Thoughts on Future Updates & Character Nerfs

[lordhelmet]

It is becoming clear that "raw" characters are frequently made too strong (2.0 Ike, 3.0 Mewtwo). Since these characters are too strong, it becomes necessary to take out certain utilities, overpowering hitboxes, etc. I would recommend that the PMBR err on the side of caution; new characters should be created with the intention of being underpowered. In this case, when it becomes clear that their metagames are not developing, slight buffs will encourage people to play the character. Good examples: Olimar/Tink.

On the other hand, when you create a very strong character whose metagame develops too quickly, said character is quickly nerfed too heavily. The people who developed said characer's metagame no longer want to play said character. I will use Vro as an example. I asked Vro why he dropped Ike (and the entire game for that matter), his answer was that he quit not solely because Ike was nerfed, but specifically because his tech skill had been changed.

This brings me to my point. Changing a character's tech skill should always be the last case nerf scenario. This brings me to the subject of 3.5. A much needed change coming with 3.5 is the nerfing of "bursts of speed". This translates into, for 90% of cases, side-b.

I will talk specifically about Ike (because that is what I know), but this applies to many other moves and every other characters (Sonic's specials, Wario's and Squirtles side-b all come to mind). tldr; Ike's side-b is too good. But the last thing the PMBR should do is to change Ike's tech skill.

What would changing Ike's tech skill look like? Adding startup frames to the window Ike can jump out of side-b, removing the jump option entirely, changing side-b's uncharged travel distance, removing both wall jumps (though that might be necessary depending on how hard recoveries get nerfed), etc.

Okay, well what could be done to avoid this? Add cooldown to side-b attack, lower knockback growth while adding base knockback on side-b attack (its combo game is pretty absurd), nerf the distance charged side-b travels, remove one wall jump, etc.

With the coming of Smash 4, it may be wise to avoid overnerfing characters. While I think it will be beneficial for the metagame to nerf recoveries, multihit moves, and other things already mentioned in the blog posts, but please be mindful of the work players have put into their characters. Thanks for making such a fun game.

tl;dr Changes that affect muscle memory cannot be completely avoided, but they should be minimized at all costs.

Anyway, thanks for reading if you read it. Probably won't update this thread too much (I wasted too much time on this as is), but I hope this leads to some useful discussion.

Notes on the side that don't fit into what I said above:

I think that DI mixups (Ivysaur's dthrow, u?throw, DK's back/forwards cargo throw, Sheik's bthrow/fthrow, etc) are unhealthy. This is shallow depth that requires the throwee to either have spot on reaction time or know the habits of the throwee. These DI mixups allow the thrower to simply abuse match-up knowledge or less-than-perfect-reaction times to land absurdly powerful punishes. IE: DK fair spiking at 40%, Ivy landing extremely early up-b KOs, etc.

Secondly, I made a previous post about throws that allow only two significant DI options (Lucas dthrow, Sonic uthrow, Ike dthrow, etc). I am still convinced that this is a bad mechanic. This takes away options and allows for extremely free followups.

 

[Rhubarbo]

On the one hand, it's regrettable to think that balance should be compromised for the sake of tech skill. On the other hand, this is an interactive video game; how you input commands can be very engaging. For example, I'm sure a lot of Street Fighter players would miss the transcendent physicality of building a shoryuken at the bottom of their fight stick and firing upward if for some reason the input was simplified. How players interface with a game has great bearing on how they feel while playing it. In the context of Smash Bros., this is why I support the inclusion of l-cancelling in Project M. Even though l-cancelling seems frivolous to new/intermediate players who realize universally reduced landing lag would accomplish the same thing, experienced players can appreciate the physicality it adds to the game.

There's definitely fine a balance when it comes to this, though, and I don't think changing tech skill should be a last resort. In most cases, if a quirk deserves addressing, it should be addressed directly. Absolutely fumbling around problematic tech skill invites a slew of bandage solutions which make the game feel patchy, broken, and sometimes unsatisfying. Again, the opposite is true if tech skill is heavily mitigated. I believe conflicts between balance and technical gratification should be handled on a case to case basis with no concrete standard influencing decisions one way or another.

"While I think it will be beneficial for the metagame to nerf recoveries, multihit moves, and other things already mentioned in the blog posts, but please be mindful of the work players have put into their characters. "

I disagree with this approach. The cost required of a player to relearn a character for a return in balance is a mighty bargain. The amount of work a player has put into a character is too subjective of a criterion to supersede balance. What if I argued X has frustrated too many players or disproportionately warped the meta with his/her evidently broken shine? Both competing arguments similarly appeal to the degree a given character has affected the game's user base, a magnitude which can be quantified in far too many ways. As such, assuming a largely objective stance is ideal in cases like these, which is why balance should be cherished more than time invested.

 

[lordhelmet]

What if I argued X has frustrated too many players or disproportionately warped the meta with his/her evidently broken shine? Both competing arguments similarly appeal to the degree a given character has affected the game's user base, a magnitude which can be quantified in far too many ways.

I disagree. Let's say that Fox's shine is broken. What my argument suggests is that there are other ways to nerf shine without taking away from the players who have developed their tech skill. Easy solution: nerf its knockback, take away invincibility, etc. The opposite approach would be to do something like change the frames it is able to be jumped out of (before looking into other solutions). This has not been done of course, because Melee players would be immediately turned off from playing Fox. So what does it say when a PM character gets such a heavy change? No surprise that players stop using the character. This is especially important with the coming of smash 4.

There's definitely fine a balance when it comes to this, though, and I don't think changing tech skill should be a last resort. In most cases, if a quirk deserves addressing, it should be addressed directly. Absolutely fumbling around problematic tech skill invites a slew of bandage solutions which make the game feel patchy, broken, and sometimes unsatisfying.

What is your definition of bandage solution? Giving characters moves with special utilities is a good thing. Fox and Falco would be both boring and very bad without shine (at least in PM). How does taking out invincibility or nerfing a hitbox create a buggy game?

As such, assuming a largely objective stance is ideal in cases like these, which is why balance should be cherished more than time invested.

I never said that time invested should be more cherished than balance. I am arguing that balancing the game via methods that do not harm the players of said should be used first.

 

[WIZRD.Pro]

While I do agree with the idea that we should build low and fix high, and the concern of breaking muscle memory, However, I do not think DI-Mixups should be removed. As long as they are not 0-death, I believe that these make adapting much more necessary in normal gameplay.

While they may seem strange, there are 2 main things fighting games are about: Skill, (Tech and Combos) Strategy, (Spacing and Mindgames) and Adaptivity (Mixups and Style Changes)

As you may be able to see, Pure Strategy can get around Raw Skill and allow for well placed attacks. Pure Strategy, however is bested by Knowledgeable Adaptivity, as the adaptivity can change to a style that purely counters said strategy, and completing this game of 'Jan Ken Pon' comes Raw Skill, which can power through Adaptive play with perfect execution.

 

[SpiderMad]

I think that DI mixups (Ivysaur's dthrow, u?throw, DK's back/forwards cargo throw, Sheik's bthrow/fthrow, etc) are unhealthy. This is shallow depth that requires the throwee to either have spot on reaction time or know the habits of the throwee. These DI mixups allow the thrower to simply abuse match-up knowledge or less-than-perfect-reaction times to land absurdly powerful punishes. IE: DK fair spiking at 40%, Ivy landing extremely early up-b KOs, etc.

Secondly, I made a previous post about throws that allow only two significant DI options (Lucas dthrow, Sonic uthrow, Ike dthrow, etc). I am still convinced that this is a bad mechanic. This takes away options and allows for extremely free followups.

What exactly did you want instead? And are you Lordy who beat CaptainFaceRoll or is that a different person?

 

[Rhubarbo]

I disagree. Let's say that Fox's shine is broken. What my argument suggests is that there are other ways to nerf shine without taking away from the players who have developed their tech skill. Easy solution: nerf its knockback, take away invincibility, etc. The opposite approach would be to do something like change the frames it is able to be jumped out of (before looking into other solutions). This has not been done of course, because Melee players would be immediately turned off from playing Fox. So what does it say when a PM character gets such a heavy change? No surprise that players stop using the character. This is especially important with the coming of smash 4.

The shine is a tricky subject considering how versatile it is. For instance, it's hard to make it bad in the sense if you increase knock back it becomes a worse combo tool but a better spacing tool and vice a versa. Moreover, nerfs to the shine's functionality would probably make it less technical e.g. if it did less damage to shields. Nerfing the shine proper calls for removing some of its utility (e.g. giving it slower start-up, giving it ending lag), but the shine's utility is closely linked to the rewarding technical skill that makes it so satisfying to use. I think the shine needs a creative retooling if it's to be balanced and stay similarly technical as in its current state.

What is your definition of bandage solution? Giving characters moves with special utilities is a good thing. Fox and Falco would be both boring and very bad without shine (at least in PM). How does taking out invincibility or nerfing a hitbox create a buggy game?

I'd say a bandage solution is anything tacked onto a game without changing or removing an existing aspect. For example, since wards are exceptionally useful in Dota, smoke of deceit (hides units from enemy wards) was added to counter them. This approach is desirable in many ways since it can add depth and fix a problem, but it has to be employed carefully. Too many bandage solutions can simplify a game to RPS style countering or stack up to eventual homogeneity (i.e. everything is gradually made similar to the best option). In the context of Project M, I'd say bandage solutions would be hard-counters (e.g. easy chain grabs and scripted combos against spacies), or buffing lesser characters to mimic top tier characters (e.g. distributing quick aerials in the vein of spacies). Instead of warping a game in this way, it's usually better to just address a polarizing issue directly.

Also, Fox and Falco wouldn't be bad without their shine in PM. I reckon Fox would still be high tier/upper-mid and Falco would be around upper-mid in 3.2. If the egregious up-and-comers (Mewtwo, Lucas, Pit, and so on) received nerfs, Fox and Falco could still easily be top tier characters without a down-b at all.

I never said that time invested should be more cherished than balance. I am arguing that balancing the game via methods that do not harm the players of said should be used first.

I was basing my point on this: "but please be mindful of the work players have put into their characters." I think this should be the last thing the PMDT worries about.

I recognize that you believe tech skill changes should be a last resort. I empathize with this. However, I don't think technical changes should be made from a perspective hinging on how much time the fan base has put into learning the muscle memory required of a specific character. I value Melee's tech skill because it's stimulating/fun, not because I've been doing it for around 8 years now. If Project M could be made more interesting at the cost of tech skill, I would be all for it. Obviously I don't want the game to careen into an identity crisis because it is significantly technical, but I support isolated concessions in the tech skill department which lead to general improvements. Technical changes are just an example here, I hold this view for any sort of change that can be made (e.g. how knock-back scales, recoveries.) If the game is made more fun, you should want to relearn certain aspects.

 

[guedes the brawler]

basically what you arguing is for the PMDT to change the results rather than the method?