Your Favorite Super Smash Bros. Character

[Bartmanhomer]

Who's your favorite Super Smash Bros. Character? My character is Ness in all four versions of Super Smash Bros. These are my reasons why I play Ness. I play Earthbound (AKA Mother 2 in Japan.) I enjoy using his projectile so much. I use PK Fire so much and finish him with a Smash attack. He's really a good fighter and easy to use. And those are my reasons why I like Ness as my favorite Super Smash Bros. character. :smile:

[Dienekes]

There is only THE 'DORF!

If only he didn't suck in 2 of the 3 games he was put in.

I mean don't get me wrong. I still play him almost exclusively and regularly win in my circle of friends. But it is an uphill battle.

[Bartmanhomer]

There is only THE 'DORF!

If only he didn't suck in 2 of the 3 games he was put in.

I mean don't get me wrong. I still play him almost exclusively and regularly win in my circle of friends. But it is an uphill battle.

Blame tiers for that.

[Zevox]

Blame tiers for that.
Um, no, that's backwards - tiers reflect the basic reality that some characters in fighting games are better than others. They're just lists showing approximately where each character falls in relation to each other when played at high levels of competition. The game's mechanics and the way the characters are designed are what creates them, partially because perfect balance in such games is only possible if all characters have exactly the same abilities (which would be boring), partially because most fighting games will have some characters that weren't all that well-balanced. Smash Brothers in particular has a lot of the latter in its history, particularly since it was only with the most recent entry that the developers even tried to pay much attention to how the game's balance works among players who actually play the game at any decent level of competition.

Ganondorf's troubles in Smash Brothers specifically - well, I don't know enough about him to say that I can get all of them, especially across the three different games he's been in, but on a basic level they're partly because he's designed as a character with very slow attacks and poor recovery, which are two things that are very exploitable by good players. All the hitting power in the world won't help you if your opponents easily block or dodge every attack and then have an easy time finishing you once you're offstage.

Anyway, for myself, my characters changed in every game. In the original, I played Captain Falcon for the most part, occasionally using Link. Then Melee came out and I couldn't play Falcon due to the changes they made to him, and wasn't so good with Link anyway - but wound up loving Marth, who became basically the only character I played in that one. His speed and quick sword strikes just felt so good to pull off.

Then came Brawl, and Marth fell way down my list because he was the one character where I really felt the mechanical differences between that game and Melee. Instead, I wound up maining Lucas, with Falco as my #2 and King Dedede as my #3, and a variety of others that I played to lesser degrees, including ROB, Ike, Ness, Mario, and Pit.

Finally, Smash 4, and with Lucas not even in it until the DLC came out I had to switch. Falco wound up being nerfed into the ground and just didn't feel at all like he used to, so I barely played him. King Dedede narrowly edged out some of the newcomers to become my new main, with Palutena taking my #2 spot and ROB my #3. I loved some of the new moves Dedede got in the transition, with his powerful new back-air, rolling down-tilt, faster forward-air, and of course the Gordo Toss (though granted in some matchups that is a double-edged sword). Oh, and the sheer killing power his up-air suddenly had. Palutena meanwhile is a deeply flawed character, but one that feels great when you make her tools work - and of the few really good moves she has, there's little more fun than beating basically every falling attack in the game with her insane up-air.

Besides them, I actually play a lot of characters to lesser degrees: Robin, Ike, Marth (more than in Brawl, less than in Melee), Ness, Zero Suit Samus, Toon Link, Pit, Sonic, Mega Man, Pac-Man, and Shulk. Once the DLC started coming out, I played some Mewtwo and Lucas, but never really even got decent with them. I played a lot more of Corrin and, especially, Bayonetta. Bayonetta might well replace Dedede as my main if I play much again in the future, honestly - she is, as in her own games, just an absolute ton of fun in every way.

[Bartmanhomer]

Um, no, that's backwards - tiers reflect the basic reality that some characters in fighting games are better than others. They're just lists showing approximately where each character falls in relation to each other when played at high levels of competition. The game's mechanics and the way the characters are designed are what creates them, partially because perfect balance in such games is only possible if all characters have exactly the same abilities (which would be boring), partially because most fighting games will have some characters that weren't all that well-balanced. Smash Brothers in particular has a lot of the latter in its history, particularly since it was only with the most recent entry that the developers even tried to pay much attention to how the game's balance works among players who actually play the game at any decent level of competition.

Ganondorf's troubles in Smash Brothers specifically - well, I don't know enough about him to say that I can get all of them, especially across the three different games he's been in, but on a basic level they're partly because he's designed as a character with very slow attacks and poor recovery, which are two things that are very exploitable by good players. All the hitting power in the world won't help you if your opponents easily block or dodge every attack and then have an easy time finishing you once you're offstage.

Anyway, for myself, my characters changed in every game. In the original, I played Captain Falcon for the most part, occasionally using Link. Then Melee came out and I couldn't play Falcon due to the changes they made to him, and wasn't so good with Link anyway - but wound up loving Marth, who became basically the only character I played in that one. His speed and quick sword strikes just felt so good to pull off.

Then came Brawl, and Marth fell way down my list because he was the one character where I really felt the mechanical differences between that game and Melee. Instead, I wound up maining Lucas, with Falco as my #2 and King Dedede as my #3, and a variety of others that I played to lesser degrees, including ROB, Ike, Ness, Mario, and Pit.

Finally, Smash 4, and with Lucas not even in it until the DLC came out I had to switch. Falco wound up being nerfed into the ground and just didn't feel at all like he used to, so I barely played him. King Dedede narrowly edged out some of the newcomers to become my new main, with Palutena taking my #2 spot and ROB my #3. I loved some of the new moves Dedede got in the transition, with his powerful new back-air, rolling down-tilt, faster forward-air, and of course the Gordo Toss (though granted in some matchups that is a double-edged sword). Oh, and the sheer killing power his up-air suddenly had. Palutena meanwhile is a deeply flawed character, but one that feels great when you make her tools work - and of the few really good moves she has, there's little more fun than beating basically every falling attack in the game with her insane up-air.

Besides them, I actually play a lot of characters to lesser degrees: Robin, Ike, Marth (more than in Brawl, less than in Melee), Ness, Zero Suit Samus, Toon Link, Pit, Sonic, Mega Man, Pac-Man, and Shulk. Once the DLC started coming out, I played some Mewtwo and Lucas, but never really even got decent with them. I played a lot more of Corrin and, especially, Bayonetta. Bayonetta might well replace Dedede as my main if I play much again in the future, honestly - she is, as in her own games, just an absolute ton of fun in every way.

I disagree. Tiers is the best thing that happened since when Nintendo first released SSB64. And also winning Smash is the most important thing of all. That's me talking meta.

[Destro_Yersul]

I disagree. Tiers is the best thing that happened since when Nintendo first released SSB64. And also winning Smash is the most important thing of all. That's me talking meta.

That's not you disagreeing, that's an entirely different point. The value of tiers is not what's in question here. What's in question is which, between chicken and egg, came first. Are characters built with tiers in mind, or do tiers evolve organically as people discover which characters are good? It is arguably the second of those two options.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's not you disagreeing, that's an entirely different point. The value of tiers is not what's in question here. What's in question is which, between chicken and egg, came first. Are characters built with tiers in mind, or do tiers evolve organically as people discover which characters are good? It is arguably the second of those two options.
Well tiers aren't perfect. Don't get me wrong I play bottom tiers characters as well because I'm more comfortable playing with them.

[Destro_Yersul]

Well tiers aren't perfect. Don't get me wrong I play bottom tiers characters as well because I'm more comfortable playing with them.

Nobody is saying that tiers are bad or good. Nobody is saying that anybody should only play top tier characters.

What we are saying is that characters are not intentionally organised into tiers when the game is made. Ganondorf is not weak because he's low tier, he's low tier because he's weak.

[Bartmanhomer]

Nobody is saying that tiers are bad or good. Nobody is saying that anybody should only play top tier characters.

What we are saying is that characters are not intentionally organised into tiers when the game is made. Ganondorf is not weak because he's low tier, he's low tier because he's weak.
Huh? Ok I'm kind of confused about the last part. Can you explain some examples? Because I'm actually lost. :confused:

[Destro_Yersul]

I'll try.

Let's say you have a penny. Pennies are worth 1 cent. Are pennies worth 1 cent because they're made out of copper, or was the decisison made to make pennies out of copper because pennies are only meant to be worth 1 cent?

It's a directionality thing. Tier lists are not made up by the developers of the game prior to release. They don't say "We need another high tier character, let's make this guy really good." Instead what happens is that they make a character that happens to be really good, and so the players put that character into a high tier when they're making the lists.

[Dienekes]

Huh? Ok I'm kind of confused about the last part. Can you explain some examples? Because I'm actually lost. :confused:

Think of it this way, man. No one intentionally set out to make Ganondorf weak. He was designed just to be Ganondorf.

However, after millions of people playing millions of hours combined, it became apparent that Ganondorf has some fundamental problems that make other characters have serious advantages over him. In fact when looked at objectively, in SSBB basically every other character in the game had advantages over him. That's what made him low tier. He isn't weak because he was designed to be low tier. He was placed as low tier because when all is said and done, his design was weak.

In THE 'DORF!'s specific case, his poor move speed, terrible air recovery, pitiful grab, and that every kill move he has creates giant windows to punish him all add up to him being kind of crap.

An interesting look into what could be done to improve him is the various balancing mode, Project M being the one I'm most familiar with.

Basically get rid of half the recovery off his moves allowing him to actually combo and not be punished for doing anything that isn't the air smash attack. There's more to it, of course, but those are the big points.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'll try.

Let's say you have a penny. Pennies are worth 1 cent. Are pennies worth 1 cent because they're made out of copper, or was the decisison made to make pennies out of copper because pennies are only meant to be worth 1 cent?

It's a directionality thing. Tier lists are not made up by the developers of the game prior to release. They don't say "We need another high tier character, let's make this guy really good." Instead what happens is that they make a character that happens to be really good, and so the players put that character into a high tier when they're making the lists.Oh now I get it. I also believe that the penny bit was mention in the TV show The Inspectors,. That you for clarifying that example.


Think of it this way, man. No one intentionally set out to make Ganondorf weak. He was designed just to be Ganondorf.

However, after millions of people playing millions of hours combined, it became apparent that Ganondorf has some fundamental problems that make other characters have serious advantages over him. In fact when looked at objectively, in SSBB basically every other character in the game had advantages over him. That's what made him low tier. He isn't weak because he was designed to be low tier. He was placed as low tier because when all is said and done, his design was weak.

In THE 'DORF!'s specific case, his poor move speed, terrible air recovery, pitiful grab, and that every kill move he has creates giant windows to punish him all add up to him being kind of crap.
Now I understand that now. Thank you.

[KillianHawkeye]

So as a self-described Earthbound fan, does it bother you that Ness gets moves in Smash Bros that he didn't have in the source game? Psi Fire and Psi Thunder were Paula's attacks.


As for my own favorite, I'm pretty fond of Bowser's ability to throw his weight around.

[Knaight]

For actually playing conventionally, it varies by game - Samus and Kirby suit me well in the original through Brawl, but in Brawl I switched to Lucario for my main - that counter is beautiful, and while it has serious flaws in duels it gets brutally effective in four player matches with items. Then there's a set of fairly effective short range strikes, the grabs, and the use of the charged aura ball as a combo finisher from a grab and smack.

Four player matches are maybe half of what I play Brawl for though (back when I played it, it's not been in circulation for a while. The other is a three player team multiplayer against an AI, in Stamina mode. You pick a themed set of three characters, and give them one stamina each. You then pick a tough enemy that fits the three, and give it 300. All three characters must live, only stamina kills count as real kills, start at AI 1 and move up. The two main sets we used were Link+Marth+Ike vs. Bowser and Fox+Falco+Wolf vs. Samus.

[Bartmanhomer]

So as a self-described Earthbound fan, does it bother you that Ness gets moves in Smash Bros that he didn't have in the source game? Psi Fire and Psi Thunder were Paula's attacks.


As for my own favorite, I'm pretty fond of Bowser's ability to throw his weight around.No it doesn't bother me at all and don't forget PK Starstorm, one of Poo's attacks as well.

[Rynjin]

There is only THE 'DORF!

If only he didn't suck in 2 of the 3 games he was put in.

I mean don't get me wrong. I still play him almost exclusively and regularly win in my circle of friends. But it is an uphill battle.

All hail THE DORF!

Snake is a close second, if only he were in 4. Marth is the only actually good character I like to play.

[KillianHawkeye]

No it doesn't bother me at all and don't forget PK Starstorm, one of Poo's attacks as well.

I actually did forget about that because I don't like playing with the Smash Ball. I feel like it ruins the game, because when it shows up everybody stops what they're doing to chase it (or the person who grabs it). But I'm an old-school original SSB player who has mostly just played the first two games in the series.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I've only played the more recent games, but Ganondorf is one of my favorites as well, largely because he fits my player profile.

[Bartmanhomer]

I actually did forget about that because I don't like playing with the Smash Ball. I feel like it ruins the game, because when it shows up everybody stops what they're doing to chase it (or the person who grabs it). But I'm an old-school original SSB player who has mostly just played the first two games in the series.

Smash ball is the best item in the game. I sometimes play Smash ball just to finished everybody off.

[Keltest]

I'm a young/toon link man myself. Toon link especially, I enjoy bouncing around the stage being impossible to pin down, only to come in with some real power once I'm in position.

[danzibr]

Ooooh, I'm liking this thread :)

I started on Melee. Went back to the original a little, didn't like it. Anyway, I first mained Sheik, then picked up Ganondorf. I'll use Ganondorf in anything other than 1v1, and in 1v1 I use Sheik.

I am *not* a fan of Brawl. I play Ike if I have to play it.

I do like Smash 4 though. My main is Ike there again.

[DataNinja]

I started in Melee, and tended to use Zelda as my main. I switched her out for Lucas in Brawl, and then returned to her again in 4. I've never been terribly good, but, meh. Good enough to consistently beat my family, which is what matters. :smalltongue:

[Triaxx]

I spent three games learning how to stomp most opponent's with Captain Falcon. In Brawl it translated well to Ganondorf for no reason other than him starting as a much slower, much stronger clone of the Captain. Reach and range were problems I ran into with him. But once you work that out, he's extremely good.

As for tiers... don't pay that much attention. I know that'll get a lot of comments, but it's a case of getting too wrapped up in the Metagame to actually play the game itself. But tiers tend to land in 'how easy can I win' territory in my view.

Meta Knight, when last I looked, was top of the pyramid, because you could simply spam your attacks at the enemy and you'd basically win without any effort. Of course he also telegraphed his smash enough that you could back flip clear and counter it, but you've gotta be ready for it. And the only two I found that were really able to manage a counter were Captain Falcon and Kirby. Falcon Kick and turning into a rock respectively, would both hit an instant after the teleport finished.

That said, I've not played since Brawl, so I'm pretty sure things have changed.

[Alent]

I started and finished with Melee, so I haven't really seen much/any of the Brawl or later characters. Marth and Ganon are my go to Melee charas- Marth when I feel like using finesse, Ganon when I feel like caving someone's face in.

Never really had that many people to play with, tho'. I wasn't that good, but I was in that awkward middle ground where the few people I knew that played were either lightyears above me or beyond terrible. Game wasn't that fun without a few equals to spar against.

[Hiro Protagonest]

But once you work that out, he's extremely good.

No, he's not. You have to out-fundamental your opponent by a good margin, and that means your win condition is "be much more skilled than my opponent."

It doesn't really matter at a lot of skill levels (there are plenty of good solo Big Bands online in Skullgirls, trust me I know... but at least Big Band has armor and a good grab), but then you aren't in a position to argue against tiers.

[Triaxx]

Yes and no. Speed is life, and Ganondorf has no speed, and very little reach. So you basically have to land on an opponent, and then hit them. But you're right, you've got to be picture perfect.

[danzibr]

No, he's not. You have to out-fundamental your opponent by a good margin, and that means your win condition is "be much more skilled than my opponent."

It doesn't really matter at a lot of skill levels (there are plenty of good solo Big Bands online in Skullgirls, trust me I know... but at least Big Band has armor and a good grab), but then you aren't in a position to argue against tiers.
As much as I'd love to defend Ganondorf, I have to agree with Hiro Protagonist (Protagonest?). Against unskilled players, Ganon is great. I've seen a ton of videos of Smash 4 tournaments, and there's a reason not many main Ganondorf.

[Bartmanhomer]

What if a skilled Ganondorf fight an unskilled top tier character such as Bayonetta? It does happen sometimes, right? :confused:

[danzibr]

What if a skilled Ganondorf fight an unskilled top tier character such as Bayonetta? It does happen sometimes, right? :confused:
Skill is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more important than this tier stuff. I could use any character and beat a novice playing as any character. As Hiro sort of put it, it's about fundamentals. I can DI, dodge, grab, shield, use items well, know when to tilt, punish, whatever. Don't get me wrong, I'm no real pro, but I have all the basics.

[Dienekes]

What if a skilled Ganondorf fight an unskilled top tier character such as Bayonetta? It does happen sometimes, right? :confused:

It's basically like every fighting game. Tiers are useful for determining who is likely to win if all else is equal. But skill usually trumps anything else.

Now, admittedly there reaches a point where this stuff does effect things differently. Say one person is a grandmaster forced to use a crappy character when played against a normal master who gets to use the best. The master may win if the handicap caused by that low tier character is restrictive enough.

But since both these guys are masters their fundamentals are going to be fantastic. Which means the game will be decided on how well they use their cunning, and the intricacies in their characters kit to gain an advantage.

Only, in Brawl, Ganondorf didn't have very many advantages while Metaknight had everything. Meaning even though the grandmaster might be better the master could still win.

Truth be told, you don't even have to be at master level to see this sort of situation come into play. But usually the divide is shorter. Like two decent well practiced players who know what they're doing, one might be better and lose consistently if their character has blatant flaws that players at that level know how to exploit. But really, it's not so big a deal unless everyone is at least good.

For my own part I'm ok. My fundamentals are reasonably solid, better than an average novice but far far below that gap to a professional. So for me playing THE DORF I'm at that point where I and my opponent can recognize his weaknesses and try to exploit them. And his insanely too long punish windows, and strange lack of priority, have cost me a fair share of games that I may not have lost if I was training with a higher tier character. But the vast majority of my losses where just because I got outplayed, pure and simple.

[Bartmanhomer]

It's that time again folks, Tier Debate! :biggrin:

[Rynjin]

It's not really a debate, since everybody I know who plays Smash, including the ones (like me) that really love playing DORF think he sucks pretty bad. He's better in Melee an 4 than in Brawl (where he is so unplayably awful I wouldn't even touch him) but he's bad. Really fun though.

He has the most satisfying suicide move in the game too.

[Bartmanhomer]

It's not really a debate, since everybody I know who plays Smash, including the ones (like me) that really love playing DORF think he sucks pretty bad. He's better in Melee an 4 than in Brawl (where he is so unplayably awful I wouldn't even touch him) but he's bad. Really fun though.

He has the most satisfying suicide move in the game too.
Well I don't play Ganondorf that much. It has nothing to do that he's horrible. It's doesn't give me the fighting edge and all. :frown:

[Keltest]

Well I don't play Ganondorf that much. It has nothing to do that he's horrible. It's doesn't give me the fighting edge and all. :frown:

That sounds a lot like "i don't play him because hes bad" to me, but whatever. I avoid him in brawl because it feels like he fights me for control of where he goes and what he does. He's too slow and telegraphed, so I can really only be effective with him in a big 4 person brawl where i can exploit distractions to get a windup, and even that's hard because I'm such an easy target.

[Bartmanhomer]

That sounds a lot like "i don't play him because hes bad" to me, but whatever. I avoid him in brawl because it feels like he fights me for control of where he goes and what he does. He's too slow and telegraphed, so I can really only be effective with him in a big 4 person brawl where i can exploit distractions to get a windup, and even that's hard because I'm such an easy target.

That's not the reason why I don't play Ganondorf that much. The real reason why I don't play him that much is because I'm not a good Ganondorf player. And I already mention before I play Ness as my main. :annoyed:

[Zevox]

What if a skilled Ganondorf fight an unskilled top tier character such as Bayonetta? It does happen sometimes, right? :confused:
Dienekes has the right of it. Broadly speaking, player skill typically matters more than character choice - certainly if you put someone who has never played the game up against anyone who has ever put any effort into studying how to play it well, even if they're not great, the player with some idea what they're doing will win every time, no matter the characters used. Similarly, putting top-end tournament players up against mid-level players like myself will result in the mid-level player getting creamed, no matter who is using what character.

Moreover though, tier lists are typically constructed by people who are very into the game's competitive scene, and in Smash Brothers specifically effort is made to construct the "official" tier lists off feedback from top players and observable tournament trends. The whole point is that they represent how good those characters are in the hands of players who know how to use their strengths and exploit their weaknesses at that high level of play - for players who aren't competing at that level, they mean a lot less, if anything at all. So even in the case of two players of similar skill levels, tiers won't matter so much, or possibly at all, for players of low skill. Ganondorf's problem with having so many slow, punishable moves doesn't matter when his opponent doesn't know to strike him during those windows of vulnerability, and his poor linear, predictable recovery doesn't matter if his opponent doesn't know how to use it to hit him while he's offstage, for instance.

For another example, in the first fighting game I started taking seriously and learning to play, Blazblue, there's a character called Iron Tager, who is always bad on a tournament level, and was by far the worst on the tier list in the first game. But at low-level play, he was a popular character online when I started playing, and I had a hard time against him, because I didn't know what to do about the moves he had - I was new and still hadn't figured out how to exploit his weaknesses. And that wasn't a matter of my opponents being better than me, they were largely low-level players who weren't playing so great either. But precisely because both of us lacked the knowledge and experience necessary to play our characters and the matchup in anything resembling the way higher-level players did, the fact that I was playing the one of the top 4 characters on the tier list and they were playing the worst didn't matter at all.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, that's something most people don't realize. Tiers are all about the skill CEILING of a class, not the floor. I.E. how does it fare at high levels of play with a very skilled player whoknows the ins and outs of the class? Not how well a noob can do against other low skill players.

The other fighting game I'm really into is Soul Calibur (IV mostly, not a fan of V) and some characters like Kilik and Yun Seong seem godlike at low skill levels. Conversely characters like Maxi and Taki seem like trash.

Once you get deeper in the game though...those two categories flip. Maxi and Taki are top tier characters for a multitude of a reasons an unskilled player can't or doesn't know they should take advantage of. Kilik and Yun Seong on the other hand are easy peasy to pick up...but are incredibly easy to counter if you know what you're about.

Soul Calibur is another game I hang out in the "iffy tier" as far as favorite characters go though. Voldo and Yoshimitsu for life.

[Triaxx]

Talk about Dorf all you want but I recall the N64 days of trying to land a Falcon Punch on anyone faster than Donkey Kong. Not fun.

[OracleofWuffing]

Been liking Meta Knight (even in 43DS/WiiU after they realized how certain mechanics worked and adjusted them) and Greninja. Guess I just kind of like jumpy characters that hit a lot but not necessarily in a strong manner. Pikachu's goodish- but I never learned how to take advantage of Quick Attack properly- as is Duck Hunt Dog, and Kirby's always safe. I kind of enjoy playing as Falco, Roy-the-one-not-in-the-clown-car, and Lucas (though I never really took towards PK Thunder as a triple jump), but don't like the franchises from which they originate.

I really liked playing Pichu in a four-player free-for-all for any laughs that came out of it, but he's not around any more.

[Triaxx]

Quick Attack is tricky to master. Start with up B, and then pull the stick in the direction you want to move before the glow stops. Since there isn't a consistent movement, you can't really rely on muscle memory, compared to say a quarter circle fireball.

On the other hand, he's hilarious on edges since Thunder can fire in the air.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I'm weird. Jigglypuff for life. In the blue bonnet costume for preference.

[VoxRationis]

I too take great delight in playing Jigglypuff in various kinds of summer headwear. The sheer cuteness factor of the character, combined with the aerial hit-and-run playstyle, makes Jigglypuff one of my favorite characters.

When I feel like trolling people hard, I play Zelda (especially in 4 where her teleport is a viable attack all its own). Nothing gives you quite the same power trip as playing a wizard chucking fireballs everywhere and teleporting around the battlefield like a final boss.

But generally, I like playing Marth. Marth seems like a good, fair character.

[Bucky]

Re: Favorites across the series
There's no character that I've used extensively across multiple games. The closest is Kirby, who I played seriously in 64 and casually in Brawl.

Re: Tiers in Brawl
My usual practice against unfamiliar players is to start by playing the terrible joke character who has all disadvantaged matchups. If my opponent can 3-stock me, I take them seriously and switch to Falco or w/e.

If my opponent loses, I keep playing the terrible joke character because I don't know how to hold back properly.

If my opponent wins but it's close, they're a fraud and I switch to a merely bad character like Ganondorf.

It's surprising both how many players think they're good but don't actually understand the game, and how effective this test is at rooting them out.



Talk about Dorf all you want but I recall the N64 days of trying to land a Falcon Punch on anyone faster than Donkey Kong. Not fun.

Captain Falcon 64 could combo into Falcon Punch. But that says more about 64's insane combo-friendliness than about Falcon.

[Triaxx]

I was pretty terrible at the game, so that's pretty much why. Mostly I only had the AI to practice against, and the 64 AI wasn't as nasty as later ones.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I guess my favorite character is Villager. I don't even like Smash Bros much (actually I like watching Sm4sh, but w/e), but Villager is such an oddball character, with all these weird setups that actually work. Granted Mega Man is in a similar boat, but he doesn't mesh with me.

[Rynjin]

I guess my favorite character is Villager. I don't even like Smash Bros much (actually I like watching Sm4sh, but w/e), but Villager is such an oddball character, with all these weird setups that actually work.

Smash potato! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjNO3WhrErM)

Also yeah Megaman is hot garbage.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also yeah Megaman is hot garbage.

He ain't, he just doesn't work with me. Pellets have so much utility but are way harder to use than the slingshot, and I can never kill with Mega Man, I can just fish for Dair and FSmash kills with my newb Villager (up-air also beats Cloud's Dair, it's amazing).

[danzibr]

It's that time again folks, Tier Debate! :biggrin:
Looking at your previous posts, it seems you believe in tiers (so to speak).

I don't really see how anyone could say they don't exist. There's a bazillion characters, and each character has movement speed, jump height, roll animations, height, weight, several different attacks at different strengths and speeds and hitboxes, then specials. How could they all be balanced?

[Rynjin]

He ain't, he just doesn't work with me. Pellets have so much utility but are way harder to use than the slingshot, and I can never kill with Mega Man, I can just fish for Dair and FSmash kills with my newb Villager (up-air also beats Cloud's Dair, it's amazing).

Megaman is just a character that doesn't belong in Smash as far as his current design goes, IMO. Every other character makes concessions on fighting style and is changed for either rule of cool or game balance, but Megaman play almost exactly like he would in a real Megaman game and it suuuuucks (to me).

[OracleofWuffing]

Maybe I just don't play against enough "good" players, but I have no problems against Mega Man and would like to see him as a returning character, even if it's only a historical thing. After all, if you want someone that doesn't belong in Smash Bros., it's


Quick Attack is tricky to master. Start with up B, and then pull the stick in the direction you want to move before the glow stops. Since there isn't a consistent movement, you can't really rely on muscle memory, compared to say a quarter circle fireball.
Yeah, I got the basics, but it's still just "a recovery move" in my books than the positioning/damaging nightmare that it's apparently wonderful at when you get closer to the ceiling level of play.

[Triaxx]

Because it has the potential for a second and third turn, and does damage on all three, if I'm not totally mistaken. Basically the first two go up slightly, and the third back to the ground. The second you make touch you're clear to start over again. Of course I might be mis-remembering.

[Bartmanhomer]

Looking at your previous posts, it seems you believe in tiers (so to speak).

I don't really see how anyone could say they don't exist. There's a bazillion characters, and each character has movement speed, jump height, roll animations, height, weight, several different attacks at different strengths and speeds and hitboxes, then specials. How could they all be balanced?
I use to be an anti-tier once but now I believe in tiers. The reason why I believe in tiers because my favorite character which is Ness used to be in high tier in Smash 4 but now he's in the the top of the middle tier.

[danzibr]

Megaman is just a character that doesn't belong in Smash as far as his current design goes, IMO. Every other character makes concessions on fighting style and is changed for either rule of cool or game balance, but Megaman play almost exactly like he would in a real Megaman game and it suuuuucks (to me).

Maybe I just don't play against enough "good" players, but I have no problems against Mega Man and would like to see him as a returning character, even if it's only a historical thing. After all, if you want someone that doesn't belong in Smash Bros., it's

Yeah, I got the basics, but it's still just "a recovery move" in my books than the positioning/damaging nightmare that it's apparently wonderful at when you get closer to the ceiling level of play.
Oh man, I love MM. Suck with him, but love him. If I had the time, I'd like to be as proficient with him as I am with my main.

I use to be an anti-tier once but now I believe in tiers. The reason why I believe in tiers because my favorite character which is Ness used to be in high tier in Smash 4 but now he's in the the top of the middle tier.
Wait... how did that change your view on tiers?

[Bartmanhomer]

Oh man, I love MM. Suck with him, but love him. If I had the time, I'd like to be as proficient with him as I am with my main.

Wait... how did that change your view on tiers?

Because tiers have open my eyes in recent Smash Games which is the fourth installment.

[Blackhawk748]

Mewtwo now and forever.

On the Ganandorf thing, i like him, but i find it extremely annoying that hes just a slower and tankier Captain Falcon. Seriously Nintendo, the man has a sword and throws Magical bolts of death, let him use those!

[Bartmanhomer]

Tiers trumps over anything else.

[Destro_Yersul]

Tiers trumps over anything else.

Skill disagrees with you.

[Bartmanhomer]

Skill disagrees with you.

*Ness uses PK Staratorm to obliterate skill.* Check and mate. :smile:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Teamwork OP.

[Keltest]

*Ness uses PK Staratorm to obliterate skill.* Check and mate. :smile:

*anybody else uses skill to avoid being damaged by PK Starstorm.*

I mean, it isn't an instant screenclear by any means. and not everybody plays with smash balls on anyway, so that's an especially weak argument.

[Bartmanhomer]

*anybody else uses skill to avoid being damaged by PK Starstorm.*

I mean, it isn't an instant screenclear by any means. and not everybody plays with smash balls on anyway, so that's an especially weak argument.

As the most legendary and iconic cereal commercial at all time will say: Silly skill, tiers are for kids. :biggrin:

[Knaight]

*anybody else uses skill to avoid being damaged by PK Starstorm.*

I mean, it isn't an instant screenclear by any means. and not everybody plays with smash balls on anyway, so that's an especially weak argument.

Even if they do, Ness isn't a particularly strong character at securing them.

[Rynjin]

Mewtwo now and forever.

On the Ganandorf thing, i like him, but i find it extremely annoying that hes just a slower and tankier Captain Falcon. Seriously Nintendo, the man has a sword and throws Magical bolts of death, let him use those!

Play Project M.

[danzibr]

Tiers trumps over anything else.

Skill disagrees with you.
Indeed, indeed.

[BeerMug Paladin]

All this talk of tiers reminds me of a fighting game enthusiast I once knew who was talking about tiers to me. As he explained to me how I was wasting my time by choosing terrible characters to practice playing, we found out I could fairly consistently beat his choice of a high tier character with someone on rock bottom in a game I barely understood. He freely admitted at the time that the tiers didn't really matter at his level of skill. When I play competitive games (rarely do anymore) I never give them any thought for that reason. I only play for fun, not for competition, but I usually ended up better than most people I played with who did try to compete.

More on topic, I never mained anyone in any iteration of Smash and set the character selector to random almost always. That said, I did notice I was generally better with some characters. Kirby just felt broken in the original. In melee, I liked Jigglypuff's bonkers air juggling combos and Young Link was rather fun to perform hit and run tactics for. Pichu was pretty great just because it felt like it was supposed to be a joke/challenge choice more than a real character. I haven't played Brawl very much and Smash4 less, but I don't recall having any particularly strong characters out of those. Zelda was more fun to use for me out of the Zelda/Sheik divide, and that still holds true after the separation, but I think Sheik is a lot better now.

Several of the characters from Smash4 are hard for me to figure out. I'm not really particularly strong with any of them, but I'm weak with several. I don't understand why Jigglypuff's pound is so tiny now and it always throws me off because while I remember that the hitbox is smaller, I just never remember how much smaller it really is. Mega Man is just strange, and not in the Villager kind of strange where I can still manage to use them effectively, I just miss with everything. Duck Hunt having so many projectile attacks seems like it should be more usable at a variety of distances, but I can't really do anything effectively with him but close combat. I haven't played a few of the DLC characters.

I also tend to play with automatic handicaps turned on, because getting the same ranking results on every match isn't much fun.

[Blackhawk748]

Play Project M.

I do, i love it. As an added bonus it also makes Bowser better.

[Bucky]

I also tend to play with automatic handicaps turned on, because getting the same ranking results on every match isn't much fun.

Try stamina-plus-flower mode sometime with a stamina bonus instead of handicaps.

[VoxRationis]

I don't understand why Jigglypuff's pound is so tiny now and it always throws me off because while I remember that the hitbox is smaller, I just never remember how much smaller it really is.

Funny, that's the trouble I have with Marth's attacks. I've had no difficulty adjusting to Jigglypuff, but Marth always looks like he's going to swing his sword farther than he does. It's especially problematic, I suspect, because while one is usually trying to close distance as Jigglypuff, one is usually trying to get just within the hitbox as Marth, on account of his damage mechanics.

[Bartmanhomer]

Tiers are better than anything. Forget skill. Tiers are the bomb. :biggrin:

[Keltest]

Tiers are better than anything. Forget skill. Tiers are the bomb. :biggrin:

The fact that metaknight can lose games in Brawl suggests otherwise.

[Bartmanhomer]

The fact that metaknight can lose games in Brawl suggests otherwise.
Impossible. Meta-Knight can't lose in Brawl. He's still #1 in Brawl tier. I just wist he was #1 again in Smash 4.

[DataNinja]

Impossible. Meta-Knight can't lose in Brawl.

So, you're saying that someone who had never played Brawl before could, if they used Meta Knight, beat any person who was not also using Meta Knight?

[Bartmanhomer]

So, you're saying that someone who had never played Brawl before could, if they used Meta Knight, beat any person who was not also using Meta Knight?

Yes. Meta-Knight is extremely easy to use. :smile:

[Keltest]

Yes. Meta-Knight is extremely easy to use. :smile:

Challenge accepted.

[Bartmanhomer]

Challenge accepted.

What's happening? :confused:

[Keltest]

What's happening? :confused:

you made a silly claim that is, quite frankly, incredibly easy to disprove, and I cracked a joke about it that you apparently did not get.

[Bartmanhomer]

you made a silly claim that is, quite frankly, incredibly easy to disprove, and I cracked a joke about it that you apparently did not get.

It's not a silly claim. Tiers are infinite percent fact.

[Dienekes]

It's not a silly claim. Tiers are infinite percent fact.

Right, ok. But, just because tiers exist doesn't mean upsets can't happen.

For instance, as mentioned before, I play THE DORF. I do now, I did back in SSBB when he was at the rock bottom. I could still beat my friends playing anyone else, because I'm generally just better than them at fighting games. They kick my ass at shooters, I kick theirs in fighters.

As Keltest mentions, Metaknight, despite being the top of the tier list in SSBB can still lose. I can verify that, I've beaten people playing Metaknight before.

That this happens does not deny that tiers exist. Tiers are still a fact, but they are not the only fact.

What tiers do is measure the amount of useful actions available to a character in comparison to other characters, and how powerful those useful actions are. Resulting in who has a higher chance of winning, when compared to others on near equivalent skill, with a large focus on competitive skill rather than amateur skill.

Metaknight is so very high on the tier list, because a large portion of his move list are useful competitively. And among those are moves that are extremely powerful.

Ganondorf is not high on the tier list, because a large portion of his move list are simply not useful in a competitive setting. And all of his extremely powerful moves are for the most part locked in those moves of his that are not competitively useful.

However, since I'm not playing at a competitive level. And so I can get away with things that competitive players can't, allowing me to use more of those powerful moves and beating opponents that are playing higher tier characters.

[Bartmanhomer]

Right, ok. But, just because tiers exist doesn't mean upsets can't happen.

For instance, as mentioned before, I play THE DORF. I do now, I did back in SSBB when he was at the rock bottom. I could still beat my friends playing anyone else, because I'm generally just better than them at fighting games. They kick my ass at shooters, I kick theirs in fighters.

As Keltest mentions, Metaknight, despite being the top of the tier list in SSBB can still lose. I can verify that, I've beaten people playing Metaknight before.

That this happens does not deny that tiers exist. Tiers are still a fact, but they are not the only fact.

What tiers do is measure the amount of useful actions available to a character in comparison to other characters, and how powerful those useful actions are. Resulting in who has a higher chance of winning, when compared to others on near equivalent skill, with a large focus on competitive skill rather than amateur skill.

Metaknight is so very high on the tier list, because a large portion of his move list are useful competitively. And among those are moves that are extremely powerful.

Ganondorf is not high on the tier list, because a large portion of his move list are simply not useful in a competitive setting. And all of his extremely powerful moves are for the most part locked in those moves of his that are not competitively useful.

However, since I'm not playing at a competitive level. And so I can get away with things that competitive players can't, allowing me to use more of those powerful moves and beating opponents that are playing higher tier characters.

True but you still don't need skill to play a good Meta-Knight. All he do is spam attacks to high damage and KOs.

[Delicious Taffy]

True but you still don't need skill to play a good Meta-Knight. All he do is spam attacks to high damage and KOs.

I have played as Meta-Knight several times in the past. I got my ass handed to me by a superior player using an "inferior" character. It is provably false, the claim you are making. Being at the top of a player-made tier list does not instantly equate to invincibility. Meta-Knight may be the most powerful character for a skilled player to use, but that does not make him absolutely unstoppable in every possible situation ever for all eternity no take-backs.

[Zevox]

True but you still don't need skill to play a good Meta-Knight. All he do is spam attacks to high damage and KOs.
Yeah, that's not even remotely true in any fighting game. There is no character in any half-decent fighting game that you do not need skill to play well, or with whom you can just spam attacks without knowing what you're doing and not get stomped by someone who does. That's not even close to what a tier list represents, as was explained in this thread several times before.

[Bartmanhomer]

I have played as Meta-Knight several times in the past. I got my ass handed to me by a superior player using an "inferior" character. It is provably false, the claim you are making. Being at the top of a player-made tier list does not instantly equate to invincibility. Meta-Knight may be the most powerful character for a skilled player to use, but that does not make him absolutely unstoppable in every possible situation ever for all eternity no take-backs.
Well obviously you're playing Meta-Knight the wrong way. :annoyed:

[Dienekes]

Well obviously you're playing Meta-Knight the wrong way. :annoyed:

Exactly. Player's without a basic level of skill or competence will play a powerful character the wrong way, and lose.

That's where skill comes into play.

And the fun note, even when everyone has a base line of skill there may be upsets where the higher tier character can lose when played by someone competent, against someone better, or luckier, than them.

It's when we get to the competitive level of gameplay, with people go off to win tournaments for actual money that the tier lists start to be a bit more rigid. If at the next great SSBB tourney, where thousands of dollars are on the line, if there someone picks Metaknight against someone playing Jigglypuff, the guy playing Metaknight will almost certainly win.

(Though even then, there are some upsets. I remember a few years back some big tourney was won with a Yoshi, but then people started practicing against Yoshi more often and that upset didn't happen again, as far as I know).

[Bartmanhomer]

Exactly. Player's without a basic level of skill or competence will play a powerful character the wrong way, and lose.

That's where skill comes into play.

And the fun note, even when everyone has a base line of skill there may be upsets where the higher tier character can lose when played by someone competent, against someone better, or luckier, than them.

It's when we get to the competitive level of gameplay, with people go off to win tournaments for actual money that the tier lists start to be a bit more rigid. If at the next great SSBB tourney, where thousands of dollars are on the line, if there someone picks Metaknight against someone playing Jigglypuff, the guy playing Metaknight will almost certainly win.

(Though even then, there are some upsets. I remember a few years back some big tourney was won with a Yoshi, but then people started practicing against Yoshi more often and that upset didn't happen again, as far as I know).

There's no luck in Smash. :annoyed:

[Keltest]

There's no luck in Smash. :annoyed:

Brawl (and I think 4) has a random chance for your character to just fall down instead of running where you want them to. Theres totally luck in Smash.

[Rynjin]

4 doesn't.

But any game involving a person and not just computers have an element of luck. No human is going to have mechanical precision. Something minor like a finger slipping on the controller, or a split second sticking on a button can cost a match.

[Zevox]

Brawl (and I think 4) has a random chance for your character to just fall down instead of running where you want them to. Theres totally luck in Smash.
No, fortunately they took tripping out of Smash 4.

Still, there is indeed elements of luck in Smash. Basic examples would be Peach's turnip pull special, which can randomly get a much more powerful turnip with Xs for eyes (or, if you don't fully disable items, even pull a bob-omb), or Mr. Game & Watch's side special, which rolls a random number between 1 and 9 when used and has a different effect based on which you roll - with a 9 even being an instant kill in most situations if it lands. Beyond that, in any fighting game you can always put people into a situation where it becomes a guessing game - do you block high or low? Or in Smash terms, do you dodge now, or are they baiting you to do so and will actually wait to attack? Ideally, you want to try and read your opponent in those situations, but sometimes you just don't have a read and guess instead, in which case whether you get hit or not might be a matter of luck (or it might be your opponent reading you).

Also, tons of stages can introduce elements of luck, though of course actual competitive tournaments avoid those.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also, tons of stages can introduce elements of luck, though of course actual competitive tournaments avoid those.

Goodbye, Duck Hunt. You'll be missed (by Sonic mains).

Smash 4 also has random untechable spin (lovingly referred to as "air tripping" by Brawl veterans), where in specific circumstances (I don't know how many characters can cause this, might be all of them, but it requires certain moves and stage position) there is a chance that a characer put into air tumble will go into a peculiar different type of tumble that can't be teched. This essentially allows for OTG (knockdown combo) smash attacks as a KO confirm - if it works.

[Bartmanhomer]

Brawl (and I think 4) has a random chance for your character to just fall down instead of running where you want them to. Theres totally luck in Smash.

There a thing called recovery which prevent all fighter from falling down.

[Dienekes]

There's no luck in Smash. :annoyed:

Of course there is, every fighting game has some luck involved.

At any given moment the enemy player can do just about anything with the characters moveset. You cannot know what that is 100% of the time. So you as a player use predictions to figure out what that opponent is going to do and react accordingly. Now, the best players have such a thorough knowledge of the mechanics and skills of the game that their predictions can be insanely accurate. But even they are wrong some of the time creating a window of response for the opponent to potentially take advantage of.

Ultimately, regardless of your prediction the outcome is partially the result of luck. What that enemy player actually did in that instant.

From a purely surgical look at professional fighting games. The top players use moves that provide the most efficient counter to the most common enemy moves in a way that is safe for them. The actual fight is just these players using these moves and attempting to either read or predict their opponent and take advantage from what comes out of those reads and predictions. Luck is an important factor in how accurate those predictions are. It is not the only factor, of course. Experience and understanding of the mechanics are as much if not far more important. But it's still there.

It's the same with almost every game really. There is a smidgen of luck involved, just to make things interesting. Without it, the game essentially just becomes an equation.

[Zevox]

There a thing called recovery which prevent all fighter from falling down.
Um, no, recovery refers to the act of getting back onto the stage when you've been knocked off of it. Unless maybe you're thinking of teching, which is something you can do if you hit the ground while in a falling animation to immediately stand up and avoid the period of being prone and vulnerable on the ground you otherwise get.

But in either case, neither one has anything to do with what he was referring to, which is Brawl's tripping mechanic - there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about that thing.

[danzibr]

I don't have *too* much to add. I can say in Brawl I usually played Ike or Ganondorf, and when I switched to Metaknight, I found my performance definitely went up. He is mechanically better. But right... skill is the greatest factor. Not the only factor, but the greatest factor.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

It's the same with almost every game really. There is a smidgen of luck involved, just to make things interesting. Without it, the game essentially just becomes an equation.

I'd argue that this is separate from luck in the game itself.

When deciding if a game has luck "built in," so to speak, the player's reactions and predictions are thrown out of the conversation. Instead, the focus is on if the MECHANICS rely on luck.

Things like critical hit chance, for example, are often pointed out as elements of games that are luck based, and thus make for an inferior competitive environment: no matter how well you play, there are times a superior player will lose a game because a random number generator gave his opponent two critical hits while he got none in return. Compare to a game with critical hit zones, where the skilled player will get more critical hits due to his superior skill in landing hits where he needs to.

----------------------------

There are actually quite a few random events in Smash.

Luigi's Green Misssile has a 1/8 chance of misfiring in Melee and Brawl, and a 1/10 chance in Smash 4.

Dedede's Waddle Dee Toss produces one of three outcomes with a skewed but still random chance.

Ivysaur's Razor Leaf curves slightly in a random direction.

Mr Game & Watch's Judge has nine randomly chosen attacks, with only the certainty that it won't pull one of the last two moves used.

The list goes on. (https://www.ssbwiki.com/Randomness)

[Triaxx]

Though I'm pretty sure tripping doesn't affect the air game. So as long as you don't run on the floor, you can't trip.

[Dienekes]

I'd argue that this is separate from luck in the game itself.

When deciding if a game has luck "built in," so to speak, the player's reactions and predictions are thrown out of the conversation. Instead, the focus is on if the MECHANICS rely on luck.

Things like critical hit chance, for example, are often pointed out as elements of games that are luck based, and thus make for an inferior competitive environment: no matter how well you play, there are times a superior player will lose a game because a random number generator gave his opponent two critical hits while he got none in return. Compare to a game with critical hit zones, where the skilled player will get more critical hits due to his superior skill in landing hits where he needs to.

----------------------------

There are actually quite a few random events in Smash.

Luigi's Green Misssile has a 1/8 chance of misfiring in Melee and Brawl, and a 1/10 chance in Smash 4.

Dedede's Waddle Dee Toss produces one of three outcomes with a skewed but still random chance.

Ivysaur's Razor Leaf curves slightly in a random direction.

Mr Game & Watch's Judge has nine randomly chosen attacks, with only the certainty that it won't pull one of the last two moves used.

The list goes on. (https://www.ssbwiki.com/Randomness)

You're not wrong,exactly. This is all independent chance inherent in the game. A definite example of luck being involved.

But I would argue that what I described is still luck. And since the original argument was just "luck influences the outcome." Not if the game system does or does not have non-player controlled percentage based events, I don't think I'm really wrong here.

The very action of engaging in a fight in SSB has a decent chunk of luck involved in the outcome. Even if, in some hacked version of the game, there were no random events in map, base system, or character.

[Crimsonshadow97]

Mewtwo, and samus if he's not available. I enjoy the highly evasive combat style, nothing is better than watching a friend fall to their death after missing an attack and going over the edge.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But I would argue that what I described is still luck. And since the original argument was just "luck influences the outcome." Not if the game system does or does not have non-player controlled percentage based events, I don't think I'm really wrong here.

I guess the thing there is that THAT definition doesn't get us anywhere aside from "all games require luck, since it's not a game if the outcome and the path to that outcome is entirely predetermined."

Hence my point of contention with it, and my thought that the original argument was referring to the concept of "luck" as it usually applies to video gaming -- i.e. the inclusion of it in specific mechanics.

Go and Chess, for example, are widely considered to be non-luck-based games, although there is always the catch of who goes first, and always the catch that you may not predict your opponent properly.

But yes. ALL games involving another human have a BIT of luck. :smalltongue:

[Dienekes]

I guess the thing there is that THAT definition doesn't get us anywhere aside from "all games require luck, since it's not a game if the outcome and the path to that outcome is entirely predetermined."

Hence my point of contention with it, and my thought that the original argument was referring to the concept of "luck" as it usually applies to video gaming -- i.e. the inclusion of it in specific mechanics.

Go and Chess, for example, are widely considered to be non-luck-based games, although there is always the catch of who goes first, and always the catch that you may not predict your opponent properly.

But yes. ALL games involving another human have a BIT of luck. :smalltongue:

And Chess is a theoretically solvable game. I mean, it hasn't been yet, and I don't expect it to ever get solved in my lifetime because the number of solutions are so damn high that it would take more computing power than we currently have available on the planet. But the possibility remains.

But as soon as a human element gets involved so too is luck a factor. Which is what I was going for.

But I would note there is a difference between luck based games, and games that have some small aspect of luck involved. Just about any non-solved game has some slight aspect of luck somewhere in the mix, does this make it a luck-based game? No. Because of all the other aspects of a game that influence outcomes can be even more important. My point was always just to admit that the luck is still there, as an influence that is nearly impossible to remove completely.

[Knaight]

Go and Chess, for example, are widely considered to be non-luck-based games, although there is always the catch of who goes first, and always the catch that you may not predict your opponent properly.

But yes. ALL games involving another human have a BIT of luck. :smalltongue:

That and there's the matter of luck playing a factor in just how well you play compared to your best, and just how well they play compared to their best, which varies across the game(s), as does the importance of playing at or near your best.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But as soon as a human element gets involved so too is luck a factor. Which is what I was going for.

Well, yeah. I'm pretty sure no one would challenge that, or question it. Which, frankly, is why I didn't feel it has a place in the discussion. :smalltongue:

After all...the same is true of the Olympics. An opponent who could beat you has a bad day, or trips, or you're just doing REALLY well that day, or the sun is in your eyes, or...etc. But we don't consider the Olympics to be a game of luck. We just assume that, in life, luck is always present to some extent.

Again, I think that's an entirely different argument than whether or not a game has luck as a factor. Since ALL games (and in fact most THINGS, game or not) do, it's sort of a moot point to bring it up at all unless you're talking about luck that influences outcomes MORE than usual (i.e. inbuilt randomness). 'tis just my thoughts on the matter. :smallsmile:

[Dienekes]

Well, yeah. I'm pretty sure no one would challenge that, or question it. Which, frankly, is why I didn't feel it has a place in the discussion. :smalltongue:

But... it was initially my discussion. I listed that luck is a factor in who wins a match. I kind of know what I was talking about. Which is why it was weird when you came in and said that what I meant wasn't accurate to what I meant. Apparently.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But... it was initially my discussion. I listed that luck is a factor in who wins a match. I kind of know what I was talking about. Which is why it was weird when you came in and said that what I meant wasn't accurate to what I meant. Apparently.

Ah! My apologies then! I thought i had caught the discussion midway through. I thought your comment had been in response to a statement about whether or not luck was an important factor in Smash, and had assumed the comment my brain apparently filled in had meant that in the sense of mechanical luck. Sorry! I've been a little out of things lately.

[Celestia]

I've primarily only played Melee. I tried the original once, but I never owned it, so I don't have much experience. When I was younger, I played Link almost exclusively. Now I tend to like Kirby more.

[Delicious Taffy]

Kirby main, here. I don't know where he falls on the super-important tiers in any of the games, but he's just a blast to play.

[Bartmanhomer]

I guess the thing there is that THAT definition doesn't get us anywhere aside from "all games require luck, since it's not a game if the outcome and the path to that outcome is entirely predetermined."

Hence my point of contention with it, and my thought that the original argument was referring to the concept of "luck" as it usually applies to video gaming -- i.e. the inclusion of it in specific mechanics.

Go and Chess, for example, are widely considered to be non-luck-based games, although there is always the catch of who goes first, and always the catch that you may not predict your opponent properly.

But yes. ALL games involving another human have a BIT of luck. :smalltongue:

Well I never play Go before. But I've play chess before. And chess is all skill. No luck involved.

[Keltest]

Well I never play Go before. But I've play chess before. And chess is all skill. No luck involved.

As mentioned, everything involving a human has luck involved to some degree. In chess, that degree is sufficiently small that it is generally considered to be a non-luck-based game, but to make an absolute statement like "no luck involved" is just wrong.

[Bartmanhomer]

As mentioned, everything involving a human has luck involved to some degree. In chess, that degree is sufficiently small that it is generally considered to be a non-luck-based game, but to make an absolute statement like "no luck involved" is just wrong. If you say so. :confused:

[Delicious Taffy]

You know who'd be great at chess? Kirby. Think about it for a minute.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If you say so. :confused:

I mean, it's factually true. Even if that luck is simply you being correct in analyzing your opponents skill level and thus anticipating their actions. Or you realizing they have two equally strong moves or avenues of attack, and correctly blocking off the one they were thinking about, forcing them to rethink their evolving long-term plan.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You know who'd be great at chess? Kirby. Think about it for a minute.

Eating all the pieces counts as a loss.

[Triaxx]

What if they're your opponent's pieces?

[Bartmanhomer]

I mean, it's factually true. Even if that luck is simply you being correct in analyzing your opponents skill level and thus anticipating their actions. Or you realizing they have two equally strong moves or avenues of attack, and correctly blocking off the one they were thinking about, forcing them to rethink their evolving long-term plan.

That makes sense.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Eating all the pieces counts as a loss.

Show me where it says that in the rulebook. :smalltongue:

[BeerMug Paladin]

So, I can take this running commentary about luck to mean that if I lose at Tic-Tac-Toe, I can blame luck for the loss? Lucky opponent, happened to act as if they knew Tic-Tac-Toe was a solved game.

[Dienekes]

So, I can take this running commentary about luck to mean that if I lose at Tic-Tac-Toe, I can blame luck for the loss? Lucky opponent, happened to act as if they knew Tic-Tac-Toe was a solved game.

I think one of the first things mentioned when luck was discussed that solved games remove luck entirely. Unless we count it as luck whether or not people know that is a solved game. Which can kind of be true. Since the question of solving tic-tac-toe is just "Has this person been informed how the game has been solved?" Which is pretty much luck.

But again, there are people who are just better. Always blaming luck is as ridiculous as completely disregarding it completely.

[Bartmanhomer]

You know who'd be great at chess? Kirby. Think about it for a minute.

He'll be known as grandmaster Kirby. :smile:

[Triaxx]

Tic-tac-toe is a teaching game. Since it's been solved you get two kinds of players, ones who insist on reminding people it's been solved, and others who know and play anyway.

I play it as a pattern recognition exercise, to put me in the mindset to see patterns and connections. Useful for solving puzzles.

[OracleofWuffing]

Show me where it says that in the rulebook. :smalltongue:
FIDE Laws of Chess (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article) Article 7.5.b, emphasis added.

After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
Since doing so would be making illegal moves with every piece, Kirby would probably lose the game at the movement of the second piece.

Of course, I cannot guarantee this, part because I don't know a darn thing about FIDE and the other part being that my What-If machine has been mysteriously inhaled.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I assume that manipulating the opponent's pieces is also illegal.

[OracleofWuffing]

En passant comes to mind as a possible interpretation where you can manipulate the opponent's pieces, but generally, yeah. Regardless, article 4.1 clarifies that you're only allowed to move pieces with one hand, so inhaling is illegal regardless. I now imagine that there's this whole civil war in the chess community over whether they should repeal that rule for people that don't have hands but want to play chess and then Air Bud comes along and

[Bartmanhomer]

I just realize something. I have to download some of the unlocked fighters and stages by internet. :frown:

[danzibr]

I just realize something. I have to download some of the unlocked fighters and stages by internet. :frown:
Well... I dunno if unlocked is the right way to look at it. They weren't in the base game.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well... I dunno if unlocked is the right way to look at it. They weren't in the base game.

This stinks. Why weren't they in the base game? :annoyed:

[Knaight]

This stinks. Why weren't they in the base game? :annoyed:

They were generally made after the base game's release, for one thing.

[Bartmanhomer]

They were generally made after the base game's release, for one thing.

Well Nintendo definitely screwed that one up.

[Zevox]

Well Nintendo definitely screwed that one up.
Um, no. They're DLC - extras that were made after the game was already out. They're entirely optional bonuses that wouldn't exist in any other form.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Um, no. They're DLC - extras that were made after the game was already out. They're entirely optional bonuses that wouldn't exist in any other form.

^^This.

The alternative would be to say games should A: be delayed until ALL possible future content is finished, or B: never release future content.

[Dienekes]

^^This.

The alternative would be to say games should A: be delayed until ALL possible future content is finished, or B: never release future content.

I'd be totally ok with games delayed until they're actually finished.

Hell, most of the games I do buy are the "Game of the Year" versions that are actually finished. It's great, and cheaper.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well Nintendo definitely screwed that one up.

DLC has been a thing for years, Nintendo's treating it reasonably well. They don't work for brownie points. They may not be CD Projekt Red or Lab Zero, but they still made a base roster of almost 50 characters and spent a few years on general updates.

Meanwhile, Capcom has just announced that Sigma will be a DLC character in Marvel vs Capcom Infinite. He's part of the story and the game's not going to be released for five months at earliest.

[Rynjin]

Some DLC IS bull****, disc locked content and stuff that was pulled from the finished game just to be released later are way bad.

The Sm4sh DLC was handled pretty well though. They gauged hype, took notes on what people would like to see, and released some solid characters that people had been clamoring for. That wouldn't have been really possible to do pre-release without delaying the game another year. For 4 characters? Not worth it.