Brawl+ Beta Build (GSH1) Discussion

[Alphatron]

Shut up guys.

 

[Shadic]

Shut up guys.

There's a contribution!

As a Zelda main, do you feel a 3-frame laggier air-dodge would make Zelda unapproachable? I don't.

 

[Bandit]

Shadic, it's a terribly slow moving projectile. You do anticipate it, but I control when it explodes. This is why it can be bait and punish or hit people outright because they have to time when it will explode.

@Alphatron

Grow up dude. You're not a mod and we are on topic.

 

[Dantarion]

Lets try it and see what happens?
Won't that settle everything?

 

[Bandit]

Falco400:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9020398&postcount=1253

JCaesar:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9020621&postcount=1255

I'd put an issue like this up to the back room and let them shoot it down. No point in arguing over something like this, but it entertained me for a bit.

 

[Shadic]

Lets try it and see what happens?
Won't that settle everything?

That's what I was thinking.

What are you going to do about the other aerials who all move far faster? Just add 3 more frames of start-up lag to releasing them. So you nerf air dodges, then nerf the living hell out of the projectile people and have to buff them later. It's a big domino effect that doesn't need to take place.

Because Din's Fire is pretty unique in how it works. There's PK Flash/Freeze, but they're laggy enough that you typically deserve to be hit by them if it happens.

 

[MK26]

theoryfighter is awesome

that is all

EDIT: no it isnt

having an idea is much easier when somebody else has the same idea as you

 

[ValTroX]

The hitstun is .46...only two points lower than .48....


I get random freezes with jigglypuff plus random pokey

We're only trying to nerf the use of AD to escape combos/strings, not all its other uses. NADT accomplishes this, and at the same time makes it skill-based, since the more skilled player will be able to time the tap+AD better and thus escape strings better.

I suppose giving an AD out of tumble a ****ton of startup lag (so that tap+AD is still significantly better) wouldn't be a terrible compromise, but I feel like the only reason people even want that is because they're too **** lazy to do anything other than mash AD to escape strings. Actually, this might not be a half-bad idea, so you get punished for mashing tap+AD too instead of timing it correctly ... hmmm

Cmon people, it's not like NADT is some radical, never-before-seen game mechanic.


The lower hitstun shouldn't be a problem after we polish up the physics.

Well I do hope physics help(Im sure they will), cause when i was trying to combo my friends Mario with Wolf, I would get hit with a Nair out of nowhere . Still, it's not so bad but I found it annoying that when he was supposed to be hitstunned for some time, he kicked me back

 

[Alphatron]

Shadic, it's a terribly slow moving projectile. You do anticipate it, but I control when it explodes. This is why it can be bait and punish or hit people outright because they have to time when it will explode.

@Alphatron

Grow up dude. You're not a mod and we are on topic.

I'm just not seeing how continued discussion on this is even worthwhile.

 

[MyLifeIsAnRPG]

I agree with the "lets try this" approach. After all beta testing involves testing.

Also, like I said even though the response at the tournament was overwhelmingly anti NADT I'm generally pro NADT but in the interest of finding a compromise.

What about ending vulnerable frames to the END of an air dodge. That way for stuff like din's fire, you can still insta dodge when the fireball comes near you and by the time you hit your vulnerable frames the fire has past you. At the same time, if you hammer on the trigger to spam AD to get out of a combo you can be punished.

Either way, I say lets try testing some of these things, rather than just shouting back and fort at each other.

 

[Yeroc]

One of the big reasons in shortening the overall length of the ADs was to reduce the problems with fast fallers ADing to their doom off stage due to the higher gravity.

 

[[TSON]]

Then they shouldn't airdodge offstage out of tumble.

 

[goodoldganon]

The problem with the 'let's test this and just see what happens' is we can never have a finished product. With school, graduation, the job hunt in this economy, and frankly a few other games my role in the WBR in the decision making process is probably among the lowest so don't take my word as the official Grape word.

NADT covers what we want it do. Nerfs straight up dodging out of strings and makes the other options more appealing. The only compromise I can see people getting is the large startup time for an AD out of tumble. Messing with the AD startup time by 3+ frames opens up ANOTHER huge can of worms to balance, something we shouldn't be wasting our time to do.

What happens after we balance approaches and defense out with the slower starting AD? The game is gonna play almost identically to what it does now, just slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) more approachable game. Totally not worth it. I wouldn't expect NADT to go anywhere after we fix physics.

The 'let's just test this out' mentality is why we can never finish the game.

 

[[TSON]]

The 'let's just test this out' mentality is why we can never finish the game.

This mentality hasn't existed at all until today, what are you on about?

 

[Dantarion]

What happened to you know...testing things in the nightlies?

 

[K.Mac]

Well, now that I got hold of the latest nightly's snapshot file and GCT snaploader, I can actually PLAY the latest version properly. I'm going to my cousins' house today so I will be all over testing to see what I can break.

instead of using the 5.0 RC1 snaploader with the GSH1+ beta PACs. lol.

Anyway, two questions.

1) are texture and music hacks enabled in this? I recall trying to boot the latest GCT with an older snapshot, and I didn't have any music hacks whereas the older GSH1+ snaploader does.

2) what exactly is the hitstun measured in? I know that it's currently at .46 but what is that? Is that a multiplier, a length of time or a length of frames?

Also why was it lowered in the first place? It makes comboing with slower-moving characters (such as Yoshi and Charizard ... god**** I want to main Charizard. serious.) nigh-on impossible unless the opponent doesn't tech when they hit the ground after an attack.


I DO however like the fact that you can't AD out of a tumble, and you have to wiggle to be able to get the AD. It definitely helps to reduce the reliance of the AD for avoiding combos and strings, much the same as AD was rather pointless on Melee due to how punishable it was.


Look forward to testing this out properly (at long last) and being able to compare it to the RC1. Hopefully I will start to bring constructive feedback - being a user of a PAL wii, in some ways that could become useful. :]

 

[Dsull]

I'm betting 5 bucks he forgot to install something OR That his sd card is an SDHC.

hold up, is there an issue with SDHC cards and playing Brawl+? if there is, then AHA thats my freakin issue! i have an 8g SDHC card i used to use in my camera but i swapped it with the 2g that WAS in my wii when my wii stopped liking that card (but the camera was fine with it).

EDIT: OMFG THAT WAS MY PROBLEM! Bout freakin time i get Lucario without the helpless fall after Upb! Ty so much!

 

[Alphatron]

Messing with ADs during tumble only doesn't hurt ADs overall.

 

[K.Mac]

Messing with ADs during tumble only doesn't hurt ADs overall.

Well, you do have a point, but since a lot of people just spam triggers when being combo'd, making that harder for them changes the options both players have to continue or to escape the combo.

That was the point, right?

 

[MyLifeIsAnRPG]

The 'let's just test this out' mentality is why we can never finish the game.

That doesn't mean we can never finish the game, it just means we will finish it slowly. Even mods have to go through extensive testing before they hit a final version. Honestly, if we were just looking to get a version out as quickly as possible RC1 is just fine. There are serious problems with it but it can be played very competitively and it goes a long way toward balancing characters. If all we wanted was a finished product, TADA, we have it!

Except we don't. We went in, changed ALR, seriously reworked physics and altered throws and movesets. We said RC1 isn't good enough, let's test this now. That shows that we care about making this a GOOD finished product, not just a finished product.

Yes, Brawl+ may take a long time to make and test, but that's the life of creating a mod. We basically argued for the better portion of a week about there being a visual cue for tumble. We could have instead used that better portion fo the week to test it out and see whether its good or not if we just stopped arguing.

Like I said I like NADT but with clenched teeth and bit tongue I admit that evidence is evidence. If a large tournament population did not like NADT, then maybe, just maybe I am wrong in thinking that NADT is the best thing for brawl+. We want something that is better for the tournament community right? Well, as soon as we say "**** it, we know better than they do" we aren't doing that anymore, we are instead making a mod that is best for us, and we are a very small sample size of the tournament community, and WE can't even agree on NADT. It's food for thought at least.

The quickest way to a finished product would be to let one coder make all the changes he wants and never question him, however this wouldn't make a very GOOD finished product. We the beta testers exist to say "this is dumb" and "this isn't working" and "this change would be better if done a different way". Beta tests exist to allow us to try out questionable changes that may not make the final cut. Yes, each thing we test will push back the finished product but it will also increase the overall quality of the finished product.

 

[shanus]

NADT is a change which has historically generated polarized camps with gameplay.

It is no surprise that the change still is met with such skepticism as it is largely trying to dissuade the public from performing an action which to this day is largely a reflex or reaction. What you are trying to do is not only induce habit change on the active Brawl+ community, but induce habitual change on prospective players as well. Some players will laud such a change, others will be completely turned off by it.

This raises an obvious question: Is this the most elegant fix to the solution at hand? People want lower hitstun and more diverse combos but at the same time, how do you go about that without alienating a subset of the Brawl+ population? Especially such a diverse subset composed of both tourney goers (as outlined by RPG) and casuals alike.

No-one has answered such a question yet, and it is clearly the most important issue at hand. There are certain situations where you tell people "tough cookies" and have them "deal with it", but this is not such a situation. While certain situations may be "better for the game" or strikingly "more competitive," elimination of a substantial population of interest reduces the overall competitiveness of the game by removal of the very group that plays it.

So yeah, is NADT in its current iteration a suitable fix?

Given the current state of feedback, I'd say no. Now how we go about fixing it is the real issue.


Thoughts?

(Note: I play with NADT and am 100% fine with it, and I have been playing with it well before GSH1 was even released - so note that)

 

[MyLifeIsAnRPG]

I'd agree that NADT is not a suitable fix, if only due to the current reaction to it. I think we need to think outside the box more.

I think the key here is allowing people to air dodge during tumble, but separating how an air dodge during tumble and an air dodge outside of tumble works. That way we are truly increasing options by making air dodge out of tumble and air tech + air dodge both unique and equally viable options.

Someone at some point siad perhaps tumble dodging would work like melee air dodging, a change in momentum + free fall afterward. That sounds interesting, even though I can see possible issues. Let's try to think along these lines. How can we make an air dodge during tumble and an air dodge outside of tumble different?

 

[Daakun]

One of the big reasons in shortening the overall length of the ADs was to reduce the problems with fast fallers ADing to their doom off stage due to the higher gravity.

I keep doing that with Link anyways because you can't zair from tumble.
Wait for a sweetspot but let the opponent get close enough to edgeguard/hog, recover right away and let him hit me on the endlag, or tether to the stage in safety?
*airdodges to my doom*

Unrelated to that, NADT is pretty arg. If every character had an aerial suitable for combo blocking it'd be okay, but as it is, it's just obnoxious.
There's a fine line between making the game more offensive and rewarding players for not knowing the difference between a string and a combo.
If your opponent can escape something, you either take the risk or try a different approach, not nerf their escape methods.

 

[shanus]

Just was talking with Cape and had an interesting idea.

if you air dodge from tumble you go into special fall. thoughts?

 

[Alphatron]

Well, you do have a point, but since a lot of people just spam triggers when being combo'd, making that harder for them changes the options both players have to continue or to escape the combo.

That was the point, right?

Well, I'd say it only harms the player being combo'd, since their defensive options are being nerfed.

Just was talking with Cape and had an interesting idea.

if you air dodge from tumble you go into special fall. thoughts?

I've brought the shovels and I'm ready to begin the grand burial of computers in brawl+. However, I'll admit that I'm not too keen on this.

I'd love to test it first though. My initial thoughts are just that this will screw some characters over when being comboed though.

 

[Daakun]

Just was talking with Cape and had an interesting idea.

if you air dodge from tumble you go into special fall. thoughts?

And do a heavy land instead of a light one?

 

[Alondite]

Wouldn't that be really punishable and just provide a setup for another string/combo? I mean if the argument against NADT is that is nerfs escape options, doesn't adding something so seemingly punishable defeat the purpose?

I mean if you look at it from a game design standpoint, NADT isn't really a good idea because it adds complexity without adding any real depth, and forces some players to adopt new habits.

Unrelatedly, is there a possibility of giving Ike a BBrawl-like recovery, where >B never puts you into helpless fall, or would that break him?

 

[Alphatron]

How would it be extremely punishable? You can still FFAD back to the ground to avoid continued strings. And if used correctly, then you've just broken your opponent's combo and got out free of charge.

This is all if you decide to AD while in tumble anyway. You can still jump and such.

 

[goodoldganon]

Just was talking with Cape and had an interesting idea.

if you air dodge from tumble you go into special fall. thoughts?

**** you guys, thats exactly what I suggested with the Melee Air Dodge, except you know it's not the Melee Air Dodge. Still same principle. AD in tumble = enter fall special. Of course I'm behind it.

/sarcasm in case people didn't get it.

 

[Alondite]

How would it be extremely punishable? You can still FFAD back to the ground to avoid continued strings. And if used correctly, then you've just broken your opponent's combo and got out free of charge.

This is all if you decide to AD while in tumble anyway. You can still jump and such.

I don't know, I still feel like it would be punishable unless you were really close to the ground already and your opponent wasn't close enough to close in for another hit.

I stand by opinion that NADT doesn't really add anything but needless complexity. Even adding a helpless state out of it, what does it really add that just not having NADT doesn't? As Sirlin says, having the dexterity to perform moves shouldn't be the measure of skill in competitive play, but instead what you do with those moves and the decisions you make.

 

[Thunderhorse+]

Unrelatedly, is there a possibility of giving Ike a BBrawl-like recovery, where >B never puts you into helpless fall, or would that break him?

We tried that before BBrawl did. Didn't stick.

About special fall AD during tumble, I'll just CP what I said to Cape about it: If we wanted to go that way, we could just go with JCaesar's idea of Melee AD during tumble, but I'm not entirely sold on differing air dodges between tumble and non-tumble in the first place. In fact, I think it's an incredibly sloppy fix. If people really want more accessibility towards casual players (rather than just the game holding their hands for them), we would still have to acknowledge tumble anyway by telling to new players when they ask "hey why can you airdodge more than once but I just die?", making the argument a moot point.

Really, I think it's more of a player problem than a mechanic problem.

 

[Shadic]

If a suggestion comes up for a problem that we've not solved, can we just test it? Especially revolving central game mechanics.

This set was great for sort of forcing a change, as it seems (No offense) that a lot of BRoomers(Hell, the community) were getting complacent regarding a lot of mechanics. And then we had this set, which people weren't wanting to try any alternatives after NADT was put in.

I feel like most of the innovation and rapid development of B+ came when we were getting nightlies every couple of days. I know that's a bit more difficult now, due to the fact that a lot of things have been improved, but still. Rapid feedback won't necessary have the same depth in terms of experience with a mechanic. However if something is poorly received, telling the detractors to "lrn2play" or "lrn2wiggle" isn't the most conducive to keeping the community going.

...This was a bit rambly, oh well. Basically:
We shouldn't be afraid to test new things. We're not in any timelines here, and the more testing and ideas that are tried, the better the end product is going to be.

Oh, and I'm on the edge about the Airdodge during tumble = Freefall, but I'd be more than willing to try it. It may make floatier characters a bit easier to combo/string, and I'm interested in how that'll play out.

Also, can we stop being ***** to eachother? kthx.

 

[shanus]

We tried that before BBrawl did. Didn't stick.

About special fall AD during tumble, I'll just CP what I said to Cape about it: If we wanted to go that way, we could just go with JCaesar's idea of Melee AD during tumble, but I'm not entirely sold on differing air dodges between tumble and non-tumble in the first place. In fact, I think it's an incredibly sloppy fix. If people really want more accessibility towards casual players (rather than just the game holding their hands for them), we would still have to acknowledge tumble anyway by telling to new players when they ask "hey why can you airdodge more than once but I just die?", making the argument a moot point.

Really, I think it's more of a player problem than a mechanic problem.

This post makes me think you didn't read this post:

NADT is a change which has historically generated polarized camps with gameplay.

It is no surprise that the change still is met with such skepticism as it is largely trying to dissuade the public from performing an action which to this day is largely a reflex or reaction. What you are trying to do is not only induce habit change on the active Brawl+ community, but induce habitual change on prospective players as well. Some players will laud such a change, others will be completely turned off by it.

This raises an obvious question: Is this the most elegant fix to the solution at hand? People want lower hitstun and more diverse combos but at the same time, how do you go about that without alienating a subset of the Brawl+ population? Especially such a diverse subset composed of both tourney goers (as outlined by RPG) and casuals alike.

No-one has answered such a question yet, and it is clearly the most important issue at hand. There are certain situations where you tell people "tough cookies" and have them "deal with it", but this is not such a situation. While certain situations may be "better for the game" or strikingly "more competitive," elimination of a substantial population of interest reduces the overall competitiveness of the game by removal of the very group that plays it.

So yeah, is NADT in its current iteration a suitable fix?

Given the current state of feedback, I'd say no. Now how we go about fixing it is the real issue.


Thoughts?

(Note: I play with NADT and am 100% fine with it, and I have been playing with it well before GSH1 was even released - so note that)

It was just an idea I tossed out, but i think the current NADT for sure has some prevailing weaknesses.

 

[Thunderhorse+]

I suppose that is a fair point to make. Coming from a tournament player's view, I think the system does need to be refined, not eliminated, but I can see how casuals who just hop on from Brawl would be frustrated by it. Maybe it is for the better that it's changed, as much as I'd rather leave it/refine it.

I still don't think having two differing types of airdodges depending on tumble or non-tumble is an acceptable fix though.

 

[shanus]

I suppose that is a fair point to make. Coming from a tournament player's view, I think the system does need to be refined, not eliminated, but I can see how casuals who just hop on from Brawl would be frustrated by it. Maybe it is for the better that it's changed, as much as I'd rather leave it/refine it.

I still don't think having two differing types of airdodges depending on tumble or non-tumble is an acceptable fix though.

I wasn't as concerned about the casuals even, I was more surprised by certain feedback from Canada as well as Las Vegas which surprised me the most.


I also agree with yo uabout the second point. A disconnect with two different air dodges is simply not an intuitive fix.

 

[goodoldganon]

I suppose that is a fair point to make. Coming from a tournament player's view, I think the system does need to be refined, not eliminated, but I can see how casuals who just hop on from Brawl would be frustrated by it. Maybe it is for the better that it's changed, as much as I'd rather leave it/refine it.

I still don't think having two differing types of airdodges depending on tumble or non-tumble is an acceptable fix though.

I'm glad we agree that NADT isn't perfect and we are trying to add an finishing touch to it but I disagree that having 2 different ADs depening on your tumble state is not an acceptable fix. Here's how I view it. (This is assume we used my 'Melee Air Dodge in Tumble' idea)

Competitive players will AD out tumble once in a blue moon. To say it would be useless is wrong, but wiggling, jumping, and attacking out of air dodge would more often then not be better solutions.The Melee Air Dodge will be used (at least I'd assume) to waveland on platforms and use different techniques instead of straight teching. Either way, competitive players who have religiously followed B+ will be happy with either NADT or MADT (Melee air dodge in tumble)

Now onto the casual side. Casual players (hell even vBrawl competitive players) who download Brawl+ or are introduced by a friend or at a convention/tourney will get very frustrated when they try and AD out of tumble and nothing happens. When I introduced this set to a new guy (admittedly he is kinda scrubby) his words were 'What's wrong with your controller man? I can't air dodge!'

Now with MADT this guy could have air dodged in tumble, been thrown off, paused the game to ask about it, have it explained, and then continue playing. Sure, as I said, MADT will more often then not be the worst escape mechanism, but at least it offers a bridging point. I think we all agree that we want Brawl+ to spread further and MADT will be nothing more then a bridging tool. Brawl+ isn't the same game we had a year ago which was just hitstun and no ASL. We have hundreds of character tweaks, new gravity systems, new stages, new characters (solo PKMN) as well as fun things like textures and music. All of this is overwhelming to a new player and then to change something that is fundamental to every Brawl player will just put a huge stake in the middle of it all. It would be like changing the functions of the A and B button.

Yes I and everyone here know that Brawl's main goal is to provided a balanced cast as well as deepen the competitive aspects of Brawl. But you must remember that not everyone is ready to jump into a game, read all the notes and research, and start trying to be competitive from day 1. Many people I know are introduced to Brawl+ in a more casual environment. I don't know about you guys, but I don't start edgehogging, doing mad combos, and punishing every mistake when I introduce this game to a new player. I take it easy on them and let them learn at their own pace. It's worked out great and the Toledo scene isn't have bad (about 15 good players.)

Above all else Brawl+ is still a game and many people will play a game for fun for a while before the get competitive at it. Many people will play casually for a while, decide they like the game, and then try and get good. It is for that reason we need a gap bridger for new players and that is what I want my MADT to do.

So there you guys go. That's my reasoning for MADT or if nothing else just making you stop all momentum when you air dodge in tumble and enter free fall. Nothing is drastically changed about NADT. AD out of tumble will still be a worse choice then it was in 5.0. The other options will be much more useful in comparison. But now new players will at least have a stepping stool to make the jump to a new game. Not everyone lives back here and hopefully Brawl+ will grow a lot when we finish it. We can't expect new players to understand every change, even if they do read the whole change list. Experience is the best teacher. As I said, it's just too overwhelming for new players to lose the ability to do any AD in tumble AND learn their new characters. That is why I believe we need a tool to help 'noobs' out.

 

[JCaesar]

What's wrong with just having a longer startup on an AD during tumble? It's intuitive (hell, casuals probably won't even notice a difference except they get comboed a bit harder than pros) and will probably get a lot less whining than an AD that leaves you helpless. And tap+AD will still reward more skilled players without overcentralizing it like NADT does.

When casual players are ready to get better, they will learn to break their mashing habits, but until then, they wouldn't have anything to complain about.

I still think MADT is an interesting idea and could have a lot of competitive merit, but I doubt it'll cut down on the whining...

 

[goodoldganon]

What's wrong with just having a longer startup on an AD during tumble? It's intuitive (hell, casuals probably won't even notice a difference except they get comboed a bit harder than pros) and will probably get a lot less whining than an AD that leaves you helpless. And tap+AD will still reward more skilled players without overcentralizing it like NADT does.

When casual players are ready to get better, they will learn to break their mashing habits, but until then, they wouldn't have anything to complain about.

I still think MADT is an interesting idea and could have a lot of competitive merit, but I doubt it'll cut down on the whining...

I am perfectly fine with adding startup frames on the AD when in tumble. The only reason I argue for MADT is because I think it would have more competitive merit as well as still make AD out of tumble a bad choice (unless you can AD into the ground) Also, pros would just take into account the extra startup time and dodge accordingly. MADT allows you to still dodge in tumble, which alone is a buff compared to NADT. I think we need to make sure dodging in tumble is a bad choice since that choice didn't exist before. Brawl's AD is too good, you should have to do the slight work to get the good AD in my eyes.

 

[shanus]

I'm perfectly fine with adding subtle start-up lag if you use it during tumble. Wouldn't be a hard fighter.pac code to make, either.

 

[JCaesar]

If it's too subtle then people aren't gonna bother wiggling. I'd like to see it be something like 8-10 extra frames of startup, so that tap+AD is significantly better and worth doing, but not so much that mashing AD is crippling to casual players.