Pardon me if this veers off the topic at hand, but I'm a little confused about how this change would hurt competitive play - assuming that's what the issue is, since at lower skill levels stuff like this and VI would be either irrelevant or just intuitive. Anyway, my interpretation of how competitive viability in a game works is that stronger players are rewarded for knowing the ins and outs of said game's intricate mechanics and are able to implement this knowledge quickly in high-pressure circumstances to gain an advantage. In other words, what separates great players from good ones, in Smash or in any competitive game really, is split-second adaptability.
If the numbers attached to this were truly random, then of course I could understand the issue, but since they seem to scale consistently, then it just means there is yet another variable to keep track of when predicting knockback, KO percentages, etc etc. But shouldn't adding more variables be a good thing? Instead of dismissing this as something that assists weaker players - I'll come back to that too - shouldn't we be thankful that high-skill players will now have another layer of depth to assess when approaching their opponents? It seems to me like increased complexity would actually aid those who are constantly on their toes and working out what tactic would be best in the specific situation they're in. At first, of course, managing all these factors will be overwhelming. But this change seems intuitive and consistent enough that after the hundreds or thousands of hours dedicated players will no doubt put in, they will indeed be able to juggle the numbers and predict a move's outcome.
...Or any number of potential outcomes, since the argument I'm seeing a lot of, both here and in the VI thread, is that it takes control partially away from you and that's what leads to reliable strategies not working. I can only really see this as a good thing though, because quality competitive play doesn't require reliability. If the result of, say, a charged Fsmash is influenced by freshness, rage factor, and whether or not an opponent uses proper VI in response, then that doesn't mean the outcome is random, it just means that you will need to be flexible enough to adapt to a variety of outcomes.
As for it rewarding weaker players by being a comeback mechanic, I personally see it fundamentally differently. This isn't a revenge meter per se, and Smash isn't the kind of fighting game where you're just whittling away at an opponent's HP. In fact, If you're playing a 2-stock match, it's actually the leading player - the one who scores the first KO - who will first have the mixed blessing of Rage. Against a weaker player, they'll be able to take advantage of the increased knockback to get their opponent off the stage quickly - which is, in my eyes, where the game seems most inclined to reward high level play.
On a somewhat related note to that last point, it seems clear now that we have to think outside of the box when it comes to this game. A lot of the negativity here seems to stem from changes seeming counter-intuitive to longtime series fans, and it's true that this is not Smash as we used to know it. IMO, those worried about matches lasting longer because of VI or becoming uneven when one player is at a higher percent need to start getting reckless and going against old instincts to find new strategies. For example, with this game's buffed recoveries, more predictable airdodging, and larger blast zones, how has aggressive offstage play not become much more widespread? I have to believe that if people were getting the early KOs now possible (yes, even at lower percentages and with VI) by chasing opponents to the edge and bottom of the screen, they wouldn't be freaking out so much about something like this.
Oooof, that escalated into a rant. My apologies, I hope there's a point in there somewhere.
