After the SDCC tournament yesterday... I'm having doubts Smash 4 will be a good competitive game.

[GFooChombey]

I'd love for Smash Bros to get the same treatment as Pokemon in terms of Nintendo run tournaments. Here in Australia the big N brought in people from the competitive Pokemon community to help run both the regional and national tournaments. This kind of exposure easily makes any iteration of Pokemon incredibly competitive with large numbers of entrants.

I don't want that because Nintendo shoved their own rules down our throats when those started up. I used to play competitive pokemon a lot in Gen IV and we had established rules, similar to legal stages and no items, and suddenly those were out the window. I went to my first official tournament, which to start was doubles (and to my understanding is the majority of official tournaments) and although the pokemon you could use were limited by game, many pokemon we had banned for having significantly higher stats were legal. So was double team. I know we're supposed to adapt, but I would hate being stage locked by round and using items in official tournaments.

 

[Skyblade12]

I don't want that because Nintendo shoved their own rules down our throats when those started up. I used to play competitive pokemon a lot in Gen IV and we had established rules, similar to legal stages and no items, and suddenly those were out the window. I went to my first official tournament, which to start was doubles (and to my understanding is the majority of official tournaments) and although the pokemon you could use were limited by game, many pokemon we had banned for having significantly higher stats were legal. So was double team. I know we're supposed to adapt, but I would hate being stage locked by round and using items in official tournaments.

Honestly, the entire Pokémon balance game makes much more sense with Nintendo's rules. The shift to all doubles is a huge change to the metagame. It makes otherwise broken Pokémon (such as the newly banned Mega-Kangaskhan and Mega-Gengar) suddenly make a lot more sense. They are beastly in singles, but lose a lot of their bite when they can be teamed up against. Even the Smogon voting council has pretty much agreed to this. They just prefer singles.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Well then, do you disagree with anything I said?

Not technically, but Ogre Deity Link took the words out of my mouth, everything you stated are just offensive movement options being used in a pressure sense, thus you calling it "defensive" and basically running your list on the "offense is the best defense" moniker.

It's not like it's necessarily a bad thing. I mean, that could technically be what has led to melee being recognized as exciting to watch, literally every choice is an offensive one and so matches remain high octane.

Not really sure if this is the place for that discussion, but I've played basically nothing but melee for the last year and while I definitely have some thoughts on its weaknesses, I do not think it has to do with its poor defensive options. If anything its the opposite, as Melee develops the general consensus is its likely to become more and more defensive which I agree with.

That wouldn't change that the defensive options are poor, it just means people are beginning to rely on tactics that work universally in all games as a result of the general Smash Bros game formula rather than being a result of any one games "slow and defensive" or "fast and offensive" dichotomy.

Melee is exciting and fun to play but its issues are crippling ones for the expectations of a game released in this generation with pressures of balance, we need a revamp, and a revamp would not and should not include adding back all of Melee's issues.

What bugs me the most is how incredibly easily Sakurai can fix this entire thing.
The key is L-cancelling.

I'm going to assume that all these changes made in favor of defensive play, such as increased aerial landing lag, are made to make the game easier for casual players (people with "casual-level reactions" can more easily punish whiffed attacks). The obvious, apparently overlooked solution to this is implementing L-cancels. Casual players will still have their "accessibility", since they don't know about L-cancels, whereas competitive players can play at a slightly higher speed.

It is the easiest way to create some kind of much needed divide between competitive and casual players, and it is one of the few things that can be done right now that will actually make everyone happy.

The key is certainly not l-cancelling. Not only would the re-inclusion of this mechanic be met with widely critical reception, but there is plenty of discussion available for you to determine why this mechanic is in general, a terrible one. I'm more inclined to simply cut landing lag across the board as scenario suggested.

However I've already stated before that I believe landing lag to be a beautiful feature in the upcoming game, and necessary too as it will be a part of the balancing scale between characters. So I would recommend people stop acting like removing landing lag would receive no objections either. I want that landing lag.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

Pretty much, though each patch improves it (currently, at least at S@X, Diddy seems to win a disproportionate amount of games).

That's because MDVA houses some of the best Diddy players in the whole country. Junebug in particular, but Boss and Seagull certainly count. Diddy ain't broken (you can catch his nanas with a wavedash for crying out loud), it's just coincidence. Come to think of it, all 3 of these players were professional Brawl players, so I guess it only makes sense that they'd understand the character to some degree lol.

 

[JV5Chris]

Sorry, I can be a bit verbally obtuse at times. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I view things such as blocking, dodging or putting space between you and your opponent as defensive. Most of the things that had been listed previously just seem to me like things you'd do offensively, to either attack, or make an attack faster.

With the exception of OoS attacks and crouch canceling that award defensive play with counters, everything I mentioned is useful to tactically create space between you and your opponent. Attacks, projectiles, and maneuverability options are not exclusively offensive tools. That's true in Melee, Brawl, and 64.

Not technically, but Ogre Deity Link took the words out of my mouth, everything you stated are just offensive movement options being used in a pressure sense, thus you calling it "defensive" and basically running your list on the "offense is the best defense" moniker.

I'm talking specifically about the tools Melee's gives you to defend yourself when you're not the aggressor or playing as one. The saying you're jumping to here is not my argument. I'm merely suggesting Melee's defensive options don't leave you helpless like some in this thread have implied.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

With the exception of OoS attacks and crouch canceling that award defensive play with counters, everything I mentioned is useful to tactically create space between you and your opponent. Attacks, projectiles, and maneuverability options are not exclusively offensive tools.

Wat.

Attack = Defense?

I'm pretty certain attacking entails...I dunno, offense? Otherwise, you're defending. Attacking is the opposite of Defending. What am I not getting here?

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Wat.

Attack = Defense?

I'm pretty certain attacking entails...I dunno, offense? Otherwise, you're defending. Attacking is the opposite of Defending. What am I not getting here?

While in most situations I'd agree with this, clearly a "defensive" playstyle still involves attacking the foe. Staying in one place while poking with projectiles, and simply whacking the foe with a high-knockback move any time they get close, would definitely count as a "defensive" playstyle. This is precisely how I play Pit in Brawl, for example. I poke with arrows from range until my foe gets sick of it and tries to go close-combat. When this happens, I roll behind them and hit them with DSmash, FSmash, or my jab combo and poke them with uncharged arrows afterwards, then dodge away and repeat process. Eventually, of course, I have to be aggressive in order to get the KO, but even then sometimes my opponent will get frustrated and try to come to me after I've gotten them to high damage. From there, roll and FSmash.

 

[JV5Chris]

Wat.
Attack = Defense?

I'm pretty certain attacking entails...I dunno, offense? Otherwise, you're defending. Attacking is the opposite of Defending. What am I not getting here?

You've never used empty aerials to space out your opponents? How about projectiles to block their approach? What about f-tilts or down-tilts to force someone to shield (and be pushed back) as they get close?

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

You've never used empty aerials to space out your opponents? How about projectiles to block their approach? What about f-tilts or down-tilts to force someone to shield (and be pushed back) as they get close?

Projectiles are STILL attacks. It doesn't matter if I'm using them to keep the opponent away, or in a more manageable position, I'm still attacking them. F-tilt and down-tilts are still attacks whether or not they are shielded. It's like saying that smacking someone with a shield is a defense; it's still an attack no matter how you slice it. And attacks are offensive. Hell, even the empty aerials can be considered attacks, whether or not they connect is a whole 'nother matter entirely. You really can't use attacks defensively, it is literally an oxymoron.

 

[TheKk-47]

Projectiles are STILL attacks. It doesn't matter if I'm using them to keep the opponent away, or in a more manageable position, I'm still attacking them. F-tilt and down-tilts are still attacks whether or not they are shielded. It's like saying that smacking someone with a shield is a defense; it's still an attack no matter how you slice it. And attacks are offensive. Hell, even the empty aerials can be considered attacks, whether or not they connect is a whole 'nother matter entirely. You really can't use attacks defensively, it is literally an oxymoron.

Lol you can definitely use attacks defensively. Even if an attack is an offense, it can help your defense. Not only in Smash and other fighting games, but it sports and war too. Just look at like Germany in WW1, they just kept sending out troops to attack to defend themselves. Or look at USIV, where projectiles are used to keep an oppenent away.

Off that topic though, I wanted to ask 2 questions. If Sm4sh was Melee 2.0, would you buy it? And what if it was Brawl 2.0? Hopefully this doesn't cause flames, but I was just interested in answers, since people seem so keen on the opinion that every Smash has to be different. Just wondering from a business standpoint whether Sakurai would care.

 

[Animage]

The key is certainly not l-cancelling. Not only would the re-inclusion of this mechanic be met with widely critical reception, but there is plenty of discussion available for you to determine why this mechanic is in general, a terrible one. I'm more inclined to simply cut landing lag across the board as scenario suggested.

However I've already stated before that I believe landing lag to be a beautiful feature in the upcoming game, and necessary too as it will be a part of the balancing scale between characters. So I would recommend people stop acting like removing landing lag would receive no objections either. I want that landing lag.

The only people I see who would be meeting this mechanic with critical reception are the casual players who keep bashing the melee community and all the things they do for no apparent reason. I haven't been involved in discussions involving L-cancelling so if you can enlighten me as to why it's such a terrible mechanic I'd appreciate it.

And how does increased landing lag a good thing? Increased landing lag only encourages defensive play, and this defensive play is what caused brawl to be received so poorly by the competitive community. It is purely there to make the game easier on newer players, which is why there should be two seperate landing lags; one that will create a more fun-to-watch metagame and one that will allow regular players to enjoy the game to its fullest.

 

[GFooChombey]

Honestly, the entire Pokémon balance game makes much more sense with Nintendo's rules. The shift to all doubles is a huge change to the metagame. It makes otherwise broken Pokémon (such as the newly banned Mega-Kangaskhan and Mega-Gengar) suddenly make a lot more sense. They are beastly in singles, but lose a lot of their bite when they can be teamed up against. Even the Smogon voting council has pretty much agreed to this. They just prefer singles.

I just feel so alienated now. I spent so much time breeding, EV training, and eventually RNG abusing and suddenly I had to relearn the meta and a lot of what my strategies were no longer viable. I'm sure plenty of players from all of the Smash games don't want all of the work in the lab nullified by a completely new set of rules.

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but does anyone here think 4 person free-for-all is a competitive idea?

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Lol you can definitely use attacks defensively. Even if an attack is an offense, it can help your defense. Not only in Smash and other fighting games, but it sports and war too. Just look at like Germany in WW1, they just kept sending out troops to attack to defend themselves. Or look at USIV, where projectiles are used to keep an oppenent away.

I'm sorry, but the mentality of "the best defense is a good offense" is a flawed way of thinking and honestly only proves the point of Melee's defensive game being weak, further. And do you really want to use WWI or even WWII Germany as an example? They lost. Twice. (Also, you know, the whole Blitzkrieg thing was so offensive that you cant even see defense from where they're standing.)

 

[JV5Chris]

Projectiles are STILL attacks. It doesn't matter if I'm using them to keep the opponent away, or in a more manageable position, I'm still attacking them. F-tilt and down-tilts are still attacks whether or not they are shielded. It's like saying that smacking someone with a shield is a defense; it's still an attack no matter how you slice it. And attacks are offensive. Hell, even the empty aerials can be considered attacks, whether or not they connect is a whole 'nother matter entirely. You really can't use attacks defensively, it is literally an oxymoron.

So let me get this straight, you think protecting yourself from someone's approach is not a defensive tactic if it involves pushing the A or B button? This has me curious, what do you think defensive Smash play looks like?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

The only people I see who would be meeting this mechanic with critical reception are the casual players who keep bashing the melee community and all the things they do for no apparent reason. I haven't been involved in discussions involving L-cancelling so if you can enlighten me as to why it's such a terrible mechanic I'd appreciate it.

And how does increased landing lag a good thing? Increased landing lag only encourages defensive play, and this defensive play is what caused brawl to be received so poorly by the competitive community. It is purely there to make the game easier on newer players, which is why there should be two seperate landing lags; one that will create a more fun-to-watch metagame and one that will allow regular players to enjoy the game to its fullest.

L-cancelling is critically received as a mechanic because it can be referred to as an arbitrary technical barrier with zero depth. There is no reason not to ever do it, therefore it is a monotonous action that holds no purpose other than to give you more buttons to press. It's required and therefore conversely, is pointless (as a "mechanic").

Also, you're broadening the logic too wide. It has been observed in gameplay that landing lag varies between characters and even specific attacks. Some attacks (like Lucina's nair) are shown to have, literally, faster than Melee's level of l cancel landing lag. Some are shown to have slower.

This means that they are applying landing lag where they believe it's applicable, it's not just a single number of code sitting next to "landing lag = x". Therefore, removing or "lowering landing lag" is cutting the foot off to save the leg. It's an over zealous suggestion with zero consideration for why that landing lag is there in the first place in favor of an impatient mindset that only accepts full and ultimate control of the character with absolutely no drawbacks. Low to no landing lag, It's what you want, but it isn't what is good for the games balance.

It is my opinion that landing lag has been given a purpose in Smash 4 that varies among both specific characters and abilities, and it would do you well to recognize this purpose before screaming that it be removed simply because Melee didn't do it.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

So let me get this straight, you think protecting yourself from someone's approach is not a defensive tactic if it involves pushing the A or B button? This has me curious, what do you think defensive Smash play looks like?

Apparently, Pit's side special and Down specials are oxymorons. I mean what about the people with super armor on attacks?

Hell, everyone in Brawl has armor on grabs, lol.

 

[TTTTTsd]

And how does increased landing lag a good thing? Increased landing lag only encourages defensive play, and this defensive play is what caused brawl to be received so poorly by the competitive community. It is purely there to make the game easier on newer players, which is why there should be two seperate landing lags; one that will create a more fun-to-watch metagame and one that will allow regular players to enjoy the game to its fullest.

I don't think landing lag was the anti-competitive thing that Brawl introduced at all, actually. Certainly it changed some characters and became an issue for some(hence why slower characters should get lag reduction, NOT the whole cast, mind you.) I feel like the direct anti-competitive measures have already been removed, that being the ability to mitigate hitstun with a dodge, and the tripping. With no landing lag this changes approaches to either more ground based, or in the case of having fast aerials, you are forced to approach with an aerial that will not have as much lag.

Regardless, I don't think it's as big of a pace-killer as the ability to remove hitstun or the factor of randomly flopping over and being punished for trying to be offensive. This simply centralizes the meta more on actually using grounded moves and tilts more often. If the game is designed AROUND said lag being present, than it should be less noticable. Again, two cents from someone who's played all the Smash games liberally, I suppose.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

So let me get this straight, you think sheltering yourself from someone's approach is not a defensive tactic if it involves pushing the A or B button? This has me curious, what do you think defensive Smash play looks like?

Defensive play and defensive moves are two different things to me. Defensive play is simply playing keep away. You can't go all defense and never attack once. I was never referring to defensive play. I've been referring to defensive moves, things that you actually can defend with, which, as I've said before, are things that let you put space between an opponent and yourself (i.e. walking, running, wavedashing backwards, ect.), shielding, spot-dodging, rolling, ect. Quite a few of those things, at least from what I've been told, are terrible to do in Melee. Instead, it's all about keeping a constant and unending offensive on your opponents at all times throwing in feints when someone isn't in a position to attack them. So, honestly, I still believe that Melee's defensive options are still bad.

 

[TheKk-47]

I'm sorry, but the mentality of "the best defense is a good offense" is a flawed way of thinking and honestly only proves the point of Melee's defensive game being weak, further. And do you really want to use WWI or even WWII Germany as an example? They lost. Twice. (Also, you know, the whole Blitzkrieg thing was so offensive that you cant even see defense from where they're standing.)

Lol have you not watched a game of USIV or Brawl? Using attacks(offense) to space and camp (defense) is one of the main strategies in those games, and mostly every fighting game. And that doesn't show that Melee's defensive options are weak, it shows that offense is stronger than defense, which doesn't mean defense is weak.

 

[himemiya]

I say we wait until it actually releases.

This and that was on 3ds the mechanic probably vary between the two. No one is gonna care about the 3ds version when the wiiu version comes out.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Lol have you not watched a game of USIV or Brawl? Using attacks(offense) to space and camp (defense) is one of the main strategies in those games, and mostly every fighting game. And that doesn't show that Melee's defensive options are weak, it shows that offense is stronger than defense, which doesn't mean defense is weak.

If there's no reason to use a defensive option over an offensive option than it's almost unanimously certain that defensive options are weak.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

If there's no reason to use a defensive option over an offensive option than it's almost unanimously certain that defensive options are weak.

Lol what do you mean? I shield grab near the ledge as anyone vs a fast faller, that alone is good enough of a reason, or to use an out of shield option to throw off your opponents momentum. There are plenty of practical reasons to be defensive.

 

[TheKk-47]

If there's no reason to use a defensive option over an offensive option than it's almost unanimously certain that defensive options are weak.

But there is a reason to play defensively. You can't go all-out offense an entire game, sometimes you need to space, camp, and shield. You're statement really bothers me because if you've watched Melee you should know this. I mean just look at the top 5 players, they go on the defense all the time; Armada and Hbox's game all centers around defense. Waiting out and spacing your oppenent to attack. Even Mango and M2K do also with laser camping and Sheik's ledge stall.

 

[JV5Chris]

Defensive play and defensive moves are two different things to me. Defensive play is simply playing keep away. You can't go all defense and never attack once. I was never referring to defensive play. I've been referring to defensive moves, things that you actually can defend with, which, as I've said before, are things that let you put space between an opponent and yourself (i.e. walking, running, wavedashing backwards, ect.), shielding, spot-dodging, rolling, ect. Quite a few of those things, at least from what I've been told, are terrible to do in Melee. Instead, it's all about keeping a constant and unending offensive on your opponents at all times. So, honestly, I still believe that Melee's defensive options are still bad.

I see no reason to continue this little debate then. If you have to rely on second hand info and need to isolate whatever you're criticizing from the overall defensive game, I'm afraid we've got nothing more to discuss.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

Projectiles are STILL attacks. It doesn't matter if I'm using them to keep the opponent away, or in a more manageable position, I'm still attacking them. F-tilt and down-tilts are still attacks whether or not they are shielded. It's like saying that smacking someone with a shield is a defense; it's still an attack no matter how you slice it. And attacks are offensive. Hell, even the empty aerials can be considered attacks, whether or not they connect is a whole 'nother matter entirely. You really can't use attacks defensively, it is literally an oxymoron.

I'm not sure you're understanding the big picture. Of course they're attacks, and yes they are a form of offense, but they can be used defensively.

I can use a ftilt or dtilt to stop someone's approach, playing defense to keep the opponent from closing in and attacking me.

I can use a normal attack to stop small projectiles, which is another way to shield myself from a ranged attack.

What about special moves, like Mario's Cape? It is an attack, but you can also use it to refelect attacks.

Shield Grabbing is an attack, but it is a great move to use defensively, and there is more than one way to make use of it defensively.

It doesn't matter what you condsider defensive moves are, what really matters IS defensive play. All potentially defensive moves and techniques will fall hand in hand with defensive play. That's the whole point of defense: playing smart in order to keep you from getting attacked and making your opponent lose their momentum.

 

[pizzapie7]

@ Ogre_Deity_Link

Wavedashing back is just as defensive as rolling back. Defensive play in Melee isn't based around using the classic defensive options because they are pretty underpowered.

But any commentary about how they could be buffed potentially making Melee better would just be met with "B-BUT THAT'S MELEE 2.0 WE CAN'T HAVE THAT GAMES SHOULDN'T IMPROVE".

The only reason you think defense is nonexistent is because your view of defense is incredibly narrow. If I'm throwing out retreating aerials to make space, I'm being defensive. If I'm spamming missiles or lazers to keep away, I'm being defensive. If I'm approaching or initiating or attempting to shift the game from neutral, that's when offense begins.

 

[san.]

Eh, I prefer having some faster moves with little landing lag and stronger moves with a little more. I don't like having to experience lag a good duration after the hitbox has already came out, though.

I feel that this conversation is going in circles. What do people want out of a more ideal shield? The problem I had with melee's shield was that the lack of buffering made the shield stun and drop durations a bit clunky. I don't think the more advanced attacks that were developed against shields in Melee were a direct fault of Melee's shield. The problems I had with Brawl's shield was that the shield was that it was too durable, recovered too quickly, and powerful attacks did not stun and push the shield enough. Brawl's shield decay was decent, but it never had to be up for more than a small moment. Heavy attacks against shield could easily be cancelled with a roll or jump. A dash shield approach in brawl also imparted your own sliding momentum against enemies' attacks, allowing for even less push against your shield.

I would like a shield that feels responsive like Brawl, but experience more pressure against strong attacks. Even if the stun isn't increased by much, sufficient knockback and damage against the shield is sufficient. Quick attacks should also be designed to work well against the responsiveness of the shield upon landing on a case-by-case basis. That way, smart approaches for both types of attacks can be safe when spaced well and punished when they're not. This also might sound extreme, but I would also like power shields to emit a shockwave when performed instead of allowing frame 1 retaliations. I feel that making it an attack with its own combo potential would be an interesting design choice and further advocates attacks over an instant grab. I am split on whether or not power shields should reflect projectiles. I am leaning towards not having it like that, but instead explicitly designing each character's ability/inability to get around them.

 

[Animage]

L-cancelling is critically received as a mechanic because it can be referred to as an arbitrary technical barrier with zero depth. There is no reason not to ever do it, therefore it is a monotonous action that holds no purpose other than to give you more buttons to press. It's required and therefore conversely, is pointless (as a "mechanic").

Also, you're broadening the logic too wide. It has been observed in gameplay that landing lag varies between characters and even specific attacks. Some attacks (like Lucina's nair) are shown to have, literally, faster than Melee's level of l cancel landing lag. Some are shown to have slower.

This means that they are applying landing lag where they believe it's applicable, it's not just a single number of code sitting next to "landing lag = x". Therefore, removing or "lowering landing lag" is cutting the foot off to save the leg. It's an over zealous suggestion with zero consideration for why that landing lag is there in the first place in favor of an impatient mindset that only accepts full and ultimate control of the character with absolutely no drawbacks. Low to no landing lag, It's what you want, but it isn't what is good for the games balance.

It is my opinion that landing lag has been given a purpose in Smash 4 that varies among both specific characters and abilities, and it would do you well to recognize this purpose before screaming that it be removed simply because Melee didn't do it.

The reason why I mentioned L-cancelling in the first place is not to add depth to the game. It is a way to create two separate games for two separate audiences. The people who will find out about L-cancelling and actually use it are the people who care enough about getting good at the game that mechanics like these will grab their interest. Other newer players will benefit from non-l-cancelled lag to ease the game's difficulty.

You can't really deny that the landing lag is slower in this game in comparison to melee. If you didn't know, landing lag varies between characters and attacks in all smash games (except maybe z-cancelled aerials in smash 64). Landing lag has been used as a balancing tool in all smash games. Excessive amounts of landing lag does have its purpose, but in competitive play, its only purpose is to encourage defensive play, and make more approach options unsafe.

FYI Lucina's nair's landlag is 12 frames (from character reveal clip) and Marth's nair's L-cancelled landlag is 7.

I don't think landing lag was the anti-competitive thing that Brawl introduced at all, actually. Certainly it changed some characters and became an issue for some(hence why slower characters should get lag reduction, NOT the whole cast, mind you.) I feel like the direct anti-competitive measures have already been removed, that being the ability to mitigate hitstun with a dodge, and the tripping. With no landing lag this changes approaches to either more ground based, or in the case of having fast aerials, you are forced to approach with an aerial that will not have as much lag.

Regardless, I don't think it's as big of a pace-killer as the ability to remove hitstun or the factor of randomly flopping over and being punished for trying to be offensive. This simply centralizes the meta more on actually using grounded moves and tilts more often. If the game is designed AROUND said lag being present, than it should be less noticable. Again, two cents from someone who's played all the Smash games liberally, I suppose.

Okay, I guess we CAN give Sakurai kudos for not destroying the game with useless anti-competitive measures, but keep in mind that this is something that really is SUPPOSED to happen in the first place.
Also I think making the game more ground based will be a terrible idea, as it'll give all the power to the characters that play well in the air (take the metagame of umvc3 for example). Also, remember the grand finals of the invitational and how zero suit samus was literally camping the air forever? What do you think will happen if most characters perform well on the ground, and you have characters like that making it into the game?
But I guess we'll have to wait for the game to come out and watch the metagame develop to be sure.

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but does anyone here think 4 person free-for-all is a competitive idea?

Free-for-all is lots of fun, but if you play with 4 people trying to win, they will all pick a character with a quick kill move, try to stay away from the battle for the entire match and steal kills once they see people getting to high percents.

 

[Snakeyes]

I think the first issue I see is that you assume right off the bat that defensive play is bad or uncompetitive. I wonder do you still play any games competitively? I only ask cause I wonder if you check other fighting games, such as this USF4 EVO 2014 top 8 set, you would see its not that uncommon. Im sure I dont need to explain much, but in terms of fighting games its currently the most popular and most viewed and if you watch the rest of the top 8 the rest basically looks like this as well.

I'm surprised to see so many "pro-defense" posters bringing up Street Fighter as an argument.. The reason why defensive play can be exciting in a traditional fighter is because of how limited that style of game is by design. Defensive Street Fighter characters are balanced in a way that gives them very strong tools to create momentum at a certain range, but also rewards an opponent that can successfully break through their defense. For example, Guile or Rose can keep out Zangief all day, but a good Zangief that gets these characters into the corner can easily 50-50 them until the KO, as their escape/reversal options are limited.

In Smash, most characters have a wide variety of options to escape pressure and reset an exchange to a neutral position at all times. Make defense much stronger than it was in Melee and you get an unsatisfying game where no one really gets anything out of pressuring the opponent. In a game where characters run circles around each other, there has to be a reward for cornering someone. In 64, the reward was too big as most characters had easy touch of death combos. Melee, while not perfect, had a pretty good balance between offense and defense for a platform fighter.

This is why Marvel and anime airdashers are built around a chain or gatling combo system - with so much added mobility, you need a reliable way to rack up damage when you do manage to catch the opponent.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Honestly, I'll just agree to disagree here. I don't want this to devolve into another flame war, or Brawl vs. Melee or whatnot.

All I ask is that people keep the complaining to a minimum, if they think that Nintendo won't change a thing, because if it won't change anything, all you're doing is trying to bring back the days of Brawl vs. Melee.

 

[Venks]

I just feel so alienated now. I spent so much time breeding, EV training, and eventually RNG abusing and suddenly I had to relearn the meta and a lot of what my strategies were no longer viable. I'm sure plenty of players from all of the Smash games don't want all of the work in the lab nullified by a completely new set of rules.

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but does anyone here think 4 person free-for-all is a competitive idea?

It's not like you really have to do much to train Pokemon in X and Y. Popping out perfect IV Pokemon is stupid easy now. And yeah you do need to learn new strategies. I played a lot of Singles back in Gen IV, but with V and VI I'm loving doubles. I was never a fan of high-level singles play. Doubles allows for sooooo many more strategies and as someone else pointed out a lot of things that are broken in singles are just fine in Doubles. You should definitely learn to adapt. There's so much more to the game now.

As for competitive four person free-for-alls, I've done quite a few of those. Usually it's used at game store or anime convention held tournaments as a way to cut down numbers if there isn't enough time. The optimal strategy is definitely to make your way to either the left or right edge of the stage and hold your ground. If you end up in the middle of the stage then you're going to start taking a lot of stray hits and lose early on. This is especially bad for bigger characters like Bowser who can't lithely dodge out of the way of attacks.

Overall it is doable, but it promotes people secretly teaming up against other players. It makes much more sense to just make it 2v2s. Which in my opinion is much more fun and allows for a lot of strategies that aren't possible in 1v1.

If there's no reason to use a defensive option over an offensive option than it's almost unanimously certain that defensive options are weak.

I can't tell you how much I agree with every single post you've made in this thread.

The reason why I mentioned L-cancelling in the first place is not to add depth to the game. It is a way to create two separate games for two separate audiences. The people who will find out about L-cancelling and actually use it are the people who care enough about getting good at the game that mechanics like these will grab their interest. Other newer players will benefit from non-l-cancelled lag to ease the game's difficulty.

That's just silly. The game can be competitive without L-cancelling. By just reducing landing lag across the board then you obtain the same result only without the arbitrary technical barrier. Fighting games need more accessibility if they want to grow as a genre. Smash Bros is the definitive accessible fighter.

Though in my opinion the landing lag is just fine in Smash 4. Some characters like Samus have next to no lag with some of their aerials. Her down air is ridiculously powerful in this game. Then you have Bowser who has really generous auto-cancels on his aerials. So on the one hand you can't just throw out his incredibly buffed back air or you'll easily get punished. But on the other hand careful positioning and timing allows you to get the move out safely if you input things just right.

I'm a major in Game Design, but I don't think you'd need my education to see why that is good character balancing.

 

[Animage]

That's just silly. The game can be competitive without L-cancelling. By just reducing landing lag across the board then you obtain the same result only without the arbitrary technical barrier. Fighting games need more accessibility if they want to grow as a genre. Smash Bros is the definitive accessible fighter.

Though in my opinion the landing lag is just fine in Smash 4. Some characters like Samus have next to no lag what some of their aerials. Her down air is ridiculously powerful in this game. Then you have Bowser who has really generous auto-cancels on his aerials. So on the one hand you can't just throw out his incredibly buffed back air or you'll easily get punished. But on the other hand careful positioning and timing allows you to get the move out safely while still being powerful.

I'm a major in Game Design, but I don't think you'd need my education to see why that is good character balancing.

It's not to make the game "more competitive", just to make it less defensive, because people don't like defensive play in general. And it's not really that big of a technical barrier; all you need to do is press a button before landing.

And as far as balancing and Samus goes, just ask Hugs

 

[Deleted member 245254]

But there is a reason to play defensively. You can't go all-out offense an entire game, sometimes you need to space, camp, and shield. You're statement really bothers me because if you've watched Melee you should know this. I mean just look at the top 5 players, they go on the defense all the time; Armada and Hbox's game all centers around defense. Waiting out and spacing your oppenent to attack. Even Mango and M2K do also with laser camping and Sheik's ledge stall.

These are all things Brawl (and Smash 4 even) receive criticism for...so I'm not sure how those are a valid arguing point for the Melee camp.

Why do we not criticize Melee for possessing the very same "bad" gameplay we defame Brawl for having? Simply because Melee did it first so it gets a pass?

This is a circumstance where it's easy to see the bias show. Brawl is vilified for its defensive mechanics, and yet in situations where these exact sort of tactics are used (often) in Melee, it's simply a logical tactic to use.

Why? Who the hell will ever know...

 

[κomıc]

I'd rather take the word from the development team that spent months working on the game than a "competitive gamer" who only spent a couple days playing the game when it comes to Samus.

Just saying.

 

[Cassio]

I'm surprised to see so many "pro-defense" posters bringing up Street Fighter as an argument. The reason why defensive play can be exciting in a traditional fighter is because of how limited that style of game is by design. Defensive Street Fighter characters are balanced in a way that gives them very strong tools to create momentum at a certain range, but also rewards an opponent that can successfully break through their defense. For example, Guile or Rose can keep out Zangief all day, but a good Zangief that gets these characters into the corner can easily 50-50 them until the KO, as their escape/reversal options are limited.

In Smash, most characters have a wide variety of options to escape pressure and reset an exchange to a neutral position at all times. Make defense much stronger than it was in Melee and you get an unsatisfying game where no one really gets anything out of pressuring the opponent. In a game where characters run circles around each other, there has to be a reward for cornering someone. In 64, the reward was too big as most characters had easy touch of death combos. Melee, while not perfect, had a pretty good balance between offense and defense for a platform fighter.

This is why Marvel and anime airdashers are built around a chain or gatling combo system - with so much added mobility, you need a reliable way to rack up damage when you do manage to catch the opponent.

Youre not the same snake eyes in that video, right?

Actually even with many tools to escape pressure resetting to neutral is fairly difficult in smash because of the way positioning works compared to traditional fighters. Its part of the appeal of the series. The increased movement of the smash series also provides better offensive tools than you see in traditional fighter, but in the end it really comes down to the balance between the two. Even in Brawl, pure run away strategies fell out of popular use because of their low success yield. Also, you seem to undervalue what the punish game of smash (and Brawl in particular) actually is. The strong defensive options have more to do with the neutral game which, admittedly, caters to something a bit more niche, but doesn't affect its competitive value (not that it doesnt have other weaknesses). Also not a fan of your analysis of the smash series as a platform fighter, which is fairly simple if not plain inaccurate.

Anyways, not really sure we're disagreeing on much, in terms of popularity I can see why offensive oriented games are easier to latch onto. But that wasnt the argument youre quoting.

This is why Marvel and anime airdashers are built around a chain or gatling combo system - with so much added mobility, you need a reliable way to rack up damage when you do manage to catch the opponent.

lol, Id argue that this is whats capable of leading to camping in the first place. At the very least it would in regards to the smash series (see: competitive smash 64).

Overall an interesting post though.

 

[SoaringDive]

I'd rather take the word from the development team that spent months working on the game than a "competitive gamer" who only spent a couple days playing the game when it comes to Samus.

Just saying.

It's not even an issue of developer VS player for a couple days, it's old build VS current build.

 

[GFooChombey]

@ Animage I agree FFAs are fun, but not competitive. It's the kind of thing I do with my friends on a couch with a few beers. We don't really care who comes out on top.

@ Venks Like you said, it promotes teaming up. Openly happening in friendlies, If one person is playing better than the others, the other 3 team up against him and take him down. That happened to Bill Trinen this weekend.

 

[Senario]

I'm surprised to see so many "pro-defense" posters bringing up Street Fighter as an argument.. The reason why defensive play can be exciting in a traditional fighter is because of how limited that style of game is by design. Defensive Street Fighter characters are balanced in a way that gives them very strong tools to create momentum at a certain range, but also rewards an opponent that can successfully break through their defense. For example, Guile or Rose can keep out Zangief all day, but a good Zangief that gets these characters into the corner can easily 50-50 them until the KO, as their escape/reversal options are limited.

In Smash, most characters have a wide variety of options to escape pressure and reset an exchange to a neutral position at all times. Make defense much stronger than it was in Melee and you get an unsatisfying game where no one really gets anything out of pressuring the opponent. In a game where characters run circles around each other, there has to be a reward for cornering someone. In 64, the reward was too big as most characters had easy touch of death combos. Melee, while not perfect, had a pretty good balance between offense and defense for a platform fighter.

This is why Marvel and anime airdashers are built around a chain or gatling combo system - with so much added mobility, you need a reliable way to rack up damage when you do manage to catch the opponent.

Just had to say, Finally somebody brings a legit and informed insight into why Street Fighter works. The most I've seen here concerning street fighter goes along the lines of "it seems defensive oriented so therefore smash can be like it". The two really can't be considered the same imo.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

It's not even an issue of developer VS player for a couple days, it's old build VS current build.

Well, Sakurai said that plain old Samus was the strongest character. Maybe in that build, maybe not. But even in that build, Samus has quite a bit of potential if you know where to look. She may not be all that fast, but she definitely has powerful abilities in close-quarters especially, thanks to very nice auto-cancel on several aerial attacks and very low landing lag on several others. Also, Up Special and Neutral Special are great moves.

 

[The Slayer]

It's not even an issue of developer VS player for a couple days, it's old build VS current build.

Not to mention whenever there will be changes or not to the game. She could be like she is in the E3 build. She could be stronger in the final build. If it is what it is, then I'm not surprised if she doesn't come out "best character" in the game.