Adjusting the Damage Ratio to 1.1 for Balance

[Spelt]

i say we make it .5
everyone will have infinites on everybody and it'll be like smash 64 again.

 

[etecoon]

MK's dthrow in heavy metal brawl is funny as ****

 

[Chuee]

Then 20 person tournaments would last like 3 days.
and if the timer was at 8, nearly every match would go to time lol.

 

[Allied]

Then 20 person tournaments would last like 3 days.
and if the timer was at 8, nearly every match would go to time lol.

...he was joking bro

I hope

>__>

 

[718_ROOKI3]

This idea is really good and should be taken into consideration... it's not like we don't tamper with the rules since day one and yet we still don't haven't had a perfect sule set.

 

[Mampam]

currently no brawl to test, but sounds like an amazing idea

 

[Ussi]

It just depends how willing the community is to embrace a new game basically.

 

[Chuee]

...he was joking bro

I hope

>__>

I know, and I've been testing .5 DR and its hilarious.
Falco can like CG snake standing in place from 0-200% lmao

 

[z00ted]

It just depends how willing the community is to embrace a new game basically.

That.. and trying to find anything that makes any other characters broken/have an infinite.

The positives have to outweigh the negatives, or this shoulnd't even be taken into consideration.

 

[Xyro77]

do not alter the game further. ban mk and the game will more enjoyable

 

[SuSa]

You don't make changes because it's "fair" or not. This is why DDD's infinite aren't banned, IC's infinites aren't banned, MK isn't banned, Pikachu's CG isn't banned, planking isn't banned, etc.

Following the precedent that has been set for making changes, we don't make them to make the game fair we make them to make the game more competitive. This is why most "random" factors are removed from the game - if possible. (Items and certain stages is an example)

The reason why we use 3 stocks was for time restraints, the same reason why we have an 8 minute timer. This is to ensure tournaments run on time. I'm sure if Brawl wasn't so slow we'd likely have 4 stocks as our stock count for games. We didn't change these factors for "balance" but for tournaments to run smoothly and on time.

If we're unwilling to just ban the infinites, why would we be willing to completely remove infinites AND chaingrabs AND make drastic changes to the metagame.


tl;dr
Stop playing crappy characters whom are the targets of an infinite. Step up and pick up a secondary.


EDIT:
I use the word "we" in the least accompanying and grouping way possible. No other noun really fits into those places, and no one persons to blame nor one entire group really...

Let's just throw all precedents out the window.

So far the benefits of this are:
Removes chaingrabs
Removes infinites
Makes Meta Knights tornado worse (Along with other multi-hit moves)

The negatives:
Completely ruins some moves. [Multi-hits that aren't MK's Tornado, Moves that are setups due to their 1.0 knockback]
Unneedingly buffs other moves. [Projectiles and strong, single hit moves]
Turns entire matchups upside down (possibility, due to removal of certain chaingrabs/infinites)
Will alter characters' playstyles and the current metagame. [Goodbye most of 2 years of work]

Other options:
Ban chaingrabs - Was already decided "no"
Ban infinites - Was already decided "no"
Ban Meta Knight - Was already decided "no"

EDIT:
I was going to test certain negatives and oddities I believed would show up with this change, but my wii took a **** on me. Won't even power on anymore when it's plugged in.... =|

 

[z00ted]

I've changed my mind.

Cons outweigh the pros, as well as certain characters becoming trash.

I don't support this.

 

[sunshade]

I've changed my mind.

Cons outweigh the pros, as well as certain characters becoming trash.

I don't support this.

Would you be willing to try the counterpick option I suggested?

 

[DtJ XeroXen]

I'm actually curious as to what other changes this would bring to the game, other than the removal of chains/infinites and a dampening of multi-hit moves. It's obvious that it would change it in other numerous ways too (giving characters that have a hard time killing an easier time, obviously, well... most of the cast in general).

While I can see why this would be considered an unnecessary change, I can also see why it should be explored for pros and cons. So there's no reason to write this off as something stupid. Obviously, experimentation is something that should have opinions based off of it, and not pointless theorycraft about "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... blah" (Yeah, I'm lazy).

So... yeah, I'm going to at least play around with it.

 

[Exdeath]

I've changed my mind.

Cons outweigh the pros, as well as certain characters becoming trash.

I don't support this.

tl;dr: Peach is nerfed.

 

[Allied]

Let's just throw all precedents out the window.

So far the benefits of this are:
Removes chaingrabs
Removes infinites
Makes Meta Knights tornado worse (Along with other multi-hit moves)

The negatives:
Completely ruins some moves.
Unneedingly buffs other moves.
Turns entire matchups upside down (possibility, due to removal of certain chaingrabs/infinites)
Will alter characters' playstyles and the current metagame. [Goodbye most of 2 years of work]

Other options:
Ban chaingrabs - Was already decided "no"
Ban infinites - Was already decided "no"
Ban Meta Knight - Was already decided "no"

EDIT:
I was going to test certain negatives and oddities I believed would show up with this change, but my wii took a **** on me. Won't even power on anymore when it's plugged in.... =|

>_> Which moves were ruined, explain in detail

Which moves were buffed, explain in detail

thats not a negative thats a Outcome.

Turning matchups upside down, thats a negative but not necessarily true if we dont TEST IT OUT.

Alter charater playstyles and metagame isn't a negative, we want to this to happen .__.

I've changed my mind.

Cons outweigh the pros, as well as certain characters becoming trash.

I don't support this.

Explain? .__. does everyone like to keep stuff to themselves?

 

[vVv Rapture]

do not alter the game further. ban mk and the game will more enjoyable

This. No-MK is really fun. Trust me, I'm a doctor.

 

[z00ted]

Would you be willing to try the counterpick option I suggested?

I scrolled back a few pages, read that recommendation.

I fully support it. Best of all, if the opponent has a problem with the change in ratio they can switch characters.

edit: brb I'll explain why I disagree in a second.

 

[Spelt]

Yeah i was joking, obviously.

Other options:
Ban chaingrabs - Was already decided "no"
Ban infinites - Was already decided "no"
Ban Meta Knight - Was already decided "no"

The difference is that banning these things from regular gameplay is an arbitrary nerf, and there's no good reason to ban them besides tournament attendance.

DR 1.1 however, is an in game option that we are in control of from turning on the game. much like stocks/time/etc.

The bbr would consider changing damage ratios waaaaaaaaay before banning infinites.

tl;dr: Peach is nerfed.

Actually, peach has a much easier time killing. a few of her "combos" may be nerfed/taken away but she still keeps her shield pressure, and her turnips become a slightly more potent zoning move.

pros outweigh the cons in her case imo

 

[san.]

Less focus on low percent combos, and standard kill setups in general will be harder to come by, supposedly. I won't be convinced of much without looking at videos or playing myself.

 

[Ussi]

what multihit moves can't be DI'd out of anyways?

 

[Kinzer]

Mach Tornado.

hrtdmiohmtiohr, I can't find the video KPrime had on it, but yeah.

 

[salaboB]

[Favoring of characters due to movesets]

This is no argument at all, any ruleset including the current one favors some characters over others due to their movesets.

The number of stocks impacts how well they can pull ahead (Are they good at racking damage even at high %, to set up for two kills off one stock?), the banned stages impact what moves they can take more (Or less) advantage of, etc. etc. etc.

Any change to the ruleset (Even something that seems separate from character effectiveness like adding or dropping a stock) will favor some characters based on their moveset.

In point of fact, most of the arguments you list in your post are only ways that this ruleset would favor a different set of moves than the current ruleset already favors. Either way, the current balance is also enforced by the current ruleset -- not something built into the game and required to be the way it is.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this nerfs Peach.

Firstly, will her stupid little CG on MK and some others still work? Not important, but just wondrin'

Her meh combos turn to nothing.

Peach is LIGHT. 1.1 makes her easier to kill. This negates the "Peach can kill easier" thing.

No Up air lock prolly

 

[Allied]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this nerfs Peach.

Firstly, will her stupid little CG on MK and some others still work? Not important, but just wondrin'

Her meh combos turn to nothing.

Peach is LIGHT. 1.1 makes her easier to kill. This negates the "Peach can kill easier" thing.

No Up air lock prolly

I guess we know now why Illmatic doesn't want this anymore xD

 

[Ussi]

if Mach Tornado is the only multihit move that can't be DI'd out of.. (i'm sure there are mpre useful multihit moves...)

Whats there to be sad about? Aren't most multihit moves DI'd out of already.


I'm also sure combos will still exist, just needs to be explored as its a new game basically.

 

[demonictoonlink]

And honestly, if it ruins even ONE character that doesn't need balancing, it shouldn't be a standard.

Or it should. I don't like Peach anyways.

 

[Kinzer]

@Ussi

There are more.

That's just the best example I can think of right now, and the only one I'm 100% sure of.

Also, you'd be surprised how much work this community's SDI needs.

Also, please tell me I'm reading that as there are other useful multi-hit moves, and not as there are other multi-hit moves that are more useful than Mach Tornado. ._.

 

[salaboB]

And honestly, if it ruins even ONE character that doesn't need balancing, it shouldn't be a standard.

Or it should. I don't like Peach anyways.

But what if it makes twice as many viable as it ruins?

 

[Ussi]

I didnt mean as useful as mach tornado, but i mean usable to a point..

But even two hit moves get SDI'd out of (Luc's dair, Diddy's fsmash, etc)


Multihit moves shouldn't be the reason we don't get 1.1

 

[Spelt]

Peach isn't really light, she's heavier than marth... 26/39, i'd consider that solidly mid weight.

 

[demonictoonlink]

But what if it makes twice as many viable as it ruins?

In the American court system, we believe it is better to have 10 guilty men free than 1 guilty man imprisoned. I apply this to this game.

And Peach is very light. Marth possibly being lighter doesn't change the fact that they're both light.

 

[KillerJawz]

Tbf, this helps out Samus a ton. She now has solid kill moves to an extent (still difficult to land, but much more rewarding), and whilst she gets a bit lighter, she still doesn't die too early, so it's a pretty fair trade off tbh.

In terms of it being for Samus, I support this idea. It just screws some characters over REALLY hard like Peach and Ganon :/.

 

[salaboB]

In the American court system, we believe it is better to have 10 guilty men free than 1 guilty man imprisoned. I apply this to this game.

That comparison doesn't come close to working for this situation. You could still play Peach.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Someone PLEASE test this out.

Smash Researchers?

Er... post a list of specific things you want tested?

 

[z00ted]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this nerfs Peach.

Firstly, will her stupid little CG on MK and some others still work? Not important, but just wondrin'

Her meh combos turn to nothing.

Peach is LIGHT. 1.1 makes her easier to kill. This negates the "Peach can kill easier" thing.

No Up air lock prolly

I was just thinking about this before you posted.
I was disagreeing with the idea before you even brought this up.

Oh god.

I guess we know now why Illmatic doesn't want this anymore xD

Lol.

Turning matchups upside down, thats a negative but not necessarily true if we dont TEST IT OUT.

Alter charater playstyles and metagame isn't a negative, we want to this to happen .__.

Explain? .__. does everyone like to keep stuff to themselves?

Too many things come to mind when I see 1.1 as a ratio.
I just don't see it ever coming into standard gameplay.

Someone stated that the goal of this idea was to make matchups more even or 50/50 in a sense.

First off lets take a look at the three characters that can CG and prosper from it.

Falco vs Metaknight

Falco is considered a character that knocks Metaknights out of tourneys.
Falco can no longer chain grab Metaknight, which should severely hurt his matchup ratio.
Metaknight dies quicker, but is stronger, Metaknight can kill easier than Falco.
Falco also dies quicker

60:40 at best. compared to the 55:45 ratio before.

This can be stated for Pikachu also, as well as many other characters.
By increasing the ratio I think we are going to minimalize characters that actually offer a threat to Metaknight and just further buff the ******** character.

There are still a number of things I haven't taken into consideration such as Snake vs DeDeDe, as well as someone else just bringing up Peach being complete crap - which I actually don't mind if it's going to offer better competitive gameplay for the game.

I love the idea, but I'm looking at it as a whole.
I'm still up for testing and results or whatever though.

What I'm trying to get at is - would you rather totally alter the game in almost every aspect and still have the best character furtherly thrive, or completely eliminate him as a whole?

 

[Spelt]

And Peach is very light. Marth possibly being lighter doesn't change the fact that they're both light.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=244329

39/2=19.5

this means exactly mid weight would be sonic (95) and lucas/ness/pit (94) an average of 94.5.


peach (90) is only 4.5 points off from that.

 

[etecoon]

peach is a bad character either way

and this whole idea is pointless because you know people aren't going to want to relearn the whole **** game after 2 years, we can't even ban meta knight, this has zero possibility of happening.

 

[salaboB]

What I'm trying to get at is - would you rather totally alter the game in almost every aspect and still have the best character furtherly thrive, or completely eliminate him as a whole?

This sounds like you're saying instead of 1.1 ratio MK should be banned. That's a bit of an extreme either-or to present as an argument.

Besides, unless there's been inaccuracies people have said MK's multihits get weaker. That should help other characters against him that don't rely on cg's to bring him down. And if DK is free of DDD cg'ing him, he might prove a real MK killer at 1.1.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

As a selfish Ike Main: I say sure, let's try it. Now Jab 1 is a true combo into Utilt, and he still keeps a fairly large Bthrow -> Dash Attack combo %! Ike 4 top tier plz.

As a logical thinker: Eh...I'd try it for a low entry free side event, that would be it. Just suck it up and ban MK instead.