Be honest, are 0 to KO combos really that good?

[SuperDS64]

From what info we're getting, we do get low percent combos, and isn't that enough? It's not a fun game when after the first hit you're auto-dead. Even if every character has a 0 to KO, it would be an uneventful game/comp if all you see is the first person being able to initiate the combo to death. Even more so if only a few characters can pull it of, leading to more "pros" to use the same character at each tourney (aka Metaknight and the like).

I posted this in another forum, but I want to see how this board responds.

 

[Hong]

From what info we're getting, we do get low percent combos, and isn't that enough? It's not a fun game when after the first hit you're auto-dead. Even if every character has a 0 to KO, it would be an uneventful game/comp if all you see is the first person being able to initiate the combo to death. Even more so if only a few characters can pull it of, leading to more "pros" to use the same character at each tourney (aka Metaknight and the like).

I posted this in another forum, but I want to see how this board responds.

Depends.

How specific is it to enable those 0%->death combos? Is every character equally as potential, and if they can't perform such combos they at least have equal strength in other ways? How skill-indexed will the product be?

I think as a 64 player, I can chime in on this. Since every character but Samus can do this well enough (and even she has some d-air combos, fsmash shield breaker, etc.), it's not so bad. We of course have a pretty defined tier list that most people can agree with to some extent, but every character except the aforementioned feels uniquely powerful. I'm a Link main in that game, and while I know there are way better characters, I still feel pretty powerful. Not the same feeling I get with Link in Melee or Brawl.

I think your line of question is cutting it too short. It's not about whether or not the game has 0%->death combos, so much as whether or not the product is heavily indexed by skill and conditions to satisfy are just. How much will the better player win by? As long as the combos mandate skill, creativity, and solid reactions, sure, I welcome them into my Smash Bros.

I rather have a game where the offensive initiative is encouraged, punishment is severe and we can play with five stocks knowing the matches will end in short time, than a slugfest that becomes more about raw attrition and exchanging blows. Trades and attrition have a place in competitive gaming, but I don't want it over-emphasized in Smash Bros.

 

[SuperDS64]

I guess my idea is that, when both players are skilled (like pro Melee/Brawl), whoever is able to fake out the opponent or when the opponent screws up is how a 0 to death combo works, which basically becomes a sequence of button presses. I suppose Brawl's Falco d-throw chain into a d-air is an example of such (yet kind of a weak one).

So yes, I do approve of strategies that involve going offensive, no punishment required, possibly into a short combo, I really think there should be a chance for the opponent to redeem themselves instead of just going with the combo until death because they can't do anything. It would make more matches interesting (remember this? http://youtu.be/Qna80MbcAAc?t=2m9s ) while allowing the game to grow competitively.

EDIT: This isn't a "be more like Melee" comment. It's a "combos are good in moderation" comment.

 

[Gust14]

0 to death combos -aka infinites- suck (melee wobbling, brawl chain grabs, brawl grab releases, brawl jab locks... eww). Every other kind of combo is awesome (be it low, or mid or high percentage). This is just common logic for any fighting game (or brawler or whathever you want to call it) and smash freedom to combo was always one of its biggest selling points and the reason some of its scenes are still going on and even growing many years later. Without combos smash wouldnt be the same.

A constant flow of non-infinite combos (and tech-chases, and strings) is mostly important because theyre fun: to do, to try to scape to, and to watch. They keep the game dynamic and contribute to its adictive nature.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I don't support infinites in the slightest. They are a pretty common thing in UMVC3 and they are the most common chided quality of that game, why the hell do people want it in Smash so much?

 

[THE_MAAFIA]

That's why I stick with 64, no infinite wobbling or chain grabs

 

[Deleted member 245254]

That's why I stick with 64, no infinite wobbling or chain grabs

Smash 64 is like the worst offender of the games when it comes to infinite-like combos.

 

[Gust14]

I don't support infinites in the slightest. They are a pretty common thing in UMVC3 and they are the most common chided quality of that game, why the hell do people want it in Smash so much?

Uhhh, read my post?? nobody likes infinites. I dont even know where you get this ideas...

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Uhhh, read my post?? nobody likes infinites. I dont even know where you get this ideas...

How did you get the idea I was directing my comment at you? Clearly I was simply addressing the OP's thread...

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Infinites are somewhat better in Smash Bros. than other fighting games because you can at least DI to disrupt their attempt. While not ideal, I'll take 0-death combos over no combos at all.

 

[menotyou135]

0 to death combos are fine IF they are very hard to do. A 0 to death combo that takes a lot of skill and requires you to adjust for how your opponent is DIing is great for gameplay. It allows you to punish their failures if you have enough skill.

When 0 to Death combos are easy enough for someone to pull them off 4/5 times and/or hit regardless of DI, then they are too easy.

The way you present 0 to death combos, it sounds like any scrub can do them and they wreck gameplay when done, when the reality is that as long as you are able to DI away, they are incredibly difficult and only feasible if the other player is able to read what you are doing.

They are similar to a low percentage gimp. It's your fault you got off the map to begin with, and gimping you is difficult for the enemy to do if you know how to recover well.

Essentially, they are rewarded for their skill through a difficult to perform combo, while you are punished for your mistakes. If you don't want to get hit 0 to death, then don't get hit.

 

[LancerStaff]

They work fine for the SSB64 metagame since almost every character can do them, but I don't think it's really fair in SSB4 since it'll be restricted to a select few since the characters have been getting more and more specialized.

 

[ryuu seika]

Inescapable zero to death combos can never be considered a good thing for any game but the potential to KO someone without even being touched does add drama to a game. Smash, in my understanding, already has a lot of pseudo-combos whereby the user has to predict the opponent's escape attempts to keep the combo going. Extending this to zero to death levels would not be a terrible thing, so long as the escape options are enough that the zero to death isn't a common occurrence and takes a lot of mental skill and reaction.

 

[THE_MAAFIA]

Smash 64 is like the worst offender of the games when it comes to infinite-like combos.

Only real infinite is fox's up air, and you can only do that with TAS

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Even if you have to read Di to gain the 0-death I still think it's a terrible idea to have 0-death combos.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

The entire reason long combo strings are so revered in Smash is that they are rather difficult to actually pull off. People don't get hype for IC infinites or MK uair strings, which are significantly more ... 'routine', as it were.

 

[menotyou135]

The entire reason long combo strings are so revered in Smash is that they are rather difficult to actually pull off. People don't get hype for IC infinites or MK uair strings, which are significantly more ... 'routine', as it were.

Pretty much this. The difficulty is key. The combination of difficulty and the fact that the other player can do something about it make it different than other game infinites. Most fighters it is just one guy doing the combo and the other player can just set down their controller for all the good it does. In smash you can actually do something about it which makes it not as bad as other fighters.

 

[ItsRainingGravy]

Infinites are somewhat better in Smash Bros. than other fighting games because you can at least DI to disrupt their attempt. While not ideal, I'll take 0-death combos over no combos at all.

I agree with this.

Additionally, unlike other fighting games, Smash Bros has stocks. In other fighting games, an infinite combo usually means that you just lost, because those games only usually have a single healthbar and playable character (MvC2 & 3 are two exceptions). Though in Smash, this only translates to losing a single stock. Which, of course, it is still bad. But that doesn't mean that you immediately lost the match, unless you are on your last stock. And unlike MvC2 & 3 and other fighting games, you don't lose options when you lose a stock. You can play just as well with 4 stocks as you can with only a single stock.

Infinite combos are fine, as long as there is an attached risk and difficulty to the infinite combo. For example, El Fuerte's heavy punch links in Street Fighter 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmPO2EpUDj0

While not a true infinite, it can pretty much be treated as one. It requires no Ultra, or Super Meter meter to do. And it even does more damage than all of the Ultras/Supers in the game. But because of how difficult it is to pull off, you almost never see anybody pull this off. If an infinite is anything like this, then it is fine. Stuff that would fall into this category would be like Ice Climber's chain grabs. Only a few people are able to effectively, and consistently pull it off. So it is fine for such players to be rewarded for their skill. Plus, it is rather risky, as Ice Climbers have a huge weakness when it comes to losing Nana; making the character far weaker.

Other infinite combos can be bad. Jab Locking is one such example, because it takes little skill and risk in order to be able to pull off consistently and effectively. These types of infinites are usually what breaks games, and should be fixed and/or looked into. Most normal 0 -> Death combos are fine though, because those take a fair amount of skill to pull off due to the opponent being able to DI out of certain situations. Plus other factors, such as the amount of damage the opponent currently has (which affects you being able to combo them or not), as well as player-error and stage selection.

 

[OddCrow]

Zero -> Death =/= Infinite

A zero to death is in my opinion the most exciting thing in smash. The idea that you have to react to things your opponent hasn't even done yet, while they try to react to things you haven't done yet is amazing. Zero-to-death combos are rarely inescapable, with each hit offering some sliver of a chance to get out. As a smash player and smash fan, nothing gets my heart racing like seeing donkey kong chain of cargo throws, up-airs, tech-chases and a big fair finish.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

The level of strategy DI, punishable tech/rolls, lack of shields in the air and various other things that make up Smash's very unique defensive game and defensive anti-combo options give the game a lot of depth, strategy and hype. A 0-death string is not a guaranteed thing and reflects some very skilful and on-point play on the part of the aggressor.

 

[ImaClubYou]

I'm down for combos.

That's all.

 

[JayJay584]

I personally don't like 0-deaths at all, no matter how difficult it can be to pull off if the guy can only DI or just wait for it to end. If it's a case where the guy gets combo'd, then afterwards can freely move how he likes, but ends up getting read into another combo which leads to death or something, then that's a lot more fun.

 

[Hong]

Reading this thread, seems that the best compromise is that we should at least have 0%->launch combos.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

I personally don't like 0-deaths at all, no matter how difficult it can be to pull off if the guy can only DI or just wait for it to end.

I think you understimate the difference bewteen being able to DI and having to simply wait for a combo to end. Being unable to DI out of certain throws is one of the primary reasons I quit Brawl. In PM, sure Ness chainthrowing my Roy is annoying but at least I CAN get out of it through proper DI and mindgames. It's much less demoralising.

 

[JayJay584]

I think you understimate the difference bewteen being able to DI and having to simply wait for a combo to end. Being unable to DI out of certain throws is one of the primary reasons I quit Brawl. In PM, sure Ness chainthrowing my Roy is annoying but at least I CAN get out of it through proper DI and mindgames. It's much less demoralising.

Regardless, it's not fun for me personally to do, play against, or watch.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

There is way too much back-and-forth when there are only low percent combos. Spending more time maneuvering than attacking and defending is not as fun or engaging and doesn't really hone an offensive mindset.

That is, spending more time maneuvering when there isn't even that much risk (say 40-50%.) It's just Smash melodrama.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Pretty much this. The difficulty is key. The combination of difficulty and the fact that the other player can do something about it make it different than other game infinites. Most fighters it is just one guy doing the combo and the other player can just set down their controller for all the good it does. In smash you can actually do something about it which makes it not as bad as other fighters.

That also makes what you're describing not an actual infinite and thus, irrelevant.

What you're describing is a string of hits the opponent is punished for by not acting correctly.

Two different things.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

That also makes what you're describing not an actual infinite and thus, irrelevant.

What you're describing is a string of hits the opponent is punished for by not acting correctly.

Two different things.

Yeah, half the people in this thread are talking about infinites and the other half about escapable combo strings that require good reads/reactions.

The consensus on infinites is "No".

 

[SKM_NeoN]

That also makes what you're describing not an actual infinite and thus, irrelevant.
What you're describing is a string of hits the opponent is punished for by not acting correctly.
Two different things.

I think we all know what he was talking about Mr. literal

 

[Morbi]

Yeah, half the people in this thread are talking about infinites and the other half about escapable combo strings that require good reads/reactions.

The consensus on infinites is "No".

To be fair; I am confused myself as a string that is escapable is not necessarily a zero to death. However, zero to deaths are infinites. I do not support infinites for obvious reasons, but if it is a combo that is difficult to land and maintain but it tends to usually kill, I am all for it.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I think we all know what he was talking about Mr. literal

This isn't an interpretation issue, infinite has a specific definition in fighting game terms. Either abide by it or be seen as talking from the bum.

A zero to death is simple the act of a player taking another player from 0% to KO in a well achieved string, but it's never in-escapable...hence...there's no reason to demonize zero to death in the same way since it's highly the victim players fault they experienced getting zero to deathed.

 

[TheDMonroeShow]

I really don't think there's anything that can get me quite as hyped as seeing a 0 to death combo in smash, mostly because this generally requires the person pulling off the combo to consistently out predict his opponent and man hearing a crowd going wild on a stream just adds to the excitement.

I'd be really upset to not see them in smash 4 but I could live without them provided we at least get some combo potential.

 

[Jiggy37]

If nothing else, a game based on zero to deaths is far more compelling than a game based on poke to deaths.

 

[menotyou135]

That also makes what you're describing not an actual infinite and thus, irrelevant.

What you're describing is a string of hits the opponent is punished for by not acting correctly.

Two different things.

Yes, but I never said infinite. I said 0 to death.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Yes, but I never said infinite. I said 0 to death.

You specifically used the word infinite in the post I quoted, and literally did not say 0 to death at all.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

 

[RODO]

Idk when anyone wanted infinites I think people just want combos in general.

 

[Second Power]

Even if it isn't the official definition, I see a combo within Smash not ending until the players return to neutral. With that definition, a game of 0-death combos is pretty feasible. I don't expect a lot 0-deaths, but if all characters had them I'd be very happy.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think we all know what he was talking about Mr. literal

Not everyone on the forums is smash literate, you should be more open to that.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Correcting someone or being unfamiliar with the FGC lingo is one thing. Arguing details for the sake of arguing is another.