Official 4BR Tier List V4 - Competitive Insight & Analysis

[Lord Dio]

It is worth talking about Cloud's... lack of presence at the last two (Cloud-legal) large doubles events. As someone who was on-board the doubles Cloud ban, this is somewhere between surprising and embarrassing.

This is statistically similar to having back-to-back Brawl events with no MKs in top 8. Does anyone have any insights into this?

How about this:
various combinations of top players into teams such as larry and komo, a top player and a lesser known player such as tweek's team or leo and javi (yes I know he isn't much of an unknown but hear me out, because this one technically enforces both of those) are showing that one player cannot carry another and that you cannot just mish mash top players into teams and expect them to do well. Inaddition, they are no match for well-prepared teams with good synergy, such as bestness and diablo, elegant and stroder, and cosmos and samsora.
also that cloud isn't nearly as broken in doubles on his own.

 

[Thinkaman]

How about this:
various combinations of top players into teams such as larry and komo, a top player and a lesser known player such as tweek's team or leo and javi (yes I know he isn't much of an unknown but hear me out, because this one technically enforces both of those) are showing that one player cannot carry another and that you cannot just mish mash top players into teams and expect them to do well. Inaddition, they are no match for well-prepared teams with good synergy, such as bestness and diablo, elegant and stroder, and cosmos and samsora.
also that cloud isn't nearly as broken in doubles on his own.

Well, I think Das Koopa let the air out of the double-Cloud threat--Cloud has historically performed best on teams other than double Cloud.

But your thesis is that the top Clouds at these events consistently had weaker teammates or teammates they had not practiced with? This is plausible, but it sort of applies to all teams? The pairs placing well at these events aren't exactly long-standing institutions; many have only played a couple of times previously if at all...

Maybe related: I do feel that doubles play has gotten non-trivially better. I'm specifically impressed with Samsora's Peach, which is not only doing well but has clearly visible room for further improvement. Peach's movement and punish options just seem to thrive in a doubles environment.

 

[Frihetsanka]

It is worth talking about Cloud's... lack of presence at the last two (Cloud-legal) large doubles events.

I imagine the threat of a Cloud ban might act as a disincentive to put time into practicing doubles Cloud, at least to some extent.

 

[Thinkaman]

I imagine the threat of a Cloud ban might act as a disincentive to put time into practicing doubles Cloud, at least to some extent.

This was my first thought, and it would make total sense for an impending singles ban. But for doubles? Every Cloud main is still practicing Cloud (for singles), and applying Cloud to doubles isn't exactly rocket science.

Even then, this could still only be true as much as Cloud's (dominant) status quo stopped developing, and everyone else suddenly zoomed past it in the blink of an eye. The meta isn't evolving that rapidly.

 

[Frihetsanka]

This was my first thought, and it would make total sense for an impending singles ban. But for doubles? Every Cloud main is still practicing Cloud (for singles), and applying Cloud to doubles isn't exactly rocket science.

I haven't really looked at the data, but it seems reasonable to assume that non-Cloud mains would be more likely to drop Cloud in doubles than Cloud mains. Still, I admit this is very speculative and that we would have to look at the actual data in order to reach a conclusion.

 

[MERPIS]

How much longer do we have to suffer the reign of netta mains?
I just want ultimate man so I can escape this hell of a game

 

[Envoy of Chaos]

This was my first thought, and it would make total sense for an impending singles ban. But for doubles? Every Cloud main is still practicing Cloud (for singles), and applying Cloud to doubles isn't exactly rocket science.

Even then, this could still only be true as much as Cloud's (dominant) status quo stopped developing, and everyone else suddenly zoomed past it in the blink of an eye. The meta isn't evolving that rapidly.

Could be a stigma thing, what with a lot of events banning Cloud in doubles people don't want to be seen as "that person" who's only winning one week because they can use double Cloud but next week with no Cloud allowed they don't do as well. The uncertainty if an event has a cloud in dubs ban as well or not can also just deter people from bothering with using him at Cloud legal events and just focusing on developing other characters for doubles instead.

Little different than winning with Bayo since she hasn't been banned yet. People haven gotten a taste of Cloudless doubles and atleast from what I've seen most people prefer it that way.

 

[Minordeth]

People need to figure out that Bayo, by virtue of her design as a aerial-based, combo-based character, is always going to be good. They can nerf her down to high tier, but because of the way they have put her together, short of a complete redesign, she’s going to be good. In any Smash game. Always.

She’s like Bizarro Zelda.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I think, with a few changes, she could be fairly reasonable, even if she's still a high tier/top tier. She might end up reasonable in Ultimate if we're lucky (assuming they patch out some of these extreme ladder combos). Weaker Witch Time, less stupid bair and nair and dair and fair, more lag on her up-B and bam, she's suddenly a lot less frustrating to fight. Oh, and not being able to hold her neutral-B infinitely is also huge.

One of the reasons people complain much more about Bayonetta compared to other #1 characters is that she's often frustrating to play against and (many people believe this) not fun to watch. I imagine if Bayonetta were not in the game and Cloud was #1 people would complain much less. I think the DLC aspect added to the salt, too.

 

[MERPIS]

I think, with a few changes, she could be fairly reasonable, even if she's still a high tier/top tier. She might end up reasonable in Ultimate if we're lucky (assuming they patch out some of these extreme ladder combos). Weaker Witch Time, less stupid bair and nair and dair and fair, more lag on her up-B and bam, she's suddenly a lot less frustrating to fight. Oh, and not being able to hold her neutral-B infinitely is also huge.

One of the reasons people complain much more about Bayonetta compared to other #1 characters is that she's often frustrating to play against and (many people believe this) not fun to watch. I imagine if Bayonetta were not in the game and Cloud was #1 people would complain much less. I think the DLC aspect added to the salt, too.

Her aerials are actually garbage, Twist and Time are the only reasons why she's top tier and why she's so ridiculous. Take those away and you have a mid tier at best.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Her aerials are actually garbage, Twist and Time are the only reasons why she's top tier and why she's so ridiculous. Take those away and you have a mid tier at best.

Her dair kills at the ledge stupidly early and her fair leads into side-B (in Smash 4, they seem nerfed in Ultimate though).

 

[MERPIS]

Her dair kills at the ledge stupidly early and her fair leads into side-B (in Smash 4, they seem nerfed in Ultimate though).

Both are slower than an athsmatic snail and dair should never be used in neutral

 

[Envoy of Chaos]

Both are shower than an athsmatic snail and dair should never be used in neutral

It's not a matter of viability in neutral but rather if they do what they are supposed to do. Her Dair kills stupidly early and has a large hitbox. Given the fact she can land with Witch Time at any point, while Dair is not safe and easily punished if whiffed you have to play with hesitation sometimes when she's landing next she has multiple options to do so and if you happen to get hit by landing Dair it's going to send you flying.

Her Fair is one of her combo starter, extenders and allowed her to carry people off the side and even drop mid carry to cover SDI/DI attempts to escape. It also has a really large hitbox for its
animation. Her up air kills off her ladder combos and confirms of Dtilt giving her another kill option. Her Bair is safe, has a wide hitbox and is strong, she can spam it on shield against a good handful of characters with relative ease. And her Nair allows for her Nair planning and I don't think I have to explain how good that is.

None of her aerials are remotely bad they all serve the purpose they were designed to do very well. Them being a bit slower than average clearly isn't hurting her at all. It would matter more if she had her aerial frame data with a worst jump squat.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Both are shower than an athsmatic snail and dair should never be used in neutral

Few dairs in this game are used in neutral. Point is, her dair still kills stupidly early (especially considering how safe it is). And her fair still leads to side-B. Also, frame 7 fair isn't that slow, same speed as Corrin's fair and Luigi's fair, faster than Ness' fair (frame 8), Charizard's (8), Bowser's (11), Duck Hunt's (9), and so on.

 

[Yonder]

How much longer do we have to suffer the reign of netta mains?
I just want ultimate man so I can escape this hell of a game

Except the hell of unbalance will still reign when Dec 7 rolls around. There is a 99% chance someone slips under the radar and ends up OP (some people are saying Ryu ATM?). Would be short of a miracle of the game could come balanced perfectly with probably 70+ characters the first go around.

So we'll have a few more patches to help. And personally, they almost did the trick. Before Bayonetta (who is not balanced, the only character who I would say is not in an op manner alongside Doubles Cloud), the game had a good enough balance. Incidentally, Bayo had less chances to go through the balance meat grinder, due to being the last DLC alongside Corrin.

 

[Thinkaman]

It is a reasonable (but perhaps not likely) supposition that we would have had more balance patches if not for Smash Ultimate's production starting immediately as (or before) DLC development ended.

I encourage people to take a big picture view of balance. A competitive game can be healthy with a "30%" character like Melee Fox or Brawl MK, no matter what the naysayers on social media say. In the grand history of e-Sports, much less broader competition, these are nothing new.

Modern, patched, hyper-balanced games where all characters have between a 40-60% win-rate is a relatively recent phenomenon. And, it should be noted, players complain just as much if not more about these games.

League of Legends is absurdly well-balanced, pretty consistently fitting a huge roster in the 44-54% win rate rank across all skill levels, and yet people complain about League's balance more than any other game. (The character ban system feeds this attitude, though) Right now, the most overpowered character in League is likely Lucian, who is played in 15% of Platinum+ games and has a 51% win rate. The underlying math is different since it is a 5v5 game, but the principle stands.

Part of it is young blood who never played less forgiving, older games, who grew up in a culture of balance johns. Others just forgot.

It's wrong to freak out about balance, doubly so with a new game on the horizon and patches surely coming for that game. Don't worry, we'll all stop complaining about Pikachu Fox MetaKnight Diddy Sheik Bayo soon enough.

It's also wrong to take the extreme opposite nihilist attitude: "None of this matters, there's a new game/patch coming." This borderlines on johning--retreating to an excuse that invalidates your opponents victory. Dude, all of this is transient. Tweek won't be able to ladder you in December 2018, but he also won't be able to ladder you in December 2038 because neither of you will probably be playing competitive Smash, nor in December 2128 because you will both be dead. Relax and enjoy the video game.

"But how can I enjoy it if I don't like fighting against {character}?" I dunno, try turning items on? Coin mode? Smash bends over backwards to accommodate people who aren't all-in on competition; your odds are much better here than in most multiplayer games. It's one thing for us nerds in this topic to discuss matchup ratios as experienced by top 100 level players, but it's another to stress out about it.

 

[The_Bookworm]

It is worth talking about Cloud's... lack of presence at the last two (Cloud-legal) large doubles events. As someone who was on-board the doubles Cloud ban, this is somewhere between surprising and embarrassing.

This is statistically similar to having back-to-back Brawl events with no MKs in top 8. Does anyone have any insights into this?

They are probably used to having no an event where Cloud is banned in doubles. Other than that, the top doubles Cloud players (MKLeo, komo, Nairo, etc.) didn't even participate in doubles.

 

[MarioManTAW]

the top doubles Cloud players (MKLeo, komo, Nairo, etc.) didn't even participate in doubles.

That is blatantly false. All three of those players participated in doubles (although none placed top 8). MKLeo placed 9th with Javi, komorikiri placed 17th with Larry Lurr, and Nairo placed 17th with VoiD. I believe Nairo went Zelda for the double Hyrule team (Zelda/Sheik) but not sure about the others.

 

[Thinkaman]

They are probably used to having no an event where Cloud is banned in doubles. Other than that, the top doubles Cloud players (MKLeo, komo, Nairo, etc.) didn't even participate in doubles.

That is blatantly false. All three of those players participated in doubles (although none placed top 8). MKLeo placed 9th with Javi, komorikiri placed 17th with Larry Lurr, and Nairo placed 17th with VoiD. I believe Nairo went Zelda for the double Hyrule team (Zelda/Sheik) but not sure about the others.

Yup, "Did the Cloud players not even enter???" was my very first thought after checking that it was indeed a Cloud-legal event.

It's weird to write this off as a series of flukes, but weirder stuff has happened...

 

[The_Bookworm]

MKLeo placed 9th with Javi, komorikiri placed 17th with Larry Lurr, and Nairo placed 17th with VoiD. I believe Nairo went Zelda for the double Hyrule team (Zelda/Sheik) but not sure about the others.

Well that explains why I didn't know they participated. XD

Btw, is this MKLeo + Javi's all time lowest placing at a doubles tournament?

 

[MERPIS]

It is a reasonable (but perhaps not likely) supposition that we would have had more balance patches if not for Smash Ultimate's production starting immediately as (or before) DLC development ended.

I encourage people to take a big picture view of balance. A competitive game can be healthy with a "30%" character like Melee Fox or Brawl MK, no matter what the naysayers on social media say. In the grand history of e-Sports, much less broader competition, these are nothing new.

Modern, patched, hyper-balanced games where all characters have between a 40-60% win-rate is a relatively recent phenomenon. And, it should be noted, players complain just as much if not more about these games.

League of Legends is absurdly well-balanced, pretty consistently fitting a huge roster in the 44-54% win rate rank across all skill levels, and yet people complain about League's balance more than any other game. (The character ban system feeds this attitude, though) Right now, the most overpowered character in League is likely Lucian, who is played in 15% of Platinum+ games and has a 51% win rate. The underlying math is different since it is a 5v5 game, but the principle stands.

Part of it is young blood who never played less forgiving, older games, who grew up in a culture of balance johns. Others just forgot.

It's wrong to freak out about balance, doubly so with a new game on the horizon and patches surely coming for that game. Don't worry, we'll all stop complaining about Pikachu Fox MetaKnight Diddy Sheik Bayo soon enough.

It's also wrong to take the extreme opposite nihilist attitude: "None of this matters, there's a new game/patch coming." This borderlines on johning--retreating to an excuse that invalidates your opponents victory. Dude, all of this is transient. Tweek won't be able to ladder you in December 2018, but he also won't be able to ladder you in December 2038 because neither of you will probably be playing competitive Smash, nor in December 2128 because you will both be dead. Relax and enjoy the video game.

"But how can I enjoy it if I don't like fighting against {character}?" I dunno, try turning items on? Coin mode? Smash bends over backwards to accommodate people who aren't all-in on competition; your odds are much better here than in most multiplayer games. It's one thing for us nerds in this topic to discuss matchup ratios as experienced by top 100 level players, but it's another to stress out about it.

Got a tldr?

 

[Thinkaman]

Got a tldr?

Not to be rude, but that's like, 400 words. That's a third the length of a decent newspaper article. This ain't twitter.

Still:

tl;dr - Everyone should take it easy.

 

[Das Koopa]

jumping in point;

1: Did you use 500 events, or 500+ person events? If the former, I'd like to know what events (weeklies take place in regionals > regional data for Bayonetta is notably not exceptional while her national data is > dilutes her peak results) and if the latter I believe that is a very flawed metric that excludes a number of very important events, even if it includes tournaments where Bayonetta did too well (Frostbite)

2: Are we accounting for roster sizes? I've made this a point since 2017. Meta Knight and Fox can both sit at 30%, but Meta Knight is worse here because he's in a roster that's 50% larger. This is why I've generally referred to 15% for Bayonetta on my methodology as a comparative SS-Tier point, and she's startlingly close to that nationally. Those are rough figures but I go into some detail about this;

https://intheloop837.wordpress.com/...stats-attendance-viewership-and-sponsorships/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D1aGtpuzMx1x5B20l64LzGPoVrZpdhKcZJMV5p7XoJc/edit#gid=0 (doesn't include national-only figures outside of Cloud in Dubs/Bayo in Dubs)

 

[MERPIS]

Not to be rude, but that's like, 400 words. That's a third the length of a decent newspaper article. This ain't twitter.

Still:

tl;dr - Everyone should take it easy.

Epic gamer moment

 

[Thinkaman]

First off, Das Koopa articles are solid and should be regarded as the definitive source for this sort of discussion.

1: Did you use 500 events, or 500+ person events? If the former, I'd like to know what events (weeklies take place in regionals > regional data for Bayonetta is notably not exceptional while her national data is > dilutes her peak results) and if the latter I believe that is a very flawed metric that excludes a number of very important events, even if it includes tournaments where Bayonetta did too well (Frostbite)

I used 500+ person events, which are all national events. I considered events in the 400-person range initially, but noticed exactly what you described and elected to stick to the more national results. (I could have gone lower to make Bayo look worse, but I have no desire to do that.)

Of note, I decided to exclude GOML, even though it should have qualified on the Melee results, due to incomplete data. I surveyed the GOML placings after the fact and estimate that it was in line with the other events and its exclusion would not have shifted the placings meaningfully.

A more robust measure (like yours) would cover more events; my quick usage-only measure was unweighted and the cut-off was somewhat arbitrary. (Though what I deemed to be the most fair for a quick measure.)

2: Are we accounting for roster sizes? I've made this a point since 2017. Meta Knight and Fox can both sit at 30%, but Meta Knight is worse here because he's in a roster that's 50% larger.

This I adamantly disagree with.

The number of characters in bracket is the number of characters in bracket. If there are 20 characters in bracket, whether the game has 20 characters or 1000 has zero bearing on the experience of those players, nor viewers.

You cannot make Melee a better competitive game by removing Pichu, Kirby, and Bowser, just as adding more (equally irrelevant) characters would also have zero effect. Not one second of tourney footage would change. Anti-Melee people talk about how imbalanced Melee's roster is overall, but this is largely mitigated by a rather competitive pantheon at the top. They can rattle all day about how Melee is bad because of how awful character X is, but it just doesn't matter.

That isn't to say there is no effect; this does have an impact of a different sort, primarily on new players. (More chaff to sort through, more chance of disappointment and heartbreak)

The real statistical sin of MK was a larger gap between him and #2. (3x as much for top 64, climbing to 4x as much in top 32/16/8) Additionally, MK dittos were slower and less popular than Fox dittos; these two combined lens make MK really stand out.

 

[|RK|]

Made a post on r/smashbros that is actually pretty relevant here, so I'll copy it over:

Been thinking about this for a while, but after playing traditional fighting games and talking to Jibca, I'm motivated to make a thread.

Everyone sees Smash 4's rolls and free airdodges and says that Smash 4's defensive options are too strong. But that's not the case - these moves can be annoying to deal with in neutral, but they're actually really bad when you're defending. If you airdodge or roll at the wrong time (and considering top tiers are basically built on 50/50s or total coverage), you can straight up die for it.

In traditional fighting games, having strong defensive options is one major factor that separates the top players from everyone else. That's why one of the big criticisms for SFV is the lack of defensive options. You'll note that S4 and SFV happen to be way more upset-heavy than their predecessors as a result.

So let's talk Melee. If you're caught at ledge, you're not in nearly as bad a position as in Smash 4. A good defensive player can make use of the Invincibility to force their opponent to back off, and allow a neutral reset. Invincible ledge dashes force the opponent to respect you coming off of ledge. When you're hit, crouch cancelling invalidates a number of moves at varying percents. You can SDI and DI in various ways in order to avoid certain death. A well timed airdodge or roll can actually help you to recover or escape bad situations (especially because you don't have to use them as often). So on.

Melee's defensive options are GOOD, but I think people forget that because Melee is so fast-paced. If Melee actually had less defensive options than Smash 4, you would see wayyyy more upsets. But Melee has balance - strong defensive options and strong offensive options. That's what helps to make it so consistent.

Going back to S4, the biggest difference between ZeRo and the rest in the early days of Smash 4 wasn't just his neutral. He had the perfect DI for every situation, and no one could catch on to how he used Monkey Flip (there was a lot of complaining about it even post-nerf, until people started punishing him for it). Even when you think you had him dead to rights, he would just... live. As Smash 4 pushed towards a meta that heavily limited defensive options, ZeRo wasn't able to keep it up with what he had. One Monkey Flip at low percents could mean death, as we've all learned.

And Bayo - we all know her advantage state is powerful, but that isn't enough on its own. Her disadvantage is by far the best in the game, so of course she tends to fare well even at lower levels. Imagine if she had a bad disadvantage state - no mix-ups on your shield to land. No Bat Within. No Witch Time. She would get rushed down, and every combo that didn't kill could nearly be a death sentence for her, especially against other top tiers. And the other end of the spectrum - imagining Bayo fighting characters with real defensive options... well, we've seen how volatile the ditto is.

Ultimately, I say all this to communicate that the idea that Smash 4's defensive options are strong just isn't true. It's necessary to have stronger defensive options in order to encourage players to take more risks in neutral, and strong offensive options ensure that a neutral win counts.

That isn't putting Smash 4 down in favor of Melee or anything - I am a Smash 4 player, after all - but I wanted to make that point.

Tl;dr - Defensive options are one way for good players to set themselves apart, and the fact that Smash 4 lacks those options is what gives way to a slower neutral & many upsets - despite offensive options being quite strong amongst top tiers.

 

[Thinkaman]

Quick refresher on yomi and triangles:

Fighting games are a series of triangular options, like Rock Paper Scissors. When tiebreaker conditions (local asymmetry) are imposed on such a triangle, it results in a yomi state.

If we are playing vanilla RPS, it is symmetric and thus unoriented, so it lacks any meaning. But if you are playing against Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, whose Rock gets triple points for a win and beats all other Rocks (but he loses other ties), then it creates a classic 4-layer yomi state:

layer 0 - Dwayne's Rock
layer 1 - Your Paper
layer 2 - Dwayne's Scissors
layer 3 - Your Scissors
...(repeat)...

Note that you have no reason to ever play Rock, and Dwayne has no reason to ever play Paper. Tiebreakers (asymmetry) always flatten triangles into yomi states in this way.


Now, fighting games have tons of triangles, generating multiple yomi states a second. Probably the outermost triangle that all fighting games (and some others) share is Offense < Defense < Null < Offense.

• Offensive options advance your win condition but have some cost
  • In fighting games, this is usually measured in time.
  • Sheik doing a d-tilt costs 30 frames.
• Defensive options do not advance your win condition, but stop offensive options while costing less.
  • In fighting games, this means you have a time advantage, which can sometimes be converted into a guaranteed punish.
  • Sheik spot dodging costs 25 frames.
• Null options cost nothing.
  • This might involve movement (walking is a null option), but there is no commitment of the primary resource.
  • In fighting games, null options provide a time advantage over defensive options, just as defensive options do to offensive options.
  • Shiek waiting or walking costs 0 frames.

Every fighting game ever made has a rather large bias in favor of offense. Virtually every offensive option is designed to bypass certain defensive options. (Some moves are safe on shields, grabs beat shields outright. Multi-hit, very fast, and very slow moves beat spot dodge. D-smash and hard reads beat inward roll, projectiles and dash options beat away roll, ect.) There are no such counter-examples for defensive options ever "beating" a null option, or a true null option "beating" an attack. Everything is inherently tilted towards offense, so that games march towards completion.

People talk a lot about "defensive options" and comparing them between games, but beyond smash 64 (which had trash defensive options) the defensive options in each game are... pretty mechanically similar? Spot dodges are a bit better in one, rolls in the other. Shields have more health in Melee and lower OoS frames in Smash 4.

Offensive options are way harder to compare, but seem broadly similar in efficacy. Melee top tiers have a little more shield safety in their movesets, but that's about the extent of any game-wide comparison.

The distinctive thing about Melee is actually that it has really powerful null options. Dashdancing is essentially superior to standing, and wavedashing is essentially superior to walking. And then you have faster dash acceleration, the faster jumps, and higher gravity. Sheik's spot dodge only costs 22 frames in Melee and 25 in Smash 4, but losing 22 frames is more costly against an opponent who is wavedashing.

Stalling is not related to defensive options--no one stalls via rolling or shielding. Stalling tends to occur when null options are too good (well beyond even what melee normally has) and offense can't properly beat them like they are supposed to. This is most commonly caused by stages allowing loops and/or too much aerial freedom for a given matchup, but you can consider planking a case of this too.


Note that Smash Ultimate's better dashes + the ability to do anything out of them is a massive null option boost. This is the most Melee-esque aspect of Ultimate, by far.

 

[Prince Koopa Jr]

Quick refresher on yomi and triangles:

Fighting games are a series of triangular options, like Rock Paper Scissors. When tiebreaker conditions (local asymmetry) are imposed on such a triangle, it results in a yomi state.

If we are playing vanilla RPS, it is symmetric and thus unoriented, so it lacks any meaning. But if you are playing against Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, whose Rock gets triple points for a win and beats all other Rocks (but he loses other ties), then it creates a classic 4-layer yomi state:

layer 0 - Dwayne's Rock
layer 1 - Your Paper
layer 2 - Dwayne's Scissors
layer 3 - Your Scissors
...(repeat)...

Note that you have no reason to ever play Rock, and Dwayne has no reason to ever play Paper. Tiebreakers (asymmetry) always flatten triangles into yomi states in this way.


Now, fighting games have tons of triangles, generating multiple yomi states a second. Probably the outermost triangle that all fighting games (and some others) share is Offense < Defense < Null < Offense.

• Offensive options advance your win condition but have some cost
  • In fighting games, this is usually measured in time.
  • Sheik doing a d-tilt costs 30 frames.
• Defensive options do not advance your win condition, but stop offensive options while costing less.
  • In fighting games, this means you have a time advantage, which can sometimes be converted into a guaranteed punish.
  • Sheik spot dodging costs 25 frames.
• Null options cost nothing.
  • This might involve movement (walking is a null option), but there is no commitment of the primary resource.
  • In fighting games, null options provide a time advantage over defensive options, just as defensive options do to offensive options.
  • Shiek waiting or walking costs 0 frames.

Every fighting game ever made has a rather large bias in favor of offense. Virtually every offensive option is designed to bypass certain defensive options. (Some moves are safe on shields, grabs beat shields outright. Multi-hit, very fast, and very slow moves beat spot dodge. D-smash and hard reads beat inward roll, projectiles and dash options beat away roll, ect.) There are no such counter-examples for defensive options ever "beating" a null option, or a true null option "beating" an attack. Everything is inherently tilted towards offense, so that games march towards completion.

People talk a lot about "defensive options" and comparing them between games, but beyond smash 64 (which had trash defensive options) the defensive options in each game are... pretty mechanically similar? Spot dodges are a bit better in one, rolls in the other. Shields have more health in Melee and lower OoS frames in Smash 4.

Offensive options are way harder to compare, but seem broadly similar in efficacy. Melee top tiers have a little more shield safety in their movesets, but that's about the extent of any game-wide comparison.

The distinctive thing about Melee is actually that it has really powerful null options. Dashdancing is essentially superior to standing, and wavedashing is essentially superior to walking. And then you have faster dash acceleration, the faster jumps, and higher gravity. Sheik's spot dodge only costs 22 frames in Melee and 25 in Smash 4, but losing 22 frames is more costly against an opponent who is wavedashing.

Stalling is not related to defensive options--no one stalls via rolling or shielding. Stalling tends to occur when null options are too good (well beyond even what melee normally has) and offense can't properly beat them like they are supposed to. This is most commonly caused by stages allowing loops and/or too much aerial freedom for a given matchup, but you can consider planking a case of this too.


Note that Smash Ultimate's better dashes + the ability to do anything out of them is a massive null option boost. This is the most Melee-esque aspect of Ultimate, by far.

Very well said.

 

[|RK|]

Quick refresher on yomi and triangles:

Fighting games are a series of triangular options, like Rock Paper Scissors. When tiebreaker conditions (local asymmetry) are imposed on such a triangle, it results in a yomi state.

If we are playing vanilla RPS, it is symmetric and thus unoriented, so it lacks any meaning. But if you are playing against Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, whose Rock gets triple points for a win and beats all other Rocks (but he loses other ties), then it creates a classic 4-layer yomi state:

layer 0 - Dwayne's Rock
layer 1 - Your Paper
layer 2 - Dwayne's Scissors
layer 3 - Your Scissors
...(repeat)...

Note that you have no reason to ever play Rock, and Dwayne has no reason to ever play Paper. Tiebreakers (asymmetry) always flatten triangles into yomi states in this way.


Now, fighting games have tons of triangles, generating multiple yomi states a second. Probably the outermost triangle that all fighting games (and some others) share is Offense < Defense < Null < Offense.

• Offensive options advance your win condition but have some cost
  • In fighting games, this is usually measured in time.
  • Sheik doing a d-tilt costs 30 frames.
• Defensive options do not advance your win condition, but stop offensive options while costing less.
  • In fighting games, this means you have a time advantage, which can sometimes be converted into a guaranteed punish.
  • Sheik spot dodging costs 25 frames.
• Null options cost nothing.
  • This might involve movement (walking is a null option), but there is no commitment of the primary resource.
  • In fighting games, null options provide a time advantage over defensive options, just as defensive options do to offensive options.
  • Shiek waiting or walking costs 0 frames.

Every fighting game ever made has a rather large bias in favor of offense. Virtually every offensive option is designed to bypass certain defensive options. (Some moves are safe on shields, grabs beat shields outright. Multi-hit, very fast, and very slow moves beat spot dodge. D-smash and hard reads beat inward roll, projectiles and dash options beat away roll, ect.) There are no such counter-examples for defensive options ever "beating" a null option, or a true null option "beating" an attack. Everything is inherently tilted towards offense, so that games march towards completion.

People talk a lot about "defensive options" and comparing them between games, but beyond smash 64 (which had trash defensive options) the defensive options in each game are... pretty mechanically similar? Spot dodges are a bit better in one, rolls in the other. Shields have more health in Melee and lower OoS frames in Smash 4.

Offensive options are way harder to compare, but seem broadly similar in efficacy. Melee top tiers have a little more shield safety in their movesets, but that's about the extent of any game-wide comparison.

The distinctive thing about Melee is actually that it has really powerful null options. Dashdancing is essentially superior to standing, and wavedashing is essentially superior to walking. And then you have faster dash acceleration, the faster jumps, and higher gravity. Sheik's spot dodge only costs 22 frames in Melee and 25 in Smash 4, but losing 22 frames is more costly against an opponent who is wavedashing.

Stalling is not related to defensive options--no one stalls via rolling or shielding. Stalling tends to occur when null options are too good (well beyond even what melee normally has) and offense can't properly beat them like they are supposed to. This is most commonly caused by stages allowing loops and/or too much aerial freedom for a given matchup, but you can consider planking a case of this too.


Note that Smash Ultimate's better dashes + the ability to do anything out of them is a massive null option boost. This is the most Melee-esque aspect of Ultimate, by far.

Agreed, and maybe my point should have specifically said that the balance between offensive & defensive options in Smash 4 is more heavily skewed to offensive options... while "null" options are also weak. That puts players in a position of "play safe & press advantage" instead of "take risks & reap the reward."

Then of course, you have rage & two stock exacerbating the issue. But I suppose it's the relation of offense to defense, more than rating defensive options in a vacuum.

 

[Nobie]

Quick refresher on yomi and triangles:

Fighting games are a series of triangular options, like Rock Paper Scissors. When tiebreaker conditions (local asymmetry) are imposed on such a triangle, it results in a yomi state.

If we are playing vanilla RPS, it is symmetric and thus unoriented, so it lacks any meaning. But if you are playing against Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, whose Rock gets triple points for a win and beats all other Rocks (but he loses other ties), then it creates a classic 4-layer yomi state:

layer 0 - Dwayne's Rock
layer 1 - Your Paper
layer 2 - Dwayne's Scissors
layer 3 - Your Scissors
...(repeat)...

Note that you have no reason to ever play Rock, and Dwayne has no reason to ever play Paper. Tiebreakers (asymmetry) always flatten triangles into yomi states in this way.


Now, fighting games have tons of triangles, generating multiple yomi states a second. Probably the outermost triangle that all fighting games (and some others) share is Offense < Defense < Null < Offense.

• Offensive options advance your win condition but have some cost
  • In fighting games, this is usually measured in time.
  • Sheik doing a d-tilt costs 30 frames.
• Defensive options do not advance your win condition, but stop offensive options while costing less.
  • In fighting games, this means you have a time advantage, which can sometimes be converted into a guaranteed punish.
  • Sheik spot dodging costs 25 frames.
• Null options cost nothing.
  • This might involve movement (walking is a null option), but there is no commitment of the primary resource.
  • In fighting games, null options provide a time advantage over defensive options, just as defensive options do to offensive options.
  • Shiek waiting or walking costs 0 frames.

Every fighting game ever made has a rather large bias in favor of offense. Virtually every offensive option is designed to bypass certain defensive options. (Some moves are safe on shields, grabs beat shields outright. Multi-hit, very fast, and very slow moves beat spot dodge. D-smash and hard reads beat inward roll, projectiles and dash options beat away roll, ect.) There are no such counter-examples for defensive options ever "beating" a null option, or a true null option "beating" an attack. Everything is inherently tilted towards offense, so that games march towards completion.

People talk a lot about "defensive options" and comparing them between games, but beyond smash 64 (which had trash defensive options) the defensive options in each game are... pretty mechanically similar? Spot dodges are a bit better in one, rolls in the other. Shields have more health in Melee and lower OoS frames in Smash 4.

Offensive options are way harder to compare, but seem broadly similar in efficacy. Melee top tiers have a little more shield safety in their movesets, but that's about the extent of any game-wide comparison.

The distinctive thing about Melee is actually that it has really powerful null options. Dashdancing is essentially superior to standing, and wavedashing is essentially superior to walking. And then you have faster dash acceleration, the faster jumps, and higher gravity. Sheik's spot dodge only costs 22 frames in Melee and 25 in Smash 4, but losing 22 frames is more costly against an opponent who is wavedashing.

Stalling is not related to defensive options--no one stalls via rolling or shielding. Stalling tends to occur when null options are too good (well beyond even what melee normally has) and offense can't properly beat them like they are supposed to. This is most commonly caused by stages allowing loops and/or too much aerial freedom for a given matchup, but you can consider planking a case of this too.


Note that Smash Ultimate's better dashes + the ability to do anything out of them is a massive null option boost. This is the most Melee-esque aspect of Ultimate, by far.

Whenever Melee players discuss what they love about Melee, you always see them point out wavedashing and dash dancing because they love the idea of super powerful null options that you have to train to earn. It's just that they don't really know why they like those things—they just do. In my eyes, it's a love of very clear skill stratification.

 

[Thinkaman]

Whenever Melee players discuss what they love about Melee, you always see them point out wavedashing and dash dancing because they love the idea of super powerful null options that you have to train to earn. It's just that they don't really know why they like those things—they just do. In my eyes, it's a love of very clear skill stratification.

I think this is half of it. People do like anything that gives them an advantage, we're all guilty of this to varying extents. A subcomponent of this is the identifying aspect; knowing the jargon, knowing how to do it, being good at it, all these things identify you as part of the tribal ingroup. (This is a bigger factor with new players obviously)

But there is something uniquely empowering about movement that really draws people's emotional attention. (As a melee-specific scientific control, look at how much more talk there is about wavedashing than l-cancelling--a meritless feature that provides a very similar raw advantage)

Edit: Also see DACUS and perfect pivot, this should never be assumed to be just a melee thing.

 

[Asdioh]

I've been a member here for 10 years, and I still learn new stuff about fighting game theory every so often, especially when Thinkaman posts. I still (sort of) remember that one thing you said about crack... crack... theory? Conundrum? Anyway, I kind of remember it. It was at least partially relevant to things like DACUS and L canceling.

 

[Minordeth]

Design-wise, fighting games have to favor offense. By necessity, they eliminate one of the most important elements of approaching: the fog of war. In real life, and games that emulate war and combat, a lack of information benefits and hinders both opponents. But that lack of information can provide for a wide variety of “approaches” for both parties.

Think Starcraft: the fog of war allows you to do any number of things. It provides opportunity to rush your opponent, lay ambushes, or simply expand. Information about a player’s movement must be earned, and without information, options for attack are wide open. In other words, low information is typically option rich.

In Smash, we have three main low information, rich option states: the character select screen, stage selection, and when our character is not doing anything. But we don’t have a way to obfuscate our movement from our opponents view, so any movement - more than standing still - is on a continuum of commitment.

It becomes necessary then, for a game designer, to provide enough incentive to encourage offensive movement. If there isn’t enough incentive, (e.g. defensive options are stronger than offensive ability) smart players will try their best to not commit at all, and you end up with frequent stalemates.

Basically, you have to make offense a favorable action, or your game is gonna be boring af.

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

I think this is half of it. People do like anything that gives them an advantage, we're all guilty of this to varying extents. A subcomponent of this is the identifying aspect; knowing the jargon, knowing how to do it, being good at it, all these things identify you as part of the tribal ingroup. (This is a bigger factor with new players obviously)

But there is something uniquely empowering about movement that really draws people's emotional attention. (As a melee-specific scientific control, look at how much more talk there is about wavedashing than l-cancelling--a meritless feature that provides a very similar raw advantage)

Edit: Also see DACUS and perfect pivot, this should never be assumed to be just a melee thing.

May I ask? What are your thoughts on Smash Ultimate mechanics and how will they affect the neutral / advantage/ disadvantage state of the game compared to Smash 4? Also what do you think of the global change of aerial lag and movement in genera?

 

[Novaseer]

I've been a member here for 10 years, and I still learn new stuff about fighting game theory every so often, especially when Thinkaman posts. I still (sort of) remember that one thing you said about crack... crack... theory? Conundrum? Anyway, I kind of remember it. It was at least partially relevant to things like DACUS and L canceling.

You are thinking of Cocaine Logic: The fallacy that "helps the player win" means "good to exist in the game design." David Sirlin talks about it.

 

[The_Bookworm]

May I ask? What are your thoughts on Smash Ultimate mechanics and how will they affect the neutral / advantage/ disadvantage state of the game compared to Smash 4? Also what do you think of the global change of aerial lag and movement in genera?

In Ultimate, null options of wavedashing is not in the game, and wavelanding is in the game but not as abuse-able. Players (particularly Melee veterans) are disappointed on those null options not existing, but it was too abuse-able imo and increases the skill ceiling to stupid levels (alongside L-Canceling). However, there are new versions of such mechanics that speeds the game while not increasing the skill ceiling to stupid levels.

You can do Melee's dash dancing in this game (which is not difficult to do at all), while also being able to cancel dash into pretty much anything in this game by simply releasing the stick. The landing lag in aerials is similar to L-Canceled aerials in Melee. It is something SSF2 did that I wished the normal smash games did, but it is now coming to Ultimate (alongside the ability to toggle hazards off). Something completely new to the game is the universal frame 3 jumpsquat, which further amplifies ground-to-air mobility, plus providing a big buff to characters like Bowser, Snake, Robin, and Ganondorf. They basically buffed everyone's ground mobility (with Ganondorf and Kirby receiving the biggest ones), and nerfed camping options (like Sonic's Spin Dash and Bayo's Bullet Climax), in order to further speed up the game and attract players of all skill levels.

Both advantage and disadvantage states in the game are both increased on both ends, but not to the same extent as Melee where you obtain the advantage state once and the opponent basically loses a stock immediately (exaggeration, but basically the idea). Recoveries where overall nerfed to add on to this.

Overall, Ultimate is faster than SSB4, and without Melee's ridiculous skill ceiling.

 

[Iridium]

Considering how the PGR v5 season will end this week, I am curious as to which players may fall off. Unfortunately Charlie may possibly not if his 49th place at Genesis 6 and 65th at Frostbite 2018 and Hyrule Saga hurt him badly. 6WX could fall off too, but mostly due to lack of attendance more than anything. I cannot say much for Dyr or Locus, but Locus honestly improved in his results before his issues coming back to the U.S. kicked in.

While this is not related, I wish Pon the best in his English speaking studies. He most likely will not show up much at all in the Smash scene again until maybe it is over.

 

[The_Bookworm]

Considering how the PGR v5 season will end this week, I am curious as to which players may fall off. Unfortunately Charlie may possibly not if his 49th place at Genesis 6 and 65th at Frostbite 2018 and Hyrule Saga hurt him badly. 6WX could fall off too, but mostly due to lack of attendance more than anything. I cannot say much for Dyr or Locus, but Locus honestly improved in his results before his issues coming back to the U.S. kicked in.

While this is not related, I wish Pon the best in his English speaking studies. He most likely will not show up much at all in the Smash scene again until maybe it is over.

I updated my predicted list on the PGR v5. I will share it in this thread when CEO is over.

Right now watching SGDQ 2018.

 

[Iridium]

I updated my predicted list on the PGR v5. I will share it in this thread when CEO is over.

Right now watching SGDQ 2018.

Is that a tourney I can watch. If so, do you have a link to the stream?

 

[Envoy of Chaos]

In Ultimate, null options of wavedashing is not in the game, and wavelanding is in the game but not as abuse-able. Players (particularly Melee veterans) are disappointed on those null options not existing, but it was too abuse-able imo and increases the skill ceiling to stupid levels (alongside L-Canceling). However, there are new versions of such mechanics that speeds the game while not increasing the skill ceiling to stupid levels.

You can do Melee's dash dancing in this game (which is not difficult to do at all), while also being able to cancel dash into pretty much anything in this game by simply releasing the stick. The landing lag in aerials is similar to L-Canceled aerials in Melee. It is something SSF2 did that I wished the normal smash games did, but it is now coming to Ultimate (alongside the ability to toggle hazards off). Something completely new to the game is the universal frame 3 jumpsquat, which further amplifies ground-to-air mobility, plus providing a big buff to characters like Bowser, Snake, Robin, and Ganondorf. They basically buffed everyone's ground mobility (with Ganondorf and Kirby receiving the biggest ones), and nerfed camping options (like Sonic's Spin Dash and Bayo's Bullet Climax), in order to further speed up the game and attract players of all skill levels.

Both advantage and disadvantage states in the game are both increased on both ends, but not to the same extent as Melee where you obtain the advantage state once and the opponent basically loses a stock immediately (exaggeration, but basically the idea). Recoveries where overall nerfed to add on to this.

Overall, Ultimate is faster than SSB4, and without Melee's ridiculous skill ceiling.

Wavedashing and Wavelanding execution wise didn't add to make Melee have a higher skill ceiling, preforming them is just a matter of practice they aren't overly difficult inputs. The reason Melee players obsess over them more so wavedashing is the options it opens up and the rate it speeds a already faster game up. Wavedashing allows you to use moves and options you normally couldn't while moving. Fox's shine while still a good move in Melee wouldn't be nearly as oppressive without wavedashing allowing him to retain mobility while using it. (Other factors contributed like being able to jump cancel it).

In Ultimate being able to do any action out of dash essentially gives you the same effect as a Melee wavedash just not as strong, which is why a lot of people are very excited about the change and the effects it will have on it.