PSA: Smash will never be balanced.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
  3. PSA: Smash will never be balanced.

User Info: FunSizedRidley

FunSizedRidley
4 months ago#1
Having a smaller roster does not mean a more balanced game. And it wouldn't matter anyways. Melee is the most unbalanced and broken game ever yet it fights tooth and nail to get into Evo every single year.

Competitively, a balanced roster makes little difference so long as the underlying system is both rewarding and dynamic.

If that's true, then you could have a roster of 60+ and the game will still thrive competitively even if only 6 are viable.

There's not a real compelling argument for a smaller roster.
Apparently everybody's alt

User Info: Captainjiggz_

Captainjiggz_
4 months ago#2
64 was fairly balanced.
And that's the smallest roster, and the first game.
A Captain, and a salesman for FLAMGEAR products
"Against lolis like MArio, DK, Zelda." -Supershadonic

User Info: Shieldlesscap

Shieldlesscap
4 months ago#3
Captainjiggz_ posted...
64 was fairly balanced.
And that's the smallest roster, and the first game.


That wasn’t because of the roster, that was because there weren’t enough exploitable mechanics for a character to dominate.
TheLionKing: Smash 5 should be multiplat to convert people to Nintendo fans
Me: Did you pay for WinRAR because its accessibility converted you into a WinRAR fan

User Info: DEADLYANTDX

DEADLYANTDX
4 months ago#4
Well of course it will never be balanced, it's a party game, not a fighting game
PSN - DEADLYANT

User Info: Captainjiggz_

Captainjiggz_
4 months ago#5
Shieldlesscap posted...
Captainjiggz_ posted...
64 was fairly balanced.
And that's the smallest roster, and the first game.


That wasn’t because of the roster, that was because there weren’t enough exploitable mechanics for a character to dominate.


But it was balanced, regardless.
A Captain, and a salesman for FLAMGEAR products
"Against lolis like MArio, DK, Zelda." -Supershadonic

User Info: HylianHobbit

HylianHobbit
4 months ago#6
Balance has never been, and should never be, the primary focus. I do agree that they should take steps toward making it more competetively viable (like bringing back L cancelling) but I don't think having a smaller roster is one of those. After the roster is picked, then they should try to at least somewhat balance the characters they have, but not waste all their time and development costs on trying to perfectly balance the game.
The Shadow Temple is before the Spirit Temple.

User Info: Zelda_Aran

Zelda_Aran
4 months ago#7
Melee was made in a time where balance patches were not possible. No smash game will ever be perfectly balanced. Adding in fewer newcomers would give them more time to at least buff some of the lower tier characters before launch. I'd much rather see Zelda, Ganondorf, and Jigglypuff receive buffs before a newcomer is added.
"It's time for Risky's Revenge, so let's attack aggressively!"-Risky Boots
"Two men enter, one man leaves"-Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

User Info: Mr_Yooj

Mr_Yooj
4 months ago#8
You say this like every other fighting game ever made is perfectly balanced.
If you're reading this then you're pretty awesome! ^_^
If you can't find light, then you need to make fire.

User Info: Ulk

Ulk
4 months ago#9
There is no such thing as balance. Absolute balance can't be achieved. That's impossible. The goal is just to make it as balanced as it can get. It can only be fairly balanced in proportion to other titles.

There is also the misconception of balance being a positive thing for competitive play. It is not. Inbalance makes sure there is a high gap between the best and the worst characters. That ensures that less impressive characters become partially redundant and straight out irrelevant for the meta. And that helps competitive players. Less relevant characters means easier choices of which characters to pick, as well as fewer MUs to consider. If Smash was balanced enough for every character to be relevant, the MUs for each individual competitive player would be nigh impossible to keep up with. SSBM was definitely not balanced for known standards, and that's a good thing for the competitive scene.

That's of course not to say balance isn't a good thing in general. The competitive scene is a very small scene. The casual Smash scene is by far the largest and the most relevant, and balance there is a top priority.
"Such potential they bring to our minds. And yet a lock stopped you from all of that. How... lazy." - Whiterose

User Info: ThePirateEli

ThePirateEli
4 months ago#10
Captainjiggz_ posted...
Shieldlesscap posted...
Captainjiggz_ posted...
64 was fairly balanced.
And that's the smallest roster, and the first game.


That wasn’t because of the roster, that was because there weren’t enough exploitable mechanics for a character to dominate.


But it was balanced, regardless.


64, more so than smash 4, was victim to the curse every smash game has had of an SS tier that has no bad matchups.
--
-
  1. Boards
  2. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
  3. PSA: Smash will never be balanced.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

Update Topic Flair

You are not allowed to update this topic's flair.

  • Topic Archived