We're open to change, but only change for the best. Balancing down characters simply serves to annoy the players. As long as a character is not "broken", the is no need to nerf them. Bring the weak to par, and you should be fine.
And Blazblue and Guilty Gear are not really models of balance from a Jin/Ky player's perspective. I mean, bad characters getting worse is not very good balance. Especially when you're fighting characters like Testament who is actually broken. The gap in power is too great. No matter how good my Ky is, I will never beat a "decent" Testament because my Ky is limited in potential. It just turns out that my character limit can be surpassed with Testament with little skill. Guilty Gear and Blazblue are actually doing it wrong. They are making top tiers into bottoms or lows.
The project M guys took the best approach. Use the top as a basis and bring the weak up. Now everyone is going to be a match for one another. And the great thing about it is that the "tiers" will actually be much closer. The Bottom tier will be the equivalent of a Melee High Tier while the top tier will be the equivalent of Melee Top tier. In other words, translated into Melee, you can say that characters will range from High to Top. This is fairly impressive.
You are talking to a Guilty Gear Pro. I can guarantee I will beat you with your own character. Ky is a solid character, and compared to the rest of the cast, has a better chance against Testament. That match is 100% even. The problem is that you don't know how to move in that match, and can't be patient, while he tries to EXE Beast you. I play with Anji, arguably the third worst character in the game. I can beat every character you throw at me. Not because I don't have bad matchups (look at Millia or May) but because I know the situations that occur well enough to understand my wheel of options.
If you've played Guilty Gear at a high level, you'd realize that the tier list is irrelevant at this point in time. Testament and Eddie ARE better than the rest of the cast. Johnny and Bridget, argued to be the worst, still managed to get second at the 2009 SBO. For those of you who don't know SBO is effectively the olympics of fighting games. Sure a Testament was ON the winning team, but it was a VENOM that beat each of them. Venom isn't above mid tier in AC.
Also, Ky was the strongest Character is the previous iteration of Guilty Gear, and Jin has never been below A tier. The problem that you're running into is that you don't have a high enough understanding of either game to really understand why either character was good or bad. All you know is that you read on one or two message boards that characters got nerfs (which for Ky was absolutely necessary, for how incredibly dumb he was in Slash, and for Jin was a decrease in damage and unintentional mixup)
If you want to talk about a game that's unbalanced, sure Blazblue is the place to be. There are inherent problems. That's why it was brought up in the first place. By keeping the bad parts of a character ON THE CHARACTER, you generally make for bad balance, as BlazBlue shows.
Guilty Gear on the other hand, tampers with the characters and really messes with everything about them. It realizes what makes a character good and tweaks with everything about a character, and on their fourth iteration have made what is probably the single most balanced game ever made (aside from single character fighters like Street Fighter 1). Disagree? Ask anyone who has ever played the game with any regard. The tiers in GG aren't like a Street Fighter or a Smash game. Smash works like MVC2. You have 5 or 6 real choices in characters. Roy? Pichu? Mewtwo? Not one of them can stand against a good Falco, Marth, or Jigglypuff. Guilty Gear? It's not uncommon for a Bridget to beat Testament. Eddie can lose to Johnny pretty easy.
Learn what you're actually talking about before you open your mouth next time.
Omega Muffin said:
For srs though. All I'm gonna say is, if it's not game breaking then why change it? Marth and Falco's spikes compliment they're gameplay and Falcon and Ganon's are so situational/underused that it's not worth mentioning. I could understand if those four were on top ONLY because of their spikes but they're not...
The reason spikes are inherently bad are because a system to combat the spikes from N64 were introduced IN MELEE. Meteor Cancels exist because killing someone at 10% with a Kirby D-Air was ********. Falco and Marth can EASILY do the same crap in Melee, but because people have played with those characters for the last 10 years, for some reason it's OK for them to have them. Has anyone thought about this: Why not SEE what happens if you change them to a meteor? Why not see what new situations can arise from it? Why not actually make an attempt to change the game instead of trying to recreate a game that I bought when I was 13.
I know a lot of people don't like me for attempting to put actual input on things that are inherently wrong with the balance of Melee. True spikes were ******** 10 years ago. Just because you're trying to make something CLOSE to what you did in 6th grade doesn't mean you can't muck around with some of the characters. God forbid, it might make you actually have to relearn some of the characters and make you a better player for observing newer and more interesting situations as opposed to the same situations you saw back in 2001.
