Are True Combos Good for Competitive Gameplay?

[cot(θ)]

One of the major complaints I've heard about Sm4sh is that due to the high base knockback on most moves, there are very few true combos. Personally, I don't think this is a bad thing at all, and in my opinion, true combos are actually harmful to competitive play.

My reasoning is simply that for the duration of a true combo, there's no real interaction between players, which is what a competitive game is all about. The attacker is basically playing a single-player game for the duration of the combo. And the defender is, well, probably desperately DI'ing in the hopes that his opponent will screw up, and if he doesn't, then the defender's actions are basically useless.

In my opinion, it's much more interesting to put the defender in a state of disadvantage - the attacker has more options than the defender, and has been rightly rewarded for landing a hit, but the defender can still reset the match to neutral by out-playing the attacker. To me, that's more exciting than seeing someone pull off a huge combo chain.

What do you think - are true combos good for competitive gameplay? What about them makes them worth the time spent in non-interactive gameplay? Discuss!

[collapse="Please don't use specific games as justification for your position without adequate reasoning."]

You hit them once they hit you once you hit them once they hit you once until the match is over makes for an extremely boring game. A large part of why Brawl fizzled out so rapidly.

Melee style combos are perfect for this sort of game genre.

This post is referring to Brawl's mechanics to make a point about combos, and is referring to Melee's mechanics to specify/clarify his position. This is an acceptable use of references to specific games.

No. They're terrible for competitive play. That's why melee is so bad. /sarcasm

This post is unconstructive, and is using Melee as a sort of argument from authority. Please don't make posts like this.
[/collapse]

 

[GoldWindRequiem]

I say yes. If you can create some good damage true combos that can generate hype for the audience, then I see no reason as to why they shouldn't be considered a good thing. When watching and playing in competitive play, you wanna keep things from being boring. If you can pull off some really good true combos, then by all means, do so. As long as it keeps the players and fans alike entertained.

 

[Mike2]

No. They're terrible for competitive play. That's why melee is so bad. /sarcasm

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Yes and no?
Combo's look nice but the real meat and potato's is reward.
If you string a 6 hit true combo, but the combo composes of 2% moves or 3% moves your only doing 12-18%.
Then theres hard hitters who do 12-18% in one hit (wassup ganon). The reward is the same.

You want enough reward for getting in, if that's through a true combo or not doesn't really matter so long as it's appropriate. However sitting inside of a combo can be well boring since a loss of control despite being exciting to observe.
Tl;dr everything in moderation.

 

[dguy6789]

You hit them once they hit you once you hit them once they hit you once until the match is over makes for an extremely boring game. A large part of why Brawl fizzled out so rapidly.

Melee style combos are perfect for this sort of game genre.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

You want combos in general. There's not NO interaction between players. There's DI and stuff. You have to read where they're going for it.

 

[Thinkaman]

Of course not. True combos are the Michael Bay of fighting game mechanics.

 

[GoldWindRequiem]

Of course not. True combos are the Michael Bay of fighting game mechanics.

DI is the Tommy Wiseau of Smash.

"Don't tawch me, mahtherf**ker!"

 

[Raijinken]

I get bored watching a single player get to have all the fun because their opponent was the first one to make a mistake. Went with option 3.

Also, combos are boring to be on the receiving side of. If it's too combo-centric, you may as well lay down the controller once the first hit lands.

 

[RIP_Lucas]

Low and mid percentage play is crazy boring, there's a reason KOs are all that count, and anything that speeds up that process is a good thing. I like the balance of some characters having better damage options like Fox and sonic in the form of unguaranteed combos, but other characters have better kill options. True combos in moderation can serve to amplify this process and make matches more interesting, but a small mistake of a tiny spacing error should not guarantee 40% damage or worse. I like techniques like Sonic's spin dash and diddy's down through because they have easy follow up that produces sizable damage, but I don't like choreographed 6 move combos that produce crippling damages that single handedly reduce characters viability to almost zero. For all its imperfections, sm4sh has a character, play style, and player diversity that makes it very unique, and too many true combos would ruin that

 

[Asdioh]

-_-

If you know your opponent can start a true combo by hitting you with X attack, then just avoid getting hit by X attack. Bam, interesting gameplay.

If that's not enough of an argument, then there's the fact that "what happens after the combo is over" is also an interesting part of gameplay. There are plenty of true combos in this game, but the way each player reacts after the end is... interaction.

tl;dr it's fine l2p

 

[RIP_Lucas]

-_-

If you know your opponent can start a true combo by hitting you with X attack, then just avoid getting hit by X attack. Bam, interesting gameplay.

If that's not enough of an argument, then there's the fact that "what happens after the combo is over" is also an interesting part of gameplay. There are plenty of true combos in this game, but the way each player reacts after the end is... interaction.

tl;dr it's fine l2p

Sorry, but all this argument proves its that true combos can be part of a competitive meta game. We already knew that from melee. I got the feeling this thread was about comparing the pros and cons of true combos and determining if they improve an already competitive meta

 

[EvilShadow777]

True combos at low - mid %s are fine and make sense. After all many true combos are the main method of damage build-up. However high %s have more natural knockback which breaks most combos and makes it more about a precise finishing hit, which is a healthy game play pattern.

The issue is when someone just destroys their opponent at a low % with a minimal chance of retaliation. Though very little in smash 4 has that issue so I feel the game play is very healthy as is.

 

[cot(θ)]

If you know your opponent can start a true combo by hitting you with X attack, then just avoid getting hit by X attack. Bam, interesting gameplay.

True enough, but there are already attacks that the players are focused on not getting hit by. All the combos do in this regard is shuffle around the significance of the attacks.

If that's not enough of an argument, then there's the fact that "what happens after the combo is over" is also an interesting part of gameplay. There are plenty of true combos in this game, but the way each player reacts after the end is... interaction.

Can you explain how this interaction is significantly different/better than the interaction after being hit once and put into a disadvantageous position?

 

[Jellyfish4102]

Combos are fun for viewers but true combos are bad for players because they pretty much let one player put there controller down.

 

[RIP_Lucas]

To me, this concept is a perfect example of the gaming concept of "challenging vs punishing." The TL;DR version is that all good games have mechanics that make people very aware that they made a mistake, but don't let a single mistake ruin the overall experience. Players always need to know exactly what they did wrong, and more importantly that if they were to do it again that they would potentially be able to beat it. Any time that a single mistake results in such a significant decrease in your player options like some of the true combos melee had, it falls under the definition of "punishing," and as far as I can tell is an inherently bad thing.

There's also the concept of counter play, which is basically any time someone uses a technique on you, it should increase your number of options, not decrease them. This is why things like snipers are so hated in fps, because aside from simply avoiding getting hit by them, there's no real way to counter them. Same with true combos. If they extend too long, they remove the real element of counter play in that there's only one real thing you can do until they're over. Sure you can avoid them, but if it were that simple nobody would ever get caught in true combos

 

[TL?]

There's a lot more to it than just asking if combos are good or bad. It is just one part of the game and should be balanced according to everything else in the game. You say that more combos leads to less interaction between players, but smash has the mechanic of DI. It means that during combos you're still in some control and in a lot of situations force the attacker to commit to a guess. It lets us have combos and allows some defense towards combos without breaking them every time. It's a great mechanic that would definitely accommodate higher hitstun.

I feel like a little more hitstun would make this a better game. With a many character it feels like a lot of things just barely don't combo. It feels like the moment I can reach people after a throw or tilt they are able to air dodge out of the followup. There are certain jab combos with gaps in hitstun allowing players to dodge or counterattack. There are a lot of instances in real matches where you see someone land a throw or up tilt and get hit with an opponent's nair right before the followup. With the faster characters that really do have combos, a lot of the time only one of your aerials is fast enough to combo. In other games there has been enough stun so you can often choose between a few moves for your followup, which can make a big difference depending on stage position. Part of the reason this game can drag on at times is because with a lot of characters throws have no followups at higher %s and throws don't kill.

Good/Bad for competitive play seems like a weird way to ask this. As the game stands now people can play it just fine. They just need to learn and accept what doesn't actually combo, or play a small handful of characters that really can combo like diddy, sheik, or pikachu. Instead of up tilt to aerial, just up tilt and block the nair that's about to happen. Air dodges, counterattacks, jumps, and all that can be still baited. But the odds are a lot more in the favor of the defender than if they had to DI instead. It's really just a question of how much reward should a hit lead to? Either way, the game is competitive as long as people compete in it, so part of this answer comes down to preference. For me personally, A little bit more hitstun (and as a result, more combos) would make the game more exciting to watch and play.

 

[Asdioh]

Sorry, but all this argument proves its that true combos can be part of a competitive meta game. We already knew that from melee. I got the feeling this thread was about comparing the pros and cons of true combos and determining if they improve an already competitive meta

Can you explain how this interaction is significantly different/better than the interaction after being hit once and put into a disadvantageous position?

Ok I think I get what you're saying, maybe. Maybe not. All 4 smash games have had true combos. 64 had the most, then Melee, then Smash 4, then Brawl. If you compare the two extremes, I daresay 64 is more entertaining than Brawl (but of course this is opinion.) Generally, the more often you reset into neutral game, the longer games take. If Smash4 had even more opportunities to return the victim to neutral (read: less true combos), then games would take even longer, and long games are already a complaint, as far as tournaments are concerned.

My reasoning is simply that for the duration of a true combo, there's no real interaction between players, which is what a competitive game is all about. The attacker is basically playing a single-player game for the duration of the combo. And the defender is, well, probably desperately DI'ing in the hopes that his opponent will screw up, and if he doesn't, then the defender's actions are basically useless.

The bolded is untrue. The existence of DI in every smash game (well, plus percentage, weight, fall speed, stale moves, rage, stage layouts) means that even true combos aren't always going to be exactly the same and end up with both players in the same locations. Yes, you may feel "helpless" when you got stuck in a combo, but that's your punishment for getting hit, and that's your opponent's reward. True combos are generally balanced in this game, it was clearly designed with the possibility of combos in mind.

In my opinion, it's much more interesting to put the defender in a state of disadvantage - the attacker has more options than the defender, and has been rightly rewarded for landing a hit, but the defender can still reset the match to neutral by out-playing the attacker. To me, that's more exciting than seeing someone pull off a huge combo chain.

This part happens after the true combo is over, so it still exists. Really, what's the big deal? If my Kirby hits Bowser 3 times with Uptilt and then once with Upair in a true combo, it deals roughly 21% damage and gets him in the air above me. Later, Bowser hits me with a single Bair which deals 19% damage and forces me to get back onstage. Both of these situations have similar results: fairly easy to do, a similar chunk of damage, and forces the victim into an undesirable position that they need to fight back on. Does the fact that Kirby's attack was a 4-hit combo somehow harmful to the game? Isn't that few seconds of "helpless" state just placebo making you think scenario A is unfair while scenario B is good for the game?


Sorry I'm so poor at summarizing my thoughts. tl;dr Smash 4 is balanced to have combos, combos have interaction in every smash games, even when they're guaranteed, and they generally make the game faster paced and more interesting.

 

[RIP_Lucas]

Ok I think I get what you're saying, maybe. Maybe not. All 4 smash games have had true combos. 64 had the most, then Melee, then Smash 4, then Brawl. If you compare the two extremes, I daresay 64 is more entertaining than Brawl (but of course this is opinion.) Generally, the more often you reset into neutral game, the longer games take. If Smash4 had even more opportunities to return the victim to neutral (read: less true combos), then games would take even longer, and long games are already a complaint, as far as tournaments are concerned.

The bolded is untrue. The existence of DI in every smash game (well, plus percentage, weight, fall speed, stale moves, rage, stage layouts) means that even true combos aren't always going to be exactly the same and end up with both players in the same locations. Yes, you may feel "helpless" when you got stuck in a combo, but that's your punishment for getting hit, and that's your opponent's reward. True combos are generally balanced in this game, it was clearly designed with the possibility of combos in mind.
This part happens after the true combo is over, so it still exists. Really, what's the big deal? If my Kirby hits Bowser 3 times with Uptilt and then once with Upair in a true combo, it deals roughly 21% damage and gets him in the air above me. Later, Bowser hits me with a single Bair which deals 19% damage and forces me to get back onstage. Both of these situations have similar results: fairly easy to do, a similar chunk of damage, and forces the victim into an undesirable position that they need to fight back on. Does the fact that Kirby's attack was a 4-hit combo somehow harmful to the game? Isn't that few seconds of "helpless" state just placebo making you think scenario A is unfair while scenario B is good for the game?


Sorry I'm so poor at summarizing my thoughts. tl;dr Smash 4 is balanced to have combos, combos have interaction in every smash games, even when they're guaranteed, and they generally make the game faster paced and more interesting.

Not many people will complain about the current combos that exist. They all serve to accelerate the boring process of building damage, which is a good thing. The people who are fighting against true combos are mostly specific to combos that carry on for several seconds and even if they speed up the fight itself, they actually decrease the pace of the match by making people play more conservatively trying to avoid getting hit by moves that can lead to extremely punishing combos.

Even TL?'s suggestion of slightly increased hit stun is pretty hard to argue against because of the reasons you listed.

 

[Roko Jono]

Did some of you not read the options or the thread. What the hell is wrong with you. True combos are great. No one wants 1 touch deaths and as you can see from the poll they want rewarding true combos. You assume that in Melee (hitstun is higher in 64 der) you get hit once you die. You are generalizing fighting games and it creates a bad illusion. Cut your crap

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

I went with option 2 (though option 3 may have been more appropriate. I'm somewhere in the middle). Combos encourage approach (though that's not to say there haven't been characters who can start combos with projectiles in Smash before. Hell, Link, Toon Link, Diddy and Peach all can in this game), make the game more exciting and most importantly help to improve the game's pacing. Resetting back to neutral all of the time can really bog the speed down as players may not want to risk pressing on if they cannot reasonably expect to come out the one who benefits. Resetting to neutral also slows the game down by making players have to find their way into the opponent's space all over again, which depending on character and matchup, really can be a tedious process.

@Praxis explains it well in this post.

On the other hand, if the reward from a hitconfirm is too great, then combos are harmful to the game, especially if the combos are unaffected by DI. I can't tell you how hard I'd Blaster camp vs Pikachu, Wario and DDD in Brawl out of fear of their chaingrabs. I've also come across something similar in 3.02 PM where Ness could Dthrow chain Roy to ~60% on reaction and then get Uair -> Uair -> Any Aerial for free and the matchup became a living hell as anytime I'd get shieldgrabbed or caught in a PK Fire I knew that I would either lose a stock at worst, or be left with a huge % difference at best.

@JamietheAuraUser explains it well here:

Spoiler

Interestingly, a game can become more defensive rather than less when the power of offence increases too much. There is a point where defence is your best option because making a single mistake on attempted offence will cost you the game, and in a platform fighter it is almost inherently easier to defend than to approach. At the same time, the opposite can hold true as well. Even if every move has an insane frame advantage on block and the frame data of dodge manoeuvres is terrible, a game of "keep away" can still become the most reliably advantageous playstyle because attempting to approach can just as easily lead to the aggressor dying as it can the defender.

If the situational advantage from succeeding in approaching and landing a hit is insufficient, balance becomes skewed towards defence. If the situational disadvantage from failing your approach and having a hit landed on you as a result is too great, balance again becomes skewed towards defence. Brawl has the former problem; 64 the latter. For a game to balance towards offence, approach has to be reasonably reliable and have sufficient reward. That is, a person who successfully defends must not get an immediately greater advantage than the aggressor was gambling for. A successful defence needs to lead to less follow-up from the defender than the attacker would get from a successful offence. In Smash 64, it appears from my limited experience to be just as possible for a failed approach to lead to a stock loss for the attacker as it is for a successful approach to lead to a stock loss for the defender.

I think my overall stance is that if every character was frequently putting together say, 3-piecers, that would very much be good for the game. But instead I feel both from watching and playing that this sort of thing is mostly reserved for only a few characters, including but not limited to ZSS, Cpt Falcon, Diddy, Mario (at mid to midhigh %s, anyway), Luigi and Sheik.

 

[Thinkaman]

Brawl had more true combos than Smash 4. Jab-locks, infinites, and chainthrows are all true combos.

 

[S2]

Small combos are fine. They're fun for players and exciting for spectators.

That being said, combos in Smash should be somewhat limited given the nature of the game. Combos are an important aspect of any fighting game, it's not the only part.

Smash doesn't need 0 to death combos in order to validate whether it is competitive and it also doesn't need to play like MvC in order to be hype. A lot of what makes Street Fighter popular is the emphasis on footsies, mix-ups, baiting, and choosing when to combo versus when to go for a reset. SF4 has relatively small combos (when you take out multihit moves such as ultras) but still has a lot of emphasis on the mindgames. Smash does a lot of the basics well, even if true combos are generally small when compared to mindgame follow-ups. Extended combo length is not the end-all way to measure the quality of a fighting game.

 

[TL?]

Brawl had more true combos than Smash 4. Jab-locks, infinites, and chainthrows are all true combos.

Yes, which is why it's not as simple as more or less combos. How the combos themselves work and all of the other mechanics in play have to be considered as well.

 

[RanserSSF4]

I went with option 2 (though option 3 may have been more appropriate. I'm somewhere in the middle). Combos encourage approach (though that's not to say there haven't been characters who can start combos with projectiles in Smash before. Hell, Link, Toon Link, Diddy and Peach all can in this game), make the game more exciting and most importantly help to improve the game's pacing. Resetting back to neutral all of the time can really bog the speed down as players may not want to risk pressing on if they cannot reasonably expect to come out the one who benefits. Resetting to neutral also slows the game down by making players have to find their way into the opponent's space all over again, which depending on character and matchup, really can be a tedious process.

@Praxis explains it well in this post.

On the other hand, if the reward from a hitconfirm is too great, then combos are harmful to the game, especially if the combos are unaffected by DI. I can't tell you how hard I'd Blaster camp vs Pikachu, Wario and DDD in Brawl out of fear of their chaingrabs. I've also come across something similar in 3.02 PM where Ness could Dthrow chain Roy to ~60% on reaction and then get Uair -> Uair -> Any Aerial for free and the matchup became a living hell as anytime I'd get shieldgrabbed or caught in a PK Fire I knew that I would either lose a stock at worst, or be left with a huge % difference at best.

@JamietheAuraUser explains it well here:


I think my overall stance is that if every character was frequently putting together say, 3-piecers, that would very much be good for the game. But instead I feel both from watching and playing that this sort of thing is mostly reserved for only a few characters, including but not limited to ZSS, Cpt Falcon, Diddy, Mario (at mid to midhigh %s, anyway), Luigi and Sheik.

The thing though is that in every Smash game, NOT every character has true combos. I've played all smash games and some characters weren't designed to be combo-heavy characters and they barely have true combos, but they make up for it with other aspects of their playstyle. Bowser is a good example of this; He barely has any true combos, but he makes up for it with Mix-ups, Spacing, and kill power. True, he's never been a top tier character at all (though I think he's mid tier in Smash 4), but as long as their other aspects make up for that, they're good.

However, I do think there are some characters in Smash 4 that should have true combos, and I don't care if they are just two hits or three hits or more. One of those best examples is Ganondorf. True, he does have Dthrow into Uair, but it's very difficult to land due to DI.

IMO, having true combos on certain characters isn't a bad thing, but I feel if only certain characters can have true combos, you have to make sure other characters have other options to make up for their lack of true combos. As I said, Bowser is an example of this.

 

[shapular]

I don't think true combos are bad, but they have to be balanced with everything else. If a character can combo really well they shouldn't also be able to kill easily. I also generally dislike the idea of being able to combo into a kill out of easy things like a jab or grab (I also dislike KO throws, but horizontal ones are more okay than vertical ones). Combos would ideally be interesting like Melee's but not as crazy, and not boring like Mario utiltx5. Smash 4 does have several characters with interesting combos like this (including Mario) so that's a good start. True combos shouldn't be a necessary requirement for a character to be good, because there's no way Ganondorf or Bowser will be able to have the combo potential of Sheik or Fox.

 

[LordFluffy]

Having True combos is never a bad thing i feel, Combo's are generally the hype of most spectator fighting games and why melee is still so popular especially for viewers vs brawl. that being said, i have never been a fan of 0-death combos. they may be hype but once everyone can pull them off the hype dies down and it becomes boring to watch (takes UMvC3 for example) Melee at least keeps it interesting in that regard because i often never see the same 0-death save chain grabs.

Strings are a different story, if the string is entirely escapable, but the opponent fails to do so, that can lead to hype as well. i'm completely in favor of true combos but not 0-death.

 

[Lemon Girl]

Melee-esque true combos (spontaneuos combos, not jab-lock/infinite stuff like Brawl) are great for competitive gameplay, not only they are hype, they create oportunities for comebacks, make matches far faster and add diversity and creativity to matches, not even mentioning that it becomes easier to finish someone off at higer percetages, something I see a lot of people struggle with in Smash 4 (unless you're Diddy or have a super strong throw). In Smash 4 Mario will always down-throw into utilt, Ness pk fire/d-tilt > d-throw > double fair and so forth, it gets tiresome really fast. If you want the game to resolve only around reads you may as well play Pokémon.

 

[chipz]

I get bored watching a single player get to have all the fun because their opponent was the first one to make a mistake. Went with option 3.

Also, combos are boring to be on the receiving side of. If it's too combo-centric, you may as well lay down the controller once the first hit lands.

looks like someone doesn't know DI works

 

[Utena]

how is DI/Teching not considered "player input"
combos can be hard to pull off, sometimes necessitating weak hits with moves or excellent prediction. It's just another factor that differentiates good players from bad ones, and having some follow ups makes the game fun to play and rewards people who know what theyre doing

 

[Thinkaman]

If DI is involved at all, it's not a true combo.

The inclusion of DI in Melee was a massive step away from true combos, and what made smash go from a neat game to a truly incredible one.

 

[|RK|]

I like reasonable combos, yeah. It's a good representation of technical ability, to trap an opponent in an unfavorable situation. I like it when it's technically possible to escape the combo as well - it makes it that much more rewarding to pull off the combos as well as to watch them being pulled off. Being that Smash isn't your traditional fighting game, most every character's combos change depending on the opponent's percentage (and as a Lucario main, my percentage as well). So being able to see those options and taking advantage of them is always fun. Nothing zero-to-death, though.

 

[Tagxy]

People need to better define what they mean. And before asking what is good for competitive play actually understanding what good competitive play actually means.

Most of the time people say something is "good" for competitive play theyre talking about some trait thats subjective non-sense. For the most part the only real way something can be measured on its worth competitively (whether its good or bad) is in discussion of its depth.

Using depth as a metric you must be careful with combos because they can be capable of limiting depth.

 

[Raijinken]

looks like someone doesn't know DI works

As Thinkaman said, if it's DIable, it's not a true combo. If it's avoidable in any way aside from the initiator making an input error, it's not a true combo (since Smash doesn't have mechanics like some Vs Capcom games do that let you sacrifice, say, a super bar to crash out of a combo). To be fair, being unpredictable in your 50-50 chance of DIing correctly can increase the likelihood your opponent makes an input error on their followup, but if we're already assuming perfect play, then they're still going to land the hits, and you're not avoiding that 30-70 damage and potential death, depending on the game.

 

[JediLink]

Combos are great. More combos. Full Mahvel up in here. Let's go son.

 

[Utena]

If DI is involved at all, it's not a true combo.

this... is wrong. If you can react to their DI and always get the follow up because the opponent cant yet act out of hitstun its still a true combo. Like with most melee chaingrabs or sheik dthrow follow ups


also honestly i usually cringe when i read your posts.. maybe its just the steins;gate avatar

 

[Thinkaman]

this... is wrong. If you can react to their DI and always get the follow up because the opponent cant yet act out of hitstun its still a true combo. Like with most melee chaingrabs or sheik dthrow follow ups

This is true; I'm just not considering DI part of the situation if all possible inputs can be reacted to. (And thus isn't a decision.) That's not gameplay, just execution.

But yeah, you're right. It's still a true combo even if they have to react to your DI, just like it's still a true combo even though they have to push buttons.

 

[JWrecks]

I might be alone here but I feel like this whole argument is very similar to the balance approaches of LoL and Dota. LoL is all about player interaction where as Dota is about if you screw up you usually die.

In fighting games ( or whatever you wanna call smash ) player interaction is interesting and highly varied, if you watch high level games you could break down each second and watch the interactions between players until someone gets hit. I think smash4 has way more then enough interaction, people saying you might as well put the controller down need to play tekken and then come back to smash.

Saying player interaction needs to be higher is kind of insane with how limited combos are already pretty short and all things considered lightly damaging compared to other fighting games.

 

[chipz]

I might be alone here but I feel like this whole argument is very similar to the balance approaches of LoL and Dota. LoL is all about player interaction where as Dota is about if you screw up you usually die.

In fighting games ( or whatever you wanna call smash ) player interaction is interesting and highly varied, if you watch high level games you could break down each second and watch the interactions between players until someone gets hit. I think smash4 has way more then enough interaction, people saying you might as well put the controller down need to play tekken and then come back to smash.

Saying player interaction needs to be higher is kind of insane with how limited combos are already pretty short and all things considered lightly damaging compared to other fighting games.

What? DOTA has more player interaction at all times as well as the larger punishment for making mistakes.
You don't die when you screw up, but mistakes snowball much harder than in league, right down to last hits and denies.

 

[Antonykun]

Of course not. True combos are the Michael Bay of fighting game mechanics.

I'm going to assume by Michael Bay you mean hype but otherwise uninteresting. Well I think certain characters should have true combos. Luigi comes to mind as he is a character who struggles to get it but when he does he gets huge rewards. Villager is one of those characters who should not as her specialty is zoning and not rushdown. Also by having certain moves follow up into one another allows for different weights on the rsp which, assuming the combos aren't Ice Climbers, lead to better dynamics overall.
EDIT I totally forgot that true combos means no DI can save you, so the list of people who should have true combos is rather small. Of course those combos are like or two extra hits before it becomes a mix up rather than an actual combo.