Adjusting the Damage Ratio to 1.1 for Balance

[SuSa]

I never got said invite.

Teching isn't more strict, it just means you have to tech sooner than you normally would have. [See: Play Duelist more]

 

[John12346]

I never got said invite.

Teching isn't more strict, it just means you have to tech sooner than you normally would have. [See: Play Duelist more]

Whoops, I messed that one up; you're right.

Since you can start mashing L and R before the C4 even blows you up, and there's still the lenient buffer window of Brawl...

Also, I'll try adding you again, but if I fail, you try adding me; John12346@live.com

 

[BSP]

Guys we can debate this stuff back and forth, but we're not going to get anywhere until 1.1 or any DR starts getting practiced in tournament or in general. We need to start playing sets with it and see if it really does help with balance some.

 

[EPsilon933]

I may (probably) be crazy, but falcon didn't seem any worse to me...

Not to john, but I'm feeling a bit sick today. An hour before we played wi-fi, I felt like I'd faint.

Guys we can debate this stuff back and forth, but we're not going to get anywhere until 1.1 or any DR starts getting practiced in tournament or in general. We need to start playing sets with it and see if it really does help with balance some.

Yeah, tournaments would really help, it's just that I don't think anyone had much of any time to set up a tournament for 1.1 yet. At least there's this weekend if any TO's have noticed this thread. I think a lot of wi-fi players have been testing this out on wi-fi.

 

[Flutter NiTE]

http://allisbrawl.com/ttournament.aspx?id=10841

Official Wi-Fi tournament on the 22nd. it was going to be on the 15th, but i forgot about MLG.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

ya'll need to keep pressuring your local TOs to try this. I know i am with ren and kiest

 

[Flutter NiTE]

http://allisbrawl.com/ttournament.aspx?id=10841

Official Wi-Fi tournament on the 22nd. it was going to be on the 15th, but i forgot about MLG.

Edit: sorry, it said i had an error the first time i tried.

 

[da K.I.D.]

topic may be over by now but I did have to note (and laugh at) the fact that A2 talks about forward and backward options like it doesnt only take one frame to turn around in this game.

lol that kid... what a lame.

 

[EPsilon933]

topic may be over by now

That's a bummer. *sigh*1.1 is so good. It's like a combo-less version of Melee.

 

[A user name]

topic may be over by now

I plan to collect some information on this. I hope other people do too. But I had a feeling this would be something that people would lose interest in quickly.

 

[Ussi]

We're busy playing 1.1 to be talking about it

 

[A user name]

I hope so.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I was specifically talking about the topic of bashing a2 being over, not the topic of the thread in general...

 

[rathy Aro]

I'm suprised people aren't immediately dismissing this idea like they would have in the past. Maybe out community is actually becoming... more mature?

Also at this point in time, you'd have to completely re-learn Brawl as we know it if we allowed this change.... good luck convincing everyone to relearn Brawl.

This sounds like a real problem.

Another real problem is that there's no way everyone will agree to this. I think it would split the community if it became standard and we really don't need yet another side event for brawl.

What really bothers me about this idea and many others is that its so arbitrary. I know that we make arbitrary decisions already but, when you think about it, we can make many arbitrary changes in the hopes that it improves the meta. We could play heavy brawl, we could add items that don't break the game, we could hack, or even play with a completely alternate ruleset. All of these options probably are better than the current game, but how do we pick which one? Obviously we pick the best one, but how could we ever know which is best when there are so many arbitrary decisions to make? Also how much would we be willing to relearn, could we end up with many "standard" versions of brawl compromising the unity of the community, would we end up constantly changing the rules of the game leaving us with an ever changing meta (but never progress) meta?

I'm kind of using slipery slope theory, but I think it really would apply in this case, because if we are willing to make an alteration here how can anyone argue against making another when we know (at least theoretically) that it will improve the metagame in a similar way?

 

[da K.I.D.]

In terms of helping the metagame progress, honestly it just comes down to 2 things

get better at the game
banning MK > 1.1 knockback

 

[Dark 3nergy]

get better at the game

to do this you have to either spend a 5-7 months re-learning a top 4 character or go MK

thats all theres is to it in brawl now.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i like how you take my first point and than say, we should play mk, completely ignoring my second point...

also, if your good at the game (get better) than it doesnt take that long to learn a new characters. especially if you have chemistry with them, I was beating people in tourney with falco a month after i picked him up.

also, what I mean by get better for those that dont understand is learning how to avoid and beat things.

learn how to space so that you dont get grabbed by pikachu and ddd.
learn how to PS and grab the ledge so you dont get camped to hell by falco/pit/rob
learn how to SDI so you dont get 0-deathed by marth and falco.

theres ways to beat every gay thing (mk excluded) but people dont want to put the work in.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

your looking at beating people on the local level, im looking at the bigger picture here

also, if your good at the game (get better)

theres no incentive for many people to get better when;

1. They take a long *** drive to tournaments
2. spend alot of money on mms/bracket fees only to get some 'experience' and nothing really back after they place[the majority of us, not outliners]

only to end up in the same situation they were before they started the trip. I've seen good people, get frustrated with putting in the work and getting nothing out of it. And you know why people get frustrated? Because at the end of the day, no one in the community

Spoiler

cept maybe the local scene they live in

cares.

Its not about being lazy at all. Its about being realistic about how far you want to go in the game. What im trying to say, people seeking to really win it all cannot do so on characters that aren't the top 4 in this game-- as they have the tools to take anyone further then any other character possibly could. Anything else less then that, and your asking for really nothing in return besides a pat on the back. May i ask why you've decided playing Falco over Sonic?

No dark. You're not. What KID is saying is applying to all levels of competitive gameplay.

You cannot expect to pick up a character and just start winning like that. Esp not in this or any other game.






dont wanna de-rail this thread so any further discussion on this you can take to aim/pm.

 

[Espy Rose]

No dark. You're not. What KID is saying is applying to all levels of competitive gameplay.

 

[Ripple]

there is NO problem with relearning the metagame.

anyone ever heard of SSF4? it BALANCED the game. in doing so, they changed the metagame. by changing the DR to 1.1 it is in essence, the exact same what SSF4 did to the to the game for balance. certain things were removed and certain things were added, both which DO NOT change the basic play of the character or the physics of the game

 

[•Col•]

there is NO problem with relearning the metagame.

anyone ever heard of SSF4? it BALANCED the game. in doing so, they changed the metagame. by changing the DR to 1.1 it is in essence, the exact same what SSF4 did to the to the game for balance. certain things were removed and certain things were added, both which DO NOT change the basic play of the character or the physics of the game

Actually, if you think about it, SF4->SSF4 is a MUCH more dramatic change than from changing the damage ratio from 1.0 to 1.1 in Brawl... A lot of individual moves had property changes and such. The change from 1.0 to 1.1 isn't that large of a change at all, because its an universal change.

 

['V']

I still strongly support doing this. If anything, we SHOULD be trying to balance the game while still having all of the characters, rather than banning one.

 

[z3r0C0oL]

^ That

All the same basic principles are there. The characters keep the same tools. Matches are faster, most 'free' damage chaingrabs are gone, and the game overall is much more enjoyable to play.

I smell a new tourney standard.

Imagine if we started with 1.1, then someone was like "hey guys, if we lower the damage, Falco, Marth, Peach, Pika, all get chain grabs! Its super scrubby brothers!

We would pretty much facepalm a suggestion to move to 1.0.

Sure, some characters may lose a few low percent 'combos' but its not about individual characters, its almost a rebalance of the game that makes matches closer to being even. Matchups wont drastically change as all characters keep the same tools, but a lot of lame stuff is removed.

I really hope the BBR is discussing this, testing it, and considering making this the new standard.

They waited wayyy to long to ban MK, now some say its too late. which is BS, its never too late to ban a broken as character with broken strategies ( planking)

Will they sit with their thumbs up their butts on 1.1?

Or will they take some action?

MK may still need to be banned, as this does NOT effect his ability to Plank you to 'death'.

 

[Tristan_win]

...So how much does changing the damage ratio effect frame advantage for attacks compared to 1.0 at the same percentage?

Can someone please answer this?

 

[Ripple]

Can someone please answer this?

if you are hit with a weak move that doesn't cause you to fall over in either 1.0 or 1.1 then have greater frame advantage in 1.1. this is due t knockback tumble

however, no hitstun is actually added to any attack. so that means any attack that will knock you over or in the air has the exact same frame advantage in both 1.0 and 1.1

 

[Starwarrior27]

Then, it would seem that changing the damage ratio from 1.0 to 1.1 will make it more difficult to "combo" in Brawl. Since most of the top characters are not very "combo" dependent, what problem will be created when characters that are "combo" dependent have their "combos" removed? A change in the character's metagame. And since the metagame is continually shifting, how would changing it be a problem?

The best way to determine if a change was successful is to analyze how the future would view it. As z3r0C0oL said, it "would pretty much facepalm a suggestion to move to 1.0" if we were already playing at 1.1. Increasing the damage ratio by 0.1 is a change that would shift the metagame for the better.

 

[ErikG]

The best way to determine if a change was successful is to analyze how the future would view it. As z3r0C0oL said, it "would pretty much facepalm a suggestion to move to 1.0" if we were already playing at 1.1. Increasing the damage ratio by 0.1 is a change that would shift the metagame for the better.

You don't necessarily know if it will be a change for the better.

What if we banned MK right away and then someone was like "hey we should add MK." We would all facepalm and laugh at this scrubby kid for relying on a broken character.

 

[Starwarrior27]

@ErikG: Although we cannot guarantee that the change will be for the better, it seems much more probable that it will be a change for the "better". Considering that the primary problems that will come from this are as follows:

• A New Metagame to Learn
• Slightly Lower KO Percentages
• Lack of "Combos"

With a slightly deeper analysis, we see that these "problems" are actually good for competitive play. Learning a new metagame makes us as a community even smarter making for a more competitive game of smash. Lower KO percents suggests faster matches, allowing for faster tournaments. Removing combos, as I said before, require a steeper learning curve for the metagame of characters that are reliant on "combos". We would solve for many issues while making a more competitive game of smash. Perhaps this might make for a change for the "better"?

 

[PsychoPenguinX]

<3 Renegade

Columbus will be doing some testing in the next few days. Hopefully Crow join us for a few rounds and we will report in.

 

[GimR]

if you are hit with a weak move that doesn't cause you to fall over in either 1.0 or 1.1 then have greater frame advantage in 1.1. this is due t knockback tumble

however, no hitstun is actually added to any attack. so that means any attack that will knock you over or in the air has the exact same frame advantage in both 1.0 and 1.1

Could you please test jabs then? It might have a profound impact

 

[AfroQT]

Im the only one who is correct.
Not only am i superior to you all, but you are also wrong.
Victory.

 

[shanus]

if you are hit with a weak move that doesn't cause you to fall over in either 1.0 or 1.1 then have greater frame advantage in 1.1. this is due t knockback tumble

however, no hitstun is actually added to any attack. so that means any attack that will knock you over or in the air has the exact same frame advantage in both 1.0 and 1.1

A move being increased in damage will result in higher impact on the knockback growth and is a basic element to almost all forms of PSA editing.

Have you verified that altering the damage ratio does in fact not impact both knockback and thereby hitstun duration via frame advance? If your adjusting tumble thresholds, you do realize thats a direct impact of how many frames of hitstun your in, correct?

 

[Ripple]

A move being increased in damage will result in higher impact on the knockback growth and is a basic element to almost all forms of PSA editing.

Have you verified that altering the damage ratio does in fact not impact both knockback and thereby hitstun duration via frame advance? If your adjusting tumble thresholds, you do realize thats a direct impact of how many frames of hitstun your in, correct?

1.1 DR does not increase damage done by moves.

yes, it has been verified that hitstun is not affected by the 1.1 ratio. only knockback.

RPSIenece and big o used AR

 

[Renegade TX2000]

1.1 DR does not increase damage done by moves.

yes, it has been verified that hitstun is not affected by the 1.1 ratio. only knockback.

RPSIenece and big o used AR

are you sure 1.1 doesn't increase dmg? I could have sworn ikes jab did 18%, his ftilt did 16%, and his dair doing 18%

 

['V']

Didn't they always do that amount of damage? Ike is a powerhouse after all.

 

[Ripple]

tested and confirmed, no damage change

 

[rathy Aro]

In terms of helping the metagame progress, honestly it just comes down to 2 things

get better at the game
banning MK > 1.1 knockback

I don't think I said progress (even if I did, that's not what I meant), I meant improve. The meta can progress all it wants and still be ****ty. It could actually get worse as it progresses. People getting better at the game won't make our meta any less "boring" or "gay" (possibly more diverse if only non-mks get better).

there is NO problem with relearning the metagame.

anyone ever heard of SSF4? it BALANCED the game. in doing so, they changed the metagame. by changing the DR to 1.1 it is in essence, the exact same what SSF4 did to the to the game for balance. certain things were removed and certain things were added, both which DO NOT change the basic play of the character or the physics of the game

SSF4 is a different game then SF4. It just happens to be very similar to, but better than SS4, which is why everyone plays it and not SF4. But we're not talking about a new game here, we're talking about altering the game to balance it.

Regardless of that, I still go back to my original point, even if we do make an arbitrary change like that and it turns out great. Why should we make this one and not others? And how do we decide which changes are needed (does it have to be needed to even be changed)? I think ISP or an alternate ruleset would be far more interesting than 1.1 damage and both could improve the meta too.

 

['V']

As long as it's something NEW, it'll be good in my book.

 

[Eddie G]

Regardless of that, I still go back to my original point, even if we do make an arbitrary change like that and it turns out great. Why should we make this one and not others? And how do we decide which changes are needed (does it have to be needed to even be changed)? I think ISP or an alternate ruleset would be far more interesting than 1.1 damage and both could improve the meta too.

Stop twiddling your thumbs with these minuscule attempts at getting people to answer these types of questions as it is clear that they are unanswerable by any one individual. I apologize if that came out as rude but I tend so see posts like these as cheap cop-outs from putting forth some effort to make the playing situation (obviously not perfect...) overall more improved for the community in a quick, yet efficient manner. 'Free' damage chaingrabs, low percent (to possibly death) uair/nado juggles by Meta Knight, infinites, seem to all be removed with just this one "arbitrary" proposal for change. Why not pursue knowledge on ^ this instead of focusing on questions that will obviously change nothing in the long run?

There were countless people (like yourself) who were too busy philosophizing about what an acceptable competitive standard should be in the MK threads, which from my observation only further contributed to the procrastinating nature and outcome of said topics (although the BBR didn't really budge either from my perspective) because attention eventually deviated from the main issue and onto those and other ultimately unrelated topics. What I'm saying is...try to focus a little less on these "larger than life" type of questions and more on what would obviously have a shot to turn out best for the community/competitive play without outright changing the overall layout of what has been accepted by the majority of the community as standard play like ISP clearly would.

 

[WoodyWiggins]

I don't think I said progress (even if I did, that's not what I meant), I meant improve. The meta can progress all it wants and still be ****ty. It could actually get worse as it progresses. People getting better at the game won't make our meta any less "boring" or "gay" (possibly more diverse if only non-mks get better).

SSF4 is a different game then SF4. It just happens to be very similar to, but better than SS4, which is why everyone plays it and not SF4. But we're not talking about a new game here, we're talking about altering the game to balance it.

Regardless of that, I still go back to my original point, even if we do make an arbitrary change like that and it turns out great. Why should we make this one and not others? And how do we decide which changes are needed (does it have to be needed to even be changed)? I think ISP or an alternate ruleset would be far more interesting than 1.1 damage and both could improve the meta too.

ISP and alternate rulesets seem to be way too interesting to become a standard. 1.1 DR seems to be a simple change compared to learning and adapting to different rulesets and items. 1.1 DR does balance things by increasing knockback (which is essentially what it does right?). I will use Samus as an example, her aerials with 1.0 DR can be considered weak because the knockback isn't strong enough. Her knockback does not get strong until the opponent reaches higher percentages. With 1.1 DR, at around 90-110%, certain chains like uair to fair become "stronger" because the knockback is much more significant, and follow ups with her projectiles are now managable. One chain I know for sure works at around 100% is the zair to nair follow up. It absolutely kills. This just doesn't work with 1.0. Charizards up b is also killer. Nonetheless, 1.1 DR seems to balance certain issues that we have been arguing about since the release of Brawl. Namely, Metaknight. With 1.1 DR, MK becomes less difficult to beat because of the increased knockback which makes for early kills, not to mention more thoughtful followups.
Remember the comparison: Melee = Checkers, Brawl = Chess. It's difficult to chain combo's together in Brawl like you can in Melee. In brawl after each hit there is a multitude of things you can follow up with because of the noticable knockback and non-existant hitsun. By the time your opponent recovers from the hitstun, going for an attack isn't always the best option. Where as in Melee, when you attack, combo chains happen easier because hitstun is noticable and knockback is almost non-existant. Of course there are other factors, but basically combo approach has to different in Brawl. With 1.1 DR, we are able to approach combos (and the metagame) from a perspective that is accessible to all characters, rather than a few.