Brawl 64 - Don't Get Hit

[Anth0ny]

Oh no....
Pikachu is becoming broken again.

About Metaknight64, will you guys remove the tornado, or the drill rush?

meta knight's tornado should work like the tornado from hyrule castle

 

[Dantarion]

Yeah, I got excited thinking someone was actually gonna try to do 64 mechanics, but then I ;(

 

[ManEg]

^ why is that?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No side special [Standardtoaster]
04B88380 40000000

Please don't use this. There's really no reason to. Please be able to differentiate between "giving credence to an old game" and "sabotaging the engine". There is a difference.

Now if you guys want to create a 64 engine in brawl, here's the basics that you need (I'm just ignoring everything else said in this thread):

• 0 frames of lag on landing with an aerial (Technically, you have to press Z before landing, but making players press an extra button for no reason is a really bad design decision)

I think I love you. Seriously, guys, hang on a minute. Manual Z/L-cancelling is ********.
http://gametheorybootcamp.blogspot.com/2010/12/competitive-gaming-with-fighting-games_16.html
Read that article. Seriously. I'll even give you the relevant part:

Gratuitous tech skill... THE big example which comes to mind is L-canceling in melee. L-canceling is an advanced technique in which you press the shield button right as you land with an aerial attack. By doing so, you halve the lag on the landing. This AT alone turned melee from a solid game into an AMAZING game. But it's terrible design. Why? Because you would never not want to L-cancel if you could. In situations like this, it's usually better to cut out the tech skill. Melee would be exactly the same game at a higher level, but more approachable at a lower level (warning: making L-cancelling automatic still leaves you with a ridiculously hard game! Don't get too excited, Stubbyfingers). The tech skill isn't giving the game anything new at a high level-it's simply forcing you to do another (almost) frame perfect input in an already blisteringly fast game. This, similar to the example above of replacing Hadoken's 236HP input with 236463214HP, is not making the game a better game at all

Trust me on this-manual L/Zcancel is ******** design (exception: as a throwback gimmick like I wanted on Brawl- fox. NOT a whole damn game).

• 0 frames of input buffer

...And I hate you again. Why? Buffer is not a bad thing. The fact that smash64 and melee did not have them is a major weakness. Just throw in the buffer=handicap code and you can always decide.

That's obvious. Now, Z-Canceling being manual or automatic is a question that remains unanswered.

It's answered-you can either be a slave to nostalgia, or you can make the right decision as far as game design goes.

Also, if you guys want me help... I may not play 64 that much (used to play several hours per day, if only vs. coms), but I'm a half-decent hacker and I know my way around game design, a corner of the project that most of you seem to have blocked off with nostalgia.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

BPC:

As a game desigenr myself, I personally don't support manual l-cancelling. However, there IS reasoning for it: Increasing the skill gap.

It makes anything you pull off more rewarding, even if it is gratuitous.

It will also lead to Smash 64 players disliking the game because it removed a core element of gameplay/ You have to think of the target audience here, gratuitous skill barriers might be bad when trying to introduce new players, but most of the people who play this will be 64 and Melee players.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Skill gap my ***, read the article.

 

[Luco]

I actually have played fox and other characters. You think i never played all 12 from the original? Cmon, there's no sense in that. Trust me, the one i played was slow, but i think i had a faster one a very long time ago. And i have to agree, ness's PK thunder pushes him so far in the first one. I hate the fact that that was nerfed in Brawl. I loved being able to get back not matter how far i was launched or how far below the stage i was.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I DID read your article.

You are speaking from the point of view of a Brawl player, where as I play all 3 games competitively. So I can tell you now that one of the reasons Melee players don't like Brawl is because they feel it is TOO EASY.

Being good at Melee requires much more dedication and is much more satisfying because you HAVE to learn how to L-Cancel consistently.

In a game that will be mainly played by 64 and Melee players, you'll be alienating your audience by removing L/Z-cancelling.

 

[ManEg]

LOL @ L-cancelling argument appearing here. I think the author said it will be in.

Please stop now, dont wanna see a 10 page argument about that here. B+ and PM had enough of that.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

LOL @ L-cancelling argument appearing here. I think the author said it will be in.

Please stop now, dont wanna see a 10 page argument about that here. B+ and PM had enough of that.

PM me if you want to continue this then, BPC.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, Grim is right... The only advantage that it has is drawing in new players, and it's reasonable to assume that all new players will already be familiar with it/expect it. My bad.

 

[Dantarion]

I disagree with the reasoning in the article for purposes of smash, because moving around in smash its EXTREMELY easy.

Games like guilty gear, SF etc dont have any kinda repetitive speed gain techs, but then again, they have no button buffer, complicated ways to buffer motions, rules about which moves cancel into other moves, negative edging, and all kinds of EXTREME button inputs to do things.

Smash...doesn't. All players can do all of the moves on the first try, and there are few things that require ANY time to learn. After about a months of playing, you are well on your way to being able to do almost everything there is in Smash64. Sure, you might not be able to do everything 100% of the time, but the tech barrier is very low for Smash in general.

L and Z canceling add depth to what is already a pretty shallow game in terms of button inputs.

No one complains about Powershielding, having to mash out of grabs, etc. Yes, its arbitrary button pressing, but thats what the entire game is in a way.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Assuming you are removing side specials, here is what I recommend keeping:
Mario - Fireball
DK - Giant Punch
Link - Boomerang
Samus - Charge Shot
Kirby - Inhale
Fox - Blaster (No stun)
Pikachu - Thunder Jolt
Marth - Dancing Blade
G&W - Judgement
Luigi - Green Missile
Diddy Kong - Banana Peel
Zelda - Din's Fire
Sheik - Needle Storm
Pit - Palutena's Arrow
Meta Knight - Mach Tornado
Falco - Blaster
Squirtle - Water Gun
Ivysaur - Razor Leaf
Charizard - Rock Smash
Ike - Eruption
Snake - Hand Grenade
Peach - Toad
Yoshi - Egg Lay
Ganondorf - Flame Choke
Ice Climbers - Ice Shot
King Dedede - Waddle Dee Toss
Wolf - Wolf Flash
Lucario - Aura Sphere
Ness - PK Fire
Sonic - Homing Attack
Bowser - Fire Breath
Wario - Wario Bike
Toon Link - Arrow
R.O.B. - Robo Beam
Olimar - Pikmin Pluck
Captain Falcon - Falcon Punch
Jigglypuff - Pound
Lucas - PK Freeze

Opinions?

 

[TL?]

L/Z cancel is dumb. I have it down and I'd still rather not do it. It add zero depth, it just gives the illusion of skill. It's so elitist snobs with nothing better to do who just practice hitting buttons can feel superior to people who don't(LOL NOOBZ). Tech skill is largely overrated, since the highest level of play always boils down to mindgames, prediction, and playing smart. L canceling means nothing when both players have it mastered. The game would be exactly the same if landing lag was just that low to begin with. If you had melee pros play a tournament match on a copy of melee with no landing lag to begin with, chances are they wouldn't even realize it.

As for this project, I'm a little concered as to whether this is serious or not. I beleive this topic has moved onto project number 3 by now, none of which so far have had anything to show for. If you really want this to take off, I suggest you put together a prototype build with a few characters, or at least demonstrate you can use PSA. No one will join a project with a leader who can't contribute anything beyond ideas.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

L/Z cancel is dumb. I have it down and I'd still rather not do it. It add zero depth, it just gives the illusion of skill. It's so elitist snobs with nothing better to do who just practice hitting buttons can feel superior to people who don't(LOL NOOBZ). Tech skill is largely overrated, since the highest level of play always boils down to mindgames, prediction, and playing smart. L canceling means nothing when both players have it mastered. The game would be exactly the same if landing lag was just that low to begin with. If you had melee pros play a tournament match on a copy of melee with no landing lag to begin with, chances are they wouldn't even realize it.

As I have stated earlier in this thread, removing Z-cancelling will only serve to alienate this project's audience.

 

[GP&B]

I don't really recall Brawl+'s ALR gaining great reception at all. And honestly TL, the tone in your post makes it rather irritating to read with a painful bias in your post.

EDIT: Seriously though, it doesn't matter either way. Z/L-canceling has been set to be in.

 

[ph00tbag]

Why not just have a countervailing force on the decision to z-cancel? Give people a reason not to do it. This makes it no longer a requirement, and makes it simply an option.

One thing I've heard suggested (I think it was by Magus) is to have it cost a fair bit of shield (say, a second's worth), so if you're low on shield, it may be best to focus on safe moves that don't need to be z-canceled.

This might not be exactly how 64 was set up, but there's no reason this mod can't fix the mistakes of the game it tries to emulate.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why not just have a countervailing force on the decision to z-cancel? Give people a reason not to do it. This makes it no longer a requirement, and makes it simply an option.

One thing I've heard suggested (I think it was by Magus) is to have it cost a fair bit of shield (say, a second's worth), so if you're low on shield, it may be best to focus on safe moves that don't need to be z-canceled.

This might not be exactly how 64 was set up, but there's no reason this mod can't fix the mistakes of the game it tries to emulate.

That would remove sooooooo much depth from the game, considering how vital Z-Cancelling is too... Well, everything.

 

[Rhubarbo]

For the love of God, don't remove side specials and down throws.

 

[ph00tbag]

That would remove sooooooo much depth from the game, considering how vital Z-Cancelling is too... Well, everything.

My troll answer to your absurd statements about depth:
Then why not just remove manual z-canceling? You keep your depth, and you don't wind up making a stupid design decision.

My other troll answer to your outburst is this:
They aren't using shield for anything else anyway.

A further suggestion if you're so worried about depth:
Make landing hits on a player or their shield restore small amounts of shield to the attacker.

The main thrust here is:
You're not really worried about depth if you want to include z-canceling "just 'cuz," Because z-canceling has nothing to do with depth. It's a stupid, arbitrary requirement and a bad design element that was rightly included in Melee but improperly implemented. You seem to see the logic in this point, but are such a slave to nostalgia that you don't give a damn. Since you're so worried about nostalgia, and you apparently aren't really concerned about depth, I figured you'd be okay with a compromise with the people who are actually concerned about the game being well-designed.

 

[ManEg]

LOL @ L-cancelling argument appearing here. I think the author said it will be in.

Please stop now, dont wanna see a 10 page argument about that here. B+ and PM had enough of that.

If this is going to be B64 then it will HAVE to be in. In the same way PM has it because melee had it.

 

[Zantetsu]

Here's something better, why not make 2 code sets? Only differences being Manual and Auto L-Canceling. Since it's such a huge debate and it's always split around 50-50, why not have both sides get there way? We are talking about a Brawl modification here, not a fully legit game. This will just be one of those side games with a few tournaments here and there so having one solid codeset shouldn't matter. Tournament organizers (those who will run this game, not many) should choose which codeset to use. Either way, anyone who is willing to go to a Brawl modification tournament should know how to L cancel anyway so this really doesn't matter one bit. It's just a heated debate for something so small. Lets just have fun with this.

(Also, this isn't meant to insult the project in anyway. I'm just saying that Brawl+ didn't achieve a huge fanbase and it's likely that a 64 remake won't achieve an audience bigger then Brawl+ did. That doesn't mean that this could be one sick modification though )

 

[ph00tbag]

An alternate suggestion if you don't like the shield one (because that was really only one option, and the post was really to get you thinking about the fact that z-canceling is a good idea that was poorly implemented, and we need good ways to implement it, so instead of being petulant, why don't you display some creativity):
Make base character weight variable. When you're caught in a combo your weight increases with each hit up until you reach some percentage of your starting weight (say, 150%). When the combo finishes, your weight returns to 100%. However, every time you z-cancel, your weight reduces down until it reaches some percent of your starting weight (say 50%).

If you're lazy:
Just get it over with and put a ****ing meter in the game.

There's two more ideas. Why are you just arguing with me and not being creative?

 

[TL?]

If L canceling was never put into smash bros games and landing lag was always L cancel lag, and you had the idea to arbitrarily add lag and make it so you had to hit sheild to acheive the previously default landing lag, everyone would think that's ********. ALR was great in brawl+ by the way. You can always hit L anyways on ALR and just pretend since it's basically the same thing.

Fighting games have some strange fans. No other genre has fans that request worse controls on purpose to artificially make a game more difficult.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My troll answer to your absurd statements about depth:
Then why not just remove manual z-canceling? You keep your depth, and you don't wind up making a stupid design decision.

My other troll answer to your outburst is this:
They aren't using shield for anything else anyway.

A further suggestion if you're so worried about depth:
Make landing hits on a player or their shield restore small amounts of shield to the attacker.

The main thrust here is:
You're not really worried about depth if you want to include z-canceling "just 'cuz," Because z-canceling has nothing to do with depth. It's a stupid, arbitrary requirement and a bad design element that was rightly included in Melee but improperly implemented. You seem to see the logic in this point, but are such a slave to nostalgia that you don't give a damn. Since you're so worried about nostalgia, and you apparently aren't really concerned about depth, I figured you'd be okay with a compromise with the people who are actually concerned about the game being well-designed.

Try reading my posts instead of constructing a straw-man.

My arguments:
1. Removing it would alienate the main audience for this mod.
2. It isn't completely pointless. It gives players another step to playing the game at a top level, which makes pulling off combos (with the use of Z-Cancelling) much more fulfilling. This makes the game more interesting for spectators and more fun and interesting for the players.

From a purely game design based view-point, I completely agree with you. I would never make a game with Z-Cancelling or anything similar. However, from a competition view-point, it is far from superfluous and removing it would only hurt the game.

An alternate suggestion if you don't like the shield one (because that was really only one option, and the post was really to get you thinking about the fact that z-canceling is a good idea that was poorly implemented, and we need good ways to implement it, so instead of being petulant, why don't you display some creativity):
Make base character weight variable. When you're caught in a combo your weight increases with each hit up until you reach some percentage of your starting weight (say, 150%). When the combo finishes, your weight returns to 100%. However, every time you z-cancel, your weight reduces down until it reaches some percent of your starting weight (say 50%).

If you're lazy:
Just get it over with and put a ****ing meter in the game.

There's two more ideas. Why are you just arguing with me and not being creative?

Again, it's not about the game-play, it's about the players. We shouldn't be changing a fundamental game mechanic for reasons I have already mentioned.

If L canceling was never put into smash bros games and landing lag was always L cancel lag, and you had the idea to arbitrarily add lag and make it so you had to hit sheild to acheive the previously default landing lag, everyone would think that's ********. ALR was great in brawl+ by the way. You can always hit L anyways on ALR and just pretend since it's basically the same thing.

Fighting games have some strange fans. No other genre has fans that request worse controls on purpose to artificially make a game more difficult.

I completely agree.

Brawl+ failed by the way, so that's not exactly a good argument.

 

[Fireblaster]

For the love of God, don't remove side specials and down throws.

To this guy and anyone else who keeps *****ing about side specials and down/up throws being taken out: Get good at SSB64 before you make comments like this. A lot of these moves would barely do crap for some characters give others a huge advantage. In a game where a well placed combo starter can lead to death, do you really want to give people one of the best that there is (Down throw)? Or maybe you forgot that there's no regular DI in SSB64, and maybe you just want fox players to be able to just up throw and uair for really easy kills.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

To this guy and anyone else who keeps *****ing about side specials and down/up throws being taken out: Get good at SSB64 before you make comments like this. A lot of these moves would barely do crap for some characters give others a huge advantage. In a game where a well placed combo starter can lead to death, do you really want to give people one of the best that there is (Down throw)? Or maybe you forgot that there's no regular DI in SSB64, and maybe you just want fox players to be able to just up throw and uair for really easy kills.

>implying attacks can't be edited for balance purposes and to better suit the feel of Smash 64.

facepalm.jpg

 

[Fireblaster]

Fighting games have some strange fans. No other genre has fans that request worse controls on purpose to artificially make a game more difficult.

You'd be surprised. I've seen the SSFIV community defend its game for having ridiculous ultras like Guile's and crap like one frame links.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You'd be surprised. I've seen the SSFIV community defend its game for having ridiculous ultras like Guile's and crap like one frame links.

This post is just dripping in irony after your last one.

 

[Zantetsu]

>implying attacks can't be edited for balance purposes and to better suit the feel of Smash 64.

facepalm.jpg

Either way, that disrupts the goal of the game which is to emulate 64 as much as possible, iirc. Everything should match 64, minus the Z-Canceling debate, which no one seemed to acknowledge my post on having 2 codesets.

 

[TL?]

You'd be surprised. I've seen the SSFIV community defend its game for having ridiculous ultras like Guile's and crap like one frame links.

When I said no other genre, I meant genres other than fighting games (including SSFIV). That's exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Either way, that disrupts the goal of the game which is to emulate 64 as much as possible, iirc. Everything should match 64, minus the Z-Canceling debate, which no one seemed to acknowledge my post on having 2 codesets.

If the goal of the game is to emulate Smash 64 as much as possible, people should just PLAY SMASH 64 INSTEAD.

This project isn't aiming to emulate Smash 64 as much as possible, or most of the characters would be removed. The goal is to create Smash 64 v2.0

And I can't exactly see how adding side specials and two more throws is bad with that goal in mind.

Oh, and considering no one has responded to my last point regarding Manual Z-Cancelling, can I assume everyone agrees with me now?

I disagree with your idea of having 2 code-sets because it will cause problems among individual communities over which one they should use. See how much angst there is over stages in Brawl? How about items? Giving the player options isn't always a good thing.

 

[Fireblaster]

>implying attacks can't be edited for balance purposes and to better suit the feel of Smash 64.

facepalm.jpg

The only characters that can start a combo from a grab are jigglypuff and falcon, and that's because falcon's fthrow is really a dthrow while jiggly's fthrow is more like a uthrow. Fortunately, it's easy to mess up a jiggs combo with DI and falcon's combos from fthrow wont really kill you unless you're next to the edge. If you give everyone a down/up throw, you're just opening the floodgates right there.

Contrary to popular belief, getting hit in your shield doesn't quite spell out doom for you. Unless you're a horrible spacer, the most they'll do if they catch you in your shield is land a grab on you. And unless they're falcon, you'll just take a bit of damage and fly some distance. Should down throws be implemented, it'll make getting hit in your shield pure hell since they'll just grab you during shield stun and combo you anyways. However, if you try to counter this by making down/up throws have a specific knockback that doesn't kill or combo, then they'll become rather useless as players will just ignore them and go for the more powerful b/fthrows to get closer to an edgeguard.

Like I said, it's something that you should play SSB64 and get good at before you can understand.

 

[Zantetsu]

If the goal of the game is to emulate Smash 64 as much as possible, people should just PLAY SMASH 64 INSTEAD.

I've heard this excuse too many times in the P:M thread and it always gets the same response. "Playing Smash64 instead" won't allow me to increase my roster and stage selection by a **** ton.

This project isn't aiming to emulate Smash 64 as much as possible, or most of the characters would be removed. The goal is to create Smash 64 v2.0

I really don't think the OP said anything about how exactly he wants this to emulate Smash 64. It's honestly up to him.

When I say emulate as much as possible, I don't mean literally. I mean by the physics and how the game is played. The characters and stages should stay, obviously. Only a ****** would go out and try to make a game 100% like another. That's just stupid.

And I can't exactly see how adding side specials and two more throws is bad with that goal in mind.

It disrupts the whole purpose of this being a Smash 64 remake. Adding side specials and two more throws should be something added to, hmm, lets see, maybe a sequel? Oh wait..

Oh, and considering no one has responded to my last point regarding Manual Z-Cancelling, can I assume everyone agrees with me now?

Sure, if it makes you feel better

I disagree with your idea of having 2 code-sets because it will cause problems among individual communities over which one they should use. See how much angst there is over stages in Brawl? How about items? Giving the player options isn't always a good thing.

That's the point, there won't be any "individual communities" for this game. It's not going to gain popularity for ****. People are most likely to set up Brawl+ or P:M rather then a 64 remake. Even if a tournament gets brought up, I'm sure it'd be the manual L canceling codeset anyway. Like I said before, most people who will even touch this modification knows how to L-cancel so there's no point in arguing. If people want Auto L cancel, let them have it. If they want Manual L cancel, let them have that too. 2 txt files of codes won't hurt anything. Anyway, this should be aimed for fun, not anything dramatically serious.

Anyway, off to bed. School in the morning. Will reply to whatever replies I have waiting for me tomorrow.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The only characters that can start a combo from a grab are jigglypuff and falcon, and that's because falcon's fthrow is really a dthrow while jiggly's fthrow is more like a uthrow. Fortunately, it's easy to mess up a jiggs combo with DI and falcon's combos from fthrow wont really kill you unless you're next to the edge. If you give everyone a down/up throw, you're just opening the floodgates right there.

Contrary to popular belief, getting hit in your shield doesn't quite spell out doom for you. Unless you're a horrible spacer, the most they'll do if they catch you in your shield is land a grab on you. And unless they're falcon, you'll just take a bit of damage and fly some distance. Should down throws be implemented, it'll make getting hit in your shield pure hell since they'll just grab you during shield stun and combo you anyways. However, if you try to counter this by making down/up throws have a specific knockback that doesn't kill or combo, then they'll become rather useless as players will just ignore them and go for the more powerful b/fthrows to get closer to an edgeguard.

Like I said, it's something that you should play SSB64 and get good at before you can understand.

I do play Smash 64, by the way.

With your first point, I don't really understand what you're saying. You gave an example of two characters with throws that aren't kill throws, failed to explain what was bad about them and then said that it'd be "opening the flood-gates". Opening the flood-gates to what, exactly?

Your second point relies entirely on your non-sensical first point (that adding in combo throws is bad... somehow), so I won't address it.

I've heard this excuse too many times in the P:M thread and it always gets the same response. "Playing Smash64 instead" won't allow me to increase my roster and stage selection by a **** ton.

I really don't think the OP said anything about how exactly he wants this to emulate Smash 64. It's honestly up to him.

When I say emulate as much as possible, I don't mean literally. I mean by the physics and how the game is played. The characters and stages should stay, obviously. Only a ****** would go out and try to make a game 100% like another. That's just stupid.

It disrupts the whole purpose of this being a Smash 64 remake. Adding side specials and two more throws should be something added to, hmm, lets see, maybe a sequel? Oh wait...

The physics and how the game is played won't be changed by adding in more throws and one more attack.

Sure, if it makes you feel better

Sounds good to me.

That's the point, there won't be any "individual communities" for this game. It's not going to gain popularity for ****. People are most likely to set up Brawl+ or P:M rather then a 64 remake anyway. Even if a tournament gets brought up, I'm sure it'd be the manual L canceling codeset anyway. Like I said before, most people who will even touch this knows how to L-cancel so there's no point in arguing. If people want Auto L cancel, let them have it. If they want Manual L cancel, let them have that too. 2 txt files of codes won't hurt anything. Anyway, this should be aimed for fun, not anything dramatically serious.

Anyway, off to bed. School in the morning. Will reply to whatever replies I have waiting for me tomorrow.

Sounds fair enough to me, thanks for the elaboration.

 

[BEES]

Just leave L-canceling in and make it easier. Add 10 frames of buffer to it or something. Jesus... y'all act like it's rocket science.

Also leave in every move from Melee, and that includes DI and wavedashing. Just have 64 falling physics, 64 lag reduction on aerials, and 64 hitstun. Shieldstun can be kept low and DI potency can be kept at ******** Brawl levels. The extra offense should be balanced by the extra new defense. Basically make it Brawl- the competitive edition.

Just my two cents. I'm not nostalgic for 64... I don't want to recreate the game in glorious detail. I'll just take my broken combos and leave it at that, thanks.

 

[Fireblaster]

I do play Smash 64, by the way.

With your first point, I don't really understand what you're saying. You gave an example of two characters with throws that aren't kill throws, failed to explain what was bad about them and then said that it'd be "opening the flood-gates". Opening the flood-gates to what, exactly?

Your second point relies entirely on your non-sensical first point (that adding in combo throws is bad... somehow), so I won't address it.

There's nothing bad about jiggly and falcon's fthrows. Adding in combo throws for everyone else is bad. It makes the punishment for getting grabbed ridiculously harsh. It gives players less incentive to approach on the ground and more towards camping and having air camping battles. And considering this is not a good thing for balance considering that some characters have superior air maneuverability than others (even if you balance it, some characters will still be superior in this), giving the other player the only option of approaching and defending by ground. In this situation two things can happen: Either the ground player lands a defensive hit and maybe starts a combo that probably won't kill the other player, or the aerial player lands a hit on the ground player or his shield and is able to start a combo because of it.

Once again, less incentive to approach and a campier game.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There's nothing bad about jiggly and falcon's fthrows. Adding in combo throws for everyone else is bad. It makes the punishment for getting grabbed ridiculously harsh. It gives players less incentive to approach on the ground and more towards camping and having air camping battles. And considering this is not a good thing for balance considering that some characters have superior air maneuverability than others (even if you balance it, some characters will still be superior in this), giving the other player the only option of approaching and defending by ground. In this situation two things can happen: Either the ground player lands a defensive hit and maybe starts a combo that probably won't kill the other player, or the aerial player lands a hit on the ground player or his shield and is able to start a combo because of it.

Once again, less incentive to approach and a campier game.

If that was the case, any Puff vs. Falcon, Puff vs. Puff and Falcon vs. Falcon matches would be incredibly campy. Which isn't the case at all in my experience. Also, every match AGAINST a Falcon or Puff would force the non-falcon/puff player to be campy. Again, that isn't true as far as I can see.

That was my problem with your previous post, you gave an example of two characters who worked fine with combo throws and then went on about how combo throws screw up the game.

 

[ph00tbag]

2. It isn't completely pointless. It gives players another step to playing the game at a top level, which makes pulling off combos (with the use of Z-Cancelling) much more fulfilling. This makes the game more interesting for spectators and more fun and interesting for the players.

Steps to playing the game at a top level are all well and good, but arbitrarily introducing fundamentally flawed steps to playing the game at a top level is bad design. Keeping such arbitrary and fundamentally flawed elements because of a misguided sense of nostalgia is stubbornly bad design.

I'd also say you draw the wrong conclusions about why z-canceling is interesting. What makes it interesting is that the necessity of it allows those that use it to be manipulated. And this sole element remains entirely unchanged in any of the things I'm talking about.

I'm not saying remove it. I'm saying improve it. You're not changing what makes z-canceling interesting, but you are balancing the cost of not using it with a cost for using it. Yes, this changes the strategy, but a lot of people call that introducing depth.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Steps to playing the game at a top level are all well and good, but arbitrarily introducing fundamentally flawed steps to playing the game at a top level is bad design. Keeping such arbitrary and fundamentally flawed elements because of a misguided sense of nostalgia is stubbornly bad design.

I'd also say you draw the wrong conclusions about why z-canceling is interesting. What makes it interesting is that the necessity of it allows those that use it to be manipulated. And this sole element remains entirely unchanged in any of the things I'm talking about.

I'm not saying remove it. I'm saying improve it. You're not changing what makes z-canceling interesting, but you are balancing the cost of not using it with a cost for using it. Yes, this changes the strategy, but a lot of people call that introducing depth.

Notice how players re-acted when I think... two people? Yeah, two people suggested that we add side-specials and down/up throws. Look at the argument it created.

The same would happen for Z-Cancelling.

It comeee down to: People are stubborn; deal with it.