I feel like my gameplan doesnt even work...that's what annoys me.
When I look at Abate/Blea they play really fast and put out alot of hitboxes, while Vudujin like more too bait their move (like I do...I'm a bit defensive player). What is the best way too play Luigi? Should I mix between both?
I would suggest that you don't try to think too hard about "playstyles". When players are described as "aggressive" or "defensive" it doesn't mean that they are always trying to attack or always trying to defend; it's just a broad, subjective, and somewhat arbitrary description of what their game tends to look like overall. "Aggressive" players dash-dance and bait their opponents just like "defensive" ones do (look no further than Mango if you want examples of that), and "defensive" ones still approach and go for hard reads. Furthermore, those actions are not inherently aggressive or defensive; they are simply tools that can be applied.
If your strategies aren't working, then break them down into segments that can be processed and dealt with in isolation. Saying "my whole gameplan doesn't work" or "every time I approach I get hit" isn't very useful because you can't do very much with just that information; it's not specific enough and probably inaccurate/exaggerated anyway. But if you break down a specific issue (especially a recurring one) then you'll find it becomes much easier to see the connections between actions and their consequences. After that, it's a matter of testing and implementing the solutions you come up with. I'll give an example (which in retrospect I should have written about a wavedash down smash approach because you mentioned that explicitly in your post).
First, assess the situation:
What did I do?
SHFFL a forward aerial on Falco's shield.
What happened?
Falco shielded it and then shined me (out of shield) into a combo.
What did I want to happen?
To hit Falco's shield with a forward aerial and not get hit with an out of shield option.
Go through the possible options and see if they work (you don't always have to actually do this in-game; you can just think about it):
How can I avoid getting shined out of shield?
Maybe by shielding after I land.
It doesn't work; Falco can hit me before my shield comes up because I have too much landing lag or Falco has too little shieldstun.
How can I reduce my landing lag or increase my shieldstun?
By doing an autocancel forward aerial so I have have less landing lag before I can shield.
That doesn't work; there's still too much lag.
What if I do a late forward aerial instead so there's more shieldstun when I land?
That doesn't work either; there's not enough additional shieldstun.
I'm out of options that could reduce my landing lag or increase my shieldstun, therefore I can't shield. If I can't shield then I can't spotdodge or roll either.
What else can I do to avoid the shine?
What about spacing the forward aerial out of the shine's range?
It works; I hit Falco's shield but am too far away for Falco to hit with a shine.
Therefore I should do this option from now on.
At this point, it's up to your opponent to start adapting back: they could shieldgrab you if you're still close enough, or maybe wavedash forwards out of shield and then shine, or dair out of shield, or roll away, or any number of other options. You would then adapt in turn. If they don't adapt back, then you're free to just keep doing what you're doing until then. Of course you can (and should) still keep thinking in order to find ways to optimise your reward or option coverage, but technically you've already solved the problem (to the minimum level required).
There are many simplifications/omissions being made here: there could be lots of additional branches (for things like baiting out the shine or doing a different aerial), and you also have to take into account stage positioning as part of the reward/circumstances. However, this is a good representation of a way to think about problems and adapt to them. This isn't necessarily going to be a systematic, conscious process either; it's more of a mindset even if you do consciously go through it and theorycraft as well. Any given mid-level player would likely make the adaption given in the example quickly and mostly subconsciously, with the speed of adaption tending to increase with the overall skill of the player.
You shouldn't worry about what your playstyle is, as such; don't try to model yourself as a particular style of player, and instead try to do whatever the best option is at all times (obviously you should always do the best option; why would you ever not want to do the best option?). There's no reason to refrain from pressuring an opponent because you want to have a "defensive playstyle" if applying pressure is more effective. Doing so means that you are acting without understanding what the purpose or result of your action/inaction is, which does not help you to learn, and only helps you overcome your obstacles by chance.
Of course, you can still focus on certain elements of your game with the intention of playing in a specific way (such as trying to be deliberate about being patient and baiting responses from the opponent), but you should never force yourself to play a certain way without a goal in mind; focus on improving elements of your defence rather than focusing on playing defensively in itself.
Very often there are multiple equally appropriate options (consider a "rock-paper-scissors" situation or a true 50-50 mixup), so you have to decide which you would prefer. What constitutes the "best option" can be extremely complicated to the extent that it stops being feasible for humans to analyse comprehensively beyond a certain number of possible decisions/outcomes. This is a large contributing factor to the differences between the playstyles of different players; while all players have the same information available to them, everyone is going to notice/interpret different aspects of that information, and make decisions with different biases and criteria. Through experience and knowledge, one can allow themselves to determine the best option more effectively.
Technically there is always an optimal option, the problem is that human limitations and lack of information introduce what is effectively chance into the game (there are "unknowns elements" in the sense that not all information is processed completely despite being presented to the player in a complete state). We as players cannot perfectly extrapolate what the opponent's next action will be from the information available to us, and therefore we cannot perfectly determine what the optimal response should be; it seems obvious, but the aim is to get good enough at extrapolating the action/response that we can approximate the response as well as possible, and thereby overcome our opponent.
Sometimes what might be the statistically best option in isoltaion is not the optimal choice in a given occurrence of that situation; for example (I'm using tech chasing as an example here, but this applies to any interaction where your opponent has a meaningful decision to make):
• You are tech chasing in a situation where it's impossible to cover all the options.
• You have 2 possible options: cover 3 out of 4 of your opponent's options at once with low reward or cover 1 out of 4 with higher reward.
Obviously if your opponent never chooses any of the 3 options the first choice covers, then it is not a good choice (under those circumstances) even though its "option coverage" is better from a purely general/statistical perspective. You have to notice when the opponent does these kinds of things and punish them for it. By adapting to their choices and punishing them you are able to affect the variables that factor into their descision-making; this allows you condition your opponent into avoiding or favouring certain options (to your benefit). I lack the knowledge/experience to provide a deeper explanation of conditioning.
There are several things to take into account when considering your opponents options/choices:
• Does your opponent choose the same option literally every time, regardless of the situation or your responses (for example: always teching to the right, always jumping out of hitstun, always doing the same dash-dance pattern before attacking, etc.)? If so, then you should always cover that option until they stop (and you get free punishes in the meantime).
In these cases you can usually get almost any punish you want because you don't need worry to about reaction time (there's nothing to react to if you know exactly what's going to happen) or spacing for other options. This applies to things the opponent
never does as well (for example: if they never spotdodge after they tech in place then you don't have to respect it; you can just grab them every time if you want).
• Does your opponent always/never choose a particular option but only in certain situations (for example: always DIing in when they're thrown off stage, never teching towards the ledge)? In that case you have to determine what those situations are, but once you do then the above point applies (only in those situations, of course).
• Does your opponent tend to favour a particular option, but not
always choose it? In that case you have to decide whether it's worth not covering the other options in order to cover the favoured one, taking into account the different rewards for the different options, the extent to which they favour the particular option, what factors influence their choices, how many other options you can cover simultaniously, etc.
This last point is complicated because the extent to which one should value different outcomes in this situation is not always straightforward; I'm not even close to sufficiently qualified to attempt to explain it.
To summarise:
• Notice what you're being punished for/what you can improve and think of solutions.
• Look for habits. If they're your opponent's habits, then consider how you can exploit them. If they're your habits, consider their purpose and usefulness and adjust them as necessary.
• Don't choose a suboptimal option because you're trying to play a particular style (or indeed ever).
• There is always an optimal choice, but humans are inherently imperfect in determining what it is. Through information from the game as it takes place and past experience/knowledge, one can extrapolate as accurately as possible and make choices that are effective in practice.
Relevant posts (all of which are extremely informative and worthwhile)
KirbyKaze on goal-based thinking/strategy (it's in 2 parts):
http://myneverendingbrainstorm.blogspot.ca/2014/07/goals-in-ssbm-intro-to-player-vs-player.html
Mew2King on covering options:
http://old.clashtournaments.com/covering-options/
http://old.clashtournaments.com/play-to-your-strengths/
One thing these articles discuss is the act of covering a specific option without fully committing to it, such that if the opponent doesn't choose that option you can either react to cover their alternative or at least leave yourself with a positional advantage (giving you some reward from the situation no matter what). This is something I would like to elaborate on further at some point.
Umbreon's "Drastic Improvement" (it's considered important/good enough to be stickied on the general discussion board, if that's any encouragement to read it):
http://smashboards.com/threads/drastic-improvement.311129/
BluEG's guide "Advance, Attack, Avoid (through the lens of Luigi)":
http://smashboards.com/threads/advance-attack-avoid-through-the-lens-of-luigi.389684/
I'm sure there's a relevant post that I've forgotten about on Wobbles' blogs somewhere, so I'll just link the main pages:
http://compete-complete.com/
http://eskimosister.blogspot.com
