Adjusting the Damage Ratio to 1.1 for Balance

[Dark 3nergy]

pummel release maybe let me try it firefly

yea its still there looks like tried marth vs ness and i could regrab him after small stepping, let me try it with yoshi vs pika

looks like its still there, but like i said earlier you'll prolly have to make sure your timing is tight with the pummel air release CG

 

[TheReflexWonder]

First there's something everyone needs to be clear about: 10% extra knockback affects everyone's normal kill potential equally. MK kills 10% sooner, Ganon kills 10% soon. Jigglypuff dies 10% sooner, Snake dies 10% sooner...10% is 10%, for all characters.

What about with Pokémon Trainer's weakness/resistance modifiers?

 

[Calebyte]

Informative and objective post

Hmmmm, you've given me a lot to think about.

 

[z00ted]

Yeah, I don't think Yoshi would be affected at all.

 

[Poltergust]

I think Yoshi might actually benefit from this. Sure, his b-air won't connect as much, but I think it actually provides better follow-ups. Also, his ground game is definitely better. I haven't tested it yet, but I think a jab -> down-B would be a true combo now at most percentages. Also, this doesn't negatively affect his grab-game at all. In fact, it makes it better since throws do more damage and grab-release follow-ups hit even harder.

Also, his u-air would practically be as strong as Zelda's. =D

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Also, his u-air would practically be as strong as Zelda's. =D

I wonder how strong Zelda's would be...

Also, Ivysaur's U-Air is rather powerful, too.

I wonder when a fully-charged U-Smash from Ivysaur would KO Squirtle in 1.1. Fully-charged Luigi F-Smash killed my Squirtle at 36% in-tournament (which has the mornal ratio). Stupid BigLou.

 

[Thinkaman]

What about with Pokémon Trainer's weakness/resistance modifiers?

It's still 10% knockback (or 20% total distance) on top of that. Everything is linear.

Some second thoughts on a few characters: Peach is probably worse since I totally overlooked her CG and uair chain which is now borked, and Sheik is more polarized than strictly worse since dispite the major disadvantages to her damage racking playstyle she can gimp much better and probably dominates her best matchups even more. (Not counting say Fox.) Also, solo Popo is waaaaaay worse.

 

[Omni]

If people are still looking for a change 3 years into the game I highly suggest they start playing a new one.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

First off, I want to say that I'm typically for alternate rulesets, such as ISP. However, in this case, I don't really support a sweeping change towards 1.1 UNLESS it improves matchup balance in Brawl. The reason being, it ruins a lot of hard work put into all the work done by the community; Things such as Brawl guides, gameplay videos, and matchup knowledge are really shafted. More than just this, it's hard to test the effects, as you can't really use training mode since it won't have the alternate damage ratio turned on. All the frame data threads that include BKB/KBG/etc will have to be edited to include the new values, which aren't readily available in programs such as PSA/OSA2. Perhaps some stages will become banned/legalized because of this. Not to mention, a lot of players who are satisfied with the Brawl scene will be resistant to such a change. It's a lot of work for something that may or may not "fix" Brawl.

Now, I do think this is worth testing. If you want to see if Brawl is more fun/competitive with this change, take it to the smashfests you attend. It's better than a lot of the theorycrafting going on this thread how characters are nerfed/buffed.

I'm not against this if it turns out to be a more competitive way to play the game, I just wanna give a heads up to how much will have to be scrapped/changed.


Sunshade's idea to use this as a tool to enrich our counterpick system sounds very interesting, I want to add. That seems much easier to implement, and less game changing, while adding more depth. I wanna try that out!

This is the best argument for not changing it.

Even if this did improve the metagame it would cause a lot of problems with how we would research the game and how we would look at MU's.

Not to mention this would require a lot of research before it could be implemented.

hmmm, wonder how Lucario will fare, probably pretty nerfed overall since his low % game would be weakened (I'd have to test more), and he'd be able to get killed earlier in general, so I'm not a fan of this frankly lol.

Lucario would be worse, he living on living longer and killing early, he fails in 1.1

Same with Link, his recovery would blow even more so than it already does.

I'm surprised people are quick to say Falco would be majorly nerfed. His lasers would have more knockback so his traps would be a lot easier.

 

[SuSa]

Wouldn't grab release CGs and infinites be completely unaffected by this? So some CGs, like D3's and Falco's would get nerfed, while others like Yoshi's grab release CG/infinite on Wario and the ground release infinites on the PK brothers would still be exactly the same as before? I don't know exactly how damage ratio affects grab releases, but I wouldn't expect 1.1 or any other setting to change those at all. Assuming that's true, it seems a little unfair to me...

Only a little unfair? All this ratio does is favor the already-bad-characters to try and fair well against the higher tiers by removing the things that help keep the higher tiers in the higher tiers. Snake would practically become a DDD counter if DDD can't CG us anymore, and Falco would fall into the same group. Don't forget Pikachu's arguably bad matchup just got worse as well. Why? Because people wanted to remove chaingrabs. Chaingrabs don't overcentralize Brawl, we don't need to remove them

Oh, and IC's can still infinite the entire cast regardless of the knockback growths. The timing just gets stricter. Let's eliminate all infinites.... except this one?

Also, I'm pretty sure this growth in knockback removes jab locks and the like. I'm relatively sure however, that even though it removes jab locks and similar attack lacks - it doesn't remove the laser lock or IC's ice block lock. (Pretty sure on this.. it may remove those as well)

Characters who rely on comboing heavier characters at low percents just got ****ed over. Now they can't combo the big person and they both still die sooner meaning now they can't wrack damage on the heavyweight. Congratulations, you really just buffed Snake seeing as many lightweights rely on juggling him at low %'s.

Spoiler

I'm playing the hopeless pessimist. I wonder how many times I have to say I'm not really against the idea before people just get I'm arguing against it, even though it's not what I believe...

EDIT:
I went and got my hair cut, that's what took me so long... also.. what Omni said.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

but falco cant CG at all thats where he gets alot of his damage racking from that and lasers

 

[Thinkaman]

I'm surprised people are quick to say Falco would be majorly nerfed. His lasers would have more knockback so his traps would be a lot easier.

I'd be surprised if the hitstun is more than a single extra frame. I'm skeptical of any arguments that projectile approach for any character is improved. Conversely, projectile spamming is slightly more valuable for everyone since the damage is more meaningful.

 

[SuSa]

I'd be surprised if the hitstun is more than a single extra frame. I'm skeptical of any arguments that projectile approach for any character is improved. Conversely, projectile spamming is slightly more valuable for everyone since the damage is more meaningful.

Pit, Snake, and Spamus all come to mind. Immediately.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So projectiles all get a notable buff from this, good for Link if the 1.1 didn't make gimping him a lot easier.

 

[san.]

Only MK and 1-2 other characters are good at gimping anyways. Just DI up. I was playing in 1.1 and didn't notice many changes at all. Well, I did notice the changes, but I was able to still play just fine using my regular style of play.

 

[John12346]

San aren't you gonna be killing everyone at like 2% damage now? lol

Also, like Red Ryu said, implementing damage ratios into the counterpick system would tediously add five times the matchups(.8 to 1.2 incase both players choose to raise or lower the ratio) you need to know. If we're gonna add a damage ratio addendum to Brawl, it's not something we can only go halfway with.

 

[Thinkaman]

This issue with damage ratio counter-picking is that 0.9 or less is degenerate, and 1.2 and above is probably pretty lame.

 

[Master Raven]

I think this is a good enough idea to at least experiment with for the time being. If the community finds it to be good enough we could start by hosting side tournies and probably expand from there.

I'm with Allied, anything's better than the current metagame right now LOL

 

[z00ted]

I was also thinking experimentation through side tournies, just never brought it up before.

 

[salaboB]

Oh, and IC's can still infinite the entire cast regardless of the knockback growths. The timing just gets stricter. Let's eliminate all infinites.... except this one?

All other infinites lack one thing -- they can't be done to everyone else in the cast.

The IC infinite is the exception, so it's not that strange to accept it still in when the others aren't.

 

[~Firefly~]

Yoshi and ZSS could still infinite Wario...and nobody else.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

All grab-release infinites should still exist, as they aren't affected by extra knockback.

 

[~Firefly~]

Looking back, I phrased my post pretty badly. ._. I added that bit at the end to disprove this:

All other infinites lack one thing -- they can't be done to everyone else in the cast.

The IC infinite is the exception, so it's not that strange to accept it still in when the others aren't.

Not to claim the only some grab releases would still work.

 

[T-block]

Diddy's infinites would also likely remain in-tact.

It's an interesting idea... I'm all for testing it - what it affects and what remains, etc.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

banana locks and the physics of the slide might change abit

 

[sunshade]

This issue with damage ratio counter-picking is that 0.9 or less is degenerate, and 1.2 and above is probably pretty lame.

Thats easy to fix, just put a limit on how much you can change the ratio. Here I will even edit my previous rule suggestion.

"The losing player of a match may alter the damage ratio of the next match but the opponent gains 1 additional stage ban per .1 change in the damage ratio. The damage ratio may not be raised or dropped by more than .2"

I wouldn't call .9 or less degenerate personally. I would say it was balanced through abuse (think MvC2 or Brawl-). The same goes for 1.2 and above however it is not quite as combo/infinite heavy and is more focused on single hits. Either way you have an increase in the risk and reward which depending on character is a very useful option.

 

[SuSa]

All other infinites lack one thing -- they can't be done to everyone else in the cast.

The IC infinite is the exception, so it's not that strange to accept it still in when the others aren't.

I won't nitpick, and I'll assume throwing related infinites, and not grab release infinites and such.

The thing is though, why balance infinites that are only on some characters before you balance it for all characters? The precedent in place currently is to not change something just because it balances a matchup.

Instead make use of the ability to counterpick your opponent and stop going DK/Mario/Samus vs DDD.

That, or quit *****ing, you know what's going to happen to you if you play as a character whom can be infinited.... the solution is don't do it

 

[Thinkaman]

I wouldn't call .9 or less degenerate personally. I would say it was balanced through abuse (think MvC2 or Brawl-). The same goes for 1.2 and above however it is not quite as combo/infinite heavy and is more focused on single hits. Either way you have an increase in the risk and reward which depending on character is a very useful option.

No.

Balance through abuse is not a valid game design path. MvC2 is a notoriously imbalanced game in which the majority of the cast isn't anywhere close to viable. Drastically increasing the number of infinite CGs and juggles (or increasing them at all) is *not* acceptable in any way, shape, or form.

Similarly, high levels of knockback makes the game almost entirely about gimping and hyper-centralized on high base knockback moves. For example, at sufficiently high levels of knockback Ness fair is an instant kill on everyone at 0%.

These extremes are simply degenerate and have no potential value at all. They have no place in this discussion of x1.1 knockback.

 

[salaboB]

I won't nitpick, and I'll assume throwing related infinites, and not grab release infinites and such.

The thing is though, why balance infinites that are only on some characters before you balance it for all characters? The precedent in place currently is to not change something just because it balances a matchup.

I can't speak for the intended goal, but I got the feeling that removing some infinites that made characters non-viable was part of the point. Does the IC infinite on its own make certain characters nonviable?

I'm also glad you didn't nitpick, since I was responding to you saying this:

Oh, and IC's can still infinite the entire cast regardless of the knockback growths. The timing just gets stricter. Let's eliminate all infinites.... except this one?

So you should take it in the context of whichever infinites you were talking about here, where the IC one is the only one left.

 

[Renegade TX2000]

have you guys even tried out 1.1? so far I can tell that you haven't on your post=)

 

[SuSa]

That was part of the point... but it goes against the precedents that have been set. Look up the word "precedent" and my post may make more sense.

We don't balance matchups because one character makes another unviable. That's what the counterpick system is for. Pick up a secondary character and stop playing your characters (most likely) hardest/most difficult/realistically impossible matchup.

 

[salaboB]

That was part of the point... but it goes against the precedents that have been set. Look up the word "precedent" and my post may make more sense.

We don't balance matchups because one character makes another unviable. That's what the counterpick system is for. Pick up a secondary character and stop playing your characters (most likely) hardest/most difficult/realistically impossible matchup.

Precedent should not restrict the community's ability to reasonably improve the game. Arguing against a change just because that's not how it's been done is no better than "Because I say so."

If this change were accepted, it is well within reasonable to tweak the game settings for it. It's not like brawl+ with a mod required.

 

[SuSa]

It does not reasonably improve the game. It improves aspects favorable for only a handful of characters. It ruins other characters, and basically throws everything we've learned in the past 2 years out the window. It would essentially mean relearning the game.... many combos you used to know, likely don't work. Entire character playstyles are thrown out the window. All data on %'s we've discovered would have to be reworked. The list of consequences is just to much.

 

[salaboB]

It does not reasonably improve the game. It improves aspects favorable for only a handful of characters. It ruins other characters, and basically throws everything we've learned in the past 2 years out the window. It would essentially mean relearning the game.... many combos you used to know, likely don't work. All data on %'s we've discovered would have to be reworked. The list of consequences is just to much.

Which are all good reasons to not just put it into place, but try it just in side tournies and see if people enjoy it there or not.

But (Paraphrased) "We don't change the game to make more characters viable against others" isn't a good justification.

 

[Coney]

wow, hasn't this idea been suggested at least a thousand times before? and as soon as a GOOD player suggests it, people are all behind the idea, my goodness gracious

i don't like the sound of it. maybe i'm just being a worry-wart but to potentially have to relearn an entire game and a whole roster of matchups i've spent two years gaining experience with, that scares me.

i mean rather than adjust the ratio, why not just deal with the problem at its source? don't like infinites? just ban infinites! don't like metaknight? just ban metaknight! don't like chaingrabs? ...eh, tough i guess. my character would be c-tier without them :<

look, i think infinites are as stupid as the next guy (unless the next guy doesn't think infinites are stupid) but to potentially alter an entire game, to make one small adjustment that could somehow radically affect this entire foundation we've built up after all this time, it's just not worth it to me.

i'm trying to think of an analogy, but it escapes me

it's like...don't put...duct tape on a rose...just...take the thorn...off...the rose...?

 

[SuSa]

I'm done arguing, this won't get anywhere.

Spoiler

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE BBR RULESET. Pretty **** sure it even mentions that right in there.
"The rules at any particular tournament are always at the discretion of the tournament organizer, but we recommend this rule set as a base guideline for all tournament organizers to use."

Go ahead and change your entire region into playing with 1.1

When you travel OoS, have fun playing losing at a completely different game when they use the BBR ruleset.

There is a reason why most people don't stray to far from the BBR Ruleset... it's a standard that unites the community under a common ground. Imagine if every region had it's own set of rules? Could you imagine how national tourneys would be held? It'd be very likely only the locals to the ruleset would actually stand a chance!

 

['V']

At this point, I don't think there's anything that can "balance" this game out.

However I am up for learning a different game.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Another one of those rules that might have worked if it was implemented when the game came out. Too late for it to work now without it completely changing the current metagame.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

At this point, I don't think there's anything that can "balance" this game out.

However I am up for learning a different game.

You could remove all characters save for Mario. That way, it's completely balanced! All 50-50 matchups :>

Alternatively, hacking does this just fine (you could argue it's a different game but shut up!), though that likely won't catch on. Shame, too, since you can play hacked versions on any wii nowadays.

 

[CR4SH]

it's like...don't put...duct tape on a rose...just...take the thorn...off...the rose...?

:announcer voice:

METATHORN!