Balanced Brawl Public Preview *GENESIS UPDATE*

[Ryusuta]

no

auto switch is really good and useful

Since when...?

I can't think of one time in which stamina/auto-switch has ever been a good thing, unless I switch to one Pokemon when I'm about to die so it would auto-switch to the next one. And if the three were able to function by themselves without auto-switch, this would be a moot point anyway.

No matter how sickening this is, that's just the way it is and if you don't like it don't hack. For you, this would be my recommendation as it seems you are can't be pleased by this project.

Who said anything about me hating this project? Just because I think the reasoning is poor on one specific aspect of the project doesn't mean I hate the whole thing.

Or.....perhaps you should create a project of your own with your standards and reasoning...........

I hate when people make statements like this. "If you don't like the way your government works, start your OWN government!"

 

[Sterowent]

Hacking in itself is practically a double standard because you have to draw a line somewhere......Thus where you draw that line will be highly opinion based.

No matter how sickening this is, that's just the way it is and if you don't like it don't hack. For you, this would be my recommendation as it seems you are can't be pleased by this project.

Or.....perhaps you should create a project of your own with your standards and reasoning...........

In summery, your completely right in your reasoning but it's near impossible to take opinions and double standards out of the process.

well said. quoted for emphasis.

like with TOs, project creators/organizers have final say. the smart thing done is requesting huge amounts of feedback, but, in the end, it's the 'PC/PO's visions that make the game what it is.

of course, you could always try to Convince them of something...but, as said by Swordplay, opinion and double standards would be involved. this'd certainly make things more difficult. i've witnessed how difficult many times...

 

[Swordplay]

Who said anything about me hating this project?

Nobody did. I said you hated opinions and double standards which are inherently involved in the process.

Just because I think the reasoning is poor on one specific aspect of the project doesn't mean I hate the whole thing.

I actually stated that I think your reasoning is logical.

I hate when people make statements like this. "If you don't like the way your government works, start your OWN government!"

You want to know what the greatest part about hacking is?

CUSTOMIZATION. If you don't like it, You can tweak it!

You make it sound like its hard but tweaking something that exists is extremely easy. The only hard part is asking for permission (and some people don't even do that). (LOL, did you think I expected you to start your own project from scratch by yourself?)

 

[Ryusuta]

like with TOs, project creators/organizers have final say. the smart thing done is requesting huge amounts of feedback, but, in the end, it's the 'PC/PO's visions that make the game what it is.

of course, you could always try to Convince them of something...but, as said by Swordplay, opinion and double standards would be involved. this'd certainly make things more difficult. i've witnessed how difficult many times...

I'd certainly agree with that, Sterowent, which is why I'd like to try and address the points against making this change as convincingly as possible.

The way I see it, the first argument against changing this part of Pokemon Trainer is because that's not how PT was supposed to function.

To me, this argument invalidates itself, because we're changing the function of the game, anyway.

The second argument against the change is that it would make the character broken.

There are numerous reasons I don't think this is the case. The first is because Brawl+ has had these changes in place for awhile now, without any brokenness whatsoever. The second is because changing characters mid-match has never been a serious strategy for any character in the first place (Zelda/Shiek, Samus/Zamus, etc.). And the third is because the Pokemon Switch move is punishable anyway, so there's already a drawback to changing.

While it certainly is a matter of opinion where the line should be drawn, I would like to think that allowing for these necessary changes to a system that doesn't function properly has more weight in its favor, especially when this hack is made for character balance.

You make it sound like its hard but tweaking something that exists is extremely easy. The only hard part is asking for permission (and some people don't even do that). (LOL, did you think I expected you to start your own project from scratch by yourself?)

It's not a matter of changing the hack for myself. If I made those "tweaks" without convincing the creators to do so, it won't become the standard arrangement for the hack.

 

[Steeler]

the changes aren't necessary, but auto switch is definitely necessary. otherwise you don't have to switch ever. then you aren't playing pokemon trainer.

stamina is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more detrimental than auto switch

orion actually makes a good point in his most recent post though. we are already changing the fact that ike is "supposed" to be pretty gimpable. or that some stages are "supposed" to move at a certain speed. it doesn't matter if pt is supposed to suffer from something if it's in the game's best interest to do something about it.

pt wouldn't be broken from my suggested spawn invincibility switch or if stamina was tweaked/removed. hell none of the individual pokemon are close to broken, and any combination of the three isn't broken either.

but he'd be pretty good. what's wrong with pt being pretty good? thinkaman would be okay with it.

 

[Swordplay]

It's not a matter of changing the hack for myself. If I made those "tweaks" without convincing the creators to do so, it won't become the standard arrangement for the hack.

Who cares about the standard, all that should matter is that you have fun with it. Even if you do have a different version.

But I suppose that is my optimistic and poor reasoning. I probably shouldn't of said this in the first place.


Edit:

I think my main points have been made and before this argument degrades into something stupid (seems like thats where its heading) I'm going to stop.

 

[Eyada]

The way I see it, the first argument against changing this part of Pokemon Trainer is because that's not how PT was supposed to function.

To me, this argument invalidates itself, because we're changing the function of the game, anyway.

First, I'd like to remind you of several guidelines AA laid out in the opening post:

2. Increase Overall Character Balance

This is obviously a large undertaking. In attempting to balance the cast, we established the following guidelines:
-The "target" was Diddy Kong. We would aim to make everyone about as good as Diddy Kong.
-The fewer changes, the better. The less noticeable the changes, the better.
-If a "big" change was needed, it must be a single, concise change and fit within the character's existing playstyle.

Emphasis is mine.

Looking at the bolded portion, it becomes clear that one of the goals of this project is to change as little as possible; moreover, any changes necessary should be as small as possible. This means that the natural tendency is always to avoid changing anything unless solid proof can be provided showing that said thing absolutely must be changed in order to achieve the goal of Character Balance.

Therefore, your claim of "To me, this argument invalidates itself, because we're changing the function of the game, anyway." is not a valid proof as far as this project is concerned. Just because certain features of the game had to be changed does not automatically mean that all features should be changed; rather, this project emphasizes the exact opposite: things only change if they absolutely must. Just because Ike's recovery and mobility absolutely and necessarily had to be improved does not in any way imply that Forced Switching deserves to be removed. If you think Forced Switching needs to be removed, then it is your responsibility to present a forceful argument showing that Forced Switching absolutely and necessarily must be removed in order for PT to be balanced and viable. If you cannot do so, then Forced Switch does not need to be removed.

Looking at the underlined portion of AA's quote, it becomes even more clear that removal of auto-switching is not in line with the goals of this project. Pokemon Trainer, as he exists in vBrawl, is a character that consists of a rotation of 3 different characters, all of which must be used. That is the definition of Pokemon Trainer in vBrawl; period. Squirtle is not a character, Ivysaur is not a character, and Charizard is not a character; Pokemon Trainer is, and the character concept of "Pokemon Trainer" encompasses all three of them. The three Pokemon are not individual characters, they are simply portions of a character. Making them stand-alone characters fundamentally alters "the character's existing playstyle" as far as the character "Pokemon Trainer" is concerned.

The second argument against the change is that it would make the character broken.

There are numerous reasons I don't think this is the case.

The first is because Brawl+ has had these changes in place for awhile now, without any brokenness whatsoever.

Brawl+ is a fundamentally different game engine; results of balance changes within it should not necessarily be generalized to Brawl/BBrawl.

The second is because changing characters mid-match has never been a serious strategy for any character in the first place (Zelda/Shiek, Samus/Zamus, etc.).

Changing characters mid-match has always been, and will always be, a core strategy for Pokemon Trainer in vBrawl simply because it is mandatory behavior due to Forced Switch. If you are talking about voluntarily transforming via Down-B, then you are no longer discussing Forced Switch and your point is irrelevant.

And the third is because the Pokemon Switch move is punishable anyway, so there's already a drawback to changing.

Again, this doesn't concern Forced Switch, so it is irrelevant.

While it certainly is a matter of opinion where the line should be drawn, I would like to think that allowing for these necessary changes to a system that doesn't function properly has more weight in its favor, especially when this hack is made for character balance.

Except that you haven't shown why removing Forced Switch is absolutely necessary, at all. Currently, removing Forced Switch has a great deal of weight against it because doing so conflicts with the guidelines of the project. If you believe it needs to be removed, then you need to establish why its removal is necessary for achieving the overall goal of Character Balance.

 

[Thinkaman]

In the end, it comes down to homogenization. Pokemon Trainer's unique advantage is that you have three unique advantages and three unique disadvantages to manage; you get to optimize your strategy to best make use of the three.

Pokemon Trainer's disadvantage is that if you want the flexibility of three characters, you have to agree to use three characters. This is enforced by Stamina and Auto-Change.

How is this different from Zelda and Sheik? Zelda and Sheik are in design, less complete characters than the Pokemon. None of the Pokemon have Sheik's struggle to get KOs, nor Zelda's terrible approach. There have their own individual disadvantages of course, but the key point is that the main design of the characters are different; A is A and B is B. Neither is the other, only itself.

How is this different from Ike? Ike had a mobility weakness that he could never, ever have a balanced matchup spread with. Same with Luigi's Fireballs, or Ivysuar's individual Up-B. We do not hesitate to make drastic changes if they are unavoidable in the pursuit of our goal. (Balance)

This is not a question of balance at all. No one is saying that Pokemon Trainer is doomed in certain matchups due to Stamina or Auto-Switch. No one is saying Pokemon is "too good" because they are three unique characters. Anyone saying either of those things is fooling no one, including themselves. This is a question of how the character plays.

We could take away Lucario's Aura, because some people don't like the idea of doing worse damage and knockback if they are not damaged themselves. Instead, those people should not play Lucario.

We could take away Nana and leave a buffed Popo, because some people don't like babysitting a second CPU-controlled partner. Instead, those people should not play Ice Climbers.

We could make Ike have faster but weaker attacks, because some people don't like the idea of only have slow, strong attacks besides jab. Instead, those people should not play Ike.

We could make Marth have much better throws instead of unfair disjointed priority, because some people don't like the idea of so much focus on non-throw attacks. Instead, those people should not play Marth.

We could make Olimar have much more standard priority and recovery and take away his ridiculous grabs, because some people don't like the idea of those extremes. Instead, those people should not play Olimar.

We could make Diddy have a more normal moveset with far less focus on bananas, because some people don't like having an entire game based around utilizing bananas. Instead, those people should not play Diddy.

We could make Peach have a much better air dodge and double jump instead of the ability to float, because some people don't like the way she is required to move differently from other characters. Instead, those people should not play Peach.

We could make Pokemon Trainer three separate characters because some people do not like the idea of being forced to use three characters. Instead, those people should not play Pokemon Trainer.

Pokemon Trainer in no way needs a fundamental, redefining change to be balanced. Why then, would we want to do it?

 

[Steeler]

i'd argue that stamina dooms pt in some matchups, if the player decides to abuse it.

 

[GHNeko]

Which in tourneys, that will happen if the player knows about it.

Play to win. If you have to be gay and abuse the staminia system, you probably will. I know I would. I'd play hella gay, even if I hate that ****, simply to win, because I dont want to lose.

That's why certain matchups go to **** once the player with teh character advantage learns the match up. :V

 

[Thinkaman]

I will say that I am fully in favor of making stamina strictly attack based (no timer). Obviously that keeps the character intact, but less open to stalling abuse; also a goal of this project. Ampharos and I have discussed this before (in our very first conversation actually, over 2 months ago), including what size counter to use. We agreed that it would be best if the Pokemon could even have different amounts of Stamina, since that could be useful to leverage.

 

[Linkshot]

And "Character Balance" is broken down further into "Neutralising Matchups"

How the hell does Forced Switching impact a matchup? It doesn't, since all 3 will be used.

EDIT: zomg that would be great. Squirtle definitely tires out the fastest. I believe we need to gather some data on how many attacks are used per battle for each character (if stamina were not an issue and there was no auto-switching), then scale based on the results.

 

[Thinkaman]

Actually, forced switching has a marginal evening effect on the matchups; for example, I would be... somewhat comfortable with one of the individual Pokemon having up to a 70:30 matchup if they are penalized for trying to use only that individual Pokemon. (Especially the the other matchups are bad.) The overall PT matchup is highly unlikely to be 70:30.

However, the decision to keep PT as PT is not because it is required for balance, even if the impact it has on balance can be discussed and debated.

 

[Ryusuta]

Looking at the bolded portion, it becomes clear that one of the goals of this project is to change as little as possible; moreover, any changes necessary should be as small as possible. This means that the natural tendency is always to avoid changing anything unless solid proof can be provided showing that said thing absolutely must be changed in order to achieve the goal of Character Balance.

You haven't done any changes to Pokemon Trainer as a character, minor OR major.

If we're looking at PT as one character, then fine. The single major change should be an adjustment to either stamina or auto-switch. You've changed only the individual Pokemon within Pokemon Trainer, not Pokemon Trainer himself. You can't have it both ways. Either they're three different characters, or they're not.

Just because certain features of the game had to be changed

Technically, none of the features "had" to be changed.

Just because Ike's recovery and mobility absolutely and necessarily had to be improved

They absolutely did NOT "have" to be improved any more than PT's changing method does. If you play as Ike in traditional Brawl, you play him knowing his recovery sucks. If you play PT, you know you have stamina and auto-switch. Those are the character flaws in traditional Brawl.

But in practice, they're both incredibly detrimental. Ike's recovery is a gimp magnet, and Pokemon Trainer HAS TO play match-ups that he knows are bad. If you fix a detrimental and fundamental flaw in one character, you should fix the other. It's only logical.

If you think Forced Switching needs to be removed, then it is your responsibility to present a forceful argument showing that Forced Switching absolutely and necessarily must be removed in order for PT to be balanced and viable. If you cannot do so, then Forced Switch does not need to be removed.

I've presented several. You just keep moving the goalposts rather than addressing them.

I'll give you another example, from traditional Brawl: Falco. Falco has an advantage against ALL THREE Pokemon. You can't take any real advantage of ANY of PT's Pokemon or the adaptability of changing because ALL THREE POKEMON are disadvantaged.

Can I say this is the case in BBrawl? Not yet, because BBrawl's match-ups haven't really been experimented with. But the fact that this flaw is a very real possibility in BBrawl, so the system itself is flawed for allowing this possibility.

Looking at the underlined portion of AA's quote, it becomes even more clear that removal of auto-switching is not in line with the goals of this project. Pokemon Trainer, as he exists in vBrawl, is a character that consists of a rotation of 3 different characters, all of which must be used. That is the definition of Pokemon Trainer in vBrawl; period. Squirtle is not a character, Ivysaur is not a character, and Charizard is not a character; Pokemon Trainer is, and the character concept of "Pokemon Trainer" encompasses all three of them.

Again, with this argument. I've already addressed this... no offense, but stupid argument like three times:

Just because it's the way the character was originally intended, doesn't mean that's the way he should be. And it DOESN'T mean that he's balanced that way (quite the opposite, in fact... he has an aspect that's significantly more of a disadvantage than an advantage), either.

If we're balancing characters, then we're changing them from how they're "originally intended to be" at a fundamental level, period. So either it's ALL okay, or NONE of it is.

Tripping was "supposed" to be in Brawl. Pictochat was "supposed" to move at a certain speed. Yoshi's Egg Roll is "supposed" to put him into recovery mode. The way things are "supposed" to be is stupid in those cases, and it's stupid in PT's case. There is no getting around this.

The three Pokemon are not individual characters

...And yet they were edited as if they were. Make up your mind.

Brawl+ is a fundamentally different game engine; results of balance changes within it should not necessarily be generalized to Brawl/BBrawl.

Who's generalizing? I'm saying that this change doesn't, in and of itself, ruin the character; and used Brawl+ as an example. I didn't say they were the same thing, I said that changing this aspect has been proven not to be game-breaking in and of itself.

I'd use BBrawl matches with no auto-switch/stamina as an example, but there are none. Perhaps we should try some out and see how it works, since the rest of this is all theory anyway.

If you are talking about voluntarily transforming via Down-B, then you are no longer discussing Forced Switch and your point is irrelevant.

The point was about Pokemon Trainer in general, not one specific aspect or the other. You should pay more attention.

Except that you haven't shown why removing Forced Switch is absolutely necessary, at all. Currently, removing Forced Switch has a great deal of weight against it because doing so conflicts with the guidelines of the project. If you believe it needs to be removed, then you need to establish why its removal is necessary for achieving the overall goal of Character Balance.

Done and done. Pokemon Trainer has an inherent disadvantage that no other character has. One that can and has forced PT to play in conditions that are unfair to the character itself.

How is this different from Zelda and Sheik? Zelda and Sheik are in design, less complete characters than the Pokemon. None of the Pokemon have Sheik's struggle to get KOs,

*Looks at tired Squirtle, or ANY Ivysaur*

...Um...

nor Zelda's terrible approach.

...Ummm...

There have their own individual disadvantages of course, but the key point is that the main design of the characters are different; A is A and B is B. Neither is the other, only itself.

You're not serious, are you? Sheik players almost never use Zelda, and vice-versa. Sheik players cope with her lack of KO power, and Zelda players cope with her lack of an approach. That's just how the characters play. Pokemon Trainer should have that same opportunity if they choose to.

How is this different from Ike? Ike had a mobility weakness that he could never, ever have a balanced matchup spread with. Same with Luigi's Fireballs, or Ivysuar's individual Up-B. We do not hesitate to make drastic changes if they are unavoidable in the pursuit of our goal. (Balance)

In other words, it IS the same. Auto-switch is equally detrimental to all of those things.

This is not a question of balance at all. No one is saying that Pokemon Trainer is doomed in certain matchups due to Stamina or Auto-Switch.

Steeler brought up the example of stalling to tire out a Pokemon.

No one is saying Pokemon is "too good" because they are three unique characters. Anyone saying either of those things is fooling no one, including themselves. This is a question of how the character plays.

Is it "How the character plays," or "How the character SHOULD play,"? Because you guys don't seem to have this part clear yet.

You say that they're not individual characters. But from where I'm sitting they should be. They're edited as such and given buffs as such, they should be individual characters. Any other suggestion is frankly silly.

Examples

None of those things is like auto-switch. Not even close. There's a difference between getting used to certain aspects of an individual character, and having to learn two other completely different characters to use one. Ice Climbers are always Ice Climbers. Ike is always Ike. Zelda is always Zelda. Olimar is always Olimar.

Pokemon Trainer is a completely different character at different times.

 

[Thinkaman]

I'm just going to ask "What matchups in PT's matchup spread are heavily imbalanced due to PT's nature of using three sub-characters?"

Ike was changed because he was terrible against Falco, Olimar, post-change Luigi, and all other projectile-heavy characters.

Jigglypuff was changed because she could not deal with G&W, Wario, Marth, DDD, or other characters with high endurance or high priority aerials.

Zelda was changed because she was pathetic in the face of defensive characters like Olimar, Snake, or post-change Ivysaur.

All of our changes are made to balance the scales, because they are tilted.

What matchups does the 3 sub-character nature of PT put PT at a big disadvantage?

 

[Epic Kovumon]

Don't change temple, please!
also, can't u make FD's ledges better, wolf can't recover worth a crap there.

lrn2recover

 

[Ryusuta]

I'm just going to ask "What matchups in PT's matchup spread are heavily imbalanced due to PT's nature of using three sub-characters?"

Ike was changed because he was terrible against Falco, Olimar, post-change Luigi, and all other projectile-heavy characters.

Jigglypuff was changed because she could not deal with G&W, Wario, Marth, DDD, or other characters with high endurance or high priority aerials.

Zelda was changed because she was pathetic in the face of defensive characters like Olimar, Snake, or post-change Ivysaur.

All of our changes are made to balance the scales, because they are tilted.

What matchups does the 3 sub-character nature of PT put PT at a big disadvantage?

Anyone that can stall and wait for stamina to kick in, like Sonic.

 

[Thinkaman]

But if that were your real concern, all you would be advocating is faster change animations or removal of the timer from stamina.

 

[Ryusuta]

Steeler's suggestion, you mean?

Hmm... yeah, I think that would be a fair compromise.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I'm just going to say you are plain wrong about Zelda & Sheik for Brawl. The typical player of Zelda & Sheik uses both; back when Ankoku's topic tracked Zeld and Sheik independently the joint "Zelda & Sheik" passed both up so it became pointless to keep points from the joint character based off the people who didn't use one half. Granted, there are many people who only use one, but based on who actually wins with the character, both is the most popular strategy.

You may be confused based off melee Zelda & Sheik which should just be renamed "Sheik". In melee, Zelda is essentially a totally worthless half of a character so the optimal ratio to use the two in is 0% Zelda to 100% Sheik. It's when you have non-worthless characters to switch to that it's interesting, and the fact that you can switch in the middle of a match is the big deal here.

 

[Eyada]

I have to say that I agree with the Stamina/Fatigue suggestion.

You haven't done any changes to Pokemon Trainer as a character, minor OR major.

If we're looking at PT as one character, then fine. The single major change should be an adjustment to either stamina or auto-switch. You've changed only the individual Pokemon within Pokemon Trainer, not Pokemon Trainer himself. You can't have it both ways. Either they're three different characters, or they're not.

"Pokemon Trainer", as a character concept, consists of all three of the individual Pokemon ("Squirtle", "Ivysaur", and "Charizard"), as well as the universal auto-switch and fatigue mechanics. "Pokemon Trainer" as a character option is essentially the gestalt of "Squirtle", "Ivysaur", and "Charizard". "Squirtle", "Ivysaur", and "Charizard" are not true characters in Brawl, period; they are sub-characters that you can use if you play as a character called "Pokemon Trainer". Moreover, saying that "Squirtle", "Ivysaur", or "Charizard" has been changed but then denying that "Pokemon Trainer" has been changed is an absurdity, because "Pokemon Trainer" is "Squirtle", "Ivysaur", and "Charizard". Again, the three Pokemon are not stand-alone characters, at all. Buffing Squirtle means a buff to Pokemon Trainer, and a nerf to Charizard means a nerf to Pokemon Trainer; because Squirtle and Charizard are Pokemon Trainer.

Technically, none of the features "had" to be changed.

In order to accomplish the goals of this project, as stated in the OP, they most certainly "had" to be changed.

They absolutely did NOT "have" to be improved any more than PT's changing method does. If you play as Ike in traditional Brawl, you play him knowing his recovery sucks. If you play PT, you know you have stamina and auto-switch. Those are the character flaws in traditional Brawl.

But in practice, they're both incredibly detrimental. Ike's recovery is a gimp magnet, and Pokemon Trainer HAS TO play match-ups that he knows are bad. If you fix a detrimental and fundamental flaw in one character, you should fix the other. It's only logical.

First of all, your comparison between Ike and PT is fundamentally flawed.

Ike's recovery absolutely "had" to be improved in order to de-polarize several of his match-ups. Improving Ike's Quick Draw was the best way to de-polarize Ike's match-ups and make him competitively viable.

Which has nothing in common whatsoever with Auto-Switch on Pokemon Trainer. What PT match-ups, may I ask, would be de-polarized if Auto-Switch were removed from PT?

What's more, even if you can think of a few, is removing Auto-Switch the least invasive method for de-polarizing those match-ups? Are there other less extreme changes that could be made to de-polarize those match-ups?

I've presented several. You just keep moving the goalposts rather than addressing them.

How's this:

List of Arguments Proving that Auto-Switch absolutely and necessarily MUST be removed from PT in order to achieve Character Balance in BBrawl:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
etc.

Fill in the blanks then, so our misunderstanding can be rectified. If we're going to debate these arguments you've supposedly presented, let's get a neat organized list so I can destroy them in an orderly fashion.

I'll give you another example, from traditional Brawl: Falco. Falco has an advantage against ALL THREE Pokemon. You can't take any real advantage of ANY of PT's Pokemon or the adaptability of changing because ALL THREE POKEMON are disadvantaged.

Then how would removing Auto-Switch de-polarize that match-up, exactly?

Can I say this is the case in BBrawl? Not yet, because BBrawl's match-ups haven't really been experimented with. But the fact that this flaw is a very real possibility in BBrawl, so the system itself is flawed for allowing this possibility.

Again, how does removing Auto-Switch help improve the match-up? What's more, how is removing Auto-Switch a more elegant and less invasive solution than simply buffing the various Pokemon or nerfing Falco?

Again, with this argument. I've already addressed this... no offense, but stupid argument like three times:

Just because it's the way the character was originally intended, doesn't mean that's the way he should be. And it DOESN'T mean that he's balanced that way (quite the opposite, in fact... he has an aspect that's significantly more of a disadvantage than an advantage), either.

@the bolded section of the quote: So, you're saying that you don't like the character concept of "Pokemon Trainer"? Alright. I can hardly debate your preferences. Simply don't play as Pokemon Trainer then, if you don't like the character concept.

@the balance portion: Are you claiming that Auto-Switch is responsible for polarizing Pokemon Trainer's match-ups or making him non-viable? If so, which match-ups is it directly responsible for polarizing?

If we're balancing characters, then we're changing them from how they're "originally intended to be" at a fundamental level, period. So either it's ALL okay, or NONE of it is.

Tripping was "supposed" to be in Brawl. Pictochat was "supposed" to move at a certain speed. Yoshi's Egg Roll is "supposed" to put him into recovery mode. The way things are "supposed" to be is stupid in those cases, and it's stupid in PT's case. There is no getting around this.

First of all, Tripping, Pictochat, and Yoshi's Egg Roll were not changed because they were "stupid". They were changed because doing so accomplished this project's goals of increasing the overall competitive viability of Brawl in the least invasive ways possible in each of their respective contexts.

Second, saying that Auto-Switch is "stupid" on PT and that this "stupid"-ness is sufficient reason for its removal is a completely worthless argument given that "stupid" in this instance is simply your opinion. Moreover, even if everyone agreed that it were "stupid", that still isn't a reason to remove it from the game and it doesn't meet any of the criteria used by this project for balance changes. Nothing else in BBrawl has been changed or removed because of said thing being "stupid", and nothing ever will be.

...And yet they were edited as if they were. Make up your mind.

Pokemon Trainer is the gestalt of all three individual Pokemon. The Pokemon are sub-characters that, combined together, form the greater whole that is called "Pokemon Trainer". There we go, mind made up.

Who's generalizing? I'm saying that this change doesn't, in and of itself, ruin the character; and used Brawl+ as an example. I didn't say they were the same thing, I said that changing this aspect has been proven not to be game-breaking in and of itself.

And I'm pointing out that the Brawl+ example is completely worthless in this discussion because Brawl+ is too different from Brawl/BBrawl. Just because the change wasn't broken in Brawl+ provides no assurance whatsoever as to its effect on Brawl/BBrawl. It's like saying "I hacked Melee and changed [insert feature] and it didn't break the game. Therefore, [insert feature] can be changed in BBrawl without any balance consequences."

I'd use BBrawl matches with no auto-switch/stamina as an example, but there are none. Perhaps we should try some out and see how it works, since the rest of this is all theory anyway.

I'll just reiterate that I agree that Stamina should be changed, because doing so will help de-polarize certain match-ups wherein stalling plays a heavily damaging role.

However, Auto-Switch does not polarize any match-ups or make PT non-viable, so nothing will be gained by removing it. Therefore, we have no reason to "try some out and see how it works".

The point was about Pokemon Trainer in general, not one specific aspect or the other. You should pay more attention.

"Pokemon Trainer in general" does not need Auto-Switch to be removed in order to be balanced, at all. Let's focus on that aspect.

Done and done. Pokemon Trainer has an inherent disadvantage that no other character has. One that can and has forced PT to play in conditions that are unfair to the character itself.

Yep, and it's a defining weakness. Defining weaknesses are a great thing for games to have unless said weakness is also polarizing. Good thing Auto-Switch isn't polarizing.

 

[grim mouser]

List of Arguments Proving that Auto-Switch absolutely and necessarily MUST be removed from PT in order to achieve Character Balance in BBrawl:

Replace "Auto-Switch" with:

3. Toon Link
-Improved grounded Spin Attack

His grounded Spin Attack sucks opponents in better and does a little more damage. This tiny edge might let Toon Link break into the big leagues!

Spin Attack change was certainly not "absolutely and necessarily" a change to be made. I seriously doubt the change depolarizes any matchups or makes him more tournament viable.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Replace "Auto-Switch" with:



Spin Attack change was certainly not "absolutely and necessarily" a change to be made. I seriously doubt the change depolarizes any matchups or makes him more tournament viable.

It's also not a fundamental change to character design, it's just a slight improvement which gives him one more usable attack to work with, slightly improving him.

 

[Thinkaman]

Spin Attack change was certainly not "absolutely and necessarily" a change to be made. I seriously doubt the change depolarizes any matchups or makes him more tournament viable.

It wasn't critical to balance to fix Toon Link d-smash either. However, balance is only the main goal of this project. Fixing wonky and glitchy bahavior is also something we will do at times.

Samus does not "need" to be able to pummel Bowser, that is not a stacked matchup. However, it is still more polished to fix that.

 

[Ryusuta]

Eyada, why do you bother quoting me if you're not paying attention to what's actually being said?

Anyway...

I have to say that I agree with the Stamina/Fatigue suggestion.

I do, too. Ultimately, I think Steeler's suggestion would be the most fair compromise all around.

 

[Linkshot]

The thing about Auto-Switch is that Pokemon Trainer actually needs it.

Notice how, like, the character is Pokemon Trainer. This insinuates that he has a team of Pokemon. If one faints, he has to switch out to the next. Instead of removing auto-switching, the solution would be to modify it so that you can choose to have either Ivysaur or Charizard out after Squirtle faints (as an example). This might not be possible at the moment, so auto-switching stays.

What it looks like PT needs to be balanced is for every Pokemon to share one universal trait, which would make it a "Pokemon Trainer" trait: a decent gtfo move to allow a switch.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Um, sorry to interrupt this riveting discussion... but wow, Balanced Brawl is awesome. I just wanted to commend everyone involved in this project because you all did a terrific job. Link is actually fun to use, I could see myself winning a match with Pokemon Trainer, and Ganon is straight up terrifying now. Well done, everyone, and I hope you get a good sample set at Genesis.

 

[GwJ]

We'd sure get taken a lot more seriously if a certain venue had internet this weekend.

 

[Eyada]

Spin Attack change was certainly not "absolutely and necessarily" a change to be made. I seriously doubt the change depolarizes any matchups or makes him more tournament viable.

First, Toon Link's Spin Attack buff is not even remotely in the same category as removing Auto-Switch. The buff to Spin Attack is a minor change that emphasizes something Toon Link is already good at (damage dealing) and it fits very well into his current playstyle, both of which make it fit within the guidelines of balance used by this project; on the other hand, removing Auto-Switch is a major change that fundamentally alters the playstyle of Pokemon Trainer as well as fundamentally altering the entire character concept, both of which make it not fit within the guidelines for balance used by this project. As such, they are not in the same category of changes; one fits nicely within the balance guidelines of the project while the other thoroughly violates them. A direct comparison is not entirely fair.

That said, examining Toon Link, it seems apparent that he needs to be improved in some fashion as he is below the desired level of "power" this project seeks for all characters. Given this, we know that we must make Toon Link better somehow.

To do so, we could either mitigate one of his weaknesses or buff one of his strengths. In particular, we could look at his polarized match-ups for some inspiration for good things to change; unfortunately, Toon Link doesn't really have any polarizing disadvantages, so that's not helpful to us. That leaves us with arbitrarily buffing a strength or mitigating a weakness. Looking at TLink, he has several nice strengths that essentially center around damage racking but he suffers from a notable lack of killing power. None of his other weaknesses are particularly character defining, so it behooves us to maintain his inability to kill. As such, we're left with buffing his damage dealing.

AA and Thinkaman decided that Spin Attack was a nice candidate, probably because it presented slightly "glitchy" behavior that isn't nice to have in a finished product, but they easily could have chosen any number of other moves. They probably did a detailed analysis of his moveset and his various match-ups and decided that it fit him the best. Ultimately though, the buff is perfectly justified because it accomplishes the overall goal of improving TLink slightly in order to help his tournament viability. He didn't need a big change, thankfully, but he did need a change. As such, the buff was entirely necessary.

Eyada, why do you bother quoting me if you're not paying attention to what's actually being said?

As far as I can tell, your core argument was:

Auto-Switching and Stamina should be removed from Pokemon Trainer; thereby allowing players to use only Squirtle, or only Ivysaur, or only Charizard, without being forced to use all three.

Am I mistaken?

 

[GwJ]

I forgot to try something. How much easier/harder is it to escape the second hit of Tink's Fsmash now?

 

[Ryusuta]

As far as I can tell, your core argument was:

Auto-Switching and Stamina should be removed from Pokemon Trainer; thereby allowing players to use only Squirtle, or only Ivysaur, or only Charizard, without being forced to use all three.

Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are mistaken. You completely oversimplified my standpoint so you could strawman it, and ignored several other relevant statements as well. All under the guise of "waiting to see what arguments I'm making," which I already made.

However, since we both agree that adjusting the stamina/change in the ways Steeler suggested is the most satisfactory solution, there's no point in artificially extending that part of the debate other than for the arbitrary purpose of scoring points off of each other. I'm looking to arrive at a conclusion, not go around in circles.

 

[Eyada]

Yes, you are mistaken. You completely oversimplified my standpoint so you could strawman it, and ignored several other relevant statements as well. All under the guise of "waiting to see what arguments I'm making," which I already made.

However, since we both agree that adjusting the stamina/change in the ways Steeler suggested is the most satisfactory solution, there's no point in artificially extending that part of the debate other than for the arbitrary purpose of scoring points off of each other. I'm looking to arrive at a conclusion, not go around in circles.

My apologies for any misunderstandings.

So long as we have firmly established that removing Auto-Switch from Pokemon Trainer is bad, and that it should not be done in BBrawl, I'm satisfied. I don't care about any other point on PT; if we both agree that Forced Switching should stay as part of BBrawl, then we have nothing to argue about.

Edit: To clarify, I mean that Pokemon Trainer players should have to use all three Pokemon. Period. I don't care what mechanics are used to force it, but universal usage of all three Pokemon is, and should remain, the core of Pokemon Trainer's character concept.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Personally, I really liked the option of choosing, it's an elegent option, very much in line with PT's core philosophy, being able to choose during down-b would be amazing too...

Unfortunately, I doubt we have the codes to actually do it... yet.

 

[Ryusuta]

I don't think it would be too hard to do. Something like "Hold R to get the Pokemon after next" or something.

Might be a little more trouble than it's worth, though. Tweaking the Pokemon Change would have much the same effect.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Being able to choose sounds nice, but it in practice means you simply never use one of the Pokemon and just keep going back and forth between two (whichever is worst in that matchup you don't use). I don't think it's good design.

All this being said, we're not 100% opposed to any changes to stamina mechanics so much as they don't seem a big priority since PT seems pretty solid already to the point that I'm a bit anxious about any buffs to him for any purpose. I don't want stamina to be irrelevant though, and that would mean juts removing the timer would need to be accompanied by an increase in the attack penalty... which would be very unfair to Squirtle who attacks really fast and frequently. My "optimal" solution would involve individualized stamina mechanics per Pokemon, my secondary solution would be not changing core mechanics but starting each Pokemon with 2:30 worth of stamina instead of 2:00, a third would be careful, conservative changes to the actual decrement process, and a fourth (which I think is still perfectly fine) is no change at all, default Brawl mechanics (do note this makes the transition Brawl -> Bbrawl and reverse much easier if you play PT in both). I'm honestly not very familiar with the parameters of the stamina codes; I have only seen them used for "no stamina" which is definitely not a solution I'm willing to accept.

Also, I have no idea how things are going or went at Genesis with Bbrawl; we basically put our trust in Stealth Raptor to put up a good demonstration and hopefully draw a crowd. We can only hope for the best right now...

By the way, the throw mods are going VERY well for the most part. ICs are pretty close to not having infinites (we're still testing), though they have pretty substantial buffs otherwise to compensate. In general the throw changes really "complete" several characters and fix minor issues we had just neglected before; it's really nice! This may also be the bump Samus and Captain Falcon had been waiting for...

It's good to hear people trying it out for the first time chiming in with positive first impressions even now. That sort of thing just makes me optimistic about our overall direction. There's definitely no harm in interrupting these sorts of riveting discussions; the points get communicated either way (we both read every post in this thread, even though it is 123 pages long).

 

[Thinkaman]

I have long considered trying to code up some sort of "AT" for "backwards switching" or switching to the one after next as you put it. However, I do think that the design of the character is built upon being forced to use all three; I would like it to be so that if you switched from Squirtle to Charizard, your next would be Ivysaur.

Ultimately, it would be tricky to pull off, and I'm not sure I'd like to change the character like that.

On a happier note, testing for throws is going well. We have IC throws that seem to be impossible past 70% on most characters at the moment, but no promises... We are testing different ICs buffs to go with this, of course.

 

[Ryusuta]

May I ask why you feel the PT is so close to being broken right now, AA? I've been playing around with BBrawl (and of course, use PT as one of my mains), and he really just doesn't seem that much more powerful. I mean, apart from Ivy's fixed up B (which was definitely needed), he's really about the same old guy he always was... just with some minor buffs. I don't really think that fixing the stamina a little would suddenly make him the Meta Knight of BBrawl.

What's wrong with simply dropping the timer and keeping the move mechanics the same? It seems that most people are thinking that would be just about perfect, even if they disagree about the other aspects of the character.

 

[Thinkaman]

Ivysaur bair does almost double damage. It's one of the best moves in the game now imo. The bullet seed buff is pretty huge at high-level play too. Frankly, I think Ivysaur has an advantage on many characters ranging from Snake to Marth. Charizard's buffs are much smaller, but still nice; he's also possibly getting a Fly buff and/or d-throw buff as the last changes to PT.

Also, imo PT loves wi-fi training room.

 

[Wii4Mii 99]

I like the direction this project is going in. Keep up the good work.

 

[Linkshot]

Accompanying choosing your Pokemon would be slower stamina recovery. But I see your point. Perhaps choose before the match which direction to rotate in?