest level we'll see is that slightly-above middle, not fully-developed metagame.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

My one problem with Project M is how HUGE the roster size is, and how AMAZING every character is. I literally want to play every character; unfortunately, that means that I have to divide time and energy between characters. I've always had problems picking just one character. In Melee, I find myself debating between Falco, Marth, and Dr Mario. In Brawl, it's even worse. This game is a living hell of viable characters and interesting movesets. Even worse, this game has characters that are NATURALLY EASY TO PICK UP. While there are obviously technical nuances of each character, the basic inputs are the same across the board, unlike a game like Street Fighter or Guilty Gear, where I have to learn a four-button combination just to throw a f**king fireball, and that combination is different for every f**king character.

EDIT: Also, the multi-maining thing kinda worries me at top levels of play. I feel like we wouldn't ever be able to see someone truly understand a character and play that character to its FULLEST POTENTIAL. Mango knows Fox to his fullest potential. Peepee knows Falco to his fullest potential. Hungrybox knows Jigglypuff to her fullest potential (read: backair and rest). I just feel like that won't happen if everybody is playing 3 characters. The highest level we'll see is that slightly-above middle, not fully-developed metagame.

Differing opinions, but I don't see anything you stated as being a bad thing. I veritably cracked up at "living hell of viable characters"; kind of an oxymoron, or at least a contradiction, if you ask me.

Personally, I'm quite certain that this is exactly the direction the competitive metagame will take. Certainly, purists who swear fealty to a single character will continue to exist - and for that reason, we will often see character potential explored to its uttermost. Even in this nascent state of P:M you can name players who are extremely well-versed in a character and have explored their every nuance: Strong Bad (Donkey Kong), Professor Pro (Snake), Metroid (Ike), Gimpyfish (Bowser); hell, even Pikachu has Axe, who, while a transfer from melee, put Pikachu's new tools like his QAC to *excellent* use. I absolutely love watching Axe and Vro's doubles matches. (Oh, yeah, shout out to Vro for being arguably the best P:M Ike player before he quit.)

But then we have the allure of a diverse cast, a promise of reward due to viability and covering your bad match-ups in addition to the fact that getting good at a couple characters is FUN. Different playstyles are FUN. I absolutely love Ike's giant, swingy hitboxes but I also dig regular seven-hit combos by Wolf where the opponent is not allowed to touch the ground once. And I love Mario's unique, straight forward set of tools and moves that naturally link into each other while possessing a decent ranged game. And Samus's hardcore zone/punish game AND DAT ICE UP-SMASH

Point being, P:M kind of lends itself to this kind of play. Melee was different in the sense that there was a very clear heirarchy and the rewards for picking up a different character were likely disappointment and mixed results. Co-maining simply wasn't worth the time or effort. Here? Who knows.

 

[SSS]

a lot of stuff

Would it be bad if i just mained Random? Because that's what this game is tempting me to do.

 

[Ginge]

Would it be bad if i just mained Random? Because that's what this game is tempting me to do.

As long as no character ends up banned, this could be fun

 

[SSS]

As long as no character ends up banned, this could be fun

Lol i think they'd patch it if got to that point.

 

[Ginge]

True, this isn't an official Nintendo release. Patches exist even after a release date. Revolutionary concept....

 

[SSS]

True, this isn't an official Nintendo release. Patches exist even after a release date. Revolutionary concept....

Yet one that if abused can completely destroy the metagame.

 

[FlareHabanero]

It's pretty clear that this game having a lot of viable characters does create a sense of diversity. This is like the only time where you can pit Bowser against Fox and actually stand a solid chance of winning, for example. But I will say this game having a very flexible cast of characters does have a bit of a problem in the fact that you cannot exactly focus on learning about one particular threat. It's not like Melee where you know characters like Fox and Sheik are going to be common and you need to learn the match ups and learn the techniques to stand a chance, for this game it's more of a crapshoot because you could potentially fight almost anyone. One match you're fighting Marth, the next you're fighting Captain Falcon, and then out of bloody no where you're fighting against Yoshi.

However, the idea of maining multiple characters isn't much of a discouragement. Having multiple characters can help with overcoming certain matches up that one character may fail against and it does discourage the opponent from exploiting your character's weaknesses in order to gain an edge. At worst, you should at least be familiar with three different characters.

 

[SSS]

It's pretty clear that this game having a lot of viable characters does create a sense of diversity. This is like the only time where you can pit Bowser against Fox and actually stand a solid chance of winning, for example. But I will say this game having a very flexible cast of characters does have a bit of a problem in the fact that you cannot exactly focus on learning about one particular threat. It's not like Melee where you know characters like Fox and Sheik are going to be common and you need to learn the match ups and learn the techniques to stand a chance, for this game it's more of a crapshoot because you could potentially fight almost anyone. One match you're fighting Marth, the next you're fighting Captain Falcon, and then out of bloody no where you're fighting against Yoshi.

However, the idea of maining multiple characters isn't much of a discouragement. Having multiple characters can help with overcoming certain matches up that one character may fail against and it does discourage the opponent from exploiting your character's weaknesses in order to gain an edge. At worst, you should at least be familiar with three different characters.

I smell a matchup chart. . .mmmmm.

Unfortunately though this game is SO NEW and so much in its infancy that there's no hope of a matchup chart for at least like another six months. And even at that point it'd be irrelevant by the time it was finished since this game's metagame is going to evolve so rapidly. Not to mention right now there are many characters underrepresented. Also since there's no real low-tiers or "bad" characters we can't just lump half the roster into the "+4 don't even worry about it if you lose this matchup you suck" category.

3 sounds like a pretty good number. The only problem is picking the ones who make up for eachother's weaknesses. . .since we're not really sure what any character's weaknesses are yet. This is new territory even for the dedicated Fox players. Sure they know how to beat a Sheik. But can they beat a YOSHI.

 

[DMG]

They can beat a ****in Yoshi

 

[SSS]

They can beat a ****in Yoshi

ProM Yoshi 2gud

 

[DMG]

Vectorman with PM Yoshi too good plz nerf

 

[Kankato]

Is anyone worried about a "Top 8" mentality emerging, where a handful of characters develop ahead of the rest and kinda stay that way? As the community grows, If a character (not just a player) proves themself to be better than the rest of the cast, even if only slightly, would attention focus on them over time? Or is smash balanced in such a way that this character would just trend in popularity rather than consistently outperform the others?

I ask because when you compare the cream of the crop like MK, Fox, Snake or Wario to the underdogs like Squirtle, Toon Link or Dedede, it's not a fair contest. People say everyone is viable, but if a player can go from acceptable to exceptional by switching mains, why not go for it?

 

[DMG]

You don't really have a top 8 mentality. People tend to play what they like, not what they see as broken or extremely good. With the cast being this huge and the game evolving with patches, people tend to not "tier *****" as much in this game. I certainly wouldn't pick up Wolf out of the blue, because a bunch of people put him Top 5. Etc

I'm not that worried about characters developing ahead of the rest. The biggest "issue" regardless are the differences in regional scenes. Some characters may only have a small handful of very good players, and not spread out in each region. So in that regard, it's not that characters will be under developed, but that the exposure of their top tier metagame and development will probably be limited to the region they are from. Not every area can have a great Snake, Wario, Lucario, Ike, Zard, ROB, etc. Most places *will* have decent Spacies though, but that's the benefit of familiarity from 10+ of Melee, not necessarily "FOX TOP TIER I GOTTA PLAY HIM"

Somebody, somewhere, WILL be incredibly good with a character. Whether they show up on the national stage or in a region that is heavily travelled to, that's another story.

 

[DrinkingFood]

"Top 8"

a handful

woah hang on there a second
how did you get so many fingers on your hands
mine only have five I feel cheated
you must be godlike at video games

Also, top 8 characters aren't going to be pulling ahead of the other characters any time soon, as P:MBR will probably be releasing balance patches for awhile. And even when the balance patches stop, by that point, it will probably be close enough between characters that the defining factor of a character's overall success will be their popularity and not their ability. Chances are, each of the best dozen or so P:M players nation wide are going to be using different characters, so naturally, we'll see those characters winning the most just because of who's using them. If you're ever looking for a time where all characters are going to be winning equal numbers of reasonable sized tournaments, you're looking at the wrong game- there are/will be too many characters on the roster, and too many potentially good ones at that, for that to ever happen.

It's probably also more fair to say that a player overall performing better by changing characters is probably switching to either an easier to use character or a more developed character. I'm sure there will be some clearly bad characters, and whether it will be from lack of development or lack of actually viability I don't know, but characters that have no chance at winning reasonably sized tournies (regionals+) will probably be largely a minority and not really have much of an effect on the spread of the top characters due to their being so much variety even after they are removed from the equation.

 

[trojanpooh]

The only way I could see a top 8 type thing emerge is if some characters are just more appealing than others. It won't be a balance thing, but a matter of which characters are popular be it because they're more fun or more iconic or whatever.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

I don't think character spreads would be an issue, as most of the top players play several characters anyway. Players will still always have a main, the character they do best with, and then likely have secondary or tertiary characters for those few bad matchups for their main. I wouldn't imagine double blinds becoming the norm, since most people with a main will likely practice the bad matchups just so they could beat players that don't take advantage of the matchup.

Worst case scenario; PMBR could add a blind pick feature, where you press a button or select a new character slot that makes your pick invisible. You would then use the d-pad to move incrementally up/down/left/right starting from the top-left most character. That would save time and efforts at tournaments and prevent any of the issues you are talking about in the OP.

 

[Nausicaa]

3. TL;DR/ what do you think?

Tag-Team mode has been a mini-dream of mine for a while. Would be awesome, and we do crew-battles more than anything at the local get-together's.

Otherwise, I think it will be too fun NOT to play many characters at any level of play. The game is too fun and expansive, and doing so will naturally help people both get better at the game itself, as well as get better at picking up new things, which are key applications to learning more characters at a relatively even level.

Would it be bad if i just mained Random? Because that's what this game is tempting me to do.

I won the very first ever Brawl Online tournament with more than 100 people (I was a scrub, this was Brawl, and within a couple weeks or something of its official NA release), going Random in the first match of every single set.
It's legit when everyone is still scrubby and you pick up on things well. If you can do it in PM3.0, do it.

 

[NightShadow6]

I believe that everyone in this game is viable by themselves.

Sure there might be some atrocious match ups, but every character has they're own tools they can use to work around weaknesses. (Secondaries/Multi-mains are not bad by any means, I just don't think you'll be forced into it)

 

[PMS | LEVEL 100 MAGIKARP]

I would be so down for a KoF-type crew battle tournament default. Additionally, there should be the option of choosing the same character three times or two times etc. And even in KoF, the high-level players have still developed each character extremely deeply, in case you guys missed the crazy Chin tech and brickwall at evo. So the fears about having each character not as developed are unfounded. People like Eli will probably be the most successful in tournaments, as they can cover a variety of options with vast character knowledge. Initially, people will realize that their tourney success depends the most on whoever ends up being in their bracket, and who has a hard counter against their main. However, wanting to avoid this, people will pick up secondaries, and then the character select screen will be the real battle. As a result, double blind picks will become the norm until people realize that a KoF style would be way more hype. This will require a lot more work from the players to gain mastery of more characters, but as time passes and playstyles develop, it will happen.

 

[Oro?!]

This topic is very reminiscent of Street Fighter. People praise the balance, or at least how much more balanced the game was than previous iterations. I have seen this argument before from SF players. The reality is, with this many viable characters, it is very very hard to be proficient in every matchup of your character, especially at a top level. Trying to become proficient with multiple characters is absurd. You always see in FGC streams how a lot of even top tier players will pick a hard counter matchup, and then they get completely destroyed by that other player's main. That doesn't mean that the matchup is good for the disadvantaged character, just that in a balanced game where every characters has a full tool set, there are always work arounds in disadvantageous situations.

I feel that Project M will be dominated by dedicated mains for a long long time, and perhaps the entirety of the meta game. There are always exceptions to the rule, where players like M2K is proficient with Sheik/Marth/Fox, or in PM terms how Reflex is with Ivy/Wario etc... For the most part though, I feel like people who stick to their guns will find much more success in learning about their characters overall strengths and weaknesses, in addition to potential strategies and counter strategies. That is of course, unless you main Ganon, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[SSS]

That is of course, unless you main Ganon, then I feel sorry for you.

Shots fired.

 

[Ginge]

Hey, Ganon can be pretty fun to play :/

 

[SSS]

Hey, Ganon can be pretty fun to play :/

GANON IS A GOD

 

[Ginge]

GANON IS A GOD

I think my favorite update for Ganon between Brawl and Project M is having a viable Up-Tilt now.

 

[SSS]

I think my favorite update for Ganon between Brawl and Project M is having a viable Up-Tilt now.

Side B is my center <3

Raeps Bowser's super armor.

 

[Ginge]

I was just commenting that in Brawl, if you did an Up-Tilt by accident, it was such an easily dodged and punishable attack. The speed and two-hit nature of Project M Up-Tilt makes it something I actually USE instead of something I avoid using.

I do love me some Ganon Side-B...

 

[1MachGO]

I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one who can envision line-up/solo crew tournaments. I feel like there is a lot of interesting strategy behind it. Especially if stock amounts and other regulations were played with.

This topic is very reminiscent of Street Fighter. People praise the balance, or at least how much more balanced the game was than previous iterations. I have seen this argument before from SF players. The reality is, with this many viable characters, it is very very hard to be proficient in every matchup of your character, especially at a top level. Trying to become proficient with multiple characters is absurd. You always see in FGC streams how a lot of even top tier players will pick a hard counter matchup, and then they get completely destroyed by that other player's main. That doesn't mean that the matchup is good for the disadvantaged character, just that in a balanced game where every characters has a full tool set, there are always work arounds in disadvantageous situations.

I feel that Project M will be dominated by dedicated mains for a long long time, and perhaps the entirety of the meta game. There are always exceptions to the rule, where players like M2K is proficient with Sheik/Marth/Fox, or in PM terms how Reflex is with Ivy/Wario etc... For the most part though, I feel like people who stick to their guns will find much more success in learning about their characters overall strengths and weaknesses, in addition to potential strategies and counter strategies. That is of course, unless you main Ganon, then I feel sorry for you.

Nice post. Though I would contend that there is a lot more potential to playing counters in P:M than in traditional fighters. This is primarily because the attribute vs. attribute relationship in traditional fighters is far more predictable. Smash Bros. lacks the restricted mobility and homogeneous arenas found in games like Street Fighter. There is just a lot of potential for really simple, anti-meta strategies such as a run-away Toon Link vs. floaties or maybe even Pikmin harassing big targets like Bowser. We'll have to see though

 

[SSS]

Does anybody here have any character spreads they would like to share? And why you picked certain secondaries, for which matchups, etc?

 

[Oro?!]

I would say the opposite is true Mach, because of the amount of freedom that smash lets you have. In other fighters, if you have a single option that shuts down another characters in neutral, then there is a lot less than what you can do in response in smash. You have access to more movement options, 2 jumps and differing jump heights, full air mobility control, and in PM, characters might have other ways around like Dacus/Ike SideB/more burst mobility stuff. That same freedom can create way more degenerative play like your TL example, but it isn't nearly as stale or thoughtless as Akuma spamming air fireball in SF2.

 

[Nausicaa]

You both mentioned basically both ends of it.
The immense diversity and flexibility in the dynamics of the game will make anyone able to play a single character to almost no end, and it will cover enough for them to function as well as any spread would (for that individual).
The immense diversity and flexibility in the actual traits of the game will make anyone able to play a single character to almost no end, and have a spread to cover things better than that single character would (for that individual).

Good game.
At some point I'll go over the spreads of locals and how they benefit each of the players (as individuals and universally for the game).

Otherwise, I always advocate playing enough to have certain things covered. For someone not going 'ALL *this character* ONLY' or Random all day... this is what I encourage for everyone from beginner-learning-competition to beginner-tournament-threatening.
1) Character that you like/enjoy/are comfortable with and understand to a decent degree, so you have a milestone and measuring tool for various markers.
2) Character that covers other essential fundamentals, so your general smash-experience isn't skewed in any way through conditioning or lacking insights.
3) Character you have no comfort in/don't really understand/aren't confident with, but enjoy/want to play, so you have something to reflect on the other extreme.
4) *Optional, Character you or someone else near/someone you spectate/that you get an outside sample of first to follow or expand beside and challenge yourself.

That kind of 'batch' is how I suggest people approach most things if they're encouraged to improve in any form with it. For Smash, the 4 Character set-up works well, or fewer if those criteria are distinctly filled.
Of course it's just a template, and literally any form or system or mentality going in is great. I've simply found that most 'successful' (I guess that's how people call it) people in anything came from somewhere someHOW, and this 'template' is seemingly a good center-point or MEDIAN when it comes to quickly developing Smash-Players at any level of play.
Figured that was worth sharing.

 

[PastLink]

You both mentioned basically both ends of it.
The immense diversity and flexibility in the dynamics of the game will make anyone able to play a single character to almost no end, and it will cover enough for them to function as well as any spread would (for that individual).
The immense diversity and flexibility in the actual traits of the game will make anyone able to play a single character to almost no end, and have a spread to cover things better than that single character would (for that individual).

Good game.
At some point I'll go over the spreads of locals and how they benefit each of the players (as individuals and universally for the game).

Otherwise, I always advocate playing enough to have certain things covered. For someone not going 'ALL *this character* ONLY' or Random all day... this is what I encourage for everyone from beginner-learning-competition to beginner-tournament-threatening.
1) Character that you like/enjoy/are comfortable with and understand to a decent degree, so you have a milestone and measuring tool for various markers.
2) Character that covers other essential fundamentals, so your general smash-experience isn't skewed in any way through conditioning or lacking insights.
3) Character you have no comfort in/don't really understand/aren't confident with, but enjoy/want to play, so you have something to reflect on the other extreme.
4) *Optional, Character you or someone else near/someone you spectate/that you get an outside sample of first to follow or expand beside and challenge yourself.

That kind of 'batch' is how I suggest people approach most things if they're encouraged to improve in any form with it. For Smash, the 4 Character set-up works well, or fewer if those criteria are distinctly filled.
Of course it's just a template, and literally any form or system or mentality going in is great. I've simply found that most 'successful' (I guess that's how people call it) people in anything came from somewhere someHOW, and this 'template' is seemingly a good center-point or MEDIAN when it comes to quickly developing Smash-Players at any level of play.
Figured that was worth sharing.

not gonna lie this helped. I've been considering picking up mewtwo seriously for a little bit because the few times i've played him i loved it. So i would have TL, Olimar, and then M2, so i wonder who the fourth should be... any suggestions anyone?

 

[1MachGO]

After reading Nausicaa's post I am now of the opinion that you're right on some level and I'm right on some level, Oro.

Does anybody here have any character spreads they would like to share? And why you picked certain secondaries, for which matchups, etc?

Well, irl, I am thinking of using both Marth and Roy. Marth is generally the better character, but Roy has the leg up in certain MUs. Namely Jiggs (OHKO potential and better dthrow angle) and Falco (Marth's edge guarding is a little cleaner but Roy can capitalize faster and has some ridiculously good punishes with dtilt). Their combos and moveset are also really similar so alternating between the two is pretty effortless.

If we are talking about theory though, I think Sheik/Zelda (Sheilda) is really powerful. You can outright lie about your main by mindgaming at the character select screen and force your opponent to ban stages into favor of the other character. They are also both really defensive characters but in completely different ways. One grabs/combos/edgeguards the crap out of you while the other sets up mine fields and can punishe bad approaches like a beast. Against an opponent who is terrible at adjusting you can really dissect them and frustrate them into submission.

C. Falcon/Mario might also be a pretty good spread. I think everyone sleeps on C. Falcon who has a really powerful and consistent combo game vs. floaties. The substantial addition of fatties, floaties, and semi-fast fallers kind of buffs him by proxy. Mario helps because he has a great punish and neutral game to fight Falcon's worst MUs. You could argue that a space animal would fit the bill too, but Mario is much easier to be consistent with and actually has some obscure playstyle similarities with Falcon.

That's all I got for now.

 

[SSS]

I feel like Mario has such solid rushdown with his fireballs. So frustrating.

 

[Xinc]

I feel like Mario has such solid rushdown with his fireballs. So frustrating.

Well, they can be powershielded and reflected, as well as swatted away. Same for the pills

 

[SSS]

Well, they can be powershielded and reflected, as well as swatted away. Same for the pills

Yeah it's just he can put them out there so fast. It's really frustrating me.