Having more freedom is great and all, but choosing between For Fun and For Glory made things simple and easy. I feel like the new online feautures may make things a bit too random. Some of you have seen my postings about proposed changes to team battles in For Glory (stock and team attack on) but this feels like it's going in the opposite direction. I don't want to complain because I haven't played it yet, but this just seems overly complicated for no reason. Maybe it won't be so bad when we actually play it, but having too many options may be a bad thing (makes it harder to find ideal matches for example) but who knows, maybe that high ELO mode or whatever will be the way to go. Thoughts?
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
A Bit Worried About Online Play...
- Thread starter Fell God
- Start date
Al-kīmiyā'
Smash the State
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,574
It looked pretty simple to me.
ParanoidDrone
Smash Master
The Smash playerbase will almost assuredly be big enough to support reliable matchmaking with like-minded people for the most common rulesets. If you want 1v1, stock, no items, there will be no shortage of people who want the same. Likewise if you want FFA with items, you'll hardly be alone.
It'll be the weird combinations that end up being hard to match together, like an FFA with stocks and items but on Omegas only, for example.
It'll be the weird combinations that end up being hard to match together, like an FFA with stocks and items but on Omegas only, for example.
There are public lobby ? I thought it was only private
Last edited:
ParanoidDrone
Smash Master
They didn't mention it but their talk about proximity to other players only makes sense if it's P2P so I'd assume they're using that model. IIRC it's what they did for 4, but I could be mistaken.
Rawbinator
Smash Apprentice
It sounds weird to me too, but yeah, there should be more than enough players to fill my competitive needs.
I'm also concerned about the Global Smash Power being used for rankings. I'd prefer a "For Glory" type mode with it's own ranking and tiers rather than this weird number that also used single player mode results (in Smash 4 at least, hopefully they've tweaked it)?
I'm also concerned about the Global Smash Power being used for rankings. I'd prefer a "For Glory" type mode with it's own ranking and tiers rather than this weird number that also used single player mode results (in Smash 4 at least, hopefully they've tweaked it)?
Alright I just rewatched the online trailer and I'm much less worried. I paid much closer attention to the exact words they used and it seems like you will always be matched with people that choose exactly the same ruleset as you unless no one else in the world is doing that. Still, I just hope team attack on is an option for team battles. I'll still miss the cesspool that was For Glory though...I really loved the toxicity and general trash talking, it was pretty fun.
Crystanium
Smash Hero
My only concern is that since you'll be connected to the closest distance that I might end up not playing against many people, either because it'll be the same people or because others nearest to me won't be interested in my preference.
Perhaps team attack only shows up as an option after you select teams? I certainly hope so because I pretty much only main fat characters and let me tell you, fighting two people who projectile camp is a chore.
Another possible issue, I hope that maybe you're less likely to run into someone twice or something like that because as it stands, I'll be significantly narrowing down the amount of people I'm fighting as it is.
Last edited:
Crystanium
Smash Hero
Yeah. Even with For Glory as is, I've encountered the same person twice in a single day on different occassions. If I win or lose, I won't play that person again for that day. I try to do best of three, but if I two-stock my opponent, I tend to leave after the first match. It seems from this direct that even with your preferences, you might end up playing against others with similar preferences. Since similar ≠ same, I hope that it'll be a very strict preference. Say for example you play 1v1, no items, 3 stocks, 6 minutes and someone else plays 1v1, no items, 3 stocks, 8 minutes. That's fine, just as long as I'm not going to encounter the preferences I have and end up playing against someone who uses items. I also wonder if the people nearest to you who don't match your preference will be ignored and the next closest reception will be received.
Sacked
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 21
Online seems super disappointing to me. I really wish they had added a real ranked mode with progress. Global Smash Power is sort of that, but I would have much preferred a system that gave you a letter rank with visible elo like Splatoon's system. What's everyone else's thoughts?
Crystanium
Smash Hero
I don't care much for ranked systems or leaderboards. That's probably going to upset people, and it'll be ironic if certain people who requested this kind of system end up not being good at the game, and thus, disappointed. I was hoping Spectate Mode would be fixed so that I can bet gold on 1v1, rather than winning a bet on 1v1 and then being sent to 2v2 or FFAs.
Mecakoto
Smash Journeyman
I think that's how Global Smash Power will work. You won't have to go against someone at GSP 20,000,000 when you're at 100,000. I think it's a safe assumption because why else apply GSP to online?
I don't get why the fact that people request a ranking mode has anything to do with their skills
Spaceman
twitch.tv/spacemanstream
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 108
- Location
- Brooklyn, New York
- NNID
- youlosttotoadgg
- 3DS FC
- 3497-1911-1309
I thought it was fine, we get to choose from some preset rules, sometimes the rules will change, which will be fun if I'm playing casually. Once you wrap your head around the online, it's not too complicated.
I think it's an improvement from Smash 4, I just hope the features work as intended. I also hope that you can get offline items and 'resources' by playing online over time. Either way I'll be playing local so much online will just be a happy bonus(sadly you gotta pay now).
I think it's an improvement from Smash 4, I just hope the features work as intended. I also hope that you can get offline items and 'resources' by playing online over time. Either way I'll be playing local so much online will just be a happy bonus(sadly you gotta pay now).
tskidless
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2015
- Messages
- 66
- NNID
- tskidless
Personally I don't care for rankings either, but I understand why people want them.
The apparent inability to change what you are spectating is also annoying but for all we know we can in fact watch only one or types of matches. You can also spectate in lobbies as well which can make online tournaments a thing now.
Something else I have been thinking about is how are stages actually picked? Just because a stage doesn't have hazards doesn't make it fair such as someone playing a character with bad recovery and only picking walk-offs, or picking something like Temple or another large stage and spending the whole game camping.
The apparent inability to change what you are spectating is also annoying but for all we know we can in fact watch only one or types of matches. You can also spectate in lobbies as well which can make online tournaments a thing now.
Something else I have been thinking about is how are stages actually picked? Just because a stage doesn't have hazards doesn't make it fair such as someone playing a character with bad recovery and only picking walk-offs, or picking something like Temple or another large stage and spending the whole game camping.
Online is my biggest concern about this game. The lobby system looks pretty good, and I really like that there's more flexibility in rulesets, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that I might not be matched with people looking for the same kind of fight as I am. Hopefully it won't be as bad as I'm thinking, but I can't shake this bad feeling.
Acrete
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2014
- Messages
- 58
What if your GSP is higher than everyone in your proximity? Won’t they have to match us with a lower one?
Also doesn’t your GSP just keep climbing over time? So everyone will become elite after a while, even if they used items for every match.
Also doesn’t your GSP just keep climbing over time? So everyone will become elite after a while, even if they used items for every match.
Last edited:
J0eyboi
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2017
- Messages
- 573
I was fine when there wasn't a visible ranking system and I'm fine with GSP. Adding letter ranks doesn't seem necessary to me, but what do I know?
It would be a massive oversight to base reaching elite on your raw GSP. I seriously doubt that's how it works, because they appear to have put at least 3 minutes of thought into this system.
Last edited:
GeflGabe
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 186
- Location
- Hawaii, Oahu
- NNID
- GeflGabe
- 3DS FC
- 4141-7244-4594
- Switch FC
- SW-7469-5871-5880
I personally don't worry too much, as the online actually turned out to be exactly how I wanted/expected it. We got a battle lounge system with preference settings, so casuals and competitive players both have ways to find matches they precisely want, without accidentally crossing paths in the wrong place, while friendlies online will be generally a lot better and we got ranking system that actually makes the GSP numbers do anything.
I figured if we got ranked they would use that GSP rating system due to the reason why it was even invented (A normal ranking being too broad, etc.) but of course because this was used in the single player modes for some reason, it didn't even matter to anyone.
I figured if we got ranked they would use that GSP rating system due to the reason why it was even invented (A normal ranking being too broad, etc.) but of course because this was used in the single player modes for some reason, it didn't even matter to anyone.
Crystanium
Smash Hero
Why be a ranking system if you're not interested in your skill?
aarchak
Smash Ace
My main gripe is that it looks like even Item Time matches, or rather ALL matches can increase your GSP, so people can just do well in item/time matches and still climb the ranks, and that doesn't sit well with me. Why be able to increase your rank playing casually? If someone could deunk this I'd be super glad, but if not I don't think I'd like this new system too much.
Sprintle
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2018
- Messages
- 22
I really don't understand why "For Fun" and "For Glory" was bad.
You played For Fun when you wanted to just play casual matches, and you played For Glory when you wanted a serious match. That makes perfect sense to me. It's just like quick play and competitive in Overwatch. Why change it?
You played For Fun when you wanted to just play casual matches, and you played For Glory when you wanted a serious match. That makes perfect sense to me. It's just like quick play and competitive in Overwatch. Why change it?
S_B
Too Drunk to Smash
We should clarify that you're not trying to be mean by saying this but that it's going to make for a rude awakening for casual players who enjoy FFA with items when the game randomly drops them into a 1v1 no items match with a competitive player who stomps their face...
aarchak
Smash Ace
I find it really dumb that you can play casual and get your GSP up. I'm not hating on casuals, but I don't think they should gain rank and then go into competitive with all their accumulated GSP, they might get bodied quickly. Also, it might cause people to farm GSP by playing Item/Time against worse players, and I don't like that. I hope the priority for selecting opponents is Location->Rules->GSP, and not Location->GSP->Rules or any other combination. As you might be able to tell, I'm very worried about this new system.
S_B
Too Drunk to Smash
I agree completely.
If a player chooses FFA with items, the game should never, EVER be able to place them in a 1v1 stock match, for example.
The lack of options was pretty bad. There's more to casual matches than "random stage, all items turned to the max, 4 players", and there's more to serious matches than "no items,
Last edited:
even with items it requires skills to win
aarchak
Smash Ace
Yes, but you see, not nearly as much skill. Also, you can lose even if you have much more skill than your opponent. There's a very good reason why we don't have items in competitive Smash.
Crystanium
Smash Hero
Not really. If you rely on items to win and you lack items, the player who relies on his- or her own skill and character options is going to perform better.
tskidless
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2015
- Messages
- 66
- NNID
- tskidless
A person who is more skilled at the game can abuse items far better than an novice even if some of them are completely brain dead. I feel like a good compromise is to have each individual type of battle be ranked on it's own rather than each of them being ranked the same.
Wyoming
Connery, Sean
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2013
- Messages
- 3,810
- Switch FC
- 7748-5364-3982
This is only a problem if you want niche rule sets. If you want a competitive rule set you will 100% find someone else who wants that. Likewise people who want free for alls with items, and possibly teams although that one might have smaller numbers.
Smash 4 online tourneys are proof of this. The For 1v1 For Glorys would fill up after 1.5 seconds. The For Fun ones would start but at a much slower rate. Customs would never begin.
You'll all be fine. It's a different system, but the fluidity will make it shine.
Last edited:
Yeah, you're probably right. I'll be playing a pretty standard, no-frills ruleset so I expect it won't be difficult to find other people playing the same ruleset.