Alondite
Smash Journeyman
I really have to ask at this point, are you ********? I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but legitimately asking if your IQ is below 70.
Why are you so incapable of reasoning this out? Equal risk:reward balancing doesn't mean that every move is, say, 5:5. That's what RPS is. Every move is balanced, but there is no meaningful decision-making or strategy because every move has equal risk and equal reward to every other move. A balanced system is X:Y, where X=Y. X itself is a variable, it does not always have to be the same, but Y should equal X. For example, having moves of 1:1. 5:5, and 10:10 within the same system is a balanced system, and it's an interesting system because not only is each option equally "good," but there is no obvious best choice. If the same system contained a 1:2 option, it would be the obvious best option.
That is the flaw that Melee makes. It introduces options (largely due to the canceling of lag/unclean design) that offer more potential reward than they offer risk. Things like L-canceling, dash-dancing, and wavedashing allow players to bypass the game's natural push
ull and eliminate commitment and weakness to make moves disproportionately safe and/or rewarding given the risk involved.You could argue that making a mistake in such a system means that you're going to be severely punished, and you would be correct. If that's the case, however, then how does Melee manage to remain so offensive? Is it because the metagame hasn't reached a high enough level of play where even the smallest mistake is going to guarantee massive punishment, discouraging interaction, or is it because the disproportionate safety and effectiveness of popular options limit the potential for punishments because they offer such a small window of opportunity for punishment? You yourself even said that the punishment is often less than the reward for outright offense. I'm inclined to believe that it's the latter. Smash 64 is an example of the former; the game offers such massive offensive rewards that the game actually becomes more defensive to prevent being punished.
Now Melee without those "advanced techs", with its original push
ull interplay, is an excellent game that has has great gameplay balance. Those "ATs" didn't arise because they make the game better, they arose because they have players to greatest chance for victory by compromising the game's design and the innate vulnerabilities of the system.Brawl is no better. Rather than a system of 1:2 options, it is a system of 2:1 options. Low gravity, hitstun-canceling, easy perfect-shielding, quick shield drop, etc. all play a part in the emergent gameplay. Brawl is arguably worse, however, because this style of play discourages most forms of interaction, and exists even without the use of "ATs."
I'm arguing that Smash 4 has a better design because the gameplay as a whole is more balanced. It doesn't encourage aggressive offense as both a form of offense and defense, at the expense of the system's innate defensive options, and it doesn't encourage camping and low-reward poking at the expense of interactivity. Both forms of play are viable. Even within an individual moveset there are more viable options, and more functional variety within those options, whereas Melee and Brawl generally distill movesets down to a few moves that are made obviously superior given the each game's emergent gameplay.
You could argue that a slight offensive favor could promote interaction, but that's not entirely correct for a few reasons. 1. Direct contact is not the only form of interaction. Even movement is considered interaction (or more accurately, interplay) because it prompts a discrete response from the opponent. 2. There are going to be an inherently limited number of options and gameplay potential in such a system.
Let's look at a 1:2 risk:reward system vs a 1:1 risk reward system. I understand that a 1:2 ratio is considerably more rewarding than risky, but the actual numbers don't matter.
Now let's assume that "victory" is achieved after a reward of 8. Each move within a system is also going to have a consistent risk:reward ratio so that options are neither redundant, nor overpowered. This also means that a risk of 8 or higher equals a loss. We'll also use whole numbers for the sake of simplicity.
A 1:1 system offers all of the following potential moves:
1:1, 2:2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5, 6:6, 7:7, 8:8.
There are 8 potential options, all balanced within the system. None are redundant, and none are obviously superior, yet each is interesting because they have risks and rewards that are different from the other options.
A 1:2 system would contain the following options:
1:2, 2:4, 3:6, 4:8
This is a balanced system, but right away you can see that there are fewer options. You can change the numbers, but an X:Y system will always have more potential than an X:YX system.
Now Smash 4 isn't perfect. There are things that could be changed to improve the balance, but it does a better job than Brawl or Melee.
As for you, Praxis, your conclusion, whether correct or not, is based on invalid reasoning. You are comparing the dependent variables of two different independent variables, ie, comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure even you know what you're trying to say vs. what you're actually saying.
And the reason I believed you two to be together on this is because you're name is highlighted in one of his posts. It was awhile back, so I don't really recall the context.
I will respond to some of your arguments, though.
"Option B isn't vague.
Option A is a move you use with respect to safety and ending lag and followup.
Option B is a move you use with respect to speed."
An option should be specific and discrete. Anything else is redundant. And yes, it is vague because it doesn't outline a specific, discrete option. Multiple options with the same purpose is bad design.
"Particularly considering Melee's combo system uses DI and is extremely interactive, I think it's very ridiculousto say combos are always bad."
DI is barely even a fraction as interactive as neutral play. And attacking an opponent in hitstun is akin to free damage. The only decision you need to make is which follow-up is going to give you the most payoff, because there is no risk involved. And even that decision becomes automated to a seasoned player.
It's essentially negative space, and engagement drops.
"There's nothing wrong with camping, but if the game's design inherently makes camping the best strategy, then the game's design is bad.
A good fighting game can be judged based on how well it creates player interaction. If the game's design makes not interacting the best strategy almost always, the game has major design flaws."
Projectile camping is still interacting, because the other player responds directly to not only the action of firing the projectile, but the projectile itself. And you do realize that Melee's combo's and Brawl's projectile camping are logical equivalents, correct? They are both the most rewarding, least risky option of their respective games. You're assigning a value scale to subjective elements based on your own preferences...again.
""I'm going to rephrase your argument in to something else, then say it's false."
Classic strawman."
If it's a strawman, then it's not intentional. I've already identified that your argument is logically flawed, I have no reason to manipulate it to prove it incorrect. Perhaps that has more to do with the vague, unclear nature of your post. I'm not good at finding reason where there is none, so for that I apologize.
"Yes, that's exactly the point! It means that when you have a huge lead, you can write the game off, but still have to play it out.
Being able to erase large deficits with fewer actions- like ALL IN IN POKER- is the reason why a losing player is still a threat. If this isn't the case, then the winning player can just milk his win slowly to the end and the losing player is no longer a threat.
Good design means that you have the ability to take a high risk for a high reward, and your opponent has to be afraid of that."
You can never write the game off. If you've played well for a given stretch of a game, then you should be rewarded as such. I outlined exactly how a system should work. I also outlined another system in this post (the 1:1 vs 2:1 system) which can also be used to demonstrate how players can still come back quickly without requiring disproportionate rewards.
Suppose one player succeeded with the 7:7 option right away. If a reward of 8 results in victory, then the defending player now has 1 unit of "health" left. Because any option with a reward value of 1 will defeat this player, all of that player's options have an effective risk value of 1. This player is now capable of employing a 1:8 option, and such an option is actually encouraged because it offers the most potential reward for functionally equal risk. The other player is encouraged to employ a 1:1 strategy because it's the safest, and it offers all of the reward they need. Why bother with a slow smash attack when a quick tilt or aerial will KO?
Your poker example is good, but not perfect. Consider a player with $1 vs one with $10. The $1 player can take the ultimate risk ang do all-in, but the $10 player only has to bet $1. That isn't much of a risk for that player. You actually argued against your own point ("Being able to erase large deficits with fewer actions- like ALL IN IN POKER- is the reason why a losing player is still a threat. If this isn't the case, then the winning player can just milk his win slowly to the end and the losing player is no longer a threat.") . The $10 can, and is encouraged to, simply press their advantage and overwhelm the $1 player with little risk of their own.
Smash Bros isn't like this, though, because the losing player's attack power is in no way inhibited by a losing situation. In Smash 4, this player is even more powerful. There's more risk to whiffing a KO attack because they are at such a high damage percent, but the rewards are raised as well.
"The reason Brawl has poor risk/reward balancing is because they took out the combo system. Attacking is a high risk. Combos were the reward. They took out the combos, this attacking no longer has high reward. Thus, it is bad to combo.
"
Combos are a reward. That's not the issue. The problem with Melee is that you can be rewarded with a lengthy, highly-rewarding combo for an attack with little risk of its own. And should you make a mistake and be punished, your punishment is often less than your reward would have been for creating an advantageous situation and pressing the advantage. If a mistake in going for a combo set-up almost guaranteed being punished equal to your potential reward, then there wouldn't be an issue. Not of risk:reward balancing, anyway.
You're mixing up two separate arguments that I'm making: risk:reward balancing, and negative space/engagement.
I've stated before that LIMITED follow-ups or combo strings can be a good way of providing a reward for an action. However, combos aren't the only potential reward. Knockback, damage, KB trajectory, etc. are all potential rewards. A good game will mix-and-match all of the potential rewards to create diverse gameplay potential.
Extended combos aren't bad because they offer a reward, or even a large reward. The reason why long combos are bad are because they are an inherently less interactive state than neutral, and have less gameplay potential.
You need to read my posts more carefully. I've plainly stated that I support short combo strings as rewards. My problem with Melee is that it's too rewarding given the smaller risk, and that the combos are too long and introduce negative space. Those are two different design flaws.
Short combo strings provide sufficient reward, promote diverse interactivity, and keep negative space to a minimum. They are simply better design.
"Pot, meet kettle.
You're purely on defense mode here."
I find this part particularly amusing. Exactly when did I tell you what my favorite Smash Bros is? Now you could argue that you haven't explicitly stated that Melee is your favorite Smash Bros, but the abundant subjectivity and flawed logic of your posts points to choice-supportive bias.
What would you say if I told you that my favorite Smash Bros was in fact Project M? Specifically version 3.5, which made a number of improvements.
I'm objective by nature. When I argue, it is without any consideration to my own opinion or preference, and is based solely on my observations. I find no value in having my own irrational, subjective views be "correct," so I have no choice-supportive bias. Most people make a decision and then try to find supporting evidence after-the-fact, I make decisions based on evidence.
Last edited:
