Is the skill gap in Smash 4 too small?

[JoeR]

Give it time guys. The meta is still developing and this is the sign of a good game. In previous games a lot of top players played one character to death and mastered them. Now it's a clean slate and lots of strats are being used.

 

[Piford]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't tech skill actually mean a larger skill gap? It may not lead to a "deeper" or better game, but it would mean more things to learn and master and after know when and how to use them. Sm4sh doesn't have things like DACUS, or L-Cancels, so that means there's less things for me to learn and do to reach a reasonable level of competitive play. Not saying that the skill gap in Sm4sh is minuscule or non-existent, but it's definitely more manageable than PM/Melee's and really there shouldn't be a problem with that. There's still so much you have to learn and work up on to even be considered good and to become a top player there's more after that.

Personally I think the skill gap is a-okay. I mean, if it was too small, why am I not getting that tournament money?

Tech skill usually raises the skill floor, not increases the skill gap. Things like L-canceling, Dash Dancing, and Wavedashing in Melee are necessary to play the game, so the skill floor is higher. Everyone who plays the game can do all those things, so the execution of the techniques don't really increase the skill gap. Using what those techniques offer in the best way possible is whats going to create a greater skill gap.

 

[LightLV]

Tech skill usually raises the skill floor, not increases the skill gap. Things like L-canceling, Dash Dancing, and Wavedashing in Melee are necessary to play the game, so the skill floor is higher. Everyone who plays the game can do all those things, so the execution of the techniques don't really increase the skill gap. Using what those techniques offer in the best way possible is whats going to create a greater skill gap.

You've got it backwards. Tech skill raises the ceiling, not the skill floor. Key example is Street Fighter 4. The game has a massive tech wall to do the simplest combo strings, but the game is completely playable off solid fundementals and spacing to the vast majority of the playerbase. A very tiny amount of knowledge is needed to execute every move in the game (fireball motion, DP motion, charge inputs) , but a high amount of tech skill is needed to pull all the potential out of the characters. None of that is "required to play". It's required to challenge highly competitive players who have it mastered.

I think you're mistaking Melee's tournament finals with common casuals. It's perfectly sensible for a person who's mastered Wavedashing to get bodied by a player who never uses it once. The thing about technical abilities is that they're behind a wall of execution -- and perfect execution is quite uncommon unless we're talking the top 1~5% of players. And that's in any game.

Ya... Not even close to the point of my post, or even that statement in and of itself.

And, to your above post, I can't think of any informed person that thinks tech skill equates to a deeper game with a higher skill gap between levels of play.

Well, either you don't know too many people, or your definition of "informed" differs quite vastly from the norm.

 

[Siledh]

I think it's really hard to even start talking about skill gaps whilst the meta is still developing and will do for a long time. Even more so when Sm4sh actually demands two different metas. The options available to 3DS players are different to Wii U players, merely due to the restricted nature of the 3DS control system (although I have no idea if the New 3DS changes this with its C-stick). It may be that a lot of people are practising their tech on the 3DS because of its portability and so haven't actually mastered any of the AT available on the Wii U.

Give the game some time before we start talking about the skill gap, the skill ceiling or even the skill floor. When Melee first came out, its skill floor was still pretty low until people discovered all the crazy AT now considered basic requirements for competitions.

 

[Piford]

You've got it backwards. Tech skill raises the ceiling, not the skill floor. Key example is Street Fighter 4. The game has a massive tech wall to do the simplest combo strings, but the game is completely playable off solid fundementals and spacing to the vast majority of the playerbase. A very tiny amount of knowledge is needed to execute every move in the game (fireball motion, DP motion, charge inputs) , but a high amount of tech skill is needed to pull all the potential out of the characters. None of that is "required to play". It's required to challenge highly competitive players who have it mastered.

I think you're mistaking Melee's tournament finals with common casuals. It's perfectly sensible for a person who's mastered Wavedashing to get bodied by a player who never uses it once. The thing about technical abilities is that they're behind a wall of execution -- and perfect execution is quite uncommon unless we're talking the top 1~5% of players. And that's in any game.

Being able to quickly move the control stick back and forth doesn't raise the skill ceiling. Being able to do mix ups and fake outs and stuff like that raises the skill ceiling.

Being able to hit the L button when you land doesn't raise the skill ceiling. Being able to pressure shields correctly does.

Being able to slide across the floor doesn't raise the skill ceiling. Being able to elongate combos and space your moves does.

It's a little overly simplistic, but there's no point in going into the nitty gritty. The skill floor is the minimum skill requirement to play the game on a competitive level. Pretty much everyone not named Borp needs to know L-canceling, Wavedashing, and dash dancing to compete with others who do. Armada isn't better than Silent Wolf because he can wavedash better. Pretty much everyone mastered how to do these techniques when they started to take the game seriously at a low level. Sure you don't need to play the game, heck I can give a controller to my dog and he could do an attack, but that's not what the skill floor is. If someone who knows how to do advance techniques gets recked by someone who doesn't, it's likely neither of these players have reached the skill floor as one isn't on a technical level and one isn't on a mental level to compete with the bottom of people who can do both. Sue there are exceptions, but this is a simplification that applies to the majority of players.

I have no idea what you were talking about with street fighter because I don't play street fighter and Melee isn't street fighter. It kinda sounded like you were just throwing out buzzwords.

 

[PCHU]

Being able to quickly move the control stick back and forth doesn't raise the skill ceiling. Being able to do mix ups and fake outs and stuff like that raises the skill ceiling.

Being able to hit the L button when you land doesn't raise the skill ceiling. Being able to pressure shields correctly does.

Being able to slide across the floor doesn't raise the skill ceiling. Being able to elongate combos and space your moves does.

It's a little overly simplistic, but there's no point in going into the nitty gritty. The skill floor is the minimum skill requirement to play the game on a competitive level. Pretty much everyone not named Borp needs to know L-canceling, Wavedashing, and dash dancing to compete with others who do. Armada isn't better than Silent Wolf because he can wavedash better. Pretty much everyone mastered how to do these techniques when they started to take the game seriously at a low level. Sure you don't need to play the game, heck I can give a controller to my dog and he could do an attack, but that's not what the skill floor is. If someone who knows how to do advance techniques gets recked by someone who doesn't, it's likely neither of these players have reached the skill floor as one isn't on a technical level and one isn't on a mental level to compete with the bottom of people who can do both. Sue there are exceptions, but this is a simplification that applies to the majority of players.

I have no idea what you were talking about with street fighter because I don't play street fighter and Melee isn't street fighter. It kinda sounded like you were just throwing out buzzwords.

Looking at other fighting games actually does help you to understand different aspects about your primary game.
I mean, BlazBlue isn't Melee, but it helped me learn how to work more off of elaborate setups and mindgames than consistent pressure (and that's actually helped quite a bit in Smash 4).

That aside, even if the skill floor is the minimum of competitive "requirements" (are we just talking l-canceling and wavedashing, or does this include things like variations of wobbling, shine OoS, anything out of shine, SWD, etc?), it's fairly easy to see that the skill ceiling is high, but I haven't really seen anyone else tackle the question in the OP because we're too busy reiterating what we already know.


On a side note:
I once met a Pikachu main who didn't use any sort of advanced techniques, but frequently fought against his Fox-maining room mate who did.
He actually put up a really good fight with his solid fundamentals, and I was almost stuck on how I would be able to beat him until I picked Falco and started eliminating his option select altogether with consistent lasers and shield pressure.
This being said, you mentioned Borp; he's good, yeah, but look at the characters he uses and then think about all of this a bit more.
His mains aren't exactly awful characters at the base, and nothing overly technical is required to juggle someone.
I suppose you could call these people outliers, but it's just something to consider when we're talking about requirements.

 

[Piford]

Looking at other fighting games actually does help you to understand different aspects about your primary game.
I mean, BlazBlue isn't Melee, but it helped me learn how to work more off of elaborate setups and mindgames than consistent pressure (and that's actually helped quite a bit in Smash 4).

I agree completely, but I don't know street fighter so unless there's an actual explanation it means nothing to me. Like what is the tech skill that is required to do basic combos? And how does that play into everything.

 

[Pyr]

Well, either you don't know too many people, or your definition of "informed" differs quite vastly from the norm.

If you think basic inputs for a tech, or the techs themselves existing, somehow increases the depth of a game between low and high levels, then you really need to re-evaluate the game you're playing, because you are, simply put, wrong. There is an extremely good reason why complex inputs and techs are never factored into a character's difficulty at high levels: they simply do not matter. How those inputs are used matters. What they enable you to do matters. At entry levels of high level play, it is assumed you can do any and all inputs the game has to offer, in any form, because that's the minimum requirement to play at that level. Unless you're one of a select few, those things are a given.

Do not confuse the existence of an "advanced" technique with them adding depth automatically due to it's existence. It allows implications of the lack of an AT causing a shallow game, which is completely off base and remarkably untrue.

My original post that you responded to with the quoted message was perhaps poorly worded so my point didn't make it across initially, so let me rephrase: Any informed person does not think that the existence of a tech in and of itself adds to the depth of a game and to the skill gap between the skill floor and ceiling at higher level play.

Your original post praises the inclusion of techs in Melee and states that many think the Smash4 skill gap is lower because those techs don't exist. Well, I say those many are uninformed and wrong. But hey, those same people are the same people that would never even attempt to consider the notion that a game with a higher emphasis on reads and mind-games (your words, not mine) would be a deeper game with a larger skill gap from the entry-level high level play and the top level play, so, really, it's a waste of time. Honestly, I didn't want you to miss-represent my post, thus this post.

And to the rest of your post, where you completely butchered why Street Fighter is a deep game, along with it's skill floor and ceilings: re-evaluate your viewpoints. Execution is the single smallest factor in a fighting game. If you think you're a higher level player and execution of things like 1-frame links and any combo your character has accessible to themselves creates a barrier for you, you're not a high level player. High and top level players have 0, or less then a part of a fraction of 1%, issues with execution. Execution can be dropped sometimes due to mistake, but that's just it: a mistake. Not because of difficulty or because there is a lack of skill or w/e justification you want to use.

I think you think you know what happens at all levels of play in a fighting game. Hell, perfect execution is a given, as execution and game/character knowledge is a given once you enter the higher levels, and that info is shared for the most part these days. It's no longer the barrier of entry that it once was. The only levels of play that I can find applicable for your statements and "knowledge" in this area are if you think the bottom level, "I played for a few hours" level of play is where the skill floor for competitive play begins. That is not true. At all. If it was, any game can have a massive difference between skill floor and ceiling.

So, here's the point of the first part of my post towards you: Techs in a game raises the skill floor a bit higher due to more to learn to begin playing on that floor. If it raises the skill ceiling, it's what those techs allow the player to do in the Rock-Paper-Scissors (Yomi) part of the game, not the techs themselves. They are a means to an end, and those ends are a bit different in 2 different games (big surprise there, right?), even if the end goal is "get the other guy off the stage."

Here's the second: You need to do some re-examination of your viewpoint here, or further clarify exactly what it is. It is flawed, and the flaws are glaring. I'm very open to a discussion with you over this entire concept, but, as someone who has experienced the levels of play to which you speak, I need you to be open to the chance that your viewpoint is wrong, just as I am open to mine being wrong. Experience is only as good as what you take from it, after all, and I'm humble enough to admit I may of missed something.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Tech skill itself is not depth, neither is difficulty directly.

How you implement and use it is.

 

[allshort17]

Tech skill itself is not depth, neither is difficulty directly.

How you implement and use it is.

But it does increase the skill gap. It may not test skills we want to test, but nevertheless, it tests skills that have to be learned to play the game.

Just to everyone, depth=/=skill, but they can share things between them.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But it does increase the skill gap. It may not test skills we want to test, but nevertheless, it tests skills that have to be learned to play the game.

Just to everyone, depth=/=skill, but they can share things between them.

Does that need to be there?

L-Cancelling?
Frame 1 links?
Two moves with almost identical inputs?

Sure you have a larger gap but is that better for the gane and extrance barrier? I strongly argue no, unless that tech skill adds reasonable depth.

 

[allshort17]

Does that need to be there?

L-Cancelling?
Frame 1 links?
Two moves with almost identical inputs?

Sure you have a larger gap but is that better for the gane and extrance barrier? I strongly argue no, unless that tech skill adds reasonable depth.

I agree. But that's not the question the OP asked. He asked if the skill gap is too small, not is the depth is lacking.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I agree. But that's not the question the OP asked. He asked if the skill gap is too small, not is the depth is lacking.

I mean, I guess?

I just don't think that a lot of what I listed would be worth it for Smash 4.

The skill gap is still there, it's just one of the easiest smash games to get into, which is good.

 

[AWACS]

I mean, I guess?

I just don't think that a lot of what I listed would be worth it for Smash 4.

The skill gap is still there, it's just one of the easiest smash games to get into, which is good.

I also think this game is a good entry for people who haven't played any smash games yet, as the skill floor is low enough for anyone to start playing, but I still have to wonder if there will be a meta that will change where the ceiling will be.

 

[Pwii]

Tech skill itself is not depth, neither is difficulty directly.

How you are able to implement and use it is.

FTFY

 

[LightLV]

Does that need to be there?

L-Cancelling?
Frame 1 links?
Two moves with almost identical inputs?

Sure you have a larger gap but is that better for the gane and extrance barrier? I strongly argue no, unless that tech skill adds reasonable depth.

None of these tech skills have anything to do with the entrance barrier of the game...because none are needed to play. You don't NEED L-cancelling to play melee. Every combo link in SF isn't 1 frame. These are what we call tech walls. They offer greatly expanded borders regarding your options, but are made inaccessible without alot of execution practice.

Does L-Cancel need to exist? Of course it doesn't, but it served its purpose by allowing a player who took the time to master it vastly improved abilities. If SF combos didn't require tight windows for cancels, it would be a very, VERY different game.

If you think basic inputs for a tech, or the techs themselves existing, somehow increases the depth of a game between low and high levels, then you really need to re-evaluate the game you're playing, because you are, simply put, wrong. There is an extremely good reason why complex inputs and techs are never factored into a character's difficulty at high levels: they simply do not matter.

Hahaha, hahaha...This is completely and totally false, and in so many ways. Do you seriously think input consistency isn't a factor in competitive play? You've never seen nerves or emotions in tournaments? Have you never seen a player drop a combo before? Please direct me to the stream of these robots please.

Your original post praises the inclusion of techs in Melee and states that many think the Smash4 skill gap is lower because those techs don't exist. Well, I say those many are uninformed and wrong. But hey, those same people are the same people that would never even attempt to consider the notion that a game with a higher emphasis on reads and mind-games (your words, not mine) would be a deeper game with a larger skill gap from the entry-level high level play and the top level play, so, really, it's a waste of time. Honestly, I didn't want you to miss-represent my post, thus this post.

Honestly? i'm not even speaking from a subjective stance here; Melee's skill gap is higher than Smash 4's, point blank period. If you are the kind of person who doesn't necessarily respect technical skill, thats okay, but it doesn't mean you can warp the meanings of words around like that. You seem to think the term "Skill ceiling" is alot more subjective than it really is. It refers to the amount of solid advantage you gain from learning the mechanics of a game, and this is the area where Melee shined the most in the series.

And to the rest of your post, where you completely butchered why Street Fighter is a deep game, along with it's skill floor and ceilings: re-evaluate your viewpoints. Execution is the single smallest factor in a fighting game. If you think you're a higher level player and execution of things like 1-frame links and any combo your character has accessible to themselves creates a barrier for you, you're not a high level player. High and top level players have 0, or less then a part of a fraction of 1%, issues with execution. Execution can be dropped sometimes due to mistake, but that's just it: a mistake. Not because of difficulty or because there is a lack of skill or w/e justification you want to use. I think you think you know what happens at all levels of play in a fighting game. Hell, perfect execution is a given, as execution and game/character knowledge is a given once you enter the higher levels, and that info is shared for the most part these days. It's no longer the barrier of entry that it once was.

Oh my god, again, where are these magical super sayian uchiha clan pros with theory-perfect gameplay styles who never botch 1-frame links and have no issues with technical skill? Do tell him to enter the next big tournament, because he's going to body the hell out of every big name in gaming.

. The only levels of play that I can find applicable for your statements and "knowledge" in this area are if you think the bottom level, "I played for a few hours" level of play is where the skill floor for competitive play begins.

At all. If it was, any game can have a massive difference between skill floor and ceiling.

While we're at it -- can someone please explain what a "skill floor" is to me? Ceiling makes perfect sense, but floor is about as ambiguous as it can get. What do i have to be doing to play at the skill floor? Bang my face on the controller? Give it to a toddler? Not pick it up?

 

[Pyr]

Lol ya. Not going to have a discussion with someone so set in their beliefs that they are unwilling to... You know... Discuss them. Let me leave you with these thoughts, though.

Input difficulty doesn't matter the higher up the skill building you go. Besides, inputs aren't hard. Not in Smash. Not in Street Fighter. Not in any fighter. It's all muscle memory. I do think it's not an issue higher up because it is not.

Talk to someone that is, you know, actually winning things if you don't take for me. Ask them how much thought they put into input and how much they suck at it. Do it for a high level SF4 player in your state. You can find them. I know you can. 1 frame bread and butter, man... Aint nothing.

And you are actually talking from a very subjective stance. Tech skill, Melee is more intensive. Actual gameplay, though? There are arguments on both sides. You can't just say "lolnope" when presented with one and write it off... Oh ya. You're not looking for a discussion. My bad.

My definition of a skill ceiling is much like yours, except it accounts for gameplay, current trends, the level of top level players, risk and reward ratios, where degradation of the game occurs... You know... Literally everything a game has to offer, not just mechanics. You can have the best mechanics in the world and be right there at the bottom floor if that's all you've got going for you. If you want to use your definition, be my guest. Just expect anyone who knows the theory to call you out on just how incomplete your definition is.

And, those magical people? Literally anyone who puts the time in. 1 frame links are not a big deal. There are literally ways to turn them into 2 frame links. But hey, in that part, you're just being silly. You're probably operating in full "I can't do this/see this/(insert a john of choice here), so it must not actually be present or possible!" Ya, that's assuming a lot and ****, but that's what your attitude makes me feel.

And, to give you my definition of skill floor: The very, very beginnings of competitive play is where it begins. It's that exact moment a casual player goes to a competitive one. By that definition, I must also define when someone goes competitive: When they put in the effort to obtain, AND ALSO obtain, a basic understanding of the game's competitive properties.

Steve from your block who likes to play? Hasn't entered the building.
Brock, the guy that goes to that local gamestop tourny for fun? Not in that building.
David, who put in some time and has a understanding and is working on his game? He's on the lowest floor.

Super simplified, of course, but it should give you an idea. Which you won't consider because it's likely not the same as yours, so it's wrong.



Take care @ L LightLV aka Light "Mechanics are everything" LV

 

[TheAnomaly]

None of these tech skills have anything to do with the entrance barrier of the game...because none are needed to play. You don't NEED L-cancelling to play melee. Every combo link in SF isn't 1 frame. These are what we call tech walls. They offer greatly expanded borders regarding your options, but are made inaccessible without alot of execution practice.


While we're at it -- can someone please explain what a "skill floor" is to me? Ceiling makes perfect sense, but floor is about as ambiguous as it can get. What do i have to be doing to play at the skill floor? Bang my face on the controller? Give it to a toddler? Not pick it up?

let me give you the simplest of examples of a skill floor: Say we are playing a game which has only 1 character in it and that character has a life value of let's say 20. this character has 2 "combos" one which does 2 and another which does 4 but is harder to execute. The skill floor(in this case also the ceiling) for this game would be being able to use the combo which does 4 because then you only need to hit the opponent 5 times as opposed to 10. Could you play the game only knowing the combo which does 2? Of course. However every match against opponents who know the other combo, you would have to be twice as good as them to get the opportunity to hit them twice as many times to win.

Now expanding on that example, let's say we had a move which does 5. the skill ceiling would be raised higher but the skill GAP would only be between the players who can use the combo that does 4 and the one that does 5 because executing the 4 combo would be a requirement of competitive play.

 

[otter]

Lol ya. Not going to have a discussion with someone so set in their beliefs that they are unwilling to... You know... Discuss them. Let me leave you with these thoughts, though.

Input difficulty doesn't matter the higher up the skill building you go. Besides, inputs aren't hard. Not in Smash. Not in Street Fighter. Not in any fighter. It's all muscle memory. I do think it's not an issue higher up because it is not.

Talk to someone that is, you know, actually winning things if you don't take for me. Ask them how much thought they put into input and how much they suck at it. Do it for a high level SF4 player in your state. You can find them. I know you can. 1 frame bread and butter, man... Aint nothing.

This is simply untrue. Look at the difference between Hungrybox and Hax. All street fighter players drop combos.

I'll have to say this simply to preempt your next point, I've won many fighting game and smash tournaments.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

None of these tech skills have anything to do with the entrance barrier of the game...because none are needed to play. You don't NEED L-cancelling to play melee. Every combo link in SF isn't 1 frame. These are what we call tech walls. They offer greatly expanded borders regarding your options, but are made inaccessible without alot of execution practice.

Does L-Cancel need to exist? Of course it doesn't, but it served its purpose by allowing a player who took the time to master it vastly improved abilities. If SF combos didn't require tight windows for cancels, it would be a very, VERY different game.

You need it to do well in Melee, it's an awful game design choice in almost every sense. It shouldn't exist to just keep people out, that's bad game design if that is all it will do, which is exactly what it does.

Frame 1 techs are bad because it's a huge hurtle for people to get over to the point where if you don't learn it you shouldn't be playing the character.

It's even worse when you consider these games will be played online.

 

[LancerStaff]

If something is broke, it doesn't matter how difficult it is to pull off. If it's broke it's broke.

I've seen interest in speedrunning certain games die just because of there being too many 1-frame tricks. At that point you're fighting the controller and not the game, and nobody finds that fun.

 

[LightLV]

Oh these replies are getting pretty vertical..

Lol ya. Not going to have a discussion with someone so set in their beliefs that they are unwilling to... You know... Discuss them. Let me leave you with these thoughts, though.

We can't discuss anything because we aren't on same page. You want to argue the finer mechanics of Smash, but you have a very warped view of competitive play that I don't think carries over into any conversation for any game.

Talk to someone that is, you know, actually winning things if you don't take for me. Do it for a high level SF4 player in your state. You can find them. I know you can. 1 frame bread and butter, man... Aint nothing. Tech skill, Melee is more intensive. Actual gameplay, though? There are arguments on both sides. 1 frame links are not a big deal. . But hey, in that part, you're just being silly.

Again, this is untrue, VERY untrue, all of it. First off, I am not aware of any real argument which suggests any smash title after Melee is more technical than Melee. Again, the only way to logically make this argument possible is through scemantics. Second, there isn't a well-known player alive that doesn't drop difficult combos, or screw up confirms, ect ect during tournament play. So when you base your argument off blatant untruths, I have no option but to make troll responses. Hell, if you watched a single fighting game tournament in your life - that wasn't brawl or smash 4 - you would know that what you're saying is complete nonsense.

let me give you the simplest of examples of a skill floor: Say we are playing a game which has only 1 character in it and that character has a life value of let's say 20. this character has 2 "combos" one which does 2 and another which does 4 but is harder to execute. The skill floor(in this case also the ceiling) for this game would be being able to use the combo which does 4 because then you only need to hit the opponent 5 times as opposed to 10. Could you play the game only knowing the combo which does 2? Of course. However every match against opponents who know the other combo, you would have to be twice as good as them to get the opportunity to hit them twice as many times to win.

This makes more sense, but it's still too ambigious because it hangs on the idea that players play in the most efficient way possible all the time, and this is never true. It's eliminating way too many variables to be a reliable definition, a sort of "spherical cow" solution. Combo execution is a big advantage, but is still only 1 piece of the game. At the end of the day, both players are still human. When you look at the top players go at it, they're rarely ever winning tournaments solely because they can execute tech skill or 1-frame links efficiently. So, trying to find a spot to designate skill floor at is nigh impossible, unless you're going to place it somewhere so high where you almost certainly cannot beat the players above it because they have all but mastered everything but the hardest aspects of the game, and will never lose to the players below it.

You need it to do well in Melee, it's an awful game design choice in almost every sense. It shouldn't exist to just keep people out, that's bad game design if that is all it will do, which is exactly what it does.

Frame 1 techs are bad because it's a huge hurtle for people to get over to the point where if you don't learn it you shouldn't be playing the character.

It's even worse when you consider these games will be played online.

Its a tech wall. Why do people here believe you are required to perfectly execute techniques that are DESIGNED for you to not perfectly execute them consistently?

Look, in case in point, for everyone complaining about the tech barriers in melee:

https://youtu.be/B3Il1AQ4QDg?t=415

Just watch the fight and listen to the commentary. They have tech skill, they do other things, they start making mistakes. I really don't know if we're all talking about the same games here.

 

[LancerStaff]

Its a tech wall. Why do people here believe you are required to perfectly execute techniques that are DESIGNED for you to not perfectly execute them consistently?

So it's basically a way of implementing luck by making the players living RNG. What's stopping me from waltzing in some tournament and getting it every single time and winning? Wouldn't people just call me lucky?

 

[Kurri ★]

But that's not RNG at all. If you perform an L-Cancel right, you'll always get the proper result. What's stopping you is your ability to time the L-Cancel correctly to get it every time.

 

[Muro]

So it's basically a way of implementing luck by making the players living RNG. What's stopping me from waltzing in some tournament and getting it every single time and winning? Wouldn't people just call me lucky?

Is this satire?

 

[LancerStaff]

But that's not RNG at all. If you perform an L-Cancel right, you'll always get the proper result. What's stopping you is your ability to time the L-Cancel correctly to get it every time.

Talking about powerful 1-frame tricks. L-cancelling is stupid for completely different reasons.

Take Mega Man 6 for example. Every game before it you could jump out of a slide. Now, not so much. Now you have to cancel it by walking backwards, making the game harder for an arbitrary reason. Rather then call it "tech skill," people called it "trash." L-cancelling is the same.

Is this satire?

Making a button press that won't succeed every single time is what most people would call luck-based, or otherwise poor game design.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Actually put in the work and you will get that result every time. However it was still poor game design.

BTW the best strat in Smash 4 is being patient. That will not change until they make attacking more rewarding or just as rewarding as not attacking and letting your opponent over commit.

 

[TheAnomaly]

This makes more sense, but it's still too ambigious because it hangs on the idea that players play in the most efficient way possible all the time, and this is never true. It's eliminating way too many variables to be a reliable definition, a sort of "spherical cow" solution. Combo execution is a big advantage, but is still only 1 piece of the game. At the end of the day, both players are still human. When you look at the top players go at it, they're rarely ever winning tournaments solely because they can execute tech skill or 1-frame links efficiently. So, trying to find a spot to designate skill floor at is nigh impossible, unless you're going to place it somewhere so high where you almost certainly cannot beat the players above it because they have all but mastered everything but the hardest aspects of the game, and will never lose to the players below it.



Its a tech wall. Why do people here believe you are required to perfectly execute techniques that are DESIGNED for you to not perfectly execute them consistently?

Look, in case in point, for everyone complaining about the tech barriers in melee:

https://youtu.be/B3Il1AQ4QDg?t=415

Just watch the fight and listen to the commentary. They have tech skill, they do other things, they start making mistakes. I really don't know if we're all talking about the same games here.

I used the combo example because it is simply so easy to understand. Yes human error exist but the only way for someone under the skill floor int hat example to win would be to be ABOUT twice as good as someone on the skill floor who can excute the combo.

On to your comment about top level melee. In fact this mostly proves the point of what many are saying, Between players of similar skill levels( it should be reasonable to assume that mango and mewtwo can execute around the same number of advanced tech with about equal levels of ease), the game comes down to outplaying your opponent with mindgames, pressure etc. However unless you have that minimal level of skill required(for the sake of melee this would be dash dancing and wavedashing to increase movement options and knowledge of chaingrabs or inescapeable combos) attempting to compete against someone who does is basically next to useless because the overwhelming majority of the time, you will lose unless that person is having a really terrible day. Look at any professional sport for more examples. Take any major professional sport team/ player and put them against people now learning the game (only just mastered the basics:be this passing, shooting, rallying a ball back over the net consistently or whatever the equivalent in the sport) and witness a massacre. However place them against a lower regarded but also professional or at least semi professional team/player and the lower ranked team has a reasonable chance despite being expected to lose.

Having a low skill floor(minimum additional techniques REQUIRED to have a REASONABLE chance at beating the best) simply means more people can compete at the highest level of the game.

Unrelated PS: Could someone help me out with the specifics of quoting a post so I can make future post more easily readable? I've been searching for a guide somewhere and can't seem to find one and it's not exactly making sense to me at the moment from basic trial and error.

 

[Kurri ★]

Talking about powerful 1-frame tricks. L-cancelling is stupid for completely different reasons.

Take Mega Man 6 for example. Every game before it you could jump out of a slide. Now, not so much. Now you have to cancel it by walking backwards, making the game harder for an arbitrary reason. Rather then call it "tech skill," people called it "trash." L-cancelling is the same.



Making a button press that won't succeed every single time is what most people would call luck-based, or otherwise poor game design.

But the difference between your example from MM6 and L-Canceling is that there is a benefit from L-Canceling, at least I'm assuming there wasn't one for MM6, never played it. Your landing lag is reduced by a considerable amount allowing you to quickly string together moves, and it's not based on RNG but your ability to land it properly within 6 frames of landing.

I admit, it's dumb and I find it arbitrary, but L-Canceling isn't something left to complete chance like RNG, there is a skill to it.

 

[LancerStaff]

Actually put in the work and you will get that result every time. However it was still poor game design.

BTW the best strat in Smash 4 is being patient. That will not change until they make attacking more rewarding or just as rewarding as not attacking and letting your opponent over commit.

Pretty sure it's impossible to get good at 1-frame tricks... Which is what I was talking about. Difficultly to "balance" powerful moves and combos is, was, and always will be stupid.

But the difference between your example from MM6 and L-Canceling is that there is a benefit from L-Canceling, at least I'm assuming there wasn't one for MM6, never played it. Your landing lag is reduced by a considerable amount allowing you to quickly string together moves, and it's not based on RNG but your ability to land it properly within 6 frames of landing.

I admit, it's dumb and I find it arbitrary, but L-Canceling isn't something left to complete chance like RNG, there is a skill to it.

In Melee L-cancelling was an Easter Egg of sorts, so it was hidden. It works in that regard I guess. In PM missing an L-cancel is a penalty and not the default, as the game is supposed to be played by getting them every time.

 

[Kurri ★]

Pretty sure it's impossible to get good at 1-frame tricks... Which is what I was talking about. Difficultly to "balance" powerful moves and combos is, was, and always will be stupid.

But L-Canceling is 6 Frames which is way more manageable than 1 Frame.

In Melee L-cancelling was an Easter Egg of sorts, so it was hidden. It works in that regard I guess. In PM missing an L-cancel is a penalty and not the default, as the game is supposed to be played by getting them every time.

But, that's not how easter eggs work...

Z Canceling (aka Smooth Landing) was in SSB64 and all you had to do was go to the website to pick that up. It was most likely added into Melee and was supposed to be used. PM is just continuing that, and you don't have to land every L-Cancel, you may not even have to land any if you play a certain way.

 

[LancerStaff]

But L-Canceling is 6 Frames which is way more manageable than 1 Frame.



But, that's not how easter eggs work...

Z Canceling (aka Smooth Landing) was in SSB64 and all you had to do was go to the website to pick that up. It was most likely added into Melee and was supposed to be used. PM is just continuing that, and you don't have to land every L-Cancel, you may not even have to land any if you play a certain way.

I said I was talking about things like 1-frame links, not L-cancelling.

That was back when the internet was a novelty, and with how important it is you'd think the How to Play video would of mentioned it. Wasn't mentioned anywhere in English... With how wildly it changed between games it's pretty obvious they didn't use it for balancing and the like. It was a way for the CPU to cheat and was left as a viable action for humans presumably because it had to be. It's like playing as the boss characters in other games.

And saying you can handicap yourself if you're good enough is silly. If my opponent is inept enough I can KO him in one move, but is it likely? No. L-cancelling is required in the current metagame, and was designed to be used as such in PM. There's no defending it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Oh these replies are getting pretty vertical..


We can't discuss anything because we aren't on same page. You want to argue the finer mechanics of Smash, but you have a very warped view of competitive play that I don't think carries over into any conversation for any game.



Again, this is untrue, VERY untrue, all of it. First off, I am not aware of any real argument which suggests any smash title after Melee is more technical than Melee. Again, the only way to logically make this argument possible is through scemantics. Second, there isn't a well-known player alive that doesn't drop difficult combos, or screw up confirms, ect ect during tournament play. So when you base your argument off blatant untruths, I have no option but to make troll responses. Hell, if you watched a single fighting game tournament in your life - that wasn't brawl or smash 4 - you would know that what you're saying is complete nonsense.



This makes more sense, but it's still too ambigious because it hangs on the idea that players play in the most efficient way possible all the time, and this is never true. It's eliminating way too many variables to be a reliable definition, a sort of "spherical cow" solution. Combo execution is a big advantage, but is still only 1 piece of the game. At the end of the day, both players are still human. When you look at the top players go at it, they're rarely ever winning tournaments solely because they can execute tech skill or 1-frame links efficiently. So, trying to find a spot to designate skill floor at is nigh impossible, unless you're going to place it somewhere so high where you almost certainly cannot beat the players above it because they have all but mastered everything but the hardest aspects of the game, and will never lose to the players below it.



Its a tech wall. Why do people here believe you are required to perfectly execute techniques that are DESIGNED for you to not perfectly execute them consistently?

Look, in case in point, for everyone complaining about the tech barriers in melee:

https://youtu.be/B3Il1AQ4QDg?t=415

Just watch the fight and listen to the commentary. They have tech skill, they do other things, they start making mistakes. I really don't know if we're all talking about the same games here.

If it actually offered depth to some reasonable degree. I would defend it.

But all it is at it's core is a barrier to raise the floor and offer nothing for the skill ceiling.

Remove it, cut lag in half, boom you now have the same game with a much lower skill floor, same skill ceiling and same gameplay.

It's win-win.

If it offered depth of choice then something would be there.

But the oh so magical question of,

"Do I want more lag or less lag?"

That in itself is a terrible mechanic.

Edit: let me give you something to read,
http://sirlingames.squarespace.com/blog/2012/7/16/execution-in-fighting-games.html

http://www.cpgaming.gg/guest-blog/esports-blog/negative-aspects-of-ssbm/

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I said I was talking about things like 1-frame links, not L-cancelling.

That was back when the internet was a novelty, and with how important it is you'd think the How to Play video would of mentioned it. Wasn't mentioned anywhere in English... With how wildly it changed between games it's pretty obvious they didn't use it for balancing and the like. It was a way for the CPU to cheat and was left as a viable action for humans presumably because it had to be. It's like playing as the boss characters in other games.

And saying you can handicap yourself if you're good enough is silly. If my opponent is inept enough I can KO him in one move, but is it likely? No. L-cancelling is required in the current metagame, and was designed to be used as such in PM. There's no defending it.

...the CPU uses L-cancelling?

 

[PokÉmblem]

I see at as there being 4 skill levels.

Casual: Plays for fun and doesn't care less about getting better or even good.

Semi Casual: Decent, might know a few tricks or two but still a casual

Semi Competitive: (My Category) Understands about all of the games mechanics but can improve a lot in tech or something as simple as mix ups.

Competitive Smashers: Knows almost all the frame data and mastered a lot of the mechanics like reads and p.pivoting. These guys are the ones who enter tournaments and constantly win for glory matches.

There is a decent skill gap just not to the extreme skill gap melee had.

 

[LancerStaff]

...the CPU uses L-cancelling?

On the rare occasion they accidentally use an aerial, yes. Definitely did in 64.

 

[TheAnomaly]

I see at as there being 4 skill levels.

Casual: Plays for fun and doesn't care less about getting better or even good.

Semi Casual: Decent, might know a few tricks or two but still a casual

Semi Competitive: (My Category) Understands about all of the games mechanics but can improve a lot in tech or something as simple as mix ups.

Competitive Smashers: Knows almost all the frame data and mastered a lot of the mechanics like reads and p.pivoting. These guys are the ones who enter tournaments and constantly win for glory matches.

There is a decent skill gap just not to the extreme skill gap melee had.

The way i see it there is only 2 groups of players in any game/sport:
Casuals : play for fun(whether that be with or without tourney rules). These players may be absolute crap at the game/sport or they might have some traits of the competitive players(game knowledge and ability)
Competitive : play to win and to be the best they can be at the game. These players may also be absolute crap at the game/sport but they will get better over time because any weak part(lack of understanding of mechanics or execution skill) of their game will be worked on and addressed given enough time to invest in said game/sport.

Two skill gaps exist.
1) The one between the average newcomer to the game and the minimum level needed to enter a competitive match and have a realistic possible chance of winning.
2) The one between the minimum level of competitive play and the top players in said competitive sport.

The problem of a skill gap being too big arises when the first skill gap is too large.

 

[LightLV]

So it's basically a way of implementing luck by making the players living RNG. What's stopping me from waltzing in some tournament and getting it every single time and winning? Wouldn't people just call me lucky?

What on earth are you even talking about.

If it actually offered depth to some reasonable degree. I would defend it.

But all it is at it's core is a barrier to raise the floor and offer nothing for the skill ceiling.

Remove it, cut lag in half, boom you now have the same game with a much lower skill floor, same skill ceiling and same gameplay.

It's win-win.

If it offered depth of choice then something would be there.

But the oh so magical question of,

"Do I want more lag or less lag?"

That in itself is a terrible mechanic.

Whether or not you like it is up to you, but it's a stretch to call it a terrible mechanic just because you don't think you should have to L-cancel to reduce landing lag. Combos would be a bit easier to execute without it, but L-Cancelling as it was did the job it was intended to do -- create a technical wall infront of expanded combos. Its not like L-cancelling was all that serious of a tech wall anyway. It gave you 6 frames to do the input. It honestly just comes down to whether you believe faster recovery on aerials should be given to all players automatically, or as a reward for inputting the cancel. Brawl had its chance to auto-cancel the aerial frames, but instead it removed L-cancelling without compensating, pretty much nerfing the balls off all the heavy characters in the game.

But something tells me that even if a version of melee existed where every aerial just had its frames cut by 50%, people would still cry their eyes out about some other technique they aren't able to do because they don't think they should have to learn it. I really don't know where it ends with this community.

http://sirlingames.squarespace.com/blog/2012/7/16/execution-in-fighting-games.html

http://www.cpgaming.gg/guest-blog/esports-blog/negative-aspects-of-ssbm/

I don't think I agree with the first guy's sentiments completely. Seems like he ultimately wants every fighting game to be execution-easy and focus entirely on strategy, which is cute and all. I just don't think it's a very realistic goal for a competitive genre. Execution has its place when it comes to limiting possibilities, because it allows fighters to create more interesting characters.

Lets not delude ourselves here, execution walls certainly have a place in the genre. I don't play SF strictly because its tech walls are too high, but i'm not going to sit and try and argue that its unforgiving buffer system somehow is bad game design. Because ultimately, its electric tech fences provide massive rewards for the players who overcome them.

Melee is the same way in a sense, not nearly as extreme as SF, but it provides the same amount of reward...hence why the game still has a following 14 years after the fact. Brawl has pretty much already been killed by Smash 4, but we have Melee beating modern games out for spots at EVO because of what it offers those who master it. Hell, for all we know, in a few years, people may stop playing Smash 4 and go back to brawl, if smash 4 evolves into something less rewarding.

 

[outfoxd]

I think one of the positives of a less execution heavy game is it can be a gateway to its more execution heavy brethren. I can't speak for everyone, but from starting Smash 4 I have more of an interest in Melee and not less. Then again, I also play Virtua Fighter and Tekken so I'm used to some degree of execution. Smash4 was kinda like a break.

 

[LancerStaff]

What on earth are you even talking about.

An imput not ment to be gotten every single time is virtually luck. L-cancelling is comparable to tripping, since the whole point is that somebody might screw up and the lesser player gets an attack in.