• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Brawl+ (Competitive Hacks): Codes, Videos, and Discussion (THREAD OUT OF DATE)

A

Alopex

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
909
Even if we all agreed it wasn't broken, it wouldn't change the fact that we would all STILL agree that L-canceling is better.

So why even bother bringing up S-cancel again if we all agree that it's not the ideal solution regardless?

What are we gaining by discussing a code no one wants over L-cancel anyway?
 
metaXzero

metaXzero

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
2,586
Location
Under the ground.
Alopex said:
Even if we all agreed it wasn't broken, it wouldn't change the fact that we would all STILL agree that L-canceling is better.

So why even bother bringing up S-cancel again if we all agree that it's not the ideal solution regardless?

What are we gaining by discussing a code no one wants over L-cancel anyway?
Click to expand...
When S-canceling comes up, it shouldn't be discussed as "broken" (unless some vid proves it). Otherwise, someone like me is going to argue against that point. I do the same thing when IDC comes up in threads too.

What can I say? I hate inaccurate info being passed off as truth.

Moving on, anything new to discuss?
 
Dark Sonic

Dark Sonic

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
6,021
Location
Orlando Florida
metaXzero said:
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.
Click to expand...
That rule doesn't work in real life scenarios, because a time limit is necessary to keep players from stalling the tournament as a whole. People really would stall the tournament, if not to win, simply to prove a point (I for one would). You're forgetting that tournaments do have time constraints, and that one match can stall half of the bracket.

That enough refutation for you?
 
K

Kyd

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
359
Location
Warner Robins, GA
Fine, someone make a vid of DDD dairing into a grab. or someone trying to punish Bowser's missed bair.

The problem isnt it being broken but its completely opposite from what Brawl+ was meant for (competitive gameplay). It's way too defense oriented and allows too high of a level of shield punishing.

Also, bringing up an old argument because of an opinion (which most people in the discussion disagree with) is childish.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents.

Ooo, I have a single mod for a specific char that would be amazing so long as it doesnt cause glitches..... No MK.

I like the idea of improving the gameplay speed, so we should have PW (if he feels like working on it after the 4 he's working on now) try and tweak it. I would love to have Melee speed in this game. I honestly would say jump cancel shines but Fox's shine turns off too fast and that would make wall shining even easier than it already is. Also, the triple jump glitch fix is good in theory, but if we get rid of auto-sweetspotted ledges wouldnt that code no longer been needed, or would the falling lag still take effect even if u grabbed the ledge after the move is completely done with it's animation?
 
metaXzero

metaXzero

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
2,586
Location
Under the ground.
Dark Sonic said:
That rule doesn't work in real life scenarios, because a time limit is necessary to keep players from stalling the tournament as a whole. People really would stall the tournament, if not to win, simply to prove a point (I for one would). You're forgetting that tournaments do have time constraints, and that one match can stall half of the bracket.

That enough refutation for you?
Click to expand...
WE KNOW THAT IDC CAN STALL OUT A MATCH. But my rule takes out the ability to WIN via stalling. You decide to use IDC, you HAVE to finish the match by beating your opponent. So holding it out for extended periods is out of the question.

Why would anyone stall a match in their OPPONENTS favor?
 
jokey665

jokey665

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
913
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
metaXzero said:
WE KNOW THAT IDC CAN STALL OUT A MATCH. But my rule takes out the ability to WIN via stalling. You decide to use IDC, you HAVE to finish the match by beating your opponent. So holding it out for extended periods is out of the question.

Why would anyone stall a match in their OPPONENTS favor?
Click to expand...
What happens if you're in the lead and you stall out the clock with IDC? Do you play another game? What happens if you get ahead in that one then stall it out? There's really no way to make it work.
 
metaXzero

metaXzero

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
2,586
Location
Under the ground.
jokey665 said:
What happens if you're in the lead and you stall out the clock with IDC? Do you play another game? What happens if you get ahead in that one then stall it out? There's really no way to make it work.
Click to expand...
You didn't read my proposal. If you use IDC AT ALL, you lose the ability to win via time running out (meaning you can't win like that).

Their is a thread in the MK boards about IDC. Go discuss there please. Thats where I first put my proposal. Thats what that thread is for (since mods won't let me make a new one)...
 
K

kangaroo

Smash Cadet
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
40
Location
Antarctica
Many players have tested S-canceling including those in the SBR. There's nothing to suggest that it's broken, at least not yet. However, I still prefer l-canceling.
 
Dark Sonic

Dark Sonic

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
6,021
Location
Orlando Florida
metaXzero said:
You didn't read my proposal. If you use IDC AT ALL, you lose the ability to win via time running out (meaning you can't win like that).
Click to expand...
And? Is that it?

I'd stall the match anyway, especially if I just have a small percent lead and I'm fighting a character who kills me quickly (pretty much everybody since you're Metaknight.

That didn't fix the stalling problem. It makes stalling a little less appealing, but stalling still retains some advantages, and really I could just be a **** and stall the tournament anyway.:laugh:

And what happens if I do run out the clock? If we play another match I do it again and the process repeats until I decide I want to end it. If we go to sudden death, then I've just drastically increased my chances of winning against a player better than me, since I can stall the match and basically leave my victory up to random chance (if I was going to lose anyway, might as well take the risk).


Oh and yes I agree that S-canceling is not "broken." However S-canceling makes the game imbalanced with regards to offense and defense. While L-canceling does not (as much)
 
metaXzero

metaXzero

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
2,586
Location
Under the ground.
kangaroo said:
Many players have tested S-canceling including those in the SBR. There's nothing to suggest that it's broken, at least not yet. However, I still prefer l-canceling.
Click to expand...
In the end, its coming down to preference. I don't mind that at all. It just frustrates me when people call S-cancel broken with no real proof.

As I said before, anything new to discuss (vids, discoveries, MK getting more broken, etc.)?
 
metaXzero

metaXzero

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
2,586
Location
Under the ground.
Dark Sonic said:
And? Is that it?

I'd stall the match anyway, especially if I just have a small percent lead and I'm fighting a character who kills me quickly (pretty much everybody since you're Metaknight.

That didn't fix the stalling problem. It makes stalling a little less appealing, but stalling still retains some advantages, and really I could just be a **** and stall the tournament anyway.:laugh:

And what happens if I do run out the clock? If we play another match I do it again and the process repeats until I decide I want to end it. If we go to sudden death, then I've just drastically increased my chances of winning against a player better than me, since I can stall the match and basically leave my victory up to random chance (if I was going to lose anyway, might as well take the risk).


Oh and yes I agree that S-canceling is not "broken." However S-canceling makes the game imbalanced with regards to offense and defense. While L-canceling does not (as much)
Click to expand...
*sigh* again I explain?

You use IDC and the match ends via timer, META KNIGHT LOSES THE MATCH!
 
Dark Sonic

Dark Sonic

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
6,021
Location
Orlando Florida
metaXzero said:
*sigh* again I explain?

You use IDC and the match ends via timer, META KNIGHT LOSES THE MATCH!
Click to expand...
In my defense you didn't say that. You said

"Metaknight cannot win via timeout," which doesn't really mean that he would lose.

While that would deal with "excessive stalling" it wouldn't deal with the technique "be invincible until you are put in an advantageous situation or come up with a strategy."

But yes, that is a different matter and would require a different discussion.
 
metaXzero

metaXzero

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
2,586
Location
Under the ground.
^MuBa........wat in.........lol?

But yeah. We need to get back on topic. Their is a thread for IDC in the MK boards (still on the first page) and S-cancel discussion is pretty much done...

Any topics anyone?
 
kupo15

kupo15

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
7,002
Location
Playing Melee
metaXzero said:
It was the old hitstun and the Manual L-cancel timing he didn't like IIRC (he supports ALC)...
Click to expand...
No he didn't like the gravity because it makes tornado spam that much more gayer and he didn't like MAD because you could defend yourself for **** in the air against Mk. What are you going to do, air dodge to be set up for a free hit anyway? But he also didn't like manual l canceling either.

Dark Sonic said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think that the shield stun should be enough so that you can't shield grab ppl in the middle of moves and only in the ending lag of the move if the approach was bad. I hope ppl don't start whining about shields breaking occasionally instead of being non existent now. We have this feature in the game that is being wasted.
 
Oracle

Oracle

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
3,471
Location
Dallas, TX
I'm gonna do some tests this weekend to see if having stale moves would help combos.

All combo moves in brawl have ridiculous knockback, and the easiest solution would probably be to set all moves to a certain stale level.
 
FireKirby7

FireKirby7

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
1,220
Location
Oklahoma
^^^ Why is everyone arguing about it anyway? They work pretty simular, don't they?

(Sorry I didn't read the thread)
 
Dark Sonic

Dark Sonic

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
6,021
Location
Orlando Florida
FireKirby7 said:
^^^ Why is everyone arguing about it anyway? They work pretty simular, don't they?

(Sorry I didn't read the thread)
Click to expand...
S-cancel causes the person attacking to shield in replacement for any landing lag they would have.

For instance, if Ike does a fair and lands during it, he will shield instead of having lag.

However, this system makes the air->ground game overpowered, as you can have extremely solid aerials "walls" with a lot of characters, and you can have approaches that allow the attacker to get guranteed grabs.

Overall, people like L-cancel and Auto L-cancel better.
 
H

Heavyarms2050

Smash Ace
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
564
Location
Houston, TX
S-cancel is stupid, you do an aerial attack, but if it doesnt connect, you can simply s-cancel into a shield or shield grab. No punishment there

EDITED: take the s-cancel code out of the thread
 
S

sagemoon

Smash Lord
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,162
Location
Lynnwood, WA
.4 is the brawl hitstun, so technically 40% (.8) would be double the brawl hitstun. 100% (1.4) would be around 3 and a half times the amount of brawls hitstun
 
A

Almas

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,588
This is a result of the % notation of hitstun being flawed >.<.

A hitstun that high would likely cause any grab that sends someone off the edge to die, though. They'd get out of stun eventually, but much longer than 3x, I believe.
 
R

rush378

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
1
A quick question: what does the no tripping code do to Diddy's bananas? Do their effects just disappear?
 
SketchHurricane

SketchHurricane

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
669
Location
Winter Park, FL
I don't think the whole hitstun constant thing was broken down at all to us when it was discovered. The formula is apparently hitstun = launch speed/165. What we don't know is what the modifier actually modifies. Let's use 4000 mph as our launch speed (the speed of a deadly spike?). This gives us 25 frames of stun. Now where does this .4 default value fit in? It can't be .4 of 25, which would be 10 frames, not nearly enough considering we die from spikes at that speed. If we take .4 from 165, we get a new constant of 66, which gives us a more reasonable 60 frames (your dead off the bottom after a full second). But that breaks down when you plug .5 in, which gives you less hitstun instead of more. So what exactly is .4 modifying?

That aside, the percent notation IS rather flawed in a technical sense. I came up with the initial percent notation by just thinking of .1 x 100 being 10 and therefore 10%. We don't even really know what it's 10% of, but it still is a quick easy way to reference our change since we don't really know what we're modifying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom