mZuzek said:
1.0.0 Diddy deserved nerfs and that's not really debatable. It's not an issue with being the best character, it's an issue with being braindead, which Diddy was. Basically dthrow > uair for the win from 0% until 90% and nothing more, it was the dumbest shit ever. Zero won tournaments with that Diddy, and after Diddy got hard nerfed he kept winning tournaments. Zero proved how good he was, as well as other top Diddy players like MVD, but after the nerfs it was never like it was before when you'd see Diddys everywhere from low level to mid level to high level and they were basically guaranteed in 50% of tournament matches - instead, only the good ones really remained. Diddy pre-patch wasn't just the best character, he was braindead, and that just sucked. Of course even post-nerf I'm sure many people still complained about him, but if you're looking at that you're honestly looking for stuff to be annoyed about. It wasn't a majority of the community, certainly not me, and for the longest time most people didn't even think he was the best character, that was Sheik... and Sheik was the top tier most people actually didn't mind, because she wasn't braindead, she still had to play neutral, and she had proper flaws one could exploit. Yes, she still got nerfed, and I do believe it was deserved, but she was never a character one had to complain about. Bayonetta, though? She doesn't play neutral, she barely plays Smash. She has tools no other character has, and loses no matchups. She has a frame 1 airdodge meaning she can escape loads of combos that would be true on every other character, she has specials with incredibly BS hitboxes that are basically impossible to contest (one of which comes out frame 4 out of shield and true combos to death at 0%), and she has the highest reward counter in the game (usually a whole stock) with a rather low risk. She doesn't need to worry about disadvantageous edgeguarding situations because her recovery is undisputable and ungimpable. She can just spam most of her options to win a game because mostly everything she does nullifies the entirety of the cast. I mean even her god damn TAUNTS can be cancelled, which no other character can do, it's that ridiculous. She's the undisputed absolute best character in the game by a much, much larger margin than Diddy or Sheik ever were, and besides that she's a toxic character to play against. It's the same thing with Ice Climbers in Brawl. People didn't just hate them because they were good, people hated them because they were toxic. Even Meta Knight was toxic too. Rosalina & Luma and Sonic in Smash 4 are toxic - however people can still endure these last two because they're not broken, they have exploitable flaws, they have losing matchups, and what that means is you can always put yourself in a good position to beat them despite it usually being an unpleasant time. There's no position you can put yourself in that's favorable against Bayonetta, she loses no matchups, has the best advantage state, best disadvantage state, best offstage game regardless of advantage or disadvantage, and the only thing she's not the best at in the game (neutral) doesn't really matter because her disadvantage state is too good for losing neutral to really matter - and also because the mere existence of Witch Time means no player is ever going to play too aggresive neutral, giving her a decent advantage in neutral as well. People were right to complain about Brawl Meta Knight, people were right to complain about pre-patch Diddy and they are right to complain about Bayonetta. You might not believe this, but bad balancing is the developer's fault, not the players'. No character should ever win every matchup in a fighting game, it's just ridiculous. It's as simple as that. |
I am going to give you some positive and honest insight here:
Even if you think pre patch Diddy deserved to be nerf's, fine by me. It did not stop Zero from winning nonstop. And that is my point. Zero played Diddy pre and post patch and destroyed the field. He proved that being the best player was what won; not using the best character. Nerfing Bayonetta would not stop Bayonetta players from being great if the great player chose to use her. Just like it did not stop Zero from winning with Diddy (unless they completely revamped the character like they often do in Street Fighter. They do not nerf, they alter).
People complained about Brawl Metaknight because they wanted an excuse. Rich Brown (great friend of mine) wrote an article for AllisBrawl stating that the character was not the problem; rather, that the best players were all using the character. Rich Brown said that the rest of the field needed to catch up to the best players. You know who the first Olimar to beat Mew2King in a set was? Rich Brown. He had the mentality of working harder and not looking for a shortcut and it worked out for him tremendously. Guess what happened after Rich Brown beat Mew2King, other Olimar players started taking games and sets off him and other notable Metaknight players as well. Was Metaknight still a good character? Yes. The best character in the game? Certainly. Could the rules have been altered to tone him down? Sure. But did the field catch up? Yes!
Saying there was a character (Ice Climbers) that could beat another character (after nearly three years of every great player neglecting them and placing them near the BOTTOM OF THE TIER LIST) that people thought should be banned also lends to my point and not yours. If there are characters that can beat other characters like Ice Climbers could beat Metaknight, then the argument that Metaknight should be banned should have died right there. The truth is, nobody gave Ice Climbers a chance. Do you know why? Because they have huge FLAWS which means they are not toxic to the game. They are balanced. But let you tell it and Ice Climbers are unstoppable. Everyone that jumped on the, "ban MK" bandwagon had to eat it when a character at the bottom of the tier list was considered better than the character everyone wanted banned. But instead of eating shit, they decided to refused to admit they were wrong and instead said, "ban that character, too" which is absurd. Ice Climbers had obvious weaknesses and should not be considered for ban. People have to get better, not look to make other people worse. That is the true toxicity of the community.
I read posts like yours all the time. They are, of course, sad to see from my perspective. When I watched my good friend Salem beat both Ootori and Mew2King on his way to winning an APEX going all Zero Suit Samus, people still complained about Metaknight instead of realizing the guy that just won the tournament proved two things:
1) Even the best Metaknight can be beaten by mid to low tier characters if you are good enough.
2) Nobody was working hard to improve their character like Salem (or Rich Brown or 9B).
The mentality that characters are bad for a fighting game is poor. Unless they have game breaking abilities (glitches or freezing bugs or something outside the realm of the game), then any character can be beaten. If Zero had won this event, why would people complain about Bayonetta? Because they struggle against Bayonetta. Because it is easier to blame someone other than yourself. I was a R.O.B. main in Brawl, if I ever wanted to beat even the most average Dedede players, I would have to work harder than them. That is what I did. I did not say, "ban chaingrabs" because they are beatable. I was not looking for a shortcut, I was looking to be the best. And complaining about Bayonetta is not going to progress the community or the growth and popularity of any game. What will progress those things is encouraging everyone that plays to stay positive, work harder, try harder, get better, learn, improve, and make their mark as the one that stopped the madness and created their own brand of chaos. Instead, the Smash community has been, since the middle of Melee, a bunch of crybabies.
Also, from day 1 until this very day I believe Rosalina is the best character in the game. People never thought Shiek was the best character in the game. She was always considered high tier but never the best. It was always Diddy and then Bayonetta. Which is fine. Someone has to be the best in the game. The question is, is the best in the game beatable. Diddy was beatable and so is Bayonetta. They should not pay a price because they are great characters. They should pay a price if they are broken characters which, neither one was.
Last edited by GhaudePhaede010 - on 05 August 201801000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000
