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

[menotyou135]

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

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.

make it different than other game infinites.

I was comparing 0 to death to infinites in other games. I didn't call what smash has infinites. I called what smash has "it." It in this context refers to the subject of the topic, which is implied to be what the OP said: 0 to death. The reason I used the word infinite is because infinites from other games (other game inifinites) are the closest thing to 0 death.

I understand why you would think I was calling it infinites though based off the way I worded it, but if you break my sentence down, it is clear that I was not referring to them as such.

 

[OddCrow]

Welp, we made it one page before we devolved into arguing semantics.

 

[TheDMonroeShow]

Welp, we made it one page before we devolved into arguing semantics.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

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).

My preference is I dislike getting caught in in a 0% to stock chain of events. However, Smash is built in such a way that I literally have options to attempt to break out at almost anytime if I know what I am doing. At least when looking at melee. Smash64 does not have this mechanic due to no directional influence being available and simply general lack of defensive mechanics in general.

So, looking at Melee, 0% to death I believe is possible with the top characters on almost anyone. At least with Falco, Sheik, Marth, and Fox. However, despite these 0% to stock chain of events most characters have some means to escape or attempt to wiggle out. We have air dodge, directional influence, 2nd jumping, UpB, SideB stall, DownB stall, fast fall attacking, and probably other stuff I forgot to mention. While it may feel like an auto-death there is surprisingly a lot of control from the character being hit. Against Fox, I can opt to DI his Uthrow backwards, then attempt to SDI/ASDI/DI his Uair to the side and get out. Only if he uses say Bair/Nair does his chain of attacks continue. But, then I simply move onto to DI and respond to the next move in the arsenal.

Only if my opponent does everything right or I mess up does my opponent get the victory of my stock. Within Brawl, there may have been too much power given to the defender. Very few characters I believe could cover the strong defensive options give to the character being hit. For example, MK can attempt to force you to air dodge by spacing an Uair at you and only to cover your air dodge with a FF Dair or such. Not many characters could do this in brawl and the ledge was way too powerful. Its incredibly risky to try attacking you on the ledge.

Edit:
I believe 0% to death is very satisfying to get in melee since it feels very hard for me to do a whole stock without fail. At the very least, to do a 0% to death while doing everything right. I feel many times a person can throw out random attacks and hope there opponent messes up. For example, say as Marth I do Fthrow -> Fsmash to them at the ledge and hope it hits if they do not DI right. If it does, I did get a 0% to death in a way (simply edgehog afterwards if against another Marth), but this is not exactly the best way to achieve a 0% to death.

A true one to me would be denying every single action my opponent makes to escape me hitting him. Instead of Fthrow -> fsmash immediately (denied by simply proper DI), I Uthrow instead and attempt to put a sword in there way every single time they attempt to stall, air dodge, jump, or attack right at me. If I can deny all of there actions every single time perfectly, I got a stock and it was satisfying to do so. However, this to me does not seem like a bad thing since my opponent at options every single time they got hit to attempt to wiggle out.

Its only the 0% to death stuff that has no actions/options for the one being hit that I dislike. For example, fox shine against someone on a wall in melee is the type of thing I dislike since I literally have no options other than to hope my opponent stops doing it.

 

[Senario]

There aren't that many zero to death combos in melee...actually only one true one without being a tool assisted fox lol. That is wobbling and people know how to work around it well enough. Separate Nana and popo. Kill nana. I mean, if you are playing a person vastly more skilled than you it can feel like a 0 to death combo but that is the same in a lot of other fighting games. It really isn't that bad what smash has in melee at least compared to marvel with some combos having an end...that just happens to end after you've dealt enough damage to kill one char. It is still a fun game though.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

My preference is I dislike getting caught in in a 0% to stock chain of events. However, Smash is built in such a way that I literally have options to attempt to break out at almost anytime if I know what I am doing. At least when looking at melee. Smash64 does not have this mechanic due to no directional influence being available and simply general lack of defensive mechanics in general.

So, looking at Melee, 0% to death I believe is possible with the top characters on almost anyone. At least with Falco, Sheik, Marth, and Fox. However, despite these 0% to stock chain of events most characters have some means to escape or attempt to wiggle out. We have air dodge, directional influence, 2nd jumping, UpB, SideB stall, DownB stall, fast fall attacking, and probably other stuff I forgot to mention. While it may feel like an auto-death there is surprisingly a lot of control from the character being hit. Against Fox, I can opt to DI his Uthrow backwards, then attempt to SDI/ASDI/DI his Uair to the side and get out. Only if he uses say Bair/Nair does his chain of attacks continue. But, then I simply move onto to DI and respond to the next move in the arsenal.

Only if my opponent does everything right or I mess up does my opponent get the victory of my stock. Within Brawl, there may have been too much power given to the defender. Very few characters I believe could cover the strong defensive options give to the character being hit. For example, MK can attempt to force you to air dodge by spacing an Uair at you and only to cover your air dodge with a FF Dair or such. Not many characters could do this in brawl and the ledge was way too powerful. Its incredibly risky to try attacking you on the ledge.

Edit:
I believe 0% to death is very satisfying to get in melee since it feels very hard for me to do a whole stock without fail. At the very least, to do a 0% to death while doing everything right. I feel many times a person can throw out random attacks and hope there opponent messes up. For example, say as Marth I do Fthrow -> Fsmash to them at the ledge and hope it hits if they do not DI right. If it does, I did get a 0% to death in a way (simply edgehog afterwards if against another Marth), but this is not exactly the best way to achieve a 0% to death.

A true one to me would be denying every single action my opponent makes to escape me hitting him. Instead of Fthrow -> fsmash immediately (denied by simply proper DI), I Uthrow instead and attempt to put a sword in there way every single time they attempt to stall, air dodge, jump, or attack right at me. If I can deny all of there actions every single time perfectly, I got a stock and it was satisfying to do so. However, this to me does not seem like a bad thing since my opponent at options every single time they got hit to attempt to wiggle out.

Its only the 0% to death stuff that has no actions/options for the one being hit that I dislike. For example, fox shine against someone on a wall in melee is the type of thing I dislike since I literally have no options other than to hope my opponent stops doing it.

You explained it exactly how I wanted to.

 

[ryuu seika]

One thing I would like you to consider is what if you could shield out of hitstun but weren't able to roll from there until your shield had taken a hit. So, for example:

-Player One hits Player Two.
-Player Two can choose to take a second hit and attempt to DI out or he can shield that hit.
-If Player Two DIs, Player One must follow accordingly and, if he does, Player Two can, if he foresees the followup, either shield or DI that hit too.
-And if Player Two simply takes the hit, Player One must follow differently for that.
-If, however, Player Two chooses the shield option instead, Player Two does not move.
-Player one then has to think, will Player Two shield, roll or take the next hit?
-If he foresees a shield, he punishes with a heavy move that will break it and remove all the opponents options but if Player Two rolls then this leaves Player One vulnerable and if Player Two takes the hit then, while the damage he receives is high, so too is the knockback, putting him out of Player One's range.
-If Player One foresees a roll, he will attempt to follow and punish, putting him in entirely the wrong location if Player Two opts for one of the other actions.
-If Player One foresees a shield drop, he will hit with a weaker attack in an attempt to continue the combo. If this option works, he will have to predict DI and the whole thing will repeat from there.
-If, however, he is wrong, Player Two would have escaped with the roll or nullified the hit with the shield, the latter case leading to the same three options again.

Thoughts?

 

[SmashShadow]

Because clearly this is the worst thing to ever happen in Smash...

 

[Hong]

^ Doubles or any environment with more than two players throws balance out the window.

Which is why Sakurai's philosophy, competitive or casual, bugs me. Trying to balance a character for FFA just seems very finicky.

 

[Ryan.]

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.

I agree with this. It doesn't really seem fun at all.

 

[NekuShikazu]

When I think of 0% - KO I think of Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 (People performing those long combos) or I think of Pikachu QAC. I'm not the greatest at performing combos, but small combos are satisfying + I don't see many 0%-KOs so if someone replied with a video that'd be great :3

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

For almost all fighting games, you have a two-stage challenge when it comes to hurting your opponent.

• Out-play your opponent to land a hit
• Increase damage through combos

Up until the point where the combo is initiated, you're against your opponent. After that, successfully pulling of the combo is entirely down to you (not including bursts, etc.). High-damage combos, especially 0-to-KO are an extreme example of this little single-player event in the middle of a match.

If a game has these enormous combos, they have to be very hard to execute to maintain balance. Otherwise, the match becomes about landing a single hit. If even the very best players can only execute a full-bar combo 5% of the time, that's not a problem.

For an interesting match, ideally you want more of the former (out-playing your opponent), and less of the latter. It's the back-and-forth that makes fighting games so much fun to play and watch.

 

[ryuu seika]

For an interesting match, ideally you want more of the former (out-playing your opponent), and less of the latter. It's the back-and-forth that makes fighting games so much fun to play and watch.

Hence why I believe giving the opponent some degree of say in the combos is important.
If top players can perform the combo 5% of the time that's still one in twenty games decided solely by who lands the first hit. That does not strike me as right.

 

[PCHU]

Hence why I believe giving the opponent some degree of say in the combos is important.
If top players can perform the combo 5% of the time that's still one in twenty games decided solely by who lands the first hit. That does not strike me as right.

The thing is that "the combo" hardly ever comes into play; Smash combos/strings are determined by what move one lands and what they choose to follow it up with.
Even Fox with his drillshines and chaingrabs can only get so much off of it due to the opponent being able to DI.
Granted, characters like Peach and Marth have some more simple 0-deaths because of chaingrabbing, but DI is a huge factor that not everyone can account for while performing their combo because most of it is usually something thought of on-the-spot as opposed to Marvel's incredibly long sequence of buttons (which I enjoy, but I can definitely see why it's annoying to some people).

While I don't necessarily want true 0-death combos (as in the opponent absolutely cannot escape regardless of DI), I would like the ability to have decent followups to make the combo game interesting and varied.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Hence why I believe giving the opponent some degree of say in the combos is important.
If top players can perform the combo 5% of the time that's still one in twenty games decided solely by who lands the first hit. That does not strike me as right.

I know what you mean; there's a certain spectacle involved with huge difficult combos, though, so I think they have their place. I've never met a gamer who would feel sore about losing a round to an amazing combo; there's a degree of respect there.

Snooker is a good parallel here. Usually, the game is about taking turns to gain as many points as possible while leaving the table in a unplayable state for your opponent. Once in a while, though, the table will be cleared in one go. It takes enormous skill, so nobody feels sore about it. The player does something amazing, it's enjoyable to watch, and it doesn't decide the entire match.

5% is actually a bit high; 1% is probably a better number to aim for.

 

[ryuu seika]

I get what you're saying and I can respect that. There is a need for big flashy combos but I don't personally agree with inescapability. IMO, the person performing the combo should always be at an advantage but not, even assuming perfect input ability, a guaranteed win.

That aspect of Snooker has always made me wonder how fair the championship level of the game really is but, since I absolutely suck at the game, it might as well be one player anyway in my experience.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

I get what you're saying and I can respect that. There is a need for big flashy combos but I don't personally agree with inescapability. IMO, the person performing the combo should always be at an advantage but not, even assuming perfect input ability, a guaranteed win.

That aspect of Snooker has always made me wonder how fair the championship level of the game really is but, since I absolutely suck at the game, it might as well be one player anyway in my experience.

There aren't many games that handle combo defence elegantly. Generally, it's just a burst mechanic (which is fine; knowing when to best utilize a burst requires knowledge of your opponents combos). I'd like to see more alternatives whereby a player can escape a combo using skill and timing.

 

[SmashShadow]

When I think of 0% - KO I think of Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 (People performing those long combos) or I think of Pikachu QAC. I'm not the greatest at performing combos, but small combos are satisfying + I don't see many 0%-KOs so if someone replied with a video that'd be great :3

Plenty of them in here:

 

[Cassio]

In Melee strings mainly require reaction.
In Brawl strings mainly require prediction.

Combos are by definition inescapable or they wouldnt be combos. Top tiers in melee and Brawl tend to have considerably stronger punish games than other cast members.

In terms of punishment, the only real difference between the existing smash games occurs on a matter of scale.

In 64 players have extremely limited options to influence punishment compared to their opponents ability to punish so punishment is straight forward.

In Melee players have some options to inluence punishment compared to their opponents ability to punish so punishment is more difficult but still easy to grasp.

In Brawl players have a decent amount of options to influence punishment compared to their opponents ability to punish so punishment is possible but very challenging for players.

Punishment feels the best in 64 but I think Brawl teaches you how to punish best.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

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

Yes

 

[Norm]

I would like to think they are a good thing because it'll force people to figure out ways to get out of those combos. If there is a threat of a 0 to KO combo then people will go out of their way to figure out tech and ways to get out of those combos or counter them. It'll lead to deeper game play.

 

[Celestis]

As long as the game HAS Combos, Ill be happy.
I like 0 to death combos, but only if they are earned combos and not something like a Wobble or Hand off. Though a chain grab that can only last as long as the stage is okay with me. At least it will end.
The Decade of Melee video is like the perfect example of great 0 to death. I just hope something like that returns to Smash 4 in some degree!