Brawl+ - Official 5.0 RC1 Build is now online! (Re-Use Autoupdater, Snake bug fixed)

[Arkaether]

What DeLoRtEd1

DeLoRtEd1 doesn't realize that even G&W has three very good moves, three or four situationally good moves, and insane priority. As he said, Captain Bland would get exponentially better with one more move. Imagine three moves. He'd be almost like a real character!

and artificial depth is nothing more than depth/versitility you know from the start because you put it there. :V

In other words, its baloney. :V

No, artificial depth is forced versatility you put in there that must be adapted to which foregos a perfectly fine option with a less fine option due to the inherent nature of a tradeoff between one great move and two good moves. Note that the keyword here is "forced". Things don't go well when you force a character to do something else when he could have done something better.

In the end its still depth. And when tradeoffs for depth is used CORRECTLY AND RATIONALLY IE NOT WILLY NILLY on a Character by Character basis, you're wont end up with too many options for every situation. You're giving them enough to utilize towards that characters strengths ie use trade-offs to add depth to moves that work with the character double-ie dont buff ground based attacks on jiggs because she is an aerial character or don't mess with angles on Snake's aerials to make him combo in the air better. :V

Naw, the problem with artificial depth is that it lacks the innate potential to grow like actual depth. And the problem with tradeoffs is that BAD moves are BAD and GOOD moves are GOOD. Tradeoffs change BAD moves to DECENT moves and GOOD moves to DECENT moves. A Jigglypuff tradeoff between bair and fair (as you suggested) would result only in massive pain, a nerfed jigglypuff, much sadness, and absolute no development in depth. What part of that is a good thing?

You guys ever heard of the saying, "Too much of anything is never a good thing." :V?

That applies to depth as well. I want more depth, but only enough. The right amount. But since we dont know that from the start, we have to test until we find the right amount. :V

I'd reply to the wall of text, but I dont have enough time. :V

Your "depth" isn't really "depth". "Depth" is that learning curve. You're changing the learning curve to a flat out horizontal line. How much of a character's potential can I draw out when you've already tailored each of his moves for usage in a particular situation? When you tell me "we changed G&W fair so it will specifically be used this so-and-so situation", what "depth" is there left in G&W? That situation comes up, I use fair, and nothing really develops because you MADE fair for that situation. The opponent will also KNOW you're using fair in that situation because you made it for that purpose.

Of course, DON'T touch fair, and I can pull it out at the craziest times when nobody expects it. Or it could develop into a niche situational move. You don't know where it will go and it has a lot more potential for development, unpredictability, and mindgames.

Oh, and one more thing; you absolute cannot factor out mindgames or player skill. You fail to realize that there actually exist options specifically for mindgames. A mindgame is not dependent solely upon player skill. Characters, just as they have differing amounts of reliable options, also have differing amounts of mindgame options open to them. And by doing "tradeoffs" and factoring out mindgames, you are in fact destroying these mindgame options for predictable situational options. Meaning you are crippling them at high-level competitive play.

I did not, of course, address the fact that a tradeoff is destroying a character's strengths in order to homogenize their gameplay to cover more options which defeats the purpose of character weaknesses and fails to emphasize the character's strengths.

 

[Wingflier]

@Wing. What move does Fox and Sonic have that would be a broken spike? Shine-spike certainly isn't too good.

It would be broken because of their ability to get to their target quickly (before the hitstun was over) and spike them. This is presumably why fox in melee (the fastest character) did not have a meteor smash, otherwise he would have been brokenly good (more than he was).

With the ability to travel great distances quickly, fall quickly, and have aerials that come out almost instantly, it is easy to see why both sonic and fox did not get a meteor smash.

Fox's spike would obviously be his down-air, Sonic's could be his down-air too if you sweet spotted the toe with it.

Wing

 

[proteininja]

So...many...bugs...13 days since last nightly...someone. get. ***. in. gear..........

 

[Skip2MaLoo]

@skip
I thought everyone had a meteor or spike in this game. At least I hoped (it was stupid in Melee how Marth and Falco got spikes while mostly everyone else got a dinky meteor).

IIRC, Link dtilt is a spike. Falcon has the nipple spike back. Everything else that sends down like a spike is a meteor.

oh..i do notice some meteors are stronger than others though..(marth vs mario)
but meh i guess what im asking wouldnt be important now so i just wont ask for it.

A)That question does not belong in the "Nightly Builds" thread.

B)http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brawl+meteor+smash

brawl isnt brawl+ but thanks for your concern anyway, and that is only the basis of what would build up to the nightly build related suggestion. now go watch teletubby sex tapes.

edit: or maybe i worded what i said incorrectly. i wasn't asking for everyone to have a spike/meteor smash.

 

[Wingflier]

Sorry, I would respond to your racy post, but I can't understand your terrible English. If that's what that is?

Something about meteor smashes and spikes and how it's relevant to this thread. Anyways, now you know (I think).

 

[Plum]

Oh, and one more thing; you absolute cannot factor out mindgames or player skill. You fail to realize that there actually exist options specifically for mindgames. A mindgame is not dependent solely upon player skill. Characters, just as they have differing amounts of reliable options, also have differing amounts of mindgame options open to them. And by doing "tradeoffs" and factoring out mindgames, you are in fact destroying these mindgame options for predictable situational options. Meaning you are crippling them at high-level competitive play.

I did not, of course, address the fact that a tradeoff is destroying a character's strengths in order to homogenize their gameplay to cover more options which defeats the purpose of character weaknesses and fails to emphasize the character's strengths.

I said that they have to be factored out of character specific discussion; mindgames delve too much into the specific player to hold reliability in character specifics.
A character like Sonic has the potential to completely mess with the opponent with his overall moveset and his speed, but if we were to discuss Sonic's options versus a specific character then that has to be left out. Again, when discussing character specifics there are certain things that have to be assumed, and those things are that players are EACH the highest level of possible skill and each player knows as much as physically possible in the current metagame about the other character.

Because each player is at the highest level of skill possible, a different level of player skill becomes null.
Because each player knows everything about each character in contention, mindgames simply won't work because there is no possible way the other player doesn't know exactly what you are trying to do to trick him.

Matchups have to be treated as a comparison of options of each character to become as accurate as possible. Outside factors removed. This is all because it is supposed to be a discussion of the characters only.

When you want to discuss player vs player things, then human options apply. When some characters have more mindgame potential then others, it is really just the players using their moveset in such a way. You can't just say Sakurai specifically allowed Pit's arrows to be so specifically controlled so the player could develop mindgames with them; it is just us as the competitive community using it in such a way.

I totally agree that they are very important, but certain things that are so player dependent have to be factored out of something like matchup discussion.

Also, you are warping a tradeoff in a way that is totally going against its intention. G&W is simply too predictable to be offensive; his range and priority when combined with how his moveset works really make him a defensive character (despite how easy it is to go agro with G&W in the current B+). If the intended tradeoffs actually improve the diversity in his defensive game then how is that going against a character strength? What if Bair's offensive use was lessened to increase the effectiveness of his defensive game (the stronger of the two)? How is giving G&W more defensive options homogenizing the character? A more diverse moveset in this case could open up for more playstyles as players focus their play around certain moves rather then seeing every G&W use the same exact strategy. What if the move buffed in compensation has a lot of potential for mindgames (something Chef could be very good at if the move was actually fast enough to use in the first place)?

I think your last paragraph ignored all of the potential benefit of tradeoffs at the highest level of play which could actually do everything you said they wouldn't do.

Some characters would be harmed with tradeoffs simply because there would be no way to compensate them for the loss they suffer in it, but that isn't the case. Another important thing to remember is that this is all part of the test builds. TEST builds. If we find that tradeoffs for G&W don't do what we want, then we get rid of them at no harm to the project. It's the beautiful thing about testing things; nothing is permanent and mistakes are easily corrected by just getting rid of it.

 

[SymphonicSage12]

Marth's up b's hitbox comes out on frame 5, not 1. It just has invincibility frames until frame 5 or 6, so it has the same effect as coming out on frame 1. >.>

 

[Skip2MaLoo]

Sorry, I would respond to your racy post, but I can't understand your terrible English. If that's what that is?

Something about meteor smashes and spikes and how it's relevant to this thread. Anyways, now you know (I think).

how is this post relevant at all? your just butt hurt. get over it. go eat a snickers. =)

 

[metaXzero]

It would be broken because of their ability to get to their target quickly (before the hitstun was over) and spike them. This is presumably why fox in melee (the fastest character) did not have a meteor smash, otherwise he would have been brokenly good (more than he was).

With the ability to travel great distances quickly, fall quickly, and have aerials that come out almost instantly, it is easy to see why both sonic and fox did not get a meteor smash.

Fox's spike would obviously be his down-air, Sonic's could be his down-air too if you sweet spotted the toe with it.

Wing

Fox with a spike wouldn't be broken unless he had a guaranteed set up into it and if the spike itself was strong and instant like Falco's (in Melee). Sonic's aerials aren't that fast. He really can't go agressive like Fox.

Spiking with Fox's and Sonic's D-air is just not effective. They're too weak and risky (as spikes) to attempt for offstage spikes.

 

[Arkaether]

I said that they have to be factored out of character specific discussion; mindgames delve too much into the specific player to hold reliability in character specifics.
A character like Sonic has the potential to completely mess with the opponent with his overall moveset and his speed, but if we were to discuss Sonic's options versus a specific character then that has to be left out. Again, when discussing character specifics there are certain things that have to be assumed, and those things are that players are EACH the highest level of possible skill and each player knows as much as physically possible in the current metagame about the other character.

Because each player is at the highest level of skill possible, a different level of player skill becomes null.
Because each player knows everything about each character in contention, mindgames simply won't work because there is no possible way the other player doesn't know exactly what you are trying to do to trick him.

Matchups have to be treated as a comparison of options of each character to become as accurate as possible. Outside factors removed. This is all because it is supposed to be a discussion of the characters only.

When you want to discuss player vs player things, then human options apply. When some characters have more mindgame potential then others, it is really just the players using their moveset in such a way. You can't just say Sakurai specifically allowed Pit's arrows to be so specifically controlled so the player could develop mindgames with them; it is just us as the competitive community using it in such a way.

I was kind of replying to GHNeko's statement that mindgames require player skill and shouldn't be involved because of base character power or something like that.

Also, you are warping a tradeoff in a way that is totally going against its intention. G&W is simply too predictable to be offensive; his range and priority when combined with how his moveset works really make him a defensive character (despite how easy it is to go agro with G&W in the current B+). If the intended tradeoffs actually improve the diversity in his defensive game then how is that going against a character strength? What if Bair's offensive use was lessened to increase the effectiveness of his defensive game (the stronger of the two)? How is giving G&W more defensive options homogenizing the character? A more diverse moveset in this case could open up for more playstyles as players focus their play around certain moves rather then seeing every G&W use the same exact strategy. What if the move buffed in compensation has a lot of potential for mindgames (something Chef could be very good at if the move was actually fast enough to use in the first place)?

Simple. Because a tradeoff requires the nerf of one of the character's better aspects. By trading off a nerf to bair in order to strengthen his defensive game, you end up greatly defeating the effectiveness of his bair (which is definitely one of his better moves). It doesn't matter how diverse your moveset is, the fact remains that the only moves which will be used are the best ones. Competitive play revolves finding the best aspects of your character and emphasizing them. By giving G&W more options at the expense of his better ones, you result in nerfing his applicable options for options which will never be used.

If you want an example, take Lucario. At the start of Brawl, Lucario was seen as an extremely versatile character who could be used in many different fashions depending on the individual playstyle of the player. Of course, nowadays, all Lucarios are being used the same way, because the most effective playstyle is the one which will always be used. I don't care if I have 30 good options, I will go with the 1 great option I have. That's how a competitive metagame develops.

I think your last paragraph ignored all of the potential benefit of tradeoffs at the highest level of play which could actually do everything you said they wouldn't do.

See above paragraph. In fact, at the highest level of play (of which there are, what, 4-5 players? v: ), the major reliance is on mindgames and player skill, of which tradeoffs would do nothing.

Some characters would be harmed with tradeoffs simply because there would be no way to compensate them for the loss they suffer in it, but that isn't the case. Another important thing to remember is that this is all part of the test builds. TEST builds. If we find that tradeoffs for G&W don't do what we want, then we get rid of them at no harm to the project. It's the beautiful thing about testing things; nothing is permanent and mistakes are easily corrected by just getting rid of it.

I'm not adverse to testing it. Heck, I'm up for testing any crazy wild idea anybody thinks up, just because it gives more options in an environment which allows us to see how it would work. However, that doesn't particularly pertain to the topic at hand; my point is that such tradeoffs would be, for the most part, an extremely bad move and should not be considered as an end-all ultimate solution for balancing characters. In fact, they should only happen in situations where it is apparent a character needs it (yes, G&W is one of them).

v:

 

[Plum]

Simple. Because a tradeoff requires the nerf of one of the character's better aspects. By trading off a nerf to bair in order to strengthen his defensive game, you end up greatly defeating the effectiveness of his bair (which is definitely one of his better moves). It doesn't matter how diverse your moveset is, the fact remains that the only moves which will be used are the best ones. Competitive play revolves finding the best aspects of your character and emphasizing them. By giving G&W more options at the expense of his better ones, you result in nerfing his applicable options for options which will never be used.
v:

It all depends on how you go at the tradeoff. Bair right now is a great defensive move, that at the same time does have offensive purpose with a favorable KB angle on the last hit. If as a tradeoff Bair lost its favorable KB angle for something that instead creates a neutral position between characters the move does retain its key defensive usage but looses the offensive ability. So has the move lost its effectiveness? It may have lost its offensive ability, but it remains a vital part to him being a defensive powerhouse which is what G&W's attributes really suit him as. We would emphasize G&W as a defensive wall of priority, and give him even more to build off around at the sacrifice of some of his offensive capabilities.

 

[Arkaether]

Plum, and the major problem with that is, when exactly would you use the newly buffed move instead of bair? Bair's still going to be just as good, just as useful, and just that much better than all his other moves, only now you've nerfed his offensive game as well, resulting in a net loss.

 

[Wingflier]

Fox with a spike wouldn't be broken unless he had a guaranteed set up into it and if the spike itself was strong and instant like Falco's (in Melee). Sonic's aerials aren't that fast. He really can't go agressive like Fox.

Fox with a spike would be broken. /thread

Spiking with Fox's and Sonic's D-air is just not effective. They're too weak and risky (as spikes) to attempt for offstage spikes.

That's because Fox's and Sonic's D-airs aren't spikes, as everybody knows. I was conveying a theoretical situation that you asked about when you said, "What attack would they use to spike if that had one?"

I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Ask the members of WBR if Fox or Sonic will ever get a spike, I'm sure they'll have the same response as me.

Plum, and the major problem with that is, when exactly would you use the newly buffed move instead of bair? Bair's still going to be just as good, just as useful, and just that much better than all his other moves, only now you've nerfed his offensive game as well, resulting in a net loss.

Besides, I am convinced that G&W has more useful attacks than all the mains seem to imply. I saw guru using at least 12 different attacks, aerials, and specials with him the other night, all consistently and to great effect. He was beating characters like Marth and MK, the so-called bad matchups of G&W, and he wasn't facing noobs either. Unless you want to tell Silven and Blackanese they are noobs, please be my guest.

Wing

 

[stingers]

Foxs Dair is as much of a spike as Kirbys is. Which would mean, it's a spike.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Was doing some observation's on yoshi and... can a fixed d-tilt hitbox be in the next update?
If you don't know what I mean go to training mode and use the dtilt, the tip doesn't connect at all, and it is a significant portion.
I want to be concise. lengthening the hitbox to emulate the actual attack appearance would allow yoshi to get past certain great ranged attackers, this doesn't change that it would be his only move to be able to do that making it quite predictable, it being the dtilt also makes it easily stopped by just doing an aerial.

 

[leafgreen386]

Wing: I'm going to lay this out really simple for you.

1) Fox already has a spike: his dair. It's a weak one, but it is a spike (or technically, a meteor).

2) If you had been following this project at all, you'd know sonic received a spiking usmash at one point to aid techchasing, which though was removed, is now being considered again.

 

[Arkaether]

If you had been following this project at all, you'd know sonic received a spiking usmash at one point to aid techchasing, which though was removed, is now being considered again.

a spiking usmash at one point to aid techchasing, which though was removed, is now being considered again.

which though was removed, is now being considered again.

is now being considered again.

...wait, wut.

:<

 

[Nybb]

Is dat sum intelligent discussion in mah Nightly Build thread I see thar?

Man, I come back to this thread and everybody and their grandmother has written essays...not that this is bad in any way. Just kind of surprising. But really cool. If I have something intelligent to add to the discussion I will pipe up.

Any idea when the next Nightly/Weekly Building is coming out? Apparently one is almost done since GoG released it in the Roy thread. I feel dirty using an unofficial leaked version though

 

[leafgreen386]

...wait, wut.

:<

Go read the sonic thread in the char boards. The reason we removed the spikesmash to begin with was the sonic mains complaining. It needed some heavy polish from where it was to be acceptable, and now the sonic mains want it back with a more... proper implementation, although last I checked they're still not sure how they want to do it.

In other words... sonic mains can't make up their minds. Ever.

Nybb: We'll be releasing the next build when it's ready. I actually think it was a mistake for gog to release the nightly with the roy set the way he did, but eh... what are ya gonna do? You're free to play with that set as much as you like, but we already know about certain... problems... with the set, which is keeping us from officially releasing it.

 

[Arkaether]

In other words... sonic mains can't make up their minds. Ever.

This man knows what he's talking about.

 

[metaXzero]

@Wing

I wasn't saying "give everyone a downward angle attack". I was saying "ALL down angled attacks should be either meteors or spikes" (instead of Melee's "Mario gets a Meteor while Falco gets a spike" crap).

Though I disagree with your "Fox with a spike will be broken" since....he has one and he's not broken. Actually, his D-air has always done that (launch at downward angle). And ignoring Sonic's U-Smash spike, none of his aerials spiking would be broken.

Not that I'm saying give Sonic an aerial spike (I never argued for that.

EDIT: from my understanding a bunch of vBrawl Sonic's just came out of no where and denounced the Spike. Then vanished...
:Λ

 

[TK Wolf]

Possible bug? I've been running 4.1, and my friends who are new to the game are constantly complaining about things like:
Jumps are delayed.
Where did my 2nd jump go?
It won't jump.

Honestly... I don't understand wtf they are talking about. Maybe they're just not used to more hitstun or are trying to jump too quickly after an aerial. I did notice sometimes that when using Charizard offstage it takes a LONG time before I can jump again after using a fair or something.

Is there some jump-related bug? It seems fine to me, but with so many complants I figured I'd check here.

 

[Arkaether]

Wolf Pup, that's because you're used to 10 frame Brawl buffer and you're most likely playing on a much lower buffer. On lower buffers, jumps won't come out because you input it too fast. Change handicap to 100 and everything will be fine and dandy.

 

[Machiavelli.CF]

Possible bug? I've been running 4.1, and my friends who are new to the game are constantly complaining about things like:
Jumps are delayed.
Where did my 2nd jump go?
It won't jump.

Honestly... I don't understand wtf they are talking about. Maybe they're just not used to more hitstun or are trying to jump too quickly after an aerial. I did notice sometimes that when using Charizard offstage it takes a LONG time before I can jump again after using a fair or something.

Is there some jump-related bug? It seems fine to me, but with so many complants I figured I'd check here.

thats the buffer im pretty sure
tell them to set handicap to 100% and see what happens
if that doesnt work, then i dont know what the problem is

 

[Deleted member]

DeLoRtEd1 doesn't realize that even G&W has three very good moves, three or four situationally good moves, and insane priority. As he said, Captain Bland would get exponentially better with one more move. Imagine three moves. He'd be almost like a real character!

Well I don't really know what you mean. I'm not trying to relate Captain Bland's situation to Game and Watch's. The purpose of the analogy is simply to illustrate that adding other usable moves creates a deeper form of gameplay. You can see this incredibly clearly playing a game of chess immediately after a game of checkers. Checkers has one piece and they all move the same way. Chess has six pieces and they all act differently. Instantly you're faced with:

a) an inherent learning curve: with 5 more pieces, you need to learn the weaknesses and strengths of each piece, and how they interact with others.

b) deeper, more complex game-play: because each piece acts and moves differently, you can strategize on how you will corner your opponent's king with even a couple pawns

c) near-infinite combination: no chess game is the same!

d) simply more variety

These all sound like the ingredients to a good fighting game! However, chess is not brawl - neither is checkers.

While there are no characters in Brawl that could relate to Captain Bland, the point remains that adding use to useless moves creates variety and depth, in a very real, non-artificial way.

 

[jokey665]

You can see this incredibly clearly playing a game of chess immediately after a game of checkers. Checkers has 1 piece and they all move the same way.

I'd argue that Go is a deeper game than chess and it only has 1 piece. Though it is also a fairly different style of play than chess.

</random>

 

[Wingflier]

Foxs Dair is as much of a spike as Kirbys is. Which would mean, it's a spike.

No actually, Kirby's spike has WAYYYY more knockback that Fox's "spike". I would not even consider what Fox has as a spike, the enemy would have to be above 200% for it to have enough knockback to kill them and not kill Fox in the process. All of his other aerials are better for that.

2) If you had been following this project at all, you'd know sonic received a spiking usmash at one point to aid techchasing, which though was removed, is now being considered again.

I don't consider any form of smash a spike sorry. Too situational and easy too avoid. You can call it what you want but I doubt Sonic will be getting many meteor smashes (off-stage) with this.

Now if you were to make one of his aerials a spike, then you could correct me.

Wing

 

[Deleted member]

I'd argue that Go is a deeper game than chess and it only has 1 piece. Though it is also a fairly different style of play than chess.

</random>

Lol, I guess. The depth in Go however is simply due to the amount of options you have. While you only have one piece, you have an entire board to make your move and plan your domination.

 

[leafgreen386]

No actually, Kirby's spike has WAYYYY more knockback that Fox's "spike". I would not even consider what Fox has as a spike, the enemy would have to be above 200% for it to have enough knockback to kill them and not kill Fox in the process. All of his other aerials are better for that.


I don't consider any form of smash a spike sorry. Too situational and easy too avoid. You can call it what you want but I doubt Sonic will be getting many meteor smashes (off-stage) with this.

Now if you were to make one of his aerials a spike, then you could correct me.

Wing

I don't know why you're arguing about this in the first place, but I do know that you need to shut up.

A spike is a move that hits downward, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you can kill with it or not. It doesn't matter if it's the weakest spike in the game (fox's dair) or the strongest (ness's dair). It doesn't matter how often you're actually presented with the ability to spike with it. The occasion could come up four or more times a match or only once every couple dozen matches. It doesn't matter, since the move still hits downward, it's a spike.

Fox's dair isn't used for spiking because it's weak, but it is a spike, thus negating your argument that fox couldn't have a spiking move (aka one that hits at a downward vertical trajectory) without being broken.

The WBR is willing to give sonic a spiking usmash for the purpose of facilitating techchasing. The usmash may not hit straight down (aka 270 degrees), but instead at a slight angle either in front of or behind him (say... 280 or 260), which means that in certain very rare situations sonic may be able to score a kill off of the usmash by spiking a foe by the ledge. A player could easily negate this by DIing toward the stage, but the possibility does exist.

Both of these points counter whatever argument you're trying to make, in that not only is it possible for these characters to have spikes without being broken, but the WBR does in fact approve of this.

Now, if you will be so kind, stop spamming this thread and actually post something useful.

 

[Deleted member]

A spike is a move that hits downward and cannot be meteor canceled, plain and simple.

Change every other "spike" in that post to "meteor smash" and you're gold. (:
Edit: Because it might cause confusion, and jumble up the terms even more.

 

[thesage]

Ganon's dair is actually stronger than Ness' dair after the opponent is at like 30% I think (if the meteor smash mechanic works like vbrawl...) and his down-b is better than Ness' dair in terms of being a meteor smash all the time (again, I'm pulling data from vbrawl on this...).

Guys, honestly I really think we should focus on balancing characters in the least amount of changes possible first, then worry about depth later. I mean, look at how much discussion there has been about Bowser and then compare that to the discussion on Yoshi. I think Roy is more discussed than Yoshi lol.

 

[Machiavelli.CF]

Change every other "spike" in that post to "meteor smash" and you're gold. (:

= A meteor smash is a move that hits downward and cannot be meteor canceled
..................no

if thats waht you meant, then you couldnt be more wrong
Meteor smash - can be cancelled
Spike - cant

I think Roy is more discussed than Yoshi lol.

*Captain obvious points out how roy isn't even a character*

enough about fox's meteor/spike w/e
i (and many more possibly) dun give a ****! give it to fox if it matters that much, we can change it later if needed

i'd dair(pun fail) ppl to not mention that again for a few pages
but doubt they could

 

[thesage]

I'm pretty sure all "spikes" in this game can be meteor canceled, but most people refer to them as spikes since nobody really knows how to mc well and none of the really good characters in vbrawl relied on meteor smashes that much, except for like Kirby...

 

[SymphonicSage12]

I'm pretty sure all "spikes" in this game can be meteor canceled, but most people refer to them as spikes since nobody really knows how to mc well and none of the really good characters in vbrawl relied on meteor smashes that much, except for like Kirby...

Actually, Luigi's down taunt spike cannot be meteor cancelled.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Ganon's dair is actually stronger than Ness' dair after the opponent is at like 30% I think (if the meteor smash mechanic works like vbrawl...) and his down-b is better than Ness' dair in terms of being a meteor smash all the time (again, I'm pulling data from vbrawl on this...).

Guys, honestly I really think we should focus on balancing characters in the least amount of changes possible first, then worry about depth later. I mean, look at how much discussion there has been about Bowser and then compare that to the discussion on Yoshi. I think Roy is more discussed than Yoshi lol.

I just mentioned Yoshi today...and everyone ignored me T_T...

All I said is that we should make his dtilt hitbox reflect the actual animation (it's too small).

 

[Bladefist137]

I just mentioned Yoshi today...and everyone ignored me T_T...

All I said is that we should make his dtilt hitbox reflect the actual animation (it's too small).

Problem is, No one gives a flying cr@p about Yoshi nowadays

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Thats no different from how things usually are.
Either way his Dtilt should be fixed.

 

[Machiavelli.CF]

Problem is, No one gives a flying cr@p about Yoshi nowadays

i say yoshi needs some big gimmick or somthing rly special to catch ppl's interest
like an unbreakable shield xD but not rly...even tho taht would be rly interesting imo

 

[leafgreen386]

Change every other "spike" in that post to "meteor smash" and you're gold. (:
Edit: Because it might cause confusion, and jumble up the terms even more.

Guilty as charged. Technically, a spike is indeed defined as a move that cannot be MC'd, whereas meteors (obviously) can be MC'd. Unfortunately, in colloquial language, "spike" has evolved to simply mean a move that hits downward, be it a true spike or a meteor. You are correct, though.

@Chrono: Noted. We'll take a look at yoshi's dtilt.

 

[Skip2MaLoo]

rising eggs? sunny side up? just an idea~