• Announcements

    • Tangerine

      Serenes Forest Scribbles 2016 has begun, Raffle prizes have been updated!   12/03/16

      Hey everyone! We've started up our Creative event once more, you can check out the thread here:

      http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=67567

      If you're new here, it's an event where people can submit something they've created for the chance to have some fun and win some prizes. If you've got a talent you'd like to share with the FE community, there's no harm in giving it a go!
Esaka

Meta Knight is banned for all tourney's following official rules.

60 posts in this topic

"If mmmKALL's Meta Knight is anything like the competitive players' Meta Knights, then they seem to be relatively easy to beat."

It's not. Some of the worst players in Finland win my MK with relative ease. Jebu 2-3-stocks my MK with LUCAS. And Lucas, like, really sucks - and he almost never has even touched the character.

I may have some remnants and ideas of higher level Meta Knights, but I've only once ever used MK in a tournament iirc. That only explains even more how ridiculous he is - bringing a character from the pocket just because the opponent took MK and I can't deal with it otherwise. And I won with a early kill from Reverse Shuttle Loop. That's just stupid.

"Understandable, but in a normal tier list for a fighter, the tier is made up typically out of adding up the matchup flow."

That is true, but in Smash, tier lists are made to actually show who are good for competetive play. And that means to take into consideration the current meta game, which revolved around MK. After the ban, no tier lists are actually very viable any more, since they will shuffle from now on and "bad" characters also will be explored more. I actually think that some characters like Diddy wouldn't have seen the day if they didn't need to figure new ways to combat MK's dominance, and would argue that his metagame is actually around 90% figured out instead of around 75%. Still, this isn't BB. This is Smash. You can't read the tier lists in the same way between "traditional" fighters and Smash games. The top character in CS2 may be really good, but MK is just too overcentralizing. MK isn't maybe as good as he is in terms of power, but it's more about the variety and making the metagame fresh and actually enjoyable. Also, Smash doesn't have like, 15 tiers. There is the Meta tier and then tiers from A through G. It's confusing when you talk about beating a G tier when you mean, like, D/E tier.

Another note is also that Japan never banned Akuma either in SF2T unlike America. They only soft banned him, like O. Sagat.


Zelda/Sheik could be used better than just the other one with practice, sure, but take into account that neither have actually even been played that deeply. There are excellent Sheik players and excellent Zelda players (as far as their character allows them to be, at least), but learning Sheik/Zelda is really hard. Most players choose to stick with one because they can achieve a higher level like that instead of being mediocre with two characters and covering a few matchups more, while losing to all the others more often. Also, when you finally master one, more or less, it's much higher of a jump to go for a character you never used. The learning curve in Smash goes ways further than in traditional fighters, imo. It's not just about learning their tricks either, you actually have to put hundreds of hours into playing that character.

M2K, the best MK there is, quit Brawl. He used around 4000-5500 hours, 5-7 hours a day just to level up his Meta Knight. If you used 2000 hours into Sheik, would you then go and pick up Zelda too just to cover a few more match-ups, while you could be spending another 1000-2000 into Sheik instead? With Zelda/Sheik, it's not advised to change characters inbetween a single match, since Sheik is so much better than Zelda against most of the match-ups. You can switch to Zelda, but you will only handicap yourself like that if the MU is advantageous to Sheik but not to Zelda. The only single difference is if the player knows how to beat Sheik easily but has never played a Zelda, and that's unlikely.


Kaoz, I don't mind about you playing with MK on Serenes. It's refreshing and you keep the game active, while being good with it. I mean, sure, I could say that MK is overcentralizing, but I don't think anyone on Serenes is on the level where it matters that much, within our very small metagame where people don't pick up new mains just to beat Kaoz's MK.

About Marth or Diddy being the new MK, it's unlikely since neither dominate all the stages, both have counter-characters outside of Meta Knight, and both are much more difficult characters, whereas MK has no negative MUs on any single stage. Even someone like Wario who dominates many stages is bad against MK since MK also dominates all those stages in addition to being a much better character.


About Finland; After Meta's ban, our game has been more refreshing, although we didn't have a huge MK dominance. No pocket Metas and no MK dittos, though - they are severely annoying, and most of us play just to have a good time anyway. We've experimented rulesets and have a very lenient stagelist. The metagame right now is more like a person in the top 15 being the best of the whole country with that character. Skinutski, the #1 player has the best Dedede, Schwa has the best Diddy, Jage has the best Snake, Loota has the best Lucario, Heru has the best Olimar, -LzR- has the best Ice Climber, Vurkyzo has the best Falco, Jebu has the best Donkey Kong, I'm the best Marth main (although Jage's Marth is better), Waffles has the best Toon Link and Riolu has the best Ganondorf. Although I, Waffles and Riolu aren't on the Power Rankings, you can see that the top 8 have all a different character as their main, and even though some of the lower ranks share the main or use a secondary of theirs, the meta-game includes a large variety of characters where no two top level players use the same one. It's really awesome.

One of our stage lists is:

Starters:
Battle Field
Final Destination
Smashville
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise
Frigate Orpheon
Castle Siege
Pokemon Stadium 1

Striked 2/3/2, or remove PS1/Siege to Counterpicks and 2/3/1.

Counterpicks:
Pictochat
Brinstar
Pokemon Stadium 2
Jungle Japes
Delfino
Halberd

Experimental Borderline Counterpicks, sometimes seen in tournaments with experimental rules (LzR wants some data to use, he likes discussing about ruleset stuff on SWF and elsewhere):
[s]Norfair
[/s]Green Greens
Port Town Aero Dive
Rainbow Cruise
[s]Skyworld
Luigi's[/s] [s]Mansion[/s]
The strikethroughed ones have been removed from legal use by popularity vote.

It's a free stagelist and we see a large variety of stages in all matches, while Smashville is the most used starter. Still, it's refreshing and tests the skills of players in other ways than just who is better with reaction times. It creates a layer of strategy rarely seen in any other country, and it's worth it, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mmKALLL' date='03 October 2011 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1317673129' post='1718935']
That is true, but in Smash, tier lists are made to actually show who are good for competetive play. And that means to take into consideration the current meta game, which revolved around MK. After the ban, no tier lists are actually very viable any more, since they will shuffle from now on and "bad" characters also will be explored more. I actually think that some characters like Diddy wouldn't have seen the day if they didn't need to figure new ways to combat MK's dominance, and would argue that his metagame is actually around 90% figured out instead of around 75%. Still, this isn't BB. This is Smash. You can't read the tier lists in the same way between "traditional" fighters and Smash games. The top character in CS2 may be really good, but MK is just too overcentralizing. MK isn't maybe as good as he is in terms of power, but it's more about the variety and making the metagame fresh and actually enjoyable. Also, Smash doesn't have like, 15 tiers. There is the Meta tier and then tiers from A through G. It's confusing when you talk about beating a G tier when you mean, like, D/E tier.[/quote]

I'm not saying Meta Knight doesn't absolutely centralize everything (overcentralize isn't a word, and it makes no sense. Centralizing should be bad enough, overcentralizing is an exaggeration), and I only bring up CS2 mainly as a comparison so I have a better idea on how these matchup charts fair in comparison. While from the looks of it, Brawl obviously doesn't come close to CS2, but in comparison to it and Brawl, I can make a comparitive observation, such as Marth seems similar to CS2 Makoto (not a bad thing, Makoto in CS2 hardly comes close to gamebreaking). However, I can say your competition of viable characters starts to get unhealthy once you start looking below Ike and Sonic. Those 2 are running Tager numbers, and though Tager can certainly win viably in tournaments (Check out a dude named Akira playing Tager, fun stuff), many people are claiming that dude is unviable. Numbers below them get more and more harsh below them, and while a -36 is probably something that isn't out of place in some early fighters, there is still at least 2 full tiers here that are simply not going to survive in competition. Or at least that's what I'm observing based on these numbers.

As for why I go as low as G tier is because I measure tiers when numbers start to take a sharp drop between each other. Example, the difference of DK's -2 to the next person's -12. The number of sheer drops this game has simply just makes me naturally see them as seperate tiers. Besides, can you really disagree with the notion that Brawl's a pretty imbalanced game if you're trying to play it competitively?

Though really I will say I can only applaud a dude dueling the Knight with Lucas, if Lucas's numbers say anything about his performance. Just cause I'm saying they're unviable doesn't mean you can't fight the army trying to oppress you from the top. If anything, it makes for a more tense match.

[quote]Another note is also that Japan never banned Akuma either in SF2T unlike America. They only soft banned him, like O. Sagat.[/quote]

Regardless, no one plays Akuma out of nowhere in Japan, but you'll still see O Sagat at times. If he's not banned, he sure seems to be.

[quote]Zelda/Sheik could be used better than just the other one with practice, sure, but take into account that neither have actually even been played that deeply. There are excellent Sheik players and excellent Zelda players (as far as their character allows them to be, at least), but learning Sheik/Zelda is really hard. Most players choose to stick with one because they can achieve a higher level like that instead of being mediocre with two characters and covering a few matchups more, while losing to all the others more often. Also, when you finally master one, more or less, it's much higher of a jump to go for a character you never used. The learning curve in Smash goes ways further than in traditional fighters, imo. It's not just about learning their tricks either, you actually have to put hundreds of hours into playing that character.[/quote]

Time can turn coal into diamond, but it doesn't change the fact that individual Shiek and Zelda makes no sense, seeing as both have matchups that are naturally just in their favor, and are free to take that form and stay that way, as it won't stop it from being the same character. You don't see people measuring Squirtle/Ivysaur/Charizard individually, do you?

[quote]M2K, the best MK there is, quit Brawl. He used around 4000-5500 hours, 5-7 hours a day just to level up his Meta Knight. If you used 2000 hours into Sheik, would you then go and pick up Zelda too just to cover a few more match-ups, while you could be spending another 1000-2000 into Sheik instead? With Zelda/Sheik, it's not advised to change characters inbetween a single match, since Sheik is so much better than Zelda against most of the match-ups. You can switch to Zelda, but you will only handicap yourself like that if the MU is advantageous to Sheik but not to Zelda. The only single difference is if the player knows how to beat Sheik easily but has never played a Zelda, and that's unlikely.[/quote]

You're telling me there's nothing Zelda can do that Shiek can do better in certain points of a match? Like, let's say you're playing someone is trying to just keep you out with some projectiles or stuff, or Zelda/Shiek wants to run away, or pressuring them off the stage? There is no time when you would want to switch from one form to another?

[quote]About Marth or Diddy being the new MK, it's unlikely since neither dominate all the stages, both have counter-characters outside of Meta Knight, and both are much more difficult characters, whereas MK has no negative MUs on any single stage. Even someone like Wario who dominates many stages is bad against MK since MK also dominates all those stages in addition to being a much better character.[/quote]

Marth has 1 bad matchup (happens to be Diddy, oddly enough), and that's it. However, his matchups don't seem THAT wildly in his favor until we start dipping into the parts of the tier that absolutely EVERYONE worth a damn shits on anyways. If a similarity were to be made, it would be something akin to perhaps...CS1 Bang. I can only hope Marth isn't as braindead as that bastard was...

I dunno where you get the idea that Diddy's gonna be the new MK though. Diddy seems fine.

Personally though from what I can gather with MK's removal, we're gonna see more DeDeDes, minor drop in Fox use, and we might see more Ikes, Sonics and PTs coming out of the woodworks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Grandkitty' date='04 October 2011 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1317735938' post='1719716']
Time can turn coal into diamond, but it doesn't change the fact that individual Shiek and Zelda makes no sense, seeing as both have matchups that are naturally just in their favor, and are free to take that form and stay that way, as it won't stop it from being the same character. You don't see people measuring Squirtle/Ivysaur/Charizard individually, do you?
[/quote]

There is a difference between Zalda/Sheik and Squirtle/Ivysaur/Charizard, namely that you are forced to switch when using Pokemon Trainer, but can stay as Zelda or Sheik for the whole match. You would have a point if 1 stock matches were the standard.

[quote name='Grandkitty' date='04 October 2011 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1317735938' post='1719716']
You're telling me there's nothing Zelda can do that Shiek can do better in certain points of a match? Like, let's say you're playing someone is trying to just keep you out with some projectiles or stuff, or Zelda/Shiek wants to run away, or pressuring them off the stage? There is no time when you would want to switch from one form to another?
[/quote]

In general, Sheik is just that much better than Zelda. The only time you would consider switching from Sheik to Zelda is when the opponent is at a very high % and you basically need only move for a KO. In other words, the optimal use wold be to go with Sheik 99% of the time, and maybe switch if you need to land one strong attack. The MU Chart however takes into account players that want to play as Zelda or Sheik the complete match, so they have seperate entries.

[quote name='Grandkitty' date='04 October 2011 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1317735938' post='1719716']
Marth has 1 bad matchup (happens to be Diddy, oddly enough), and that's it. However, his matchups don't seem THAT wildly in his favor until we start dipping into the parts of the tier that absolutely EVERYONE worth a damn shits on anyways. If a similarity were to be made, it would be something akin to perhaps...CS1 Bang. I can only hope Marth isn't as braindead as that bastard was...

I dunno where you get the idea that Diddy's gonna be the new MK though. Diddy seems fine.

Personally though from what I can gather with MK's removal, we're gonna see more DeDeDes, minor drop in Fox use, and we might see more Ikes, Sonics and PTs coming out of the woodworks.
[/quote]

DDD probably won't get any more mains anytime soon, he simply has too many disadvantaged MUs in the upper tiers. He will serve the same purpose he did all the time, a secondary that's relatively easy to use. As for Diddy... I'm interested in seeing the updated MU chart for him.

[spoiler='Speaking of Diddy...'][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Z8ShCgIms[/media][/spoiler]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I didn't realize PT forced to switch pokemon over time.

As a note, that Diddy video, it at least takes some account on terrain strategy, so positioning would at least be key in that insanity I just saw.

And as a note...If Diddy does become the new top tier because of that? I would allow it. Because it is glorious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pokemon Trainer switches out with every stock lost, but there is incentive to switch out as well. After a Pokemon has been out for 2 minutes, it goes into a tired state where all attacks are severely reduced in knock back and damage output.

Plus, squirtle can drown from being in the water [img]http://serenesforest.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/Facepalm_emote_gif.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That barrel video was, as the name stated, fun, but not really related to the discussion. It's a gimmick that can sometimes do something interesting, but not really a reason to why Diddy would be good.

As for why I compared Diddy being a new MK is simply because he is the second best character in the previous tier list. While I'm knowledgeable about the game to some extent, I don't just look at numbers to compare characters since I usually have at least some understanding of how they work. Still, I'm no Diddy main, I've no use to memorize any bad match-ups he would have since I only go Marth all the way. I don't really care, even. Looking at numbers, though, it might be that Marth will rise to be the best, but you can't tell straight on. Especially since that is only the American tier list and they don't have a high amount of top-level Marth players like in Europe compared to rest of the scene. mikeHAZE, but I can't name others, while I can throw quite a few off the bat for European ones. Instead, Falco and Snake may rise (even above Marth), since they have been doing really well in American tournaments and are popular there.

BB and SSBB are so different games that I still don't think you can analyze them interchangeably. Rather, I don't even get what you're talking about, since I've barely touched a game from the series (I played CS2 VERY briefly at an game event). (I wouldn't know the characters or anything, while you used them a lot as examples there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a hard time seeing anyone becoming very dominant with MK removed. Snake was rather dominating in the early years because he hits really hard, and lives very long. Recently through it has been easier to abuse Snake's lack of aerial options. Diddy and Falco are just solid characters, and that is roughly about it.

[quote name='mmKALLL' date='04 October 2011 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1317758141' post='1719932']

BB and SSBB are so different games that I still don't think you can analyze them interchangeably. Rather, I don't even get what you're talking about, since I've barely touched a game from the series (I played CS2 VERY briefly at an game event). (I wouldn't know the characters or anything, while you used them a lot as examples there)
[/quote]
Smash is more different than any other fighter out there for sure. Most of the other fighters follow roughly the same model. 60-99 second rounds with multiple rounds for a victory. Traditionally, high, low, and middle range attacks. Each has its own block height respectively. Defensive grappels (grabs), air techs, meters for special moves, and multiple inputs for character specific attacks. Etc. etc.

Smash is as weird as it gets for a fighter. Competitive king of the hill and the only one using that formula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Grandkitty' date='03 October 2011 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1317628421' post='1718614']
First off, I'm surprised people still care about Brawl. [/quote]
wat

That's as stupid as saying why do people still care about FE, and I mean FE10 and those prior to it, which are [i]older [/i]than Brawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Soul' date='04 October 2011 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1317779776' post='1720498']
wat

That's as stupid as saying why do people still care about FE, and I mean FE10 and those prior to it, which are [i]older [/i]than Brawl.
[/quote]

I kind of forgot Smash even existed. I loved melee to death, but then quickly grew tired of Brawl. If you're not in a smash community, chances are, you are almost never talking about it. With other fighting games (I'm not getting into this debate) and even FE, new games come out often enough that even non fans will hear about them, if not from their friends or other people than on the internet somewhere.

So with smash just pretty much being a single game released so infrequently, it's easy for non hardcore fans to lose interest. Edited by GigaDraco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only bring up Blazblue because it's the matchup numbers I can reference easiest for when i compare numbers between it. I know Smash Bros isn't your typical fighter, but I can still see how it's basically a fighter, so I'm just trying to analyze numbers by treating it as such.

To be honest, looking at the numbers for Brawl just makes me cringe a bit. I also don't understand your tiers in it's style of "who best deals with top tier" because in a normal fighter, no one takes that into account for a tier list. That's why I completely ignore it, it's silly. It's a tier list that makes an excuse to not learn matchups on high and top tier characters. It's a tier that basically assumes you're always fighting top tier and treating it less like a fighter (which is what I assume Brawl players are treating it like) and more like an RPG and Top Tier is this boss at the end of a level that must be defeated. Tiers in a fighter just show their matchups and how much they dominate. From what I'm seeing, with Brawl's numbers, it looks like this to me.

The competitive numbers look rather fine till you start getting to like Mario and Ness. They don't just have a hard time they get dominated hardcore, and it gets worse from below those too. I'm surprised anyone would pick up Link or Lucas or Samus looking at these numbers. But from like..Sonic and up, it looks healthy. considering the number of characters from the top fo Sonic, it doesn't look THAT bad. Just when it comes to a game with a huge cast, you can't guarantee everyone's gonna be viable, but for those that are, Brawl's healthy players seem like there's still a solid number of them.

Still, any dudes that are still brave enough to kick ass with dudes like Lucas and Bowsers, I'mma tip my hat off to them. Just when push comes to shove in a high tournament level play, I wish them luck, cause from the numbers I see here, they're gonna need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Grandkitty' date='05 October 2011 - 08:41 AM' timestamp='1317796877' post='1720729']
To be honest, looking at the numbers for Brawl just makes me cringe a bit. I also don't understand your tiers in it's style of "who best deals with top tier" because in a normal fighter, no one takes that into account for a tier list. That's why I completely ignore it, it's silly. It's a tier list that makes an excuse to not learn matchups on high and top tier characters. It's a tier that basically assumes you're always fighting top tier and treating it less like a fighter (which is what I assume Brawl players are treating it like) and more like an RPG and Top Tier is this boss at the end of a level that must be defeated. Tiers in a fighter just show their matchups and how much they dominate. From what I'm seeing, with Brawl's numbers, it looks like this to me.
[/quote]

Imagine it like a weighted list. Basically, you look at what characters you are more likely to fight in tournament, and the more likely it is, the more that character's MUs are factored. For example, it was incredibly likely to face a MK at some point during a tournament, so characters that have a better MU against him will, realistically, perform better than those that have a terrible MU. On the other hand, a majority of the characters that are easily beat by DDD already lose to a lot of other characters, so facing them is much less likely, and they don't matter as much in the big picture (hence why DDD isn't that great of a character despite having good MUs against quite a few characters).

You can certainly disagree with this method, but just because it's different from how other fighters construct their tier lists, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make any sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaoz making those outspeeds.

Also, while the numbers are there, on low- to middle level competetive play (any tournaments in Finland are around this, while only the big American and middle-European tournament brackets or MLG could be called high level) the player skill matters more than the characters. If you know the basics in Brawl, since there is a LOT to them and it's important, you can be good with nearly any character against those who don't have the basics down like you. Skinutski (#1 player here) dominated the last tournament with characters like Samus and Mario, despite them having -3 and -4 matchups against many of the other played characters. Skinutski's level of basics was just that far ahead of everyone else in the [i]whole country[/i].

On high level play, however, when all players are assumed to have very refined blocking skills and knowledge of the game, the basics can be pretty much ignored since there will be no differences there - instead, the characters and how well they do against each other are the deciding factors now. For example, like Chaos said, if Falco was to become really popular now, obviously characters who counter Falco would become very good too, even if they didn't do so well against most of the roster. But if a player came across you form between all the Falco mains and instead played with a mid-tier who counters your counter to Falco, you could just switch to D3 now, since D3 wins nearly all of the mid- and lowtier characters. Until that happens, though, your character would obviously be the most viable in the whole roster in that tournament's metagame, even if the numbers aren't that great.

Well, 99% of people aren't going to play Falco, but it's a good example to show that you can't judge just from the numbers, you need to weigh them. Instead, around 70% will start playing with high tiers, so say, if you came in a tournament where you choose a character and may not switch at all, you'd probably want to choose someone who counters as many high tiers as possible, with the risk of having to face a bad match up against the 30% who don't play high tiers. It's a very viable choice if the average numbers you have for high tier are even half of the minuses for the rest of the roster, since high tier gets over two times more play in this metagame.

In a metagame where 39 out of 40 players plays Meta Knight, if you have a +4 against MK and -4 against everyone else (the other 37 characters), it's still a good character choice since on average you'd still have an advantage in this meta game regardless of having, like, -145 as the total MU.


If we look at the whole world when things settle down, we won't have as radical situations as these examples, but you're still expected to meet more high tier characters than low tiers in high level competetive play. On low level everyone is more or less viable and there isn't actually a MU chart for that (say, Ice Climbers have a +4 against Ganon since Ganon doesn't have nearly any options to go through a desync Blizzard, but on low level play you can't expect a player to know how to perform a very difficult move like that) and on middle level play it's more often a deal of who has the basics down more, while obviously high tiers are move viable than low tiers, if you know how to shield and space better, you will win with anyone.

It's a common mindset that you will win if you don't get hit, and that is very usable when looking at middle-level play such as games between me and Chaoskitty. Spacing and things like reads/punishes/dodges/etc are at a very high importance there. It's just a fact that Marth or MK is much better with those things than Zelda, for example. Then again, I might well lose to a Zelda since I've never played against a good Zelda player and don't know how to apply my skills against her. I know Zelda's moveset but I don't know what options she has and how well they work if I approach with move x. Maybe move y is better against Zelda but worse against Diddy? This sort of stuff can be expected from low and middle levels of play as well even though Zelda sucks by numbers.

Tier lists are, after all, made while keeping high level play in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can sort of see why when you put it that way...Hmmm...I think a major problem I see here is not only MK, but the fact that the lowest tiers just...exist. Like, low tier in this game is so awful, it makes certain dudes look better than they actually are. In fact, it gets to a point where characters are so bad that their only good matchups are against already bad characters who can't win against anything further up (I notice the cutoff point here is Ness. I don't say Sonic or Ike because they just seem to have minor issues across the board, rather than matchups that are just lopsideded as hell from high tier to low, or just get smashed by high tier in general. They're weak, but still balanced.). Maybe like a tourney tier is in order, because a big chunk of Brawl's cast is just simply handicapping the player.

Maybe here's my problem. I actually think that low tier has a bigger effect on the numbers of the matchup than Meta Knight ever did. Like Low Tier in this game is so uncharacteristically awful I have to wonder if it's what's making some of high tier what it is now. I'mma remove Meta Knight in this nextnumber analysis, and then I'm also going to remove Mario/Ness and below as well, and see how much it changes things. Like looking at these numbers, Brawl doesn't seem imbalanced because high and top is so good, bur rather low tier and lower is so BAD. Lets see some new numbers, cause I have an incurable obsession.

A Tier
Ice Climbers 19+
Snake 17+
Falco 16+
Marth 16+
Wario 14+
Olimar 12+
Pikachu 12+
Diddy 11+

B Tier
DeDeDe 5+
Z Samus 5+
Pit +4
Mr G&W 3+
Lucario 3+
T Link 3+
Peach +1

C/D Tier
Fox -6
Kirby -9
Z/S -11
Wolf -12
ROB -13
Ike -19

E Tier
DK -21
Sonic -21
Luigi -24
Yoshi: -25
PT -30

Let's analyze numbers based on"How bad did we kick Low Tier's ass".

Marth had a +28 just on Low Tier alone. Falco had +27, Ice Climbers had +25, which would be the difference of Ice Climbers being below them both to being not only above them, but at the top of the food chain. I predict more Ice Climbers.

Snake had only a +22 buffer, yet it was the difference of a tier. I remember when people bitched about him way back when. Glad to see people have learned the matchup, but he still seems strong.

DeDeDe? Holy bejesus, he's had the biggest buffer out of anyone, and he was only B tier under normal circumstances! +30! Good god, DeDeDe is pretty much the most imba character in this game. MK was OP, but DeDeDe is like half the reason low tier is low tier. I can see why people think in actual tourney play, DeDeDe would actually be kinda bland.

Olimar and Diddy had a +20 cushion. Considering I basically axed 13 characters from this analysis (well technically 11, since I would prefer ignoring Shiek and Zelda individually), that's basically a +2 on every character in low for the most part. Wario had +19, had +17.

Notice that B Tier is bigger. Let's see why.

Game and Watch had a cushion of +22, yet he rose form C to B. That's how bad top and high is kicking low tier's ass, and how hopeless their case is. Lucario had a cushion of +21, same with Toon Lin. Z Samus only had a cushion of +19, and she's matched up even with DeDeDe now, to further show how much of an extortionist DeDeDe was. Pit had a cushion of +20, and Peach had a cushion of +21. I'm almost to C tier, and I'm still seeing characters that on average had almost an average of +2 matchups on low tier alone.

Fox had a very small cushion (+17), but he also wasn't all that great against higher ups, yet he basically rose a tier, despite now being in the negatives.Kirby again had a cushion of +18, but he actually was kinda meh against those above him, leaving him at -9, a similar case for Fox. Z/S had the same basis, but it now accurately shows that Zelda and/or Shiek are simply not that great as now in an typical tourney standard, she's quite in the negative now. Again, the numbers are still quite inflated just for how bad these characters were kicking low tier's ass. Wolf had a cushion of +20. For a dude who supposedly was kicking high tier's ass well, he seemed to be better at doing the exact opposite. In fact, with some startling bad matches against Wario and Pikachu, the assumption he was popular just cause he "wasn't as bad against high tier" is an absolute baldfaced lie.

Rob only had a +13 cushion, so he wasn't really harsh to low tier. In tourney standards though, he still seems pretty bad though, though when it comes to "A low tier fighting the top" I'd put my faith in ROB WAY before Wolf, looking at the matchup chart.

DK took a STARTLING +19 cushion, and he was already in the negative. How common is he played?

Ike only had a +9 cushion, implying some low tier characters actually had GOOD matchups on him. Considering his numbers are low still though, he still seems viable. Looking at his matchup chart, he doesn't seem to have anything stumepously bad on his part when it comes to higher ups. Again, I would again put my faith in Ike more than I would Wolf to fight high and top tier, especially since DeDeDe is his only significantly bad matchup outside of Falco, and as we can see, DeDeDe isn't as scary as he seems and is most likely played rather rarely anyways BECAUSE of the fact he's mostly just anti-low tier. Just be careful of Falco.

Sonic took...Quite a nosedive. +10 mamtchup cushion on low tier. He's got some pretty bad matches against...Lessee...Ouch, Olimar, Falco and Falco, and a surprise Lucario whips his ass, as Lucario is worse form him than Olimar or Falco. Perhaps I was wrong on my assessment of Sonic.

PT and Luigi had it worse than I thought. +16 Cushion for PT, but for Luigi it seems like poor circumstances as he only had a +6 on low tier, showing high tier probably beats his ass a bit too hard. PT might be too much, Luigi at least has a couple good matchups against some characters (Diddy and Olimar) so he can be sort of a random counterpick.

Yoshi had a mere +9 matchup, and is a similar case with Luigi. Pocket counterpick to Ice Climbers.

In the case of higher level play, with the removal of MK and the look of this matchup chart I would estimate an increase in Luigi (as minor as it'll be, since he CAN be used sort of as a counterpick), Ike (Again, minor, since he'll just be the more daring "challenge as every matchup is minorly bad". Kinda like a grappler.), Peach, T Link, Lucario, and Mr G&W just on more freedom of use in general. With more concentration possibly towards Ice Climbers, Marth and Falco now that MK is gone and a new high tier to deal with, might see more use in Pikachu, Diddy, DeDeDe, Snake, and if we take into account high tier in the pure idea of "who has the best spread in general", more Marth, Olimar, and Z Samus...Yeah, I think banning Meta Knight is a great idea if it opens up the cast this much more. Though I would also predict a drop in Wolf and Fox.

It's to the point I would almost consider Brawl be set up into two leagues, like how Pokemon has OU and UU and such. This way, while you could still attempt some garbage tier fun against the serious characters if you're godlike, there'll still a league where you can play the characters you want and still have some sort of fun. This case, "Lower League" would have the following characters, based on numbers showing they are straight unable to fight anyone above them.

Ness
PT
Lucas
Mario
Bowser
Captain Falcon
Samus
Jigglypuff
Link
Ganon
The individuals of Zelda/Shiek.

Suppose E Tier could fight here too.

I need to stop analyzing numbers. Want that November update on the matchup chart to come soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may predict more Ice Climbers, but that's not a character of a nature that people will just "pick him up". A good character, sure, but the hardest in the game.

Well, high tier is good all around, since they usually simply have better (faster) options than low tiers and are extremely good in their own field. Diddy has a great item game and tons of very difficult to evade gimmicks - a good Diddy is nearly untouchable with a banana, just the threat from it throwing it somewhere destroys half of your options. (not OP though - once he DOES throw it, if you shield or whatever, you can use it to your own advantage too)

Marth has a great range and tippers - his spacing and calm game is the best in the game. No projectiles though, but he has very good punishment moves and very fast autocancelling aerials. The opponent will have to stay on his feet the whole time and Marth is quite difficult to get close enough at.

Snake has granades and powerful close range game - he can harry the opponent well and has a variety of quick moves of different usage. You have to watch out for all sorts of shiz coming down from the sky.

Ice Climbers - when they get a grab, it's over. A very solid ground game and several moves which set up very nice walls which aren't easy to pass.

Falco has an excellent projectile, chaingrab, nice setups with the jab and quick aerials along with several gimmicks.

The thing is - these characters all excel the best in their field and that is what makes them high tier. Link, like Falco, can camp and has projectiles, but not nearly as good ones, suffers from various things and isn't quite as versatile either. Meta Knight, however, is amongst the top 5 in nearly all the things the top characters excel in. He is untouchable (although only on ledge), has a great range with powerful attacks, a very good close range game and negates most long-range approaches too, Nado acts as a wall just like that, and Meta's Shuttle Loop is almost ridiculous in gimping power.

As for the characters not in high tier/high mid tier.. They aren't quite as good in their specialties like the high tiers are. The thing to keep in mind here, though, is that they aren't bad either. All the characters in the game are actually viable (even the bottom tiers), it's just that on the high level play you can expect that no matter how good a player you are, everyone else are just as good. The people you face are like, the best of the country, continent, world, whatever. While usually you would be able to overcome the handicap with good player skills (unless the MU is something like unwinnable or -3/-4) without really that much work, on the level where it's impossible, you are left with that handicap. And from that point on? The best characters will win.

I believe in the tier lists existing, but I also believe that they apply more on a level where neither I or you are at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mmKALLL' date='05 October 2011 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1317827980' post='1720869']
You may predict more Ice Climbers, but that's not a character of a nature that people will just "pick him up". A good character, sure, but the hardest in the game.[/quote]

Well if a character is powerful, people will pick them up no matter how un-"pick up and go" they are (and really, an tecnical character in Brawl seems kinda silly). To give a comparison, there's Valkenhayne and Hazama in Blazblue. VERY powerful characters, but VERY hard to use. You see Hazamas just about everywhere.

I thin the issue with Ice Climbers is more just..Well, nothing about their design is really appealing. If people don't pick them up, it's because they're just..Bland looking characters.

[quote]Well, high tier is good all around, since they usually simply have better (faster) options than low tiers and are extremely good in their own field. Diddy has a great item game and tons of very difficult to evade gimmicks - a good Diddy is nearly untouchable with a banana, just the threat from it throwing it somewhere destroys half of your options. (not OP though - once he DOES throw it, if you shield or whatever, you can use it to your own advantage too)

Marth has a great range and tippers - his spacing and calm game is the best in the game. No projectiles though, but he has very good punishment moves and very fast autocancelling aerials. The opponent will have to stay on his feet the whole time and Marth is quite difficult to get close enough at.

Snake has granades and powerful close range game - he can harry the opponent well and has a variety of quick moves of different usage. You have to watch out for all sorts of shiz coming down from the sky.

Ice Climbers - when they get a grab, it's over. A very solid ground game and several moves which set up very nice walls which aren't easy to pass.

Falco has an excellent projectile, chaingrab, nice setups with the jab and quick aerials along with several gimmicks.[/quote]

Thank you for the education on why high tier is high, gives me more understanding of a game I still don't have too much a grasp on it fully.

[quote]The thing is - these characters all excel the best in their field and that is what makes them high tier. Link, like Falco, can camp and has projectiles, but not nearly as good ones, suffers from various things and isn't quite as versatile either. Meta Knight, however, is amongst the top 5 in nearly all the things the top characters excel in. He is untouchable (although only on ledge), has a great range with powerful attacks, a very good close range game and negates most long-range approaches too, Nado acts as a wall just like that, and Meta's Shuttle Loop is almost ridiculous in gimping power.[/quote]

Well my problem with low tier isn't so much that others do the same thing better (plenty of fighter games have that) it's that at some point, low tier in this game seems only capable of fighting itself and gets crushed by everyone above so badly that low tier in this game is masochistic, from where I view from the outside in. At some point, it just seems unwinnable for low tier, even IF Mario andNess's likes have a slight chance.

[quote]As for the characters not in high tier/high mid tier.. They aren't quite as good in their specialties like the high tiers are. The thing to keep in mind here, though, is that they aren't bad either. All the characters in the game are actually viable (even the bottom tiers), it's just that on the high level play you can expect that no matter how good a player you are, everyone else are just as good. The people you face are like, the best of the country, continent, world, whatever. While usually you would be able to overcome the handicap with good player skills (unless the MU is something like unwinnable or -3/-4) without really that much work, on the level where it's impossible, you are left with that handicap. And from that point on? The best characters will win.

I believe in the tier lists existing, but I also believe that they apply more on a level where neither I or you are at.
[/quote]

I'm more than aware how a fighter game tier list works, that's where I'm saying at some point, characters are seemingly unviable based on what I'm seeing of this tier list, and for the most part, the best winning varies on the game itself. This game isn't Third Strike after all where even Sean has a fighting chance even though on paper he's complete ass, due to the fact that the Parry system helps build ways around anything and maks the impossible possible. Brawl at it's core is very basic, and also unvariably imbalanced. You can't tell me there are Ganon players that have a hope in the world when it comes to a game like Brawl in high level play. Much as you or I may suck, these matchup charts were made by people who know what they're doing, and the results are clear that low tier, though they have some chance, is way too minimal, and I could asily say could be ignorable unless you are the child of Thor, or have hte power to download your opponent's brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say that IC seems overpowered for the scrub and too difficult once others start surpassing you with their Marios, which makes the character not wanted nearly at all.

Is Hazama good even though you only know the basics of his play? Ice Climbers are terrible until you've poured loads of time (hundreds of hours) into them, then sharply start becoming good. To make them excellent, you have to stay at that good level until you master the most difficult things and get every single matchup down perfectly. [i]Even then[/i], they aren't as good as Marth, for example.

It pretty much depends on the size you're looking at things. If Vermanubis, a highly knowledged Ganondorf main, came to Europe, he'd be in the top 10 of a continental tournament despite there being like 20-40 players in the tournament who have characters who counter Ganondorf. Vermanubis also does well on the American ground, but will probably never get even near top 100 just because of the Meta Knights and stuff. With the ban of MK things may change, though - two regional-sized tournaments (MK Banned, they were before the Unity Ban) I looked at for some data had 4 low tier characters within top 12 (Ganondorf won the other one, can't remember player though, lol) and had over 25 characters of the roster used by around 40 players. I'd say that mid-tiers are quite viable for tournament play after the ban, although they will never see the top spots of world class play. Edited by mmKALLL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mmKALLL' date='05 October 2011 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1317835863' post='1720911']Is Hazama good even though you only know the basics of his play? Ice Climbers are terrible until you've poured loads of time (hundreds of hours) into them, then sharply start becoming good. To make them excellent, you have to stay at that good level until you master the most difficult things and get every single matchup down perfectly. [i]Even then[/i], they aren't as good as Marth, for example.[/quote]

Hold this thought, will ya? I can try to answer this, but since I don't know enough about the specifics of any one fighting game, I'll probably end up shoving my foot in my mouth. Someone I know IRL follows this stuff closely, so if I ever see him around, I can give you a better answer.

Long story short: If it's good enough, you'll see more of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably not, since most players are already good with their character and don't bother/want to learn ICs just for the sake of it. As for MK mains, they usually have a secondary character, and that usually isn't named IC. -LzR- is exempt, but his Ice Climbers sort of suck even though he has used tons of hours into them and has the basics down somewhat better than me. They are hard to deal with, but if I keep my head cool, more or less easier than some of his secondaries even though IC is his main right now and he actively becomes better with them. Sure, he might surpass his Peach with the Climbers, it's quite probable too, but that will require ways of more playing with them anyway than what he currently has.

And even after all that work? IC still has some deep problems which he can't get rid of no matter what. Without chaingrabs and desynchs IC is nearly as bad as Ganondorf, maybe Falcon's level (and with Nana dead, Ganondorf has a +1 against him iirc), and a third of the match you don't have those great weapons available due to said problems. Pulling the infinite off is no easy task either, and if Nana isn't perfectly setup, I can mash myself out of it.

The story here? Even while Ice Climbers are good, there are much easier characters who are better than him, IC isn't popular and most players don't play him in the first place. There are only several good Ice Climbers players[i] in the whole world[/i], and I can name only 9B from the top of my head. Iirc Leffen also used IC in Brawl, though, but I'm by no means sure about that. (and is he good in the first place, lol?)

It's probably the least played character, and people with other mains don't really have a good reason to play him over someone else if they absolutely were forced to switch mains. In fact, many IC mains are put off from their character either to main MK or if they play on low level, because of the sudden realization: this character sucks until I've played it for a year. I don't want to suck for a year when I could become really good with all the other high tiers within that time.

Even after the year of IC, I probably wouldn't be at the level of my current Marth. A little over two months of Marth playing so far. And even the maximum potential is below Marth in any case. It's no good as a secondary character either, I'd pick Falco or Dedede for that. Mainly due to the time consumption before it's better than my Marth in any match-up on any stage regardless, but also because Marth already covers pretty well all the match-ups that IC would utterly destroy - 500-1000 hours in a character just to get +3 more against Ganondorf and Falcon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mmKALLL' date='05 October 2011 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1317835863' post='1720911']
I'd say that IC seems overpowered for the scrub and too difficult once others start surpassing you with their Marios, which makes the character not wanted nearly at all.[/quote]

So the IC is...Oddly enough, the high tier Grappler of this game...

[quote]Is Hazama good even though you only know the basics of his play? [/quote]

[i]Fuck[/i] no, he's awful until you learn just about everything about him. In fact, if I were to put things about Hazama on paper for you, you'd think I'd be lying to your face. Once in the hands of a master though, he's basically THE best character in the game...

...If not for a braindead squirrel.

[quote]Ice Climbers are terrible until you've poured loads of time (hundreds of hours) into them, then sharply start becoming good. To make them excellent, you have to stay at that good level until you master the most difficult things and get every single matchup down perfectly. [i]Even then[/i], they aren't as good as Marth, for example.[/quote]

I can't help but notice a similarity here...

[quote]It pretty much depends on the size you're looking at things. If Vermanubis, a highly knowledged Ganondorf main, came to Europe, he'd be in the top 10 of a continental tournament despite there being like 20-40 players in the tournament who have characters who counter Ganondorf. Vermanubis also does well on the American ground, but will probably never get even near top 100 just because of the Meta Knights and stuff. With the ban of MK things may change, though - two regional-sized tournaments (MK Banned, they were before the Unity Ban) I looked at for some data had 4 low tier characters within top 12 (Ganondorf won the other one, can't remember player though, lol) and had over 25 characters of the roster used by around 40 players. I'd say that mid-tiers are quite viable for tournament play after the ban, although they will never see the top spots of world class play.
[/quote]

Impressive a guy like that can get to top 10 with Ganon (though an issue I would have is "Could he win once at that level?"), but hey. There's a November matchup chart coming soon anyways, and now that Meta Knight's banned, thinks will be easier for this Vermanubis guy. He sounds classy.

[quote name='mmKALLL' date='05 October 2011 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1317855149' post='1721182']
Probably not, since most players are already good with their character and don't bother/want to learn ICs just for the sake of it. As for MK mains, they usually have a secondary character, and that usually isn't named IC. -LzR- is exempt, but his Ice Climbers sort of suck even though he has used tons of hours into them and has the basics down somewhat better than me. They are hard to deal with, but if I keep my head cool, more or less easier than some of his secondaries even though IC is his main right now and he actively becomes better with them. Sure, he might surpass his Peach with the Climbers, it's quite probable too, but that will require ways of more playing with them anyway than what he currently has.

And even after all that work? IC still has some deep problems which he can't get rid of no matter what. Without chaingrabs and desynchs IC is nearly as bad as Ganondorf, maybe Falcon's level (and with Nana dead, Ganondorf has a +1 against him iirc), and a third of the match you don't have those great weapons available due to said problems. Pulling the infinite off is no easy task either, and if Nana isn't perfectly setup, I can mash myself out of it.[/quote]

Sounds like a character who needs plenty of precision to work. Surprised IC is as dynamic as it sounds. But still, Clipseyitty said it best. If it's good, you'll see more of it. Tier whoring happens all around the world. Now that MK's gone, those whores are gonna have to flock somewhere. Chances are it will be Marth more than not I suppose, but Ice Climbers are looking to be up there, unless November makes me look stupid.

[quote]The story here? Even while Ice Climbers are good, there are much easier characters who are better than him, IC isn't popular and most players don't play him in the first place. There are only several good Ice Climbers players[i] in the whole world[/i], and I can name only 9B from the top of my head. Iirc Leffen also used IC in Brawl, though, but I'm by no means sure about that. (and is he good in the first place, lol?)

It's probably the least played character, and people with other mains don't really have a good reason to play him over someone else if they absolutely were forced to switch mains. In fact, many IC mains are put off from their character either to main MK or if they play on low level, because of the sudden realization: this character sucks until I've played it for a year. I don't want to suck for a year when I could become really good with all the other high tiers within that time.[/quote]

That's how things roll with high execution characters, but popularity does not equal power. Clearly these people who have Ice Climbers in the right hand are doing so well with them that it got them to top tier, even ignoring low tier completely.

[quote]Even after the year of IC, I probably wouldn't be at the level of my current Marth. A little over two months of Marth playing so far. And even the maximum potential is below Marth in any case. It's no good as a secondary character either, I'd pick Falco or Dedede for that. Mainly due to the time consumption before it's better than my Marth in any match-up on any stage regardless, but also because Marth already covers pretty well all the match-ups that IC would utterly destroy - 500-1000 hours in a character just to get +3 more against Ganondorf and Falcon?
[/quote]

Well, that's like, your opinion, man. If someone likes Ice Climbers (something about their design or how intricate you have to be with them), then they'll go ahead and do it. But I can again see why Ice Climbers would be unpopular, I'm just saying it's because they're hard to play, not weak. Besides, why would they bother training against Ganon or Captain when they're not even a hint of a threat? All these ungodly hours spent, you shouldn't really have to spend them training against characters so bad they only have good matchups on themselves.That would just be...completionistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[s]I like Ice Climbers[/s]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Besides, why would they bother training against Ganon or Captain when they're not even a hint of a threat?"

That's the point. I could learn Marth instead and get much more advantages, that's the only one advantage that ICs have over him match-up wise that sprang to mind.
Well, I guess we might see several new Ice Climbers, yeah. Good luck to them, I doubt that anyone is going to get on a national level.


Well, yeah. Waiting for that revised chart, hopefully they do a MK banned tierlist too. (or, since BBR-RC banned it, the BBR might not even make a list where MK is allowed) Half a year or so is a long time.

Also, "Could he win once at that level?", what do you mean? Once at that level? Verm is already excellent, there's just a huge difference between the American scene and European one, and I think he would excel in the European one better than over there. They say he's the best Ganondorf in the whole world, and seeing that many, many people don't care about tiers and just play their favourite characters, best Ganondorf is still a huge title. (though best MK is obviously more impressive, regardless) I don't think anyone from Europe is best with any character in world class, most of them come from America, and several from Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mmKALLL' date='06 October 2011 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1317886277' post='1721636']
Also, "Could he win once at that level?", what do you mean? Once at that level? Verm is already excellent, there's just a huge difference between the American scene and European one, and I think he would excel in the European one better than over there. They say he's the best Ganondorf in the whole world, and seeing that many, many people don't care about tiers and just play their favourite characters, best Ganondorf is still a huge title. (though best MK is obviously more impressive, regardless) I don't think anyone from Europe is best with any character in world class, most of them come from America, and several from Japan.
[/quote]

Basically "Once at that level" means like hte top 8 of tourneys. Does this Vermanubis manage this? Because I would love to see a Ganondorf playing at that kind of levels. If you got vids, I would be more than delighted to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is funny how some people put hints of shame if you got beaten by a low tier character when a lot of the time it really shouldn't matter.

If you look at someone like Ganondorf, he is actually an okay character when your opponent does not know how to abuse the advantages a character has against him. Ganon's is very good at capitalizing upon mistakes a person makes. If you make a single mistake, he has options that will set-up for much more damage. For example, say you get hit by his Dair at zero percent, this does roughly 20% of damage and will combo into another attack of his depending upon the character. At least you should come out with about 40% of damage. Get flame choked and hit by a fsmash if ganon gets the read right, and you probably lost your stock if you are a light weight character. At until you are proficient at not making mistake or preventing Ganon from getting this simple attacks chains on you, he is actually pretty good. It is also rather similar to Snake. Hits hard, kills early, lives a long time. Much different from say sheik where she gets killed early, doesn't not kill early, and does little damage per attack.

When you are refining your skills, getting good rewards for few hits is usually much more important than other aspects in the game such has shutting down most of a characters options. At the very least its a balancing effect. Edited by Coconut&Lime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Grandkitty' date='06 October 2011 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1317887597' post='1721638']
Basically "Once at that level" means like hte top 8 of tourneys. Does this Vermanubis manage this? Because I would love to see a Ganondorf playing at that kind of levels. If you got vids, I would be more than delighted to see them.
[/quote]

I didn't see anything recent from Verm, but take a look at these if you want...

[code]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgARcZWicqs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkhC5JzM62Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1GP56d1YUw[/code]

DLA got 3rd/23 at that tourney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Chaoskitty' date='06 October 2011 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1317908941' post='1721731']
I didn't see anything recent from Verm, but take a look at these if you want...

[code]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgARcZWicqs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkhC5JzM62Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1GP56d1YUw[/code]

DLA got 3rd/23 at that tourney.
[/quote]

Dony Kong does not look like that bad a matchup, just kind of annoying that his air back kick is like the most annoying thing ever. If anything, Gann seemed more solid than DK.

Luigi just...Doesn't die. Luigi annoys me already.

Mr G&W is fucking obnoxious. Still, very impressive Ganon work. Problem is, that looks exactly like how I would play him...I notice that Ganon's forward B now that I see it is bsically Tager's Gadget Finger, and the player treats it as such. If only Ganon had a 360/720...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now