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

Pink Reaper · Mar 18, 2008

But you can't say we're not looking outside the box. Look at what Samurai Panda is doing, he actually remapped the controls and found a way to alter the way special attacks act on their characters. We ARE looking outside the box, the problem is, theres not much more outside than there is inside.

FaceLoran · Mar 18, 2008

On skill vs other factors

I thought I would expand on the concept Scar introduced in the OP on the idea that THE PLAYER THAT SHOULD WIN DOES WIN. I play a ton of poker and have reached a fairly respectable skill level through hours and hours and hours of playing and studying the game. I feel my poker background gives me a greater understand of the relationship between skill and other factors than almost anyone here.

When we talk about skill, we are talking about the long haul. The overall picture. The LIKELIHOOD. Even in a game such as chess, which is based on nothing but the skill of the player, it's possible for the lesser player to win. They just won't win very often. This is one of the "other factors." Sometimes people play better or worse than their normal ability for whatever reason (intense focus, tired, drugs, sick, small mental mistakes, confidence issues, etc.)

What this means is that I can beat Darkrain. Darkrain is a great player who has had a pretty fair amount of success for any noobs here that don't know of him. I've played with him and watched him a bunch. And I can beat him. But he is a far superior Melee player than I am. I would say the frequency of me beating him would be very small, something like 1/10 matches. If I got extremely lucky, I could beat him in a set. I would need LUCK though, an outside factor....I would have to be playing my absolute best. He would have to be playing less than his normal level. I would possibly need some favorable random level.

The infrequency with which I, the inferior player, would beat Darkrain is why he and any other player who is good or thinks they are good could travel to a tournament and be assured that they are not just wasting their money traveling to a crapshoot. Without an assurance that the better player will win, there is absolutely no reason for a player who considers themselves good to go to a tournament if they are going with the expectation of winning.

Compared to Melee, Brawl has far less assurance of the better player winning. There's just no reason for thinking, skillful players to want to get good at this game to the point they would spend a ton of money traveling the country when they will get no reward. Those types of players will be more likely to concentrate their focus on other areas/games where they feel they have an edge and are rewarded for their hard work and talent. The more people that start to understand this concept, and I'm certain they will even if only through trial and error, the more people will put down this game as a competitive fighter.

Papapaint · Mar 18, 2008

Pink Reaper said:
But you can't say we're not looking outside the box. Look at what Samurai Panda is doing, he actually remapped the controls and found a way to alter the way special attacks act on their characters. We ARE looking outside the box, the problem is, theres not much more outside than there is inside.

We're trying to look out of the box, and we're doing a good job. But you really are just sheerly ignorant if you think we can possibly define the metagame this early.

Wiseguy · Mar 18, 2008

FaceLoran said:
I thought I would expand on the concept Scar introduced in the OP on the idea that THE PLAYER THAT SHOULD WIN DOES WIN. I play a ton of poker and have reached a fairly respectable skill level through hours and hours and hours of playing and studying the game. I feel my poker background gives me a greater understand of the relationship between skill and other factors than almost anyone here.

When we talk about skill, we are talking about the long haul. The overall picture. The LIKELIHOOD. Even in a game such as chess, which is based on nothing but the skill of the player, it's possible for the lesser player to win. They just won't win very often. This is one of the "other factors." Sometimes people play better or worse than their normal ability for whatever reason (intense focus, tired, drugs, sick, small mental mistakes, confidence issues, etc.)

What this means is that I can beat Darkrain. Darkrain is a great player who has had a pretty fair amount of success for any noobs here that don't know of him. I've played with him and watched him a bunch. And I can beat him. But he is a far superior Melee player than I am. I would say the frequency of me beating him would be very small, something like 1/10 matches. If I got extremely lucky, I could beat him in a set. I would need LUCK though, an outside factor....I would have to be playing my absolute best. He would have to be playing less than his normal level. I would possibly need some favorable random level.

The infrequency with which I, the inferior player, would beat Darkrain is why he and any other player who is good or thinks they are good could travel to a tournament and be assured that they are not just wasting their money traveling to a crapshoot. Without an assurance that the better player will win, there is absolutely no reason for a player who considers themselves good to go to a tournament if they are going with the expectation of winning.

Compared to Melee, Brawl has far less assurance of the better player winning. There's just no reason for thinking, skillful players to want to get good at this game to the point they would spend a ton of money traveling the country when they will get no reward. Those types of players will be more likely to concentrate their focus on other areas/games where they feel they have an edge and are rewarded for their hard work and talent. The more people that start to understand this concept, and I'm certain they will even if only through trial and error, the more people will put down this game as a competitive fighter.

"Darkrain is a great player who has had a pretty fair amount of success for any noobs here that don't know of him. I've played with him and watched him a bunch. And I can beat him. But he is a far superior Melee player than I am."

So he's better at MELEE. Great for him. But being great at Brawl does not guarantee that they will automatically be great at Brawl.

What kinda drives me crazy about this kind of reasoning is that people are basing their assumptions on who is a "better" player on-... well, I'm not sure exactly.

*People don't judge the best boxers by who punches the hardest.

*People don't judge who the best chess players by how they move their pieces around the board.

*People don't judge who is the best Halo players based on who shoots with the greatest accuracy.

*People don't judge the best Melee players by who can string together the most impressive combos.

Who is "the best" at anything is judged solely by who wins the most mayches within the confines of the rules. Saying "the best Brawl players can't win" is a blatant, blatant contradiction. If two people win an equal number of Brawl matches, they can only be judged to be equally skilled at Brawl. Period.

Does Brawl require less technical skill (ie: reflexes) to win? Yes. But Brawl does require the same, if not greater level of strategic thinking (ie: knowing WHICH moves to use WHEN). And is therefore most definitely an accurate guage of skill.

Corigames · Mar 18, 2008

I'm fairly tired of people telling me to stop hating Brawl, especially since I'm not saying that they are blindly loving it. All the "haters" are doing is displaying the game's flaws. I haven't seen one post where someone said that 'people who play brawl are *insert negative*."

I think that there won`t be much to find in Brawl. It seems like they just took Melee and took things out of it. IDK. So, stop telling us that we're `haters,` it's annoying and unfair.

Wiseguy · Mar 18, 2008

coreygames said:
I'm fairly tired of people telling me to stop hating Brawl, especially since I'm not saying that they are blindly loving it. All the "haters" are doing is displaying the game's flaws. I haven't seen one post where someone said that 'people who play brawl are *insert negative*."

I think that there won`t be much to find in Brawl. It seems like they just took Melee and took things out of it. IDK. So, stop telling us that we're `haters,` it's annoying and unfair.

People who play brawl are *insert negative*

(Joking, joking.)

They took stuff out. They also added stuff. Some people like it better, some don't. Fine. People like different things. But saying Brawl is categorically inferior, as far as competitive gaming is concerned, after ONE WEEK is also pretty annoying and unfair.

That's just my opinion.

GoggleBoy · Mar 18, 2008

Wiseguy said:
But being great at Brawl does not guarantee that they will automatically be great at Brawl.

I know what you meant to say, I just thought I'd point out the redundancy.

FaceLoran · Mar 18, 2008

Wiseguy said:
"Darkrain is a great player who has had a pretty fair amount of success for any noobs here that don't know of him. I've played with him and watched him a bunch. And I can beat him. But he is a far superior Melee player than I am."

So he's better at MELEE. Great for him. But being great at Brawl does not guarantee that they will automatically be great at Brawl.

What kinda drives me crazy about this kind of reasoning is that people are basing their assumptions on who is a "better" player on-... well, I'm not sure exactly.

*People don't judge the best boxers by who punches the hardest.

*People don't judge who the best chess players by how they move their pieces around the board.

*People don't judge who is the best Halo players based on who shoots with the greatest accuracy.

*People don't judge the best Melee players by who can string together the most impressive combos.

Who is "the best" at anything is judged solely by who wins the most mayches within the confines of the rules. Saying "the best Brawl players can't win" is a blatant, blatant contradiction. If two people win an equal number of Brawl matches, they can only be judged to be equally skilled at Brawl. Period.

Does Brawl require less technical skill (ie: reflexes) to win? Yes. But Brawl does require the same, if not greater level of strategic thinking (ie: knowing WHICH moves to use WHEN). And is therefore most definitely an accurate guage of skill.

Obviously you completely missed the point of my post. He is better at Melee by far than I am. He can reliably expect to defeat me and anyone else at my skill level because he has more talent and has worked much harder to be good at the game than I have. If you can't reliably expect to defeat lesser players a very high percentage of the time then you don't have a game that can be played competitive. Without the assurance that he could beat a lesser player almost every time, why would a thinking, skillful player waste his time, effort, and talent on an endeavor?

Your logic is also completely absurd when you say two people win an equal number of matches, they can only be judged to be equally skilled....that's flat out ridiculous. If I beat 10 noobs and you beat 10 pros we're equal? Even if it was against the same player....styles matchups, character matchups, etc. play a huge role. The only way to tell if a player is better is if they consistently do better against similar-level competition on a very wide range and sample size to kill variance.

Wiseguy · Mar 18, 2008

FaceLoran said:
Obviously you completely missed the point of my post. He is better at Melee by far than I am. He can reliably expect to defeat me and anyone else at my skill level because he has more talent and has worked much harder to be good at the game than I have. If you can't reliably expect to defeat lesser players a very high percentage of the time then you don't have a game that can be played competitive. Without the assurance that he could beat a lesser player almost every time, why would a thinking, skillful player waste his time, effort, and talent on an endeavor?

Your logic is also completely absurd when you say two people win an equal number of matches, they can only be judged to be equally skilled....that's flat out ridiculous. If I beat 10 noobs and you beat 10 pros we're equal? Even if it was against the same player....styles matchups, character matchups, etc. play a huge role. The only way to tell if a player is better is if they consistently do better against similar-level competition on a very wide range and sample size to kill variance.

"If I beat 10 noobs and you beat 10 pros we're equal?"

I meant if they won an equal amount of matches against each other. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

"The only way to tell if a player is better is if they consistently do better against similar-level competition on a very wide range and sample size to kill variance."

If by "do better" you mean win, then yeah I agree. The amount of wins, and the amount of variables involved, can be debated by people more knowlegable than myself. But I like to think a decent sized tourament is a good guage of skill.

@Goggleboy: Man I feel stupid...

greenblob · Mar 18, 2008

Actually, since combos are gone, I would say that reading your opponent, prediction, punishment, etc. are much less important. Combos really punish mistakes--your opponent rolled predictably? Free chainthrow. Your opponent missed an L-cancel? Free shield grab into a combo. You mindgamed your opponent into forward smashing and missing? Free SHFFL chain. Hence, Isai's, "Don't get hit," as it could mean a free stock for your opponent. In Brawl, this doesn't work. You made a mistake? Your punishment is probably 10%-20% damage. Big whoop.

Pink Reaper · Mar 18, 2008

greenblob said:
Actually, since combos are gone, I would say that reading your opponent, prediction, punishment, etc. are much less important. Combos really punish mistakes--your opponent rolled predictably? Free chainthrow. Your opponent missed an L-cancel? Free shield grab into a combo. You mindgamed your opponent into forward smashing and missing? Free SHFFL chain. Hence, Isai's, "Don't get hit," as it could mean a free stock for your opponent. In Brawl, this doesn't work. You made a mistake? Your punishment is probably 10%-20% damage. Big whoop.

lol, I played some Kirby dittos the other night and every time one of us screwed up(usually with an overly predictable stone) there was really no good way to punish it, especially at low damages. At least at high damage it allowed for a powerful attack to attempt(and with easy DI usually fail) to kill. But at low damages the best we could do was attack and hope for ANOTHER mistake to allow a second attack. Thats it, two attacks at most and only if we screwed up twice. Doesn't that sound deep >_>

Wiseguy · Mar 18, 2008

Pink Reaper said:
lol, I played some Kirby dittos the other night and every time one of us screwed up(usually with an overly predictable stone) there was really no good way to punish it, especially at low damages. At least at high damage it allowed for a powerful attack to attempt(and with easy DI usually fail) to kill. But at low damages the best we could do was attack and hope for ANOTHER mistake to allow a second attack. Thats it, two attacks at most and only if we screwed up twice. Doesn't that sound deep >_>

Have you tried cranking up the damage ratio settings?

Pink Reaper · Mar 18, 2008

Wiseguy said:
Have you tried cranking up the damage ratio settings?

Why would I do that?

hippochinfat!! · Mar 18, 2008

Me> You so that means...

My Opinion> Your Opinion.

And I think Brawl is much much better.

You might as well close this topic. This whole debate is over now.

Zero Beat · Mar 18, 2008

First two Smash Bros = First two Halo games. Fast paced, competitive.

Brawl = Halo 3. However, Brawl isn't as bad as Halo 3. Slower gameplay, appeal to a larger crowd, everyone has a chance to succeed without a high level of skill.

Wiseguy · Mar 18, 2008

Pink Reaper said:
Why would I do that?

Well, it would mean that you could KO opponents at lower percentages - which would make players think twice before leaving themselves open to attack.

Pink Reaper · Mar 18, 2008

Wiseguy said:
Well, it would mean that you could KO opponents at lower percentages - which would make players think twice before leaving themselves open to attack.

Well, if I was going to fundamentally alter the rules to make competitive play easier, I'd just turn on high gravity mode >.>

Papapaint · Mar 18, 2008

XZero BeatX said:
First two Smash Bros = First two Halo games. Fast paced, competitive.

Brawl = Halo 3. However, Brawl isn't as bad as Halo 3. Slower gameplay, appeal to a larger crowd, everyone has a chance to succeed without a high level of skill.

I'm not sure you're all too good at Halo. H3 is still faster as H1, and it's only marginally slower than H2.

BigRick · Mar 18, 2008

Pink Reaper said:
But you can't say we're not looking outside the box. Look at what Samurai Panda is doing, he actually remapped the controls and found a way to alter the way special attacks act on their characters. We ARE looking outside the box, the problem is, theres not much more outside than there is inside.

This is not looking outside the box at all... looking for ATs is a melee thing, not a brawl thing. That's just trying to make the game as technical as melee, and if you try to use this to sell your game's competitiveness, you will fail because melee is more technical.

Forget about technical stuff in Brawl. The game got the nerf bat on that aspect. You guys are seriously looking for the wrong things. I hope you didn't say that you got over Melee, because that post clearly showed that you didn't.

I repeat: trying to make Brawl is technical as Melee is not the solution. Your game simply wasn't designed that way. Without its ATs Melee is still more technical than Brawl.

greenblob said:
Actually, since combos are gone, I would say that reading your opponent, prediction, punishment, etc. are much less important. Combos really punish mistakes--your opponent rolled predictably? Free chainthrow. Your opponent missed an L-cancel? Free shield grab into a combo. You mindgamed your opponent into forward smashing and missing? Free SHFFL chain. Hence, Isai's, "Don't get hit," as it could mean a free stock for your opponent. In Brawl, this doesn't work. You made a mistake? Your punishment is probably 10%-20% damage. Big whoop.

I'm sorry but your reasoning on that post is wrong... you're just stretching it right now.

Less potential damage output equals more neutral situations.
More neutral situations equals more ''mental'' confrontations against your opponent.
You will spend more time pressuring/camping (much more like camping in brawl... for now) your opponent instead of executing strings of moves.
Reading your opp and prediction (as you call it) cannot be less important since you will have to spend more time using these skills in order to rack up damage.

I'm on your side btw, but I can't allow ppl to spread inaccurate stuff like that.

Zero Beat: It was a bad comparison btw... you cant compare fighters with shooters because they require a different set of skills.

The best comparison is still Melee = SF2 and Brawl = SF3.

greenblob · Mar 18, 2008

Well, sure, there will be more "mental confrontations," but each one will be worth less. Smash 64 and Melee's approach game was based on faking out, reading your opponent, and above all making sure that you don't get hit. Brawl's approach game is based on hit-and-run. It doesn't matter as much whether you get hit or not.

BigRick · Mar 18, 2008

greenblob said:
Well, sure, there will be more "mental confrontations," but each one will be worth less. Smash 64 and Melee's approach game was based on faking out, reading your opponent, and above all making sure that you don't get hit. Brawl's approach game is based on hit-and-run. It doesn't matter as much whether you get hit or not.

But with that mindset the hits keep adding up and it makes a difference in the end.

The objective is still ''getting hit less often than your opponent''. You'll just have to do it more often.

Again, different game test different kind of skills.

It's not a sprint anymore, it's an endurance race.

There's no more homeruns, so you gotta safely grind it out.

All this explains why this game is better for the camper.

Pink Reaper · Mar 18, 2008

BigRick said:
This is not looking outside the box at all... looking for ATs is a melee thing, not a brawl thing. That's just trying to make the game as technical as melee, and if you try to use this to sell your game's competitiveness, you will fail because melee is more technical.

Looking for advanced techniques/tactics is not a "Melee thing" it is a VIDEO GAME thing. In any given multiplayer game, people will always look for two things. 1) A glitch or an exploit that can be abused to give an upper hand or 2) a broken tactic to gain the upper hand. To assume that this ONLY happened in Melee would be foolish.

BigRick said:
Forget about technical stuff in Brawl. The game got the nerf bat on that aspect. You guys are seriously looking for the wrong things. I hope you didn't say that you got over Melee, because that post clearly showed that you didn't.

You CANNOT say to stop looking for technical things in Brawl, because if there are no technical things in Brawl, the game itself is worthless. Without and advanced techs, the game really is as shallow as "one button for standard attacks, one button for special" IF no depth is found and the game really is that shallow, it should be dropped for Melee, as Melee is by far the superior game.

TheKneeOfJustice · Mar 18, 2008

This argument has more depth to it than Brawl does.

Many people try to argue that we will discover some techniques that will add incredible layers of depth. This could happen, who knows. However, I still feel that, even without implements most of the advanced techniques, Melee would still possess more depth than Brawl with all of its new techniques.

Melee is a game based on consequences. If I choose to shield an attack, I have to face the consequence that they might put me into enough shield stun anyways that I'm going to get grab combo'd. If I don't have to face that consequence, I might attempt a grab, in which I have to face the consequence that I could whiff on the grab or be hit by a move faster than 7 frames. It goes on and on. You have to face consequences when making choices for DI, for edge guards. Everything carries consequences, some are extremely imbalanced, which is why smart play is implemented to limit the potential for extremely bad consequences.

Brawl is the complete opposite. There are seemingly no bad consequences to shielding an approach (why would you approach in the first place though?). Bid deal, they hit my shield, I slide a little bit, drop my shield due to no hit stun and an insanely short duration for shield drop lag, and hit them back. They don't often have to face negative consequences for DI'ing poorly after that hit, because in most situations I might be able to string one more hit in at best, and we all know that won't be lethal.

We don't have to face consequences for not sweet spotting. The list goes on and on.

It's obvious that with the revolutionary changes to the engine of the game, smart play goes out the window, because there is no need to be extremely versatile in your choices. They will usually produce the same results, all the while experiencing the same potential consequences. It will boil down to people doing the exact same thing over and over (camping), because anything else will be just as predictable, and the only time you can really put yourself into a situation with very bad consequences is approaching.

BigRick · Mar 18, 2008

TheKneeOfJustice said:
Brawl is the complete opposite. There are seemingly no bad consequences to shielding an approach.

What if you shield and the approach is a grab?

You're trying way too hard to bash on Brawl buddy.

TheKneeOfJustice · Mar 19, 2008

I'm just providing one possibility. In that case, you'd have to face the consequences of choosing the incorrect way to counter an approach.

cradmazy_SKAG · Mar 19, 2008

dude ganon is beast, i thought u would be happy :chuckle:

Plairnkk · Mar 19, 2008

BigRick said:
What if you shield and the approach is a grab?

You're trying way too hard to bash on Brawl buddy.

Then you get thrown for 8% while the person who put themself at great risk to get that grab in has no ability to follow up or is in no more of an advantageous situation than he was 8% ago.

House M.D. · Mar 19, 2008

it has been claimed by both m2k and scar (and probably others) that the better player doesn't win as consistently in brawl as in melee. what empirical evidence supports this?

BigRick · Mar 19, 2008

Well my point is that in Brawl there is still a consequence for your mistakes.

True, they eliminated alot of possibilities for technical mistakes (sweetspotting is a nice example...) which makes it more forgiving for sum1 with less technical skill.

Is this a good or a bad thing? That aspect is PURE opinion! Here we are arguing about what skills should be rewarded by the game... It's like a football player telling us that we video gamers are not really competing because we are not testing our athletic abilities. Different games test different set of skills.

Back on topic, there is much less consequences for technical mistakes. However rolls/dodges can still be punished, attacks can still be countered and shields can still be grabbed... so there is still some consequences to pay in certain other aspects but you simply put them in the same bag by not mentioning that they are different.

Sure the dmg output is lower in Brawl than Melee, but that simply means that you'll find yourself more often in a situation where you're looking for a mistake by your opp while not making a mistake yourself.

Also, approaching will be a must in certain matchups... because some characters have ranged attacks, some others don't.

BigRick · Mar 19, 2008

Plairnkk said:
Then you get thrown for 8% while the person who put themself at great risk to get that grab in has no ability to follow up or is in no more of an advantageous situation than he was 8% ago.

Again, you guys are exaggerating stuff.

There's a reason why the pro-Brawl crew doesn't want to listen to us if we keep posting nonsense like this.

Some characters have like... a 1-hit followup to grabs

Some characters have chaingrabs, some others can techchase out of throws.

Some others will want to grab their opponent in a close range situation so that they can throw them away and shoot more arrows (LOL)

Mune · Mar 19, 2008

I honestly have nothing relevant to the debate to offer, but I would like to say kudos. Great topic. I wholeheartidly agree and just about every point you've touched upon has been something that has irked me since Brawl's release.

Pink Reaper · Mar 19, 2008

BigRick said:
Again, you guys are exaggerating stuff.

There's a reason why the pro-Brawl crew doesn't want to listen to us if we keep posting nonsense like this.

Some characters have like... a 1-hit followup to grabs

Some characters have chaingrabs, some others can techchase out of throws.

Some others will want to grab their opponent in a close range situation so that they can throw them away and shoot more arrows (LOL)

Its not that there aren't a few characters with usable grabs, its more the fact that there aren't enough characters with usable grabs. DK can't even Cargo Uthrow->Uair anymore T-T Thats just wrong.

Endless Nightmares · Mar 19, 2008

But he can regular uthrow uair =}

On a side note, I only have 5 SDs total on my Smash ID. Self-destructs seem very rare in this game. And those 5 SDs were all because I purposely jumped off and suicide fair's my opponent into oblivion.

Scar · Mar 19, 2008

House M.D. said:
it has been claimed by both m2k and scar (and probably others) that the better player doesn't win as consistently in brawl as in melee. what empirical evidence supports this?

This whole discussion is about the evidence we can provide to support this. The claim that Brawl is less competitive than Melee directly yields that the better player will not win as consistently as he could in Melee. For all of the people who cannot comprehend arguments, I am hypothesizing four completely different people, one better and one worse at their respective games by a fixed amount.

The main bases for this claim are the random aspects and the game mechanics that limit players, and fail to reward players for hitting their opponent, and fail to punish players for screwing up. It is explained with somewhat more depth in the opening post.

BigRick said:
Well my point is that in Brawl there is still a consequence for your mistakes.

True, they eliminated alot of possibilities for technical mistakes (sweetspotting is a nice example...) which makes it more forgiving for sum1 with less technical skill.

Is this a good or a bad thing? That aspect is PURE opinion!

1st) Yes there is a consequence, but it's practically nothing. It's worthless to arbitrarily say 8% because you will clearly say "you're exaggerating." But there is NO EXAGGERATION and nothing false in saying that SSBM punishes players far better than Brawl relative to mistakes made.

BigRick said:
Again, you guys are exaggerating stuff.

This is not the conversation we're having. We're talking about broad flaws in game mechanics. You can't say "some characters have follow ups," there should be a way for each and every character to punish the hell out of a player who just used a stupid move right in front of you. There simply isn't.

Specific solutions to broad problems are not solutions.

FredTHAreD · Mar 19, 2008

Personally, this feels a lot like the Halo to the Halo 2 and 3 transitions. Hardcore Halo fans love Halo, but typically hat Halo 2 and 3 because of the changes made in gameplay. I think the biggest problem here, is that you guys wanted a the same old Melee, with new characters.

Now, I persoanlly, didn't enjoy Melee after SSB64. I barely played the game. But I can understand where you guys are comming from, in that what was once a highly competetive game, has been changed to seem not so competetive.

I only argue this: The competetition in Brawl is still developing, and once the players get better, so will the competetive gameplay. If you have a desire to win the game, theres no reason it can't be competitive. Since tripping can happen to anyone, anytime, it doesn't really mean that it eliminates the competetive spirit of the game, since items can turn the tide of a match far more than tripping can. Not only that, but tripping has actually been known to save people, as well as kill them.

Wavedashing was a glitch, meaning it wasn't meant to be a part of the game, so eliminating a glitch is not a shot to lower is competitive nature. I'm a major StarCraft fan, and when the fixed a glitch that allowed to to stack certain units for the Zerg race, and form a signle image of one zergling, but retain all the other units within itself, I simply went on to learn other tricks.

All the basic aspects of the game remain. I think we all just need to adjust to the new game, and wait a little longer before we decide anything about the game like that. All in all, Happy Smashing.

BlackPanther · Mar 19, 2008

Why do people call wavedashing a glitch? All you're doing is air dodging into the ground and since you're able to direct where your air dodge goes in melee you can just so happen to gain some distance from it. Plus even if it is a glitch wavedashing isn't all powerful. You don't retain your invincibility from it, it's a great alternative to rolling but you don't become invincible from doing it like you can with rolling. So if you wavedash into someone without think about what you're gonna do you can get severely punished for it. It's a good balanced out move

Definition of a glitch by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary

1 a: a usually minor malfunction <a glitch in a spacecraft's fuel cell>; also : 2bug 2

Doing a wavedash does not malfuntion the game in any way. The super jump in halo 2, doing so allowed Master chief to jump heights not originally programmed to do i.e. a malfunction. When you wavedash all you're doing is gaining floor distance from an air dodge which you can do in the air when you move the analog stick in the desired direction, yeah, definitely not a glitch.

LOL_Master · Mar 19, 2008

FredTHAreD said:
Personally, this feels a lot like the Halo to the Halo 2 and 3 transitions. Hardcore Halo fans love Halo, but typically hat Halo 2 and 3 because of the changes made in gameplay. I think the biggest problem here, is that you guys wanted a the same old Melee, with new characters.

Now, I persoanlly, didn't enjoy Melee after SSB64. I barely played the game. But I can understand where you guys are comming from, in that what was once a highly competetive game, has been changed to seem not so competetive.

I only argue this: The competetition in Brawl is still developing, and once the players get better, so will the competetive gameplay. If you have a desire to win the game, theres no reason it can't be competitive. Since tripping can happen to anyone, anytime, it doesn't really mean that it eliminates the competetive spirit of the game, since items can turn the tide of a match far more than tripping can. Not only that, but tripping has actually been known to save people, as well as kill them.

Wavedashing was a glitch, meaning it wasn't meant to be a part of the game, so eliminating a glitch is not a shot to lower is competitive nature. I'm a major StarCraft fan, and when the fixed a glitch that allowed to to stack certain units for the Zerg race, and form a signle image of one zergling, but retain all the other units within itself, I simply went on to learn other tricks.

All the basic aspects of the game remain. I think we all just need to adjust to the new game, and wait a little longer before we decide anything about the game like that. All in all, Happy Smashing.

no the competition in brawl is not developing, it hasn't developed since the 2nd day it came out in japan, you aren't developing, also, you are a glitch, meaning you aren't meant to be a part of this community

Pink Reaper · Mar 19, 2008

BlackPanther said:
Why do people call wavedashing a glitch? All you're doing is air dodging into the ground and since you're able to direct where your air dodge goes in melee you can just so happen to gain some distance from it. Plus even if it is a glitch wavedashing isn't all powerful. You don't retain your invincibility from it, it's a great alternative to rolling but you don't become invincible from doing it like you can with rolling. So if you wavedash into someone without think about what you're gonna do you can get severely punished for it. It's a good balanced out move

Definition of a glitch by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary

1 a: a usually minor malfunction <a glitch in a spacecraft's fuel cell>; also : 2bug 2

Doing a wavedash does not malfuntion the game in any way. The super jump in halo 2, doing so allowed Master chief to jump heights not originally programmed to do i.e. a malfunction. When you wavedash all you're doing is gaining floor distance from an air dodge which you can do in the air when you move the analog stick in the desired direction, yeah, definitely not a glitch.

Don't bother man. No matter how many times someone points this out, no one will ever accept it as n00bs would have to stop crying about "glitches" if they did.

Alukard · Mar 19, 2008

i love the smash community lol ... but seriously i could have done without tripping i dont' care if it can also haappen to the opponent ... if it costs me a stock ima b pissed cuz its sumthing i can't control =(

also scar are u ready for team swat to take over spoc again ?? lol =)

Scar · Mar 19, 2008

Wiseguy said:
So he's better at MELEE. Great for him. But being great at Melee* does not guarantee that they will automatically be great at Brawl.

Post fixed, also how many times have we seen this argument? NO ONE IS DEBATING THIS! We all realize this and no one is trying to say that ANY SKILL whatsoever translates from Melee to Brawl. Please get this through your head.

Also, the notion that head-to-head matchups is the best way to figure out who is a better player is flat out ridiculous, especially in a game like Smash. In Melee character matchups have blatantly let less-skilled players consistently beat players with more overall skill, just because the lesser has more experience with the matchup/plays Sheik vs a Bowser.

Just because I might be able to beat M2K's Marth 50% of the time doesn't mean that we are equal in skill.

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

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Champion

Just your average kind of Luigi.

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Rookie

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Champion

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Lord

Cognitive Scientist

Smash Champion

Real Name No Gimmicks

Just your average kind of Luigi.

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Ace

Smash Legend

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Master

#HarveyDent

Smash Cadet

Smash Ace

Smash Lord

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Hero

#HarveyDent

Information

Network