Brawl+ (Competitive Hacks): Codes, Videos, and Discussion (THREAD OUT OF DATE)

[timothyung]

Welcome to Smash World Forums, Tim.

As of right now, I don't think getting Brawl+ world wide is as much of a concern. First, we need to have a finalized version of every code, SBR rule set would be nice, just to set a standard. There's no use in advertising an unfinished product, you know?

What I think is that the more people playing Brawl+, the more opinions and improvements we will get and the faster Brawl+ will be finalized. And most importantly

Spoiler

I own a JP version

Now for the momentum from running. We should first think what effect we want. If we want the improve the offensive play, maybe we can just increase the overall air speed of characters. And for now, we don't even know if the code can be generated or what effect it will make (e.g. how long and how much it affects the air speed).

 

[Revven]

I believe the C-stick buttons should definitely be remapped, especially since the fast falled Dairs are just to stupid and limiting to a successful edgeguard.

Problem with that though. Some Dairs can be slowed down with hitting double C-Stick down. (Link and G&W to name a few). How is that controlled? Would it be affected by the change of FF'ing Dairs?

 

[Makkun]

I know I haven't been around here lately, and I'm sure most people in the Brawl+ project don't even know who I am anymore, but I have some general statements to make about the past few days of posts...

I think some people are forgetting that the purpose of the Brawl+ project is not to make Melee 2.0, but to make Brawl better. Now, although Melee IS better, there is a fine line between making this Melee 2.0 and Brawl+. I don't think it's a very good idea to compare every single code to "How was this in Melee? Let's make it like that."

I don't like the idea of changing the game's gravity and momentum, let alone the general speed of the entire game. But... if that's what the community really wants, then whatever.

Anyway, it's been too long, we need to come up with a standard codeset. This way we can truly get the perfect histun percentage. I am really disappointed at how quickly the hitstun percentage is decreasing. I remember when people were testing 18%... obviously this is broken, but I think we should have the maximum tolerable hitstun percentage... it just makes it more interesting.

I don't know what codes should be in Brawl+, as I haven't been able to properly test them with anyone. But I know that in order to get the right hitstun, EVERYONE who is testing needs to be using the exact same codes.

I'm thinking something like this:
No trip
Hitstun (% to be decided)
ALC
MAD

And then codes such as the PT codes if there is room.

And I agree, the chatroom needs to be used more often.

 

[Heavyarms2050]

and you have to remember we have a limit number of lines we can put

 

[SGX]

With a jump momentum code, we'd obviously need to decrease hitstun, since it would be so much easier to combo. Regardless, I still think it would be a good code.

I also agree with porting the existing codes to PAL-*** Brawl. If someone is able to do it, go for it. Why should we have all the fun? =p

It's going to be a loooong time (if ever) before there's a standard established. I can just imagine people bickering for months on end about whether to use MAD or BAD, ALC or MLC, etc. There's no way to say "well this is CLEARLY the best" when the majority of these codes come down to personal preference.

 

[Heavyarms2050]

man once we get the pal then the J.aps, its going to be great

 

[Dark Sonic]

With a jump momentum code, we'd obviously need to decrease hitstun, since it would be so much easier to combo. Regardless, I still think it would be a good code.

We don't know for sure though. It would be a little bit easier for some characters to combo yes, but I doubt that Jigglypuff, Squirtle, ect. would really get any better at comboing. I personally think the hitstun would be fine even with this change, and that people would just have to learn to "guide" their opponents combos to force them to end early.

 

[Deleted member]

Content removed to lighten my internet footprint.

 

[Heavyarms2050]

we cant have individual character tweaks. There will be too many debates and variability that many people will and will not agree upon.

 

[A Diamond For Disease]

One exception:

PW's two PT codes, for infinite stamina.

You mean like not losing ko power of moves? Cause that would be sweet!

 

[SketchHurricane]

@Makkun
Sorry, but everything you mentioned has been said before, page in and page out. I think we know the drill by this point. We tend to repeat ourselves when new people pop in and suggest things that have already been said, though. Sadly there is not much else to do while waiting for the new codes.

We know about Melee 2.0 vs Brawl+
There is no such thing as a standard until all the useful codes are out
We have been, and still are, testing testing testing

As for all these "what ifs" being throw around, trust me: there is no way to tell until the code is out. I think S-cancel is broken on paper, but no one has yet to show proof of this. We must explore all avenues.

 

[Alopex]

I think S-cancel is broken on paper, but no one has yet to show proof of this. We must explore all avenues.

Umm, maybe you missed all the videos and discussion? It's been explored and proven.

Here, a video from the first post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjIt3e9VR_0

Notice how often the shield gets popped up because of the S-cancel.
Note specifically at 0:25 when Ike uses a Fair and then is immediately shielded, leaving NO possibility for retaliation. You wouldn't even have been able to grab him, since the immediate shield means an immediate airdodge or roll.

It's ridiculous.

It's broken on paper and in practice. Just watch more of the videos. We definitely didn't just theorycraft and move on when we decided S-canceling was for sure out.

 

[kupo15]

Melee Falco says hi.

Yes he does as well as CF

I know I haven't been around here lately, and I'm sure most people in the Brawl+ project don't even know who I am anymore, but I have some general statements to make about the past few days of posts...

I think some people are forgetting that the purpose of the Brawl+ project is not to make Melee 2.0, but to make Brawl better. Now, although Melee IS better, there is a fine line between making this Melee 2.0 and Brawl+. I don't think it's a very good idea to compare every single code to "How was this in Melee? Let's make it like that."

I don't like the idea of changing the game's gravity and momentum, let alone the general speed of the entire game. But... if that's what the community really wants, then whatever.

Anyway, it's been too long, we need to come up with a standard codeset. This way we can truly get the perfect histun percentage. I am really disappointed at how quickly the hitstun percentage is decreasing. I remember when people were testing 18%... obviously this is broken, but I think we should have the maximum tolerable hitstun percentage... it just makes it more interesting.

I don't know what codes should be in Brawl+, as I haven't been able to properly test them with anyone. But I know that in order to get the right hitstun, EVERYONE who is testing needs to be using the exact same codes.

I'm thinking something like this:
No trip
Hitstun (% to be decided)
ALC
MAD

And then codes such as the PT codes if there is room.

And I agree, the chatroom needs to be used more often.

We are getting more codes. Discussing a standard would be pointless now

 

[metaXzero]

Umm, maybe you missed all the videos and discussion? It's been explored and proven.

Here, a video from the first post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjIt3e9VR_0

Notice how often the shield gets popped up because of the S-cancel.
Note specifically at 0:25 when Ike uses a Fair and then is immediately shielded, leaving NO possibility for retaliation. You wouldn't even have been able to grab him, since the immediate shield means an immediate airdodge or roll.

It's ridiculous.

It's broken on paper and in practice. Just watch more of the videos. We definitely didn't just theorycraft and move on when we decided S-canceling was for sure out.

Ike is NOT god-tier with S-cancel. He still has some start-up time in his attacks.

It's still not proven "broken" in practice.

 

[kupo15]

Ike is NOT god-tier with S-cancel. He still has some start-up time in his attacks.

It's still not proven "broken" in practice.

I don't think there is going to be a code out there that "breaks" characters (except momentum with MK) but the question is this. Where will you draw the line to realize that certain codes make certain characters so OP that it hurts competition? I think S canceling and MAD crosses this line of retardedness when fighting characters which is bad for competition.

 

[metaXzero]

I don't think there is going to be a code out there that "breaks" characters (except momentum with MK) but the question is this. Where will you draw the line to realize that certain codes make certain characters so OP that it hurts competition? I think S canceling and MAD crosses this line of retardedness when fighting characters which is bad for competition.

I've yet to see a vid showing a character being "broken" by S-cancel. Until I see that, I view it like Z-canceling (that didn't break anybody in 64). When shield stun comes though, I may change my opinion.

My only problem with MAD is the laglessness that makes it better then running. If you could add lag to it...

 

[kupo15]

I've yet to see a vid showing a character being "broken" by S-cancel. Until I see that, I view it like Z-canceling (that didn't break anybody in 64). When shield stun comes though, I may change my opinion.

My only problem with MAD is the laglessness that makes it better then running. If you could add lag to it...

I already said that it won't make characters "broken" but it does make characters much more OP.

OP=/=broken

But Im not afraid of s canceling since there probably is no chance it will work with shield stun

 

[Dark Sonic]

I've yet to see a vid showing a character being "broken" by S-cancel. Until I see that, I view it like Z-canceling (that didn't break anybody in 64). When shield stun comes though, I may change my opinion.

Marth? Fair, Fair, land (s-cancel), jump cancel, repeat.

And Z-canceling was rediculously broken dude! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjDIytwvPcs&feature=related

Do you realize how zero lag aerials would affect shield pressure (especially when Shieldstun comes out)?

My only problem with MAD is the laglessness that makes it better then running. If you could add lag to it...

True, but I think the BAD will still be necessary for some characters to recover when the momentum hack comes out. Metaknight going all the way out to the bubble in one jump seems kinda extreme, and recovering characters need some kind of defense against that.

 

[Heavyarms2050]

there will not be s-cancel b/c people are working to increase shield stun and remove auto PS

 

[SketchHurricane]

Umm, maybe you missed all the videos and discussion? It's been explored and proven.

No, I was one of the adamant anti S-cancel people in that discussion! I kinda worded my other post wrong. What I really meant was it hasn't been proven to break the game like it apparently does on paper. In that sense, no one has showcased videos where slow characters wreck shop against a top tier character because of S-cancel, because S-cancel alone is not enough for that to happen (the pro s-cancel argument).

Sure it's a ridiculous concept, and most people realize that by now (I hope). It's an extreme that only works now because of slow air speed and incredible shields, and that will become even more obvious if our other codes are a success. It's not something you want in the game at any stage, whether it's viable or not. It's like upping the damage ratio for the goal of shorter stocks. Sure it does the job, but it's just a quick fix that doesn't create the game we're looking for.

 

[Makkun]

DDD + S-cancel = lol

 

[metaXzero]

Marth? Fair, Fair, land (s-cancel), jump cancel, repeat.

And Z-canceling was rediculously broken dude! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjDIytwvPcs&feature=related

Do you realize how zero lag aerials would affect shield pressure (especially when Shieldstun comes out)?


True, but I think the BAD will still be necessary for some characters to recover when the momentum hack comes out. Metaknight going all the way out to the bubble in one jump seems kinda extreme, and recovering characters need some kind of defense against that.

IN PRACTICE is it broken? Not on paper. I've yet to see a video showing S-cancel as "broken".

And 64's ridiculous hitstun and shieldstun was broken. NOT Z-canceling.

 

[Deleted member]

Content removed to lighten my internet footprint.

 

[metaXzero]

can't we just agree that l-cancel > s-cancel?

I actually do prefer L-cancel over S. But I don't like the stuff thrown around of S-cancel being "broken". MAYBE with shieldstun, but we have to wait for shieldstun to come first...

 

[SketchHurricane]

can't we just agree that l-cancel > s-cancel?

I think we all agree.

 

[metaXzero]

I wonder if Mew2King gave Brawl+ another go?

 

[matt4300]

I wonder if Mew2King gave Brawl+ another go?

i wasent aware he had tryed it did he not like it. was it before or after the hitstun codes?

 

[MuBa]

Well Mew2King is also a Smash Researcher so hopefully I'll try and convince him to like it but for the most part we shouldn't care too much about the big people liking the game or not.

 

[Team Giza]

i wasent aware he had tryed it did he not like it. was it before or after the hitstun codes?

Before the good one anyway. All that was there was no tripping, old barely functioning hitstun (just got rid of being able to cancel the stun already in the game), and that sloppy MAD. And yeah, he didn't like it.

 

[metaXzero]

Before the good one anyway. All that was there was no tripping, old barely functioning hitstun (just got rid of being able to cancel the stun already in the game), and that sloppy MAD. And yeah, he didn't like it.

It was the old hitstun and the Manual L-cancel timing he didn't like IIRC (he supports ALC)...

 

[SketchHurricane]

Well Mew2King is also a Smash Researcher so hopefully I'll try and convince him to like it but for the most part we shouldn't care too much about the big people liking the game or not.

This, until a more complete codeset.

BTW how's the whole Smash Research thing going? You guys still recruiting, or are you already tacking stuff?

 

[leafgreen386]

Problem with that though. Some Dairs can be slowed down with hitting double C-Stick down. (Link and G&W to name a few). How is that controlled? Would it be affected by the change of FF'ing Dairs?

Have you tried csticking the dair and then smashing down on the control stick to see if you get the same effect? >_>

The dairs change the effect of gravity on your character to a much higher than normal value. Fast falling reverts the gravity back to the regular fast fall rate.

At least... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

 

[Revven]

Have you tried csticking the dair and then smashing down on the control stick to see if you get the same effect? >_>

No, I haven't because my Wii is out of commission for the moment (and probably for a few weeks).

 

[Dark Sonic]

IN PRACTICE is it broken? Not on paper. I've yet to see a video showing S-cancel as "broken".

Does it matter? You can prove something with just theory you know. We proved that IDC is broken and would dominate tournaments...without actually doing any kind of testing to see if it would dominate tournaments.

"Vids or it didn't happen" is not a valid argument.

And 64's ridiculous hitstun and shieldstun was broken. NOT Z-canceling.

Once again, hitstun+shieldstun+lagless aerials=bad. And guess what we're planing on adding

shield stun.

 

[MuBa]

This, until a more complete codeset.

BTW how's the whole Smash Research thing going? You guys still recruiting, or are you already tacking stuff?

Yes we will be recruiting more people in several days. I can nominate only 1-2 individuals and right now I see leafgreen386 to be the strongest contender for a Smash Researcher due to his proposition in finding the equation on Brawl's physics.

 

[metaXzero]

Does it matter? You can prove something with just theory you know. We proved that IDC is broken and would dominate tournaments...without actually doing any kind of testing to see if it would dominate tournaments.

"Vids or it didn't happen" is not a valid argument.




Once again, hitstun+shieldstun+lagless aerials=bad. And guess what we're planing on adding

shield stun.

SBR banned IDC for inability to tell if someone is stalling or not. But SBR won't rereview their decision because they prefer it being final (I presented a proposal to unban IDC and they simply barred me from further discussion WITHOUT REFUTING ME). IDC was never proven as "broken" besides stalling.

And we're not adding 64 hitstun and shieldstun. Z-canceling I repeat wasn't broken.

 

[Dark Sonic]

SBR banned IDC for inability to tell if someone is stalling or not.

Yes, and therefore everyone would simply stall with this. Were you not here for the discussion or something.

There was no way to make a rule preventing people from stalling with the technique, so they had to ban the technique altogether. There was no "testing," theorycraft simply proved it broken.

And we're not adding 64 hitstun and shieldstun. Z-canceling I repeat wasn't broken.

We've already added enough hitstun to combo with half lag (actually, some characters can just combo with their auto canceled aerials) and we do plan on adding enough shieldstun to prevent you from being able to shieldgrab after aerials right?

If we do ad enough shieldstun to make that possible (which I assume we will because that is the biggest drive for shieldstun in the first place), then aerials will not only be safe on block, but also safe when missed completely. Do you not see how this would be a problem? If they predicted it and blocked it, they cannot retaliate (in fact, blocked aerials are a guaranteed grab setup for the attacking person). If they predicted it and dodged it, they cannot retaliate. Basically, the air->ground game becomes horribly inbalanced.

And you're just going to say "vids or it didn't happen" when confronted with this perfectly reasonable scenario?

Z-canceling (in combination with shieldstun) is what allowed SSB64 to have guaranteed grab setups on block, and shield break combos. What we're doing may not be as extreme (since we won't have as much shieldstun and hitstun), but S-canceling will still make aerials overpowered when compared to grounded defenses. It makes aerials too safe.

 

[metaXzero]

Yes, and therefore everyone would simply stall with this. Were you not here for the discussion or something.

There was no way to make a rule preventing people from stalling with the technique, so they had to ban the technique altogether. There was no "testing," theorycraft simply proved it broken.


We've already added enough hitstun to combo with half lag (actually, some characters can just combo with their auto canceled aerials) and we do plan on adding enough shieldstun to prevent you from being able to shieldgrab after aerials right?

If we do ad enough shieldstun to make that possible (which I assume we will because that is the biggest drive for shieldstun in the first place), then aerials will not only be safe on block, but also safe when missed completely. Do you not see how this would be a problem? If they predicted it and blocked it, they cannot retaliate (in fact, blocked aerials are a guaranteed grab setup for the attacking person). If they predicted it and dodged it, they cannot retaliate. Basically, the air->ground game becomes horribly inbalanced.

And you're just going to say "vids or it didn't happen" when confronted with this perfectly reasonable scenario?

Z-canceling (in combination with shieldstun) is what allowed SSB64 to have guaranteed grab setups on block, and shield break combos. What we're doing may not be as extreme (since we won't have as much shieldstun and hitstun), but S-canceling will still make aerials overpowered when compared to grounded defenses. It makes aerials too safe.

I made a rule. If a MK uses IDC, they forfeit the ability to win via time running out. Its still unrefutted. And the SBR just doesn't want to go back on their previous judgement

We don't have hitstun where 0-deaths are overly common like 64 was. And we aren't going for that either. Z-canceling was only broken in combination of REALLY HIGH shieldstun and hitstun. Without those, it wouldn't be broken. And the same apples to S-cancel.

 

[Alopex]

You should all be listening to Dark Sonic.

S-canceling makes aerials nonpunishable. Plain and simple.

Do whatever you want in the air, get no grief for mistakes.
Why the hell would anyone want to play a game like that?

Shield-stun would make S-canceling tolerable, like it was tolerable in 64. But in no way does it even come close to making it the ideal solution. That would be L-canceling.

So why, exactly, are people even bringing up S-canceling AT ALL? It's a dead horse people. All of you the have brought up S-cancel all support L-cancel over it, so why bring it up just to play devil's advocate? It's not serving any purpose to the thread except to create a discussion that has already been had, despite you all agreeing on the solution...

 

[metaXzero]

You should all be listening to Dark Sonic.

S-canceling makes aerials nonpunishable. Plain and simple.

Do whatever you want in the air, get no grief for mistakes.
Why the hell would anyone want to play a game like that?

Shield-stun would make S-canceling tolerable, like it was tolerable in 64. But in no way does it even come close to making it the ideal solution. That would be L-canceling.

So why, exactly, are people even bringing up S-canceling AT ALL? It's a dead horse people. All of you the have brought up S-cancel all support L-cancel over it, so why bring it up just to play devil's advocate? It's not serving any purpose to the thread except to create a discussion that has already been had, despite you all agreeing on the solution...

As I said to someone else, I prefer L over S. But I don't like these comments of L-cancel being accepted because S-cancel was "broken". Hence, why I continue...