Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?

AlphaZealot · Mar 15, 2008

2) Brawl has only been out for a short amount of time, how long did it take to find Melee ATs
This would be relevant if the two games experienced similar launches. They didn't. Melee had a few SSB64 players who knew about z-cancelling, and there was no central intelligence like SmashBoards to really unite the community and combine everyone's knowledge.

It took until 2005 or 2006 for moonwalking to be discovered/actually used and until 2004 for pivoting to be discovered. Similar things will happen with Brawl, just as they happened with Melee and other games (double shotting in Halo 2 wasn't a necessary/actually consistent skill for players until the last year, year and half of its life cycle).

Will super drastic, wavedashing-esk techniques be found? Maybe not, but new things will probably be found every month for the next year or two, at the very least, and these new things will only add to the pile of cool stuff we've already discovered.

Does it suck that wavedashing/lcanceling were obviously removed to take away from the tech heavy game that was Melee? Yes. Does it suck that tripping was added for no reason at all? Yes. But, its still early, way, way to early to judge Brawl and whatever competitive merits it may have. Right now, Brawl is just a game, in infant in its life cycle, it doesn't matter how many people are attacking Brawl from different angles, the game is still young, still evolving at an incredible rate. Did you know it wasn't until about 2004 that people started to consistently wavedash/short hop (Chillin claims that when he beat Ken at GO in Jan 2004 that he didn't even know how to short hop)? Did you know that most of the tech heavy stuff we see now in Melee really didn't come around until the end of 2005? Peach's technical game didn't even really arrive until 2006/early 2007 when we started seeing players like Xif, Doll, and Cort outpace old favorites like Mike G and Vidjo, neither of whom are particularly tech heavy (though I think Vidjo has evolved his game since).

Here is the problem with the entire debate, on both sides:
You are comparing Melee, 6-7 years after its launch, 3-4 years after heavy tournament usage and thousands of tournament data, against, Brawl, 1 week-6 weeks after its launch, less then 6 weeks of heavy tournament usage, and less than 30 or so tournaments for data. It has nothing to do with the internet, most learning is accomplished in a live tournament setting and just about any competitive player will attest to the fact that they learn more from a single tournament than they do from a week or month of playing casually. So how then, can we really know how Brawl will play out? We don't, we'll have to wait and see.

orintemple · Mar 15, 2008

E.G.G.M.A.N. said:
It's true we don't know much about the game yet, but we have to start SOMEWHERE. If we refuse to ever analyze or discuss, we will never learn anything. And we'll all be stuck as "kindergarteners" forever. We have some facts now. That is enough to start a discussion. We just want a good honest look at the game without random people coming and grumbling about some other topic (i.e. "not melee 2", "wavedashing", etc.)

Thats all fine and dandy, but when people start rolling through here acting like what they say is the word of God and there is no other way around it, it really pisses me off.

It is the same as going up to a Hindu person and telling them that there is only one God and they are wrong. Yea you can do it but it makes you look like a huge *******, and that is what is happeneing here. Many people are trying to tell everyone the facts instead of leaving it open for discussion. At least thats how it feels to me. But in the end this competitiveness discussion still doesn't make a difference cause it isn't going to change the fact that most people will still stick with Brawl no matter the potential.

Also, the above post is amazing.

BigRick · Mar 15, 2008

Judging by your definition of competitive which is : ''the better player will always win'' I don't understand why you think that Brawl isn't as competitive as Melee. Is there something in Brawl that would make the ''better'' player lose for no good reason?

If your definition of a competitive game would be instead : ''a game with a high learning curve'' Then yes I totally agree that Melee > Brawl in terms of competitiveness.

But for now I am kinda confused... so my question again is:

Is there something in Brawl that would make the ''better'' player lose for no good reason?

EDIT: More stuff, here's another question, what makes a player ''better'' than the other?

I think in one post you said earlier that in melee you have a chance to deal much more damage than Brawl when you find an opening...

now if we consider the better player the one with more techskill then yeah it is easier for the better player to win

however if we consider the better player to be the one that can play smarter, wouldn't you think that a better test of skill would be the current Brawl meta, which is that you have to constantly outsmart your opponent because you return into a ''neutral'' situation much more often

so yea basically, your definition of competive is kinda flawed because the definition of a ''better'' player is a relative thing

DRaGZ · Mar 15, 2008

Scar said:
Brawl seems to be all the first part. After each hit, players are back at the neutral position. After Ganon's dair at low to mid %s, Ganon is actually at a DISADVANTAGE. Other characters experience this punishment for successfully landing hits. This takes away from competitiveness, as it is very difficult to safely land hits at high % without being punished by death. Without a solid punishment game, matches are kept even when they shouldn't be.

Finally...someone on these boards have explained why it's good to have inescapable combos.

But have you tried air-chasing with fairs with R.O.B. yet? I think it's pretty inescapable; most of the time I end up fairing my opponent's off of the screen.

Cactuar · Mar 15, 2008

Scar asked me to come in and explain the fighting game concept in regard to the actual mechanisms behind competitive play. It general fighting games, the entire engine is boiled down to two things:

The Push and Pull: This is where we encounter the term "mind games" most often. It is everything you do to manipulate your opponent, control space on the stage, creating openings to enable you to land either individual blows or combo starters, how you react and pressure shields, etc.

The Punishment: The end result of all push and pull games. Ranging from individual hits to death combos.

In smash, we still have the same basic fighter concept, and are given an additional component:

The Edge: Encompasses all things related to killing your opponent off the sides and bottom of the stage through guarding the edge. This is where we see gimping most often.

For the Smash series, we have seen the balance shift between the push and pull and the punishment.

In 64, there was a heavy reliance on the combo game, making the push and pull less important than being able to consistently death combo the enemy. The only real importance of the push and pull was to make sure you could land one hit before the enemy. (This is a slightly overstated :laugh:

)

In Melee, there was a balance between the push and pull, and the combo game was significantly more balanced with the addition of DI and the reduction of shield stun. There were so many options regarding movement available that the push and pull became equally important as being able to properly execute the punishment.

In Brawl, we see a huge imbalance in the gameplay. The push and pull game has become far more important than the punishment game, as there is such a weak overall combo system. The problem here is that, while they made the push and pull game so much more important, they slowed down the overall game play and removed many of the movement options, and even inserted an unremoveable random variable (tripping) to further gimp movement. Because of this slower pace, the game becomes boring to watch, as we spend more time in the push and pull, then when we manage to initiate the punishment, there is an epic anti-climactic moment because the opponent can't be punished to an extent that would be fair for their mistake. The game is so oriented towards rewarding camping that, competitively, we will likely see projectile characters stand as far away as possible, then shoot as many things as possible until the opponent approaches, at which point they will exchange very little damage, then resume camping. Close range characters have had their options reduced, as players are punished for approaching by running(your only options from run are to dash attack, grab, or jump. Shielding from run puts you at a disadvantage due to the removal of the first frame running shield and the new lagged shield.), and most characters have a disadvantage by approaching from above. Shield grabbing has been upgraded, given the very small amount of shield hit stun from any move, and at the same time ruined because of the inability to combo out of grab, aside from the few characters that now have nearly skill-less chaingrabs.

I will stop at this point, only because the my purpose here is to explain the imbalance of Brawl and why the mechanisms in this game prevent it from being reasonably viable on a competitive level. Sure, they may continue to play the game in tournament and it may even become big, but it doesn't mean it should be. Brawl has ruined all of the work that we, the melee community, put into getting Smash recognized as a fighting game. Brawl is a platformer party game, not a fighting game.

If anyone disagrees with anything, please feel free to respond with your argument so that I can ruin you. I would further elaborate on what I already have, but I'm starving, and it has probably affected the coherence of some of this post. :laugh:

Edit: @AlphaZealot: The focus from too many players on too many arguments has been on removal of techniques. All of that is not important. This is.

ph00tbag · Mar 15, 2008

I don't even understand why ATs are a part of this discussion. At this point, I'd posit that more than enough ATs have been found to create a game that can be competitive. The problem isn't in that aspect. The problem is that no way has been found to advance the punishment half of the metagame that Scar has mentioned. Even combo-heavy characters like Metaknight, Pit, etc., have trouble doing much more than a few hits, and rarely can these few hits result in a kill move. Practice may yield a better ability to win at rock paper scissors by knowing moves that will more often win the initial face-off, but currently, there's nothing to practice that will enhance one's ability to extend the advantage.

You can't say that players with skill levels 6 and 5 will stay that way with both games. The game is different and therefore their skill levels will be changed. X% > Y% wont' always be true, and because of the different playing styles of the games you can't determine what's going to happen based on the skill level in melee. Eventually, if player A works enough to become better than Player B, they will win more of the games. Not because of how they played in Melee but because of their newly develped skill in Brawl.

Read the post. Scar is hypothesizing four different players. Two of them play Melee, and have skill levels 6 and 5. Two completely different players play Brawl, and have skill levels six and five. The argument still stands that x > y.

nabbig2 · Mar 15, 2008

I like melee much better. What dissapoints me is that they didn't bother spending enough time balancing the characters in brawl.

BigRick · Mar 15, 2008

Cactuar said:
Because of this slower pace, the game becomes boring to watch, as we spend more time in the push and pull, then when we manage to initiate the punishment, there is an epic anti-climactic moment because the opponent can't be punished to an extent that would be fair for their mistake.

this made me lol

but yea I agree with that post overall, Brawl has turned smash bros. into hardcore camping game

But how does that mean that the better player won't win everytime? If the game is about camping, then the best camper should prevail, which would not make the game less competitive by Scar's standards.

(again I'm just arguing with Scar's definition of competitive lol, not the facts about Brawl)

Sculelos · Mar 15, 2008

nabbig2 said:
I like melee much better. What dissapoints me is that they didn't bother spending enough time balancing the characters in brawl.

What? Brawl is WAY better balanced then Melee I'm a good player and can pick up any character in Brawl and do reasonably well. In Melee certain characters were suicide to pick. (Pichu, Mewtwo).

If you can show me and character matchup that has the gimping of Fox vs Bowser, Kirby or Mewtwo then I will be very amazed.

Now that thats settled. Melee is a better competitive game then Brawl I say that due to the vast amount of techs and combos possible to perform are simply amazing. Brawl is a slower fighter that relies more on character knowledge and move counters. Not to say you can't play fairly aggressive as I have and will continue too as campings not my style. But Brawl certainly is a different game and much, much better for me.

Now competetive players will laugh at me, but I do play with items on Brawl because frankly without items Brawl can turn into a rolling, shielding campfest and items simply break that barrier.

I try and do win nearly all the time even with items though as I think they still are a testament of player skill with some luck involved. But I enjoy overcoming the odds or getting lucky never the less.

In Brawl THE PLAYER WHO IS BETTER WILL WIN THE MOST so it is in fact competitive even with all items set to normal spawning.

Learn to play Brawl and enjoy it or go back to Melee.

E.G.G.M.A.N. · Mar 15, 2008

ph00tbag said:
I don't even understand why ATs are a part of this discussion. QUOTE]

Ats are part of the "punishment" aspect. Loss of wavedashing/dash dancing (sort of)/L canceling makes it harder to approach + combo, so they do, indirectly, affect that aspect of the game. They aren't the only factors of course.

Darqhart · Mar 15, 2008

I think there is actually an end to this argument.

Melees life cycle is in its twilight. Brawls has just begun. There may be a few more tournaments in your area for Melee, maybe even for the next couple months. Melee WILL take a backseat to Brawl for tournament, the same way everything old gives way to the new in time. You think Nintendo will endorse/sponsor or sponsors will sponsor a Melee tournament in one year? That would be horrible marketing, and it simply wont happen.

Get use to Brawl.

You play SSB all the time.

+4 years

You play Melee all the time, SSB occasionally.

+4 years

You play Brawl all the time, Melee occasionally, SSB rarely...

Sound like you? Most likely it does, and will...

Reynbo · Mar 15, 2008

A fighting game w/o any sort of punishment=campy bull**** nuff said

Eggm · Mar 15, 2008

Sculelos said:
Brawl is a slower fighter that relies more on character knowledge and move counters.

I assume your talking about more than melee correct? Can you back that up cause it seems completey false to me. Melee requires that as well, and its MORE important because each hit that comes due to character knowledge and move counters is punished harder in general. Also knowing the ways to punish using that hit with your character is really important in case the other person is better at punishing per hit with their respective character.

People make claims like this all the time without thinking. The most frustrating one is that because brawl is slower there is more mindgames in brawl. Its because of this that there are less mindgames in brawl. Mindgames are tricking your opponent into doing something using a deceptive, then punishing accordingly. Let me give you a few examples instead of making a statement based on nothing like Sculelos did. Mindgame # 1 taken away by slower speed : Approaching with an empty SH (meaning not doing any action) to fast fall grab. This is commonly used to mindgame a person into shielding then pushing with a grab followed by a combo. Its particularly useful with captain falcon from melee, but useful for most characters. This was taken away in brawl since its so painfully obvious when some one tries to execute it and any decent player will roll, or do something else to avoid it. Onto the next mindgame taken away by braws slow down and overall floatyness. Falling downwards to your opponent but right before he could hit you double jumping to avoid an upward attack then fast falling and punishing with an ariel before he could recover from his attempted attack to hit you. This is gone for the obvious reason that falling back down after the double jump takes far too long to punish an action unless they did a ridiculosly laggy move. So there you have two examples of mindgames lost by the floatyness and overall slowness of brawls new engine. Once people provide me with two or more mindgames that brawl's slow engine add that melee didn't have because it was faster, i'll add more.

Sorry about the mindgame rant, I've just seen it time and time again that melee players just like to button mash and not think and that they can't handle the slowed down brawl because it now has more mindgames. Btw, I know most people don't believe this I just had to rant about it since i've personally seen it five plus times in the last week.

Also back to my original intention for the post.
Sculelos, can you please give specific examples on why character knowledge and move counters are more important in brawl than melee?

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

ph00tbag said:
Read the post. Scar is hypothesizing four different players. Two of them play Melee, and have skill levels 6 and 5. Two completely different players play Brawl, and have skill levels six and five. The argument still stands that x > y.

lol Thanks man. I was gonna go crazy over this. I need time to read all these posts and respond to them, but I would definitely like to respond to everyone who's actually making good points. People who are just pissing and moaning I'm not going to respond to.

Edit: Thanks Cactus, your post is perfect.

Cactuar said:
The game is so oriented towards rewarding camping that, competitively, we will likely see projectile characters stand as far away as possible, then shoot as many things as possible until the opponent approaches, at which point they will exchange very little damage, then resume camping.

Papapaint · Mar 15, 2008

First of all: I highly agree. Melee is currently far, far more competitive than brawl. This is fact.

However, I do have one point to make. I have read most of the pro-melee arguments extensively, and I've been mulling over everything quite a bit. I feel as though I can elaborate on the two blanket statements Scar refers to in his original post.

scar said:
1) It's not Melee 2.0, you can't compare the two games
This is silly. We are debating "which game is more competitive," so we must compare the two games. Arguing that this is irrelevant doesn't make any sense, since it's clearly important to competitive Melee players. Our feelings are important, too.

This may be a valid argument elsewhere, but IT IS NOT VALID IN THE CONTEXT OF MELEE VS BRAWL.

2) Brawl has only been out for a short amount of time, how long did it take to find Melee ATs
This would be relevant if the two games experienced similar launches. They didn't. Melee had a few SSB64 players who knew about z-cancelling, and there was no central intelligence like SmashBoards to really unite the community and combine everyone's knowledge.

Now, at Brawl's launch, there are thousands of players working day and night to find something - ANYTHING to abuse. There were even players doing this in early February, immediately after the game was released in Japan. So far, nothing of note has advanced the metagame to anything to be considered remarkable.

Now then, I have a few points I'd like to make:

1. The significant point of Brawl =/= Melee 2.0 is the different engine. It's all well and good to think that players are looking at this game and trying to break it, find holes, find ATs, find better punishments, etc., but there's an implicitly hindering factor: all of these players are melee players. We are locked into a mindset when it comes to smash.

By this, I am not saying "More ATs are coming, stop hating lulz." I'm saying that we will find a way to break this engine so that we've got a better system of punishment. The problem is that we aren't--and won't--looking at it the right way. Melee and Brawl are miles from each other--it's like asking someone who plays Street Fighter II to discover advanced techs in MVC2 in one month. Better yet, it's like asking a MVC:2 player to evolve Brawl.

I think that when we do break the engine, it's not going to come from melee players trying to figure out how to cancel lag, or to follow up a throw. It's not going to come from trying to cancel momentum or slide wildly around the stage. It's going to come from some dip**** at a tournament accidentally pulling off some ridiculous combo/finisher/punishment in the most unorthodox way imaginable.

For example: think about Wavedashing. Let's assume for a second that Melee's launch was in the same situation as Brawl's launch. Even if there were thousands of people trying to abuse Melee's engine, it would be quite a long time before someone really made the connection between airdodging and ground momentum. It would be even longer before someone discovered the significance.

I'll use one more metaphor: take the transition from Counterstrike 1.6 to CS: Source. You had literally hundreds of thousands of players trying to "break" source. Far more players than were working on Brawl these past couple of months. I was in a huge clan at the time, and we tried really hard to switch to source. However, the new, slightly different aiming system, the new hit delay, the larger recoil and faster red block recovery... it all pointed to a much less competitive game. Even with hundreds of thousands of people working on it, it wasn't until almost a year later that some of CS:Source's competitive value was uncovered. People realized how to abuse the new aiming system, and it's entirely different from CS:1.6. People learned how to use grenades with the new red block, and these unorthodox methods of playing opened up Source as a competitive game again.

Please note that I'm not saying things like "ITS NOT MELEE 2.0" or "THE GAMES ONLY BEEN OUT FOR LYKE TWO DAYS". I'm providing past examples. I do agree that so far, Melee has proven more competitive than Brawl. How that will play out over the long term... well, it might turn out like CounterStrike, or it might be like Halo to Halo 2.

I do not think the community needs to say "Melee is more competitive. Let's play Brawl knowing that." They need to say "Melee is currently more competitive. How can we make Brawl equally so?"

boxelder · Mar 15, 2008

Cactuar said:
In Brawl, we see a huge imbalance in the gameplay. The push and pull game has become far more important than the punishment game, as there is such a weak overall combo system. The problem here is that, while they made the push and pull game so much more important, they slowed down the overall game play and removed many of the movement options, and even inserted an unremoveable random variable (tripping) to further gimp movement. Because of this slower pace, the game becomes boring to watch, as we spend more time in the push and pull, then when we manage to initiate the punishment, there is an epic anti-climactic moment because the opponent can't be punished to an extent that would be fair for their mistake. The game is so oriented towards rewarding camping that, competitively, we will likely see projectile characters stand as far away as possible, then shoot as many things as possible until the opponent approaches, at which point they will exchange very little damage, then resume camping. Close range characters have had their options reduced, as players are punished for approaching by running(your only options from run are to dash attack, grab, or jump. Shielding from run puts you at a disadvantage due to the removal of the first frame running shield and the new lagged shield.), and most characters have a disadvantage by approaching from above. Shield grabbing has been upgraded, given the very small amount of shield hit stun from any move, and at the same time ruined because of the inability to combo out of grab, aside from the few characters that now have nearly skill-less chaingrabs.

I disagree that the game returns to neutrality after a punishing hit for the simple reason that hitstun is reduced, in fact this thinking discounts a fundamental principal of the gameplay. a character launched into the air, or better yet, over the edge by a punishing smash is still at a great disadvantage. Maybe you haven't noticed, but all the characters int he game seem to have really buffed up smashes, and at least one very high priority edgeguarding air. if they don't knock out at low percents they have amazing range and priority. Upsmash is actually many characters best moves. On top of that they can be performed out of dashes and seem to come out quicker if done this way. not only smashes, up tilts are great combo starters for many characters and are fast, with great priority, again. So punishment may not be the sure thing it was in melee, but it still accounts for much of the damage given in a round of brawl. Further, it does take more skill and forethought than canned throw combos and unavoidable combos of all sorts. So that arguement is a wash IMO. I haven't seen projectiles dominating any matches either, so if you could maybe provide a link that would be good. It just doesn't play out like your paint it in your post.

Also I forgot to mention that u-airs (punishing moves) were also largely buffed, and SO ARE up b recovery moves. This is being terribly under utilized in combos IMO. They actually knock out for a lot of characters (mario, peach, metaknight and many more).

masterbraz · Mar 15, 2008

this should be the official competitive debate thread.

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

~~almightypancake,~~ boxelder, you guys seem like you're bringing up interesting things so I will address them soon. For now, an earlier post that interested me.

BigRick said:
Is there something in Brawl that would make the ''better'' player lose for no good reason?

Cactuar and I discussed the dominance of neutral positions in Brawl, or as he put it, "push and pull" baiting. The fact of the matter is at this point, either person can land the first hit. Smarter players will get first hits a larger percentage of the time, but when you're dealing with %s and uncertainty, it's very possible for worse players to land critical hits at critical times just because someone guessed wrong or right.

In Melee, even if a better player guesses wrong infrequently in the push and pull neutral position, the opponent is not as good at punishing mistakes. Each opening for the better player will result in more damage being dealt and a greater positional advantage. Capitalizing on mistakes should be more devastating as a player gets better. Brawl seems to not allow anyone to punish anything with any sort of real severity.

I believe this, along with other things, demonstrate that Melee rewards its players for being better at the game much more than Brawl can.

BigRick said:
so yea basically, your definition of competive is kinda flawed because the definition of a ''better'' player is a relative thing

In close contests it's hard to tell who is actually better at a game. However, I'm pretty sure that in certain cases, especially in Melee, it's very clear who is better than who. That's why we have power rankings, certain players are just better than others overall. It's a combination of technical skill, "mindgames," and experience.

This also yields my prediction that Brawl power rankings will never really stabilize, as new players will get better faster than before and already-ranked players will win and lose arbitrarily at different tournaments. Just a prediction.

almightypancake said:
By this, I am not saying "More ATs are coming, stop hating lulz." I'm saying that we will find a way to break this engine so that we've got a better system of punishment. The problem is that we aren't--and won't--looking at it the right way. Melee and Brawl are miles from each other--it's like asking someone who plays Street Fighter II to discover advanced techs in MVC2 in one month. Better yet, it's like asking a MVC:2 player to evolve Brawl.

I agree with this very much. I personally can't say that we will find a way to break the engine, I'm comfortable with "might." But I didn't know the story of Source. I think that's really interesting. It's true that people are looking for Melee-ish stuff in Brawl and it's true that we shouldn't be, I mean Melee players think inside the Melee box, that's that.

There is always hope, more in some places than in others. Your post gave me more hope than I had previously, and thanks for that. I mean I know I'm still playing the **** thing.

Papapaint · Mar 15, 2008

Also, let me clarify:

As the games currently stands, I completely and wholeheartedly agree. All of the points you and Cactaur have made stand tall and true. If someone were to offer me the choice between a Brawl tourney or a Melee tourney, there's no question that I'd take melee.

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

boxelder said:
a character launched into the air, or better yet, over the edge by a punishing smash is still at a great disadvantage.

Being off the edge isn't nearly as dangerous as it used to be. Recovery in Brawl is really really easy, and I have yet to see any solid edgeguarding strategies. Waiting onstage for the opponent to recover and throwing things at them seems to be the most reliable edgeguard. As far as being in the air goes, you have plenty of options to safely make it back to the ground. Airdodge or jump away if the opponent is going to attack, DI away if they're going to hit you again and they'll get one more hit in AT MOST, or attack them to either trade hits or punish them for expecting you to airdodge. It's not that great of a disadvantage IMO.

Definitely not an advantage, but closer to a neutral Rock, Paper, Scissors situation.

boxelder said:
Upsmash is actually many characters best moves. On top of that they can be performed out of dashes and seem to come out quicker if done this way.

I want to start by saying something that I shouldn't say until later because of how strongly I agree with it: upB moves are largely neglected by Melee players and are too good in this game. Some of us have already started using them more frequently, but we're definitely reluctant to since we were so vulnerable post-upB in Melee.

With regards to usmash, we could do that out of dash in Melee too, the only difference was that then it actually required technical skill. The other thing is that usmash is typically a reliable killmove in Brawl, but it's always done as a single hit punishing someone for something. Punishment is good, but your BEST CHANCE to kill someone shouldn't be a strong single hit when someone is at kill % and messes up. You should be able to kill people all the time when they mess up.

boxelder · Mar 15, 2008

I can make this response without many words! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC7JAF8Aa9k&feature=related Watch some of this series and then tell me again how edgeguarding doesn't work in Brawl, or isn't useful. And that's with Wario, who is far from the best at it in the game. Metaknight says hi. Honestly, that's really the lest true thing you've said so far. Also, you'll notice that after the first two games the character with some of the strongest projectiles in the game (link) gets clobbered by wario, who has none. Repeatedly. Honestly, you can pick any match and see the same thing...watch Azen vs. Forte if you need big name players to prove it for you. ...edge guarding is huge in brawl. Maybe you need to spend more time with the game and less time thinking about it on the internet

.

That's the first time I've seen Wario's under the stage recovery as well, pretty cool eh? :D.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the conversation, and I hope you can learn to enjoy Brawl as much as I have been. I really feel some of your complaints are unjustified and I hope for your sake you'll come to agree with me, not so I can be right, but so you can enjoy yourself.

Sandwich · Mar 15, 2008

WoT but Scar for mod.

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

Well, I watched it... uh... I didn't really see any kills via edgeguarding nor did I find the match terribly entertaining to watch. Maybe you gave me the wrong link. I didn't really see any impressive strings of attacks nor anything that makes Brawl a terribly viable competitive game... Wario's recovery was cool though, yeah.

Anyways yeah I trust that you see something in that match, but I sure as hell don't. I'm interested to see what other people think of it. Lots of Link back-airing.

boxelder · Mar 15, 2008

Most of Wario's kills over the series (more that just one match) come from him f-airing link durring his recovery. How you could miss that is beyond me. And there were combos, and long chain attacks that weren't just hitting people while they are helpless. If you couldn't see it I can only conclude that it's because you simply don't want to, and I'll stop wasting my time. If you won't even admit that a character knocked into the air is at a huge disadvantage then there's really no point trying to be rational with you.

I really can't believe you think edge guarding is less useful in brawl. In melee you could get kills just for grabbing the edge after you knock someone off. Edge hogging was downright broken and didn't require any skill.

derf · Mar 15, 2008

um theres no fair kills in that match you linked. and i didnt see that many combos either. just lead ins that put the other character in a less desirable position. i didnt watch the whole series sorry

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

I only watched that one fight, the link you posted in your post. **EDIT: Thanks derf, I was wondering if I was just nuts**

Edgehogging in Melee was dangerous if you didn't know what you were doing and you were fighting someone good. It was much better than it is now, maybe that's the way it should be, that I'm not arguing.

Let's regain focus: what we're really arguing is that you're at less of a disadvantage in Brawl than in Melee after you're hit. I think that's indisputable fact at this point.

Also, you must realize that just because Wario can edgeguard Link doesn't mean that edgeguarding is as useful in Brawl as it was in Melee. In every matchup in Melee, it's dangerous to be offstage. You are punished VERY HARD, usually by death, unless you're very good and very precise, or you're Sheik. One matchup can never prove an entire point.

But I do realize that I don't know all the matchups and most certainly don't know all possible edgeguarding strategies. At this point thanks to autosweetspotting, less reliable spikes, and many other factors, it is less dangerous to be off the ledge in Brawl than it was in Melee.

fkacyan · Mar 15, 2008

I have a problem with your logic.

You say that good players have a better chance at winning in a competitive game. You then go on to say that Brawl does not fit this: Thus, bad players are winning.

Wait: So automatically, because you're not winning as much, the game isn't as competitive?

I'm sorry, but no - The game is fine, and you're just not used to the new engine yet.

OrlanduEX · Mar 15, 2008

boxelder said:
Most of Wario's kills over the series (more that just one match) come from him f-airing link durring his recovery. How you could miss that is beyond me. And there were combos, and long chain attacks that weren't just hitting people while they are helpless. If you couldn't see it I can only conclude that it's because you simply don't want to, and I'll stop wasting my time. If you won't even admit that a character knocked into the air is at a huge disadvantage then there's really no point trying to be rational with you.

I really can't believe you think edge guarding is less useful in brawl. In melee you could get kills just for grabbing the edge after you knock someone off. Edge hogging was downright broken and didn't require any skill.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word combo as so many do.

Combo (in fighting game) = inescapable string of attacks or a string of attacks that is guaranteed once the first hit lands.

The series of attacks that Wario executed was not a combo by definition as Link could have escaped by just air dodging or DIing correctly.

Pink Reaper · Mar 15, 2008

It should be noted that jumping out and attacking an opponent is NOT edge guarding, its air guarding. Edge guarding usually refers to keeping your opponent off the ledge while staying grounded yourself(dsmash edgeguards, Marth's Fsmash Edgeguard etc etc.)

kr3wman · Mar 15, 2008

He probaly only watched the first one.

...

I dont know why, but these guy look more skilled than most people I've seen yet.

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

@Thiocyanide, I really don't see what you're saying. Clearly you think I am mistaken, but I don't think you've demonstrated how.

I think that Rock, Paper, Scissors is not a competitive game. People can practice it as much as they want and learn patterns that people follow... you can get as good at that game as one possibly can. But ultimately people playing for the first time who pick randomly between the three can win.

That is one extreme. The other extreme is SSBM, or outdoor sports. People who are really good at outdoor sports train their physical bodies which puts them at an immediate advantage. Smash players train tech skill, and overall knowledge of the game to get as much of an advantage as they can over the next player.

I think Brawl is in the middle. You can play better than someone all game, and the forces of Brawl will keep the match close, and then, god forbid, you trip into an fsmash. Extreme example, but ultimately I believe that it's much harder to get good enough to easily win 100% of your matches vs other players.

That happens all the time in Melee.

postyoa28 · Mar 15, 2008

At this point I agree with scar and cactaur, Brawl is a different game. It SHOULD be approached differently.

Now that I said that, I find brawl to be such a different game that I am lost. I can not find a character that feels right when I use the controls. The finely adjusted controls that I developed in melee do not carry the transition between the two games. In melee I was a tech heavy player that used combos to push and pull the match the ways I wanted. In brawl I find my self lost. I can't find the right series of moves, can't set up my offense and defense, and so on. BUT the biggest thing I know will happen is that my play style will adjust. I will learn with time. It doesn't matter to me that the game may not be on the same competitive level as melee, just that if I play it enough, I will be the better player than someone who has not invested the time.

Not that this is completely relevent to the argument, but it's just how I have felt over this transition.

DarkKnight077 · Mar 15, 2008

Hm hey Scar what would say on the balance, unless I missed it. I sort of Sped read it sorry.

I think the balance of the characters is really off don't you think? I mean when I picked up Dedede, soon I got used to him I kind of knew that he was going to be good. However soon as I picked up Link it seemed that no change was made for him.

It's kind of gripe I have with the characters that some suddenly just became so good and then characters like Yoshi and Link kind of got tossed away.

boxelder · Mar 15, 2008

I guess I was wrong by saying edgeguarding. I thought it simply meant protecting the edge, and I think that's more useful at wracking up damage (if not always killing) in brawl for the same reason Scar thinks it's worse. the easier recovery means that it is more often the wise choice to pursue. With less risk of it backfiring it's often a great way to wrack up damage on someone who can't respond or dodge without falling helplessly.

I don't understand how Brawls mechanics make the more strict definition of edgeguarding worse either though. Unless you mean edgehogging, which I think kinda sucked, even though we were all used to it.

fkacyan · Mar 15, 2008

Extreme example, but ultimately I believe that it's much harder to get good enough to easily win 100% of your matches vs other players.

So, the game takes more skill than Melee to win 100% of the matches you play? All the better. You end up a better player than you would otherwise.

As far as Melee goes, I'm not arguing that it didn't take a lot of technical skill. It certainly did (However... A major component was an unintended glitch...).

You act like Brawl does not. This is wrong. It's that the technical skills required for Brawl are far different than those required for Melee.

In the end, it's hard for me to disprove your debate, because its substance is this: "I think that Brawl takes less skill." That's an opinion. I'm not going to debate your opinion. I'm saying that your logic of "I no longer win 100% of matches, and I am considered good, thus the other people I'm facing are bad and as a result the game is unbalanced" is bad.

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

postyoa28 said:
Not that this is completely relevent to the argument, but it's just how I have felt over this transition.

It's important to share your experiences, if you're specific they offer insight into the metagame. This is something we've already covered, tech heavy players are really getting the gimp. Sorry.

boxelder said:
I don't understand how Brawls mechanics make the more strict definition of edgeguarding worse either though. Unless you mean edgehogging, which I think kinda sucked, even though we were all used to it.

These are the kinds of things I don't really want to get into, I'd rather be more general with this topic than focus on these specifics.

But think about just autosweetspotting and the consequences of this. Before, you were punished for missing a sweetspot, either by dying (too low) or getting hit real hard at the ledge without your jump (too high). Now, no worries. Just do it high and you'll grab the ledge. You can no longer edgeguard on the stage unless it's via edgehogging, which was nerfed. Edgeguarding is not as practical, recovery is REALLY EASY, competitiveness is lost.

Very new players can recover just as well as veterans.

@ DarkKnight: The game's balance is really weird right now. Someone out there can probably play any character at the top level of competitive play right now. That's not saying much, it's only been a month. Things will equilibrate with time.

fkacyan · Mar 15, 2008

Very new players can recover just as well as veterans.

Thus, the style of game has changed from edgeguarding...

All I'm seeing here, really, is unwillingness to adapt to a new style of play.

This is nothing new, people complain about every change made in WoW in some way, and yet life goes on and it stays competitive. Brawl isn't much different.

jwj442 · Mar 15, 2008

I find that the same changes that make recovery easier (auto sweetspotting, generally better recovery moves, floatiness) also make it easier to jump out and intercept people, though. For example, chasing someone over the edge with DK more than a couple of feet was a risky proposition in Melee. In Brawl, I can do this a lot more often without having to worry about getting myself killed, and his dair is actually something I can spike with somewhat frequently. The new airdodge does help defend against interception at times, but it's not foolproof and can sometimes be punished.

Scar · Mar 15, 2008

Thiocyanide said:
So, the game takes more skill than Melee to win 100% of the matches you play? All the better. You end up a better player than you would otherwise.

Wait, what? You're missing my point, and instead interpreting what I'm saying incorrectly. You need to respond to points I'm making, not to points you don't understand. Cactuar had trained real hard to be an extremely good Melee player. It took me 5 months of playing before I ever beat him in a single match. This has happened with many pros and their apprentices, and this is the Melee cycle.

This is Melee's way of rewarding its most skilled players. It gives them consistent victories.

I don't think Brawl allows players to become that much better than other players. I don't think it's deep enough to have the same learning curve as Melee. I don't think you will continue to have realizations until well after years of playing the game.

Thiocyanide said:
You act like Brawl does not. This is wrong. It's that the technical skills required for Brawl are far different than those required for Melee.

What tech skill is involved?

Thiocyanide said:
In the end, it's hard for me to disprove your debate, because its substance is this: "I think that Brawl takes less skill." That's an opinion. I'm not going to debate your opinion. I'm saying that your logic of "I no longer win 100% of matches, and I am considered good, thus the other people I'm facing are bad and as a result the game is unbalanced" is bad.

I think it's important for you to realize that I'm talking about hypothetical people. I'm not talking about myself, I don't care how well I do at Brawl, I play for fun because it's too frustrating to me otherwise. That said, BRAWL TAKES INFINITELY LESS TECHNICAL SKILL THAN MELEE. I don't see how this can be argued, this is fact.

Other skill involved such as "mindgames" and, well, I don't even know... well these things can be debated. I don't think anything was really added to Brawl though, so there may be more opportunities for guessing games to be played, but they most certainly are not deeper than the ones present in Melee nor do they require any more skill to be understood.

I don't think the claim that less tech skill is involved in Brawl is a matter of opinion and I don't think anyone will agree with you. I'm interested to find out, though.

Thiocyanide said:
Thus, the style of game has changed from edgeguarding...

All I'm seeing here, really, is unwillingness to adapt to a new style of play.

Yes, it indicates a shift in gamestyle, but where are we shifting towards? Nothing has been improved, and something has been taken away from one aspect of the game. You really need to think things through before you bring them up.

Your posts are becoming increasingly harder for me to respond to. I feel like I'm saying stupid things over and over, and we're getting more and more off point. That's no good.

jwj442 said:
I find that the same changes that make recovery easier (auto sweetspotting, generally better recovery moves, floatiness) also make it easier to jump out and intercept people, though.

Yes, I agree, it changes the way we have to edgeguard. However, many of the upBs were beefed and designed to stagespike kill people trying to gimp players offstage. This encourages camping. But yeah, I agree.

Pink Reaper · Mar 15, 2008

Am I the only one who notices that not only does Brawl not really require tech skill but it also doesn't require "Teching" skill? Like, seriously, I've never had to tech anything.

Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?

Former Smashboards Owner

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Champion

El Fuego

C(ϾᶘϿ)Ͻ

Smash Rookie

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Journeyman

Smash Rookie

Smash Cadet

Smash Hero

#HarveyDent

Just your average kind of Luigi.

Smash Apprentice

Smash Apprentice

#HarveyDent

Just your average kind of Luigi.

#HarveyDent

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

#HarveyDent

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

#HarveyDent

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Master

#HarveyDent

Smash Rookie

Smash Lord

Smash Apprentice

Smash Hero

#HarveyDent

Smash Hero

Smash Journeyman

#HarveyDent

Real Name No Gimmicks

Information

Network