Brawl+ Project Hub: OP updated 4/28 w/expansion pack and why it is necessary

[Thunderhorse+]

On *sigh* Marth:

Maybe it's just the Marth mains wearing thin on me (at least the Ness mains were consistent in making/*****ing Ness The Marth mains were the ones who wanted him heavier in the first place), but I'm starting to think the best course of action may just be giving in. Yes, I know we're already going to change Marth's physics, but if it brings back SHDF...as much as it pains me to say it (because that's how all the other stupid changes got in) I think we should let it slide.

While a number of Marth players just dislike how he feels (and by a number I mean about 2), a greater number (IE every other Marth+ main) is just botching about SHDF. Case in point, Darth Revan has openly stated that even if we changed the physics, the loss of SHDF will still make him not play Marth/Brawl+, and there are others out there who share that sentiment. This is why IASA to jump/upB using the old IASA frame, as good an idea as that is, will never work; they're still out their SHDF. It doesn't matter how much data is put in front of them saying that SHDF is bad/worse/not as optimal. They're dead-set on getting it back.

Though normally we shouldn't give into the pressure, this is a very special case: the loss of SHDF was a completely unintended side effect (one that happened to work out very well). The core issue at hand was FHDF, which as far as I can tell won't be nerfed any less, even with a few more moments of hangtime. So if the new physics we implement allow Marth to stay in the air long enough to do another fair, then fine, Marth mains get their SHDF back and we still get a nerfed FHDF like we intended to in the first place, and we all go home happy...I hope.

One thing is for sure: so far this has been a tiring issue that is bad for our public image (and bad for our mental health) and it's getting to the point where putting up a strong resistance isn't worth the time or the effort. Hopefully that should placate them.

Thoughts on other changes tomorrow when it's not almost 4 AM.

 

[Shell]

For SHDF, there are a lot of things that you could do to it now that we have total control over the animation and hitboxes.

Right now it has a ~170 degree coverage of the front by frame 7. You could, for example, adjust the hitbox and or animation to not hit as low, making the first rising fair less of a pressure threat on grounded opponents and only applicable to comboing aerial opponents in hitstun.

That doesn't really solve the defensive issue, though. This isn't super intuitive, but you could make the IASA sooner for on hit, so that you can only SHDF on hit. This would be triggered by shields, I believe, but if you couple this with my first idea it would still water down offensive pressure while eliminating throwing out walls of SHDF.

Another thing that would help make openings is to speed up just the actual swing from four frames to two, making it less "meaty." Frame speed mods could do this and/or I/someone else could touch up the animation to make it look good.

Just some ideas.

 

[JCaesar]

At Pound 4 I was asked multiple times by different people why SHDF was removed. What is the proper response to that? "Well the data proves that it wasn't that good to begin with." "Because FHDF was overpowered and we had to slow fair down." Those are both bull**** answers, everyone knows it, and it makes me feel like a dirty politician to try to say them with a straight face.

So can you guys please give me a simple answer for a simple question: Why was SHDF removed?

It kind of reminds me of when we removed Falco's SHDL. Except when we did that, we had solid reasoning to back it up. It stopped him from completely shutting down slow tall characters and evened out his matchups. It also allowed for more precision and didn't hurt his approach game. Is the removal of Marth's SHDF supposed to be similar to this? Because I don't really see it.

Though the biggest issue for me is that removing such a staple Marth tactic which he has always had and was clearly not overpowered just makes us look really bad.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

As far as giving Charizard another jump, Anomalus from the B- boards figured it out, I can bug him if you guys want.

 

[The Cape]

FHDF was overpowered in the same sense as D3 SH double bair. It walled entire characters that were not quick enough to get in and punish it. The extra five frames were to make it more punishable in that sense and losing SHDF was a side effect.

Any good Marth would SHFFL the fairs before anyway and those quitting Brawl+ or Marth because of this are some of the stupidest people I can think of.

 

[Thunderhorse+]

At Pound 4 I was asked multiple times by different people why SHDF was removed. What is the proper response to that? "Well the data proves that it wasn't that good to begin with." "Because FHDF was overpowered and we had to slow fair down." Those are both bull**** answers, everyone knows it, and it makes me feel like a dirty politician to try to say them with a straight face.

So can you guys please give me a simple answer for a simple question: Why was SHDF removed?

SHDF removal was a completely unintended side effect. The planned nerf was to slow down the swings in between a FHDF, which so happened to prevent SHDF from being performed. Like the Samus bomb jump, the unintended side effect was well recieved within the WBR, and we decided to roll with it.

I know it's probably not the answer you wanted or expected, but that's really all there is to it: it was completely unintentional.

 

[omegablackmage]

you would definitely have to restore the ledge invincibility upon getting hit cape, otherwise, your right, it would be a ridiculously good strategy and would take entire stocks by itself.

so the reason the fair was changed was for the FHDF, i figured it was the SHDF. If thats the case why was the FHDF so broken? Look at particular matchups and figure out which parts of the hitbox are making it unpassable. I would prefer to see small modifications to hitboxes in this case rather than timings if at all possible.

 

[JCaesar]

SHDF removal was a completely unintended side effect. The planned nerf was to slow down the swings in between a FHDF, which so happened to prevent SHDF from being performed. Like the Samus bomb jump, the unintended side effect was well recieved within the WBR, and we decided to roll with it.

I know it's probably not the answer you wanted or expected, but that's really all there is to it: it was completely unintentional.

FHDF was overpowered in the same sense as D3 SH double bair. It walled entire characters that were not quick enough to get in and punish it. The extra five frames were to make it more punishable in that sense and losing SHDF was a side effect.

OK, that's fine. FHDF was deemed overpowered and we decided to nerf it. What I don't understand is why we're going out into the 6.0 thread saying things like, "SHDF is never coming back, don't bring it up anymore." If SHDF wasn't the issue in the first place then why are we saying that? We could have nerfed Marth's FHDF walling strat without removing SHDF.

Any good Marth would SHFFL the fairs before anyway and those quitting Brawl+ or Marth because of this are some of the stupidest people I can think of.

Completely irrelevant. Saying it's not a good tactic is not a reason to say it's ok to remove it when we don't have to.

Moreover, I don't give a crap about the whining of the current Marth+ mains. It's the people on the fence about getting into Brawl+, especially the Marth mains of other games, who I'm worried about. They see us removing a staple tactic and changing the feel of a character-defining move like this, and it makes them very uneasy. I just really don't like the image of us it portrays to the yet-to-try-Brawl+ masses.

 

[The Cape]

Thing is, we accidentally removed a tactic that is basically useless and they all throw a HUGE **** fit about it. Its the whole complain until something goes your way crap that almost ruined Brawl+ in the first place. It was a good change and it works great as is now. The Marth mains need to get the sand out of their ****ing ******s and play the game.

 

[Glick]

Thing is, we accidentally removed a tactic that is basically useless and they all throw a HUGE **** fit about it. Its the whole complain until something goes your way crap that almost ruined Brawl+ in the first place. It was a good change and it works great as is now. The Marth mains need to get the sand out of their ****ing ******s and play the game.

Isn't it a large part of their sheild pressure and approach game?

 

[JCaesar]

Thing is, we accidentally removed a tactic that is basically useless and they all throw a HUGE **** fit about it. Its the whole complain until something goes your way crap that almost ruined Brawl+ in the first place. It was a good change and it works great as is now. The Marth mains need to get the sand out of their ****ing ******s and play the game.

There are plenty of things that other characters have that they don't NEED. But the characters CAME WITH THEM and since they're not GAME BREAKING they're not being removed. The only "game breaking" (and really, it's matchup breaking, not game breaking) part of Marth's fair was it's safety out of a fullhop. No other defensive aspect of it was particularly broken, nor was ANY offensive aspect of it broken.

Good yes, but not good enough to be taken away.

This is nothing like Ness fair. It may work fine now but it worked fine before too. If we wanna nerf FHDF, let's do that, minus the unintended consequences which make us look bad.

Less damage on fair (less shieldstun) + floatier Marth = FHDF with old timing being much less safe. There's really no reason to remove SHDF.

I still don't have a nice, simple answer I can give a Marth main trying Brawl+ for the first time and asking why SHDF was removed. "Well, it was an accident when we nerfed FHDF, but we're not putting it back in because we decided that you don't need it, so **** you."

 

[The Cape]

It wasnt about sheild stun. The direction of the swings in turn with a retreating full hop and Marth's physics leads to a wall that a good deal of characters have trouble punishing. Thats the issue. I am so god **** sick of all the ****ing ******* that dont know anything about this and threaten not to play the game because they dont agree with a change and people cave. Its ****ing ******** and its the kind of **** that made RC1.

 

[Yeroc]

If we make Marth floatier, couldn't we even possibly leave the fair timing as is? The shieldstun change sounds like a good idea as well, though it will only probably be a single frame different.

Edit: Ninja'd by cape >_<

What if we took out frame 7 entirely? It looks like it's the biggest part of the problem.

 

[JCaesar]

Again, what does that have to do with SHDF? There is no connection there. Even if we keep the +5 lag, we can still maintain his SHDF with slightly floatier physics (which everyone seems to want right now). Not to mention, the floatier physics is a significant nerf to his FHDF wall.

Or yeah, what Yeroc said. Remove the lower part of the fair hitbox. Marth players want fair for combos. The upper hitboxes are for comboing, the lower hitboxes are for walling.

 

[Glick]

Jigglypuffs sheild break is something that is just... Jigglypuff.
I mean, obviously it can be taken out, but I feel like it would be a complete abomination to jigglypuff. Seriously don't take my advice on this. I'm not thinking logically with this. Take it out, it makes more sense on a competitive sense. but taking out sheild break is like taking out her rest. except rest is useful.

What happens when you pop a balloon?

DISREGARD ME. I'm ********.


Her back air>I feel like it makes her range not an issue for her anymore. kind of ruins the whole glass cannon thing. She is supposed to be weak with range. Plus it kind of made captain falcon not counter her anymore. After he's gone, there really isn't any more bad matchups...


Who? MK? G&W? ZSS? Fox?(not really anymore)

So yeah, take out that back air. It originally made sense because bair air is kind of useless approach with compared to fair. Fair has more range and does more damage and you can still combo fair>fair depending on the %

But the new bairs range is just... what the hell.
Especially that you can do stuff like
Bair>bair
Bair>Up air>Rest(% sensitive)


Also: I think before we release gold we need to give Pokemon trainer some type of buff as a whole. You have literally NO incentive to play him. he is not solid because you have to worry about three Pokemon at once, and one will always be better then the other in the long run (Just the way the metagame works)

Giving pokemon trainer some type of stamina,healing, or power buff would give people an incentive to actually become great with all three pokemon at once instead of just alternating between them match to match(if they are really into pokemon trainer)

 

[Thunderhorse+]

Isn't it a large part of their sheild pressure and approach game?

We're not talking about his approach. We've never been concerned about it as an approach. SHDF was a HORRIBLE approach and a BAD spacing tactic. But double aerials were useful IN COMBOS. Full hop double fair was certainly too safe on defense to be considered balanced, but it was also his main combo tactic and in that respect was far from broken (he's not the only character who whas combos like that <_<).

Not a big deal, but gives a bit of insight on how it was used. Ironically it is bad at both (though not explicitly stated in the post, it's completely inferior to SHFFF for shield pressure).

If we make Marth floatier, couldn't we even possibly leave the fair timing as is?

That was my line of thought from my big Marth post on the last page. If the changed Marth physics allowed Marth enough airtime to do another fair in a short hop, I say why not? We wouldn't even have to change the FHDF nerf and it would in theory still remain intact while giving Marth players their SHDF back with minimal changes.

It's a win-win situation as far as I see it.

 

[The Cape]

That was my line of thought from my big Marth post on the last page. If the changed Marth physics allowed Marth enough airtime to do another fair in a short hop, I say why not? We wouldn't even have to change the FHDF nerf and it would in theory still remain intact while giving Marth players their SHDF back with minimal changes.

It's a win-win situation as far as I see it.

This will just make them complain that he is TOO floaty and they will ***** til people break down and fix **** again.

You guys wanna fall into fixing stuff just because people complain about it, then you fix the wall of **** that comes out as soon as you fix this, I want no part of it.

 

[ThatGuyYouMightKnow]

Pretty much what Cape said.

 

[Glick]

What's the big deal with FHDF?
It's good... It's not broken by any extent. You can counter it with a lot of things.

 

[lord karn]

I don't really see why it matters if we remove Jigglypuff's shield break thing. When you're shield breaks you're going to die more than half the time anyways. It's a flavor mechanic that really doesn't have much affect at all.

However, nine-hammers, death radishes and misfires are flavor mechanics that have a big impact on the game. We should really find a way to address these random things that still allow those characters to retain what was a 'flavor' of their character.

 

[The Cape]

What about making hammer riskier?

#1 is the only "bad hammer" in the bunch. The rest at least have hitboxes and do damage. If we increase the risk of the others hammers that might fix the #9 mechanic.

Then again, there is nothing wrong with the nine.

 

[omegablackmage]

hammer isn't broken, its pretty hard to combo into. Most situations where you can combo into it, you could have finished the combo with another 20-25 percent string, so its usually a trade off of taking a chance at an instant kill or getting guaranteed damage string.

 

[Revven]

I really think what should be done is just cover what people wanted fixed from Pound 4 and then let everything sit. People in other areas of the forum constantly post about Brawl+ changing too often to be taken seriously (example: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9369933&postcount=317) and how some times we (not including myself as I'm technically not apart of the big decision making process with B+) make "dumb" changes like what -Doom- thinks is a "dumb" change (even though SHDF was not intentionally removed).

I'm not saying to rush this out though, we all know what happened when we did that (5.0). Here's an idea though:

-Cover the complaints from Pound 4
-Keep a documented log of possible buffs for characters for the upcoming set but, do not put them in. Instead, when the set is finished with the complaints taken care of from Pound 4, release it (with proper playtesting of course) then let the set sit being that it is the Gold set after all.
-Months to maybe a year pass by and we have tourney results from across probably 20 or more and gather it all into one thread. Get out the documented log of the possible buffs that were listed for certain characters and see if they match-up with what we were thinking in the past. It may turn out the character didn't need it due to their placing or they do and in a "patch" you could add it in. This is again, waiting it out before doing anything "stupid".

I'm all for adding a jump to Charizard as it appears everyone else back here is but, everyone outside of here may not approve of it. And keeping that image of not looking "stupid" in the eyes of people wanting to get into + is important. As it stands now, we are losing that audience because we thinl a character may need something but in actuality they do not. With an extra jump, you may unintentionally buff Charizard's juggle game and as it is right now, it's already really good. Good intentions for recovery, bad/good side effect for his combo game (depending on the perspective).

I'm just saying to keep this in mind. I really think this next set should be the best it can be and that is: only polishing it from complaints from the top players who played it at Pound 4. Ignore every other character in the game that was not mentioned and target the ones mentioned + a possible Marf change and everything is a go for the next few months.

Just being wary I guess.

 

[lord karn]

What about making hammer riskier?

#1 is the only "bad hammer" in the bunch. The rest at least have hitboxes and do damage. If we increase the risk of the others hammers that might fix the #9 mechanic.

Then again, there is nothing wrong with the nine.

It's not that the hammer is too good, it's just stupid to me that you should ever get such a huge pay off of something random. I really don't think nine-hammer, stitch-faces, or misfires should be in the game. Randomness that actually affects things in a big way should be eliminated from any competitive game, in my opinion. The problem is that these random elements have, over the years, become such a big part of the flavor behind the characters. Nevertheless, I think we should find a way to get rid of these things, but just try to retain the flavor somehow.

 

[[TSON]]

The problem with that is the only solution being sequential order; and even then, that makes you get more of the good ones per match on average. Luck isn't necessarily counter-competitive, either.

 

[lord karn]

Well, in a game where the central component of the competition isn't luck, adding luck in does seem anti-competitive to me. Other possible solutions could be making them weaker, as well. I also think we should remove them completely if we can't think of an adequate way to fix them.

 

[Veril]

I agree with karn, but can't think of a way to "remove luck" without getting torn apart by angry Peach/GW mains.

@Falco400: That's basically what I'm doing now. You've seen my stance on making changes, and for the most part we're in agreement about that being the best course for now. This shouldn't keep us from discussing changes that we might not implement for some time (Like Zard's extra jump, removing luck, nerfing Pit's arrows or Ivy's razor leaf, etc).

I'll be sending out PMs for voting on some of the more essential changes.

 

[Shell]

If SHDF really was removed as a somewhat unintended side effect, adding in the IASA to allow for SHDF only on hit really would be the best solution, in my opinion. It preserves the SHDF combos that people are complaining about missing but doesn't improve his walling ability.

 

[lord karn]

I've never really seen any discussion on invincibility upon return from death. I've been toying around with the idea that perhaps invincibility should go away after the returning player touches the ground or the timer, whichever happens first. Invincibility has always seemed kind of silly to me.

 

[[TSON]]

It allows you to get something useful charged or start a combo so that you don't get totally ***** 4stocks straight. Or at least that's how I see it.

 

[Cia]

I agree with karn, but can't think of a way to "remove luck" without getting torn apart by angry Peach/GW mains.

Yeah.. I would be furious is those were removed. Some People (including myself) use probability as part of their strategy. In fact, the only reason people use Judgment hammer is for the chance to get a 9.. or 6. Removing that would be dumb.

and yeah, I've been saying that Charizard doesn't need another jump. I hope that doesn't happen either.

 

[Plum]

I always thought Charizard needed an extra jump or two, because it was out of character for him to be so sluggish and almost clunky in the air compared to the other multijump characters. I find it interesting that Charizard outspeeds Pikachu in game but only manages to tie his ground speed in Brawl. In the games he has a base speed of 100, so he's certainly nothing to call slow, when he matches such key Pokemon like Salamence in speed. Yet Brawl makes him slower than he actually is on the ground, and certainly in the air where he moves at a snail's pace especially with that abysmal glide.

Though I can say that balance wise it would probably be too much of a buff, regardless of how well it fits his character. An extra jump is going to keep his juggle game going with extra gas for longer, and while the intent is to help his offstage game, its going to make his onstage game a good deal better. Though seeing as it can't hurt to have another idea to consider, here would be my thoughts. Give Charizard another jump, but have it be even worse than Peach's double jump in terms of height gain. Have it work more like a vertical stall, which gives him another shot to go into glide. And speaking of glide, another idea to toss out would be to speed up his glide, or maybe just the initial animation into glide. His glide is terrible, which is a shame. I don't know much about Charizard other than the one or two times I've played one, so I can't really say if he needs anything or not because of a lack of experience with him. Those are just ideas sitting in my head.

I've never really seen any discussion on invincibility upon return from death. I've been toying around with the idea that perhaps invincibility should go away after the returning player touches the ground or the timer, whichever happens first. Invincibility has always seemed kind of silly to me.

Something like that seems like it would give a big advantage to the multijumpers. DDD would be able to float in the air until the timer wears out not really having to touch the ground for a good while. That gives him a good chance to find an opening or start a Dair combo, where as most other characters would touch the ground almost immediately.

Luck is touchy. I think you have to understand the risks when playing those characters. You should assume that every hammer G&W throws out is going to be a nine, just as you should assume that Luigi is going to missfire as you go to try and edgegaurd. You should never let DDD spam waddles and put yourself in a situation where you can't dodge a waddle; most of the time its going to be a doo or regular waddle but always expect a gordo and plan accordingly. I can see making the 9 not kill at 0%, but everything else seems more than reasonable to me. I'll admit bias though because I main DDD and G&W.

 

[lord karn]

Well, if a character tries to use many jumps to not touch the ground usually they move much slower and will probably run out of invincibility before they reach their opponent. Perhaps reduce the timer as well?

As for the luck thing, I main g&w in teams and my partner mains peach. Even when it works in my favor, it just feels stupid. I can't really think of very many situations when something random happened that made me think, "gee, he just got outplayed." The first thing that comes to mind is the bombomb that armada pulled on m2k at pound. A match with high stakes like that should not be in any way affected by luck, in my opinion.

 

[Thunderhorse+]

@Plum: I believe Charizard's glide speed has already been sped up significantly IIRC. Not to mention I though Charizard and Pikachu both had base 100 speed...or maybe that was Raichu...or maybe I'm nuts.

I would like to see Charizard with an extra jump, but at the same time I know it's not nessecary for him. Guru Kid describes the problem as such: Charizard can only afford to jump out offstage for a gimp once. After that, he has to high tail it back to the ledge with one jump and a fickle upB which is neither very flexible nor travels a very good distance. Couple that with a bad glide, and if he misses once, the gimp attempt was virtually worthless.

My counterpoint is while the other fliers have an easier time gimping and coming back onstage, Charizard's gimp options offer vastly more reward by virtue of his ****-tastic fair and dair, both of which are strong and fairly disjointed. If Charizard can land that one good hit, the opponent is not coming back. Ever (unless you're MK/D3/ROB). Couple this with Charizard's vastly superior killing options on the ground (usmash, rock smash, dthrow, dtilt, dsmash->****, tipped ftilt, and lol Fly for good measure) and it doesn't seem like Charizard needs much help in the way of taking a stock, gimping or otherwise.

That and he'd juggle like a maniac .

As I said though, it would be nice to have, and I wouldn't oppose it at all if it were voted in, but I don't feel it's as necessary as everyone's making it out to be, and we have much bigger issues to worry about anyway.

I'll also add a quick blurb about luck techniques: if you feel they're overpowered, weaken the super reward moves a bit. But don't take them out entirely because they are beyond unreliable, are an integral part of how the move functions, adds flavor to the moves, and are just **** fun to see in friendlies.

On that note, don't make the outcomes ordered either, because then they really will be broken by virtue of removing the aforementioned unreliability. People would simply camp and spam the move whenever possible, and once they reach the desired outcome, they have a one hit kill move at the ready whenever they want to use it. Talk about scary.

 

[Yeroc]

As far as random happenstance goes, I honestly see no reason to change it if it isn't completely disrupting the balance of the game. Every suggestion I've seen for fixing misfire or fixing turnips only makes them substantially better or substantially worse than they are currently. If you put Peach's items on a set interval, the only two possible outcomes are these: either there will be too many items vs regular turnips, and fishing for them will become the tactic of choice, and turnips will get a horrendous buff to what's already a great mixup tool. Or there will be too few, and there really won't be any point in them being in the game, and turnips become worse than they are now because there's nothing particularly damaging to the regular turnips on their own. Half the reason they're used is because every so often, you get something that spices the game up. But it's not like an instant win or anything.

Likewise, if you were to change the way the game determines if a missile should misfire, you can only give Luigi a buff or a nerf from where he's at currently. The only way misfire works well, without being intentionally abused tactically by one side or the other, is by being random. But it's not as if it's an unbalancing factor on it's own. Humans are capable of pretty extraordinary adaptation to a given situation. When your opponent is trying to recover, he uses missile repeatedly on the off chance it will misfire and take him to safety. Sometimes he's too far out and he hopes for a misfire because it's his only chance for survival. But you as the edgeguarding player, every time he uses the missile, you can expect one of 2 things to happen. Either he misfires, or he doesn't, and you can easily plan accordingly. You should know where a misfire is going to end up, and you can keep yourself out of the line of fire, but at the same time, be within easily accessible reach of the position a regular missile will put your opponent in, and intercept him before he can act again. Making these on a set interval only makes Luigi's recovery insane, or sadly pathetic because ordinary missile by it self is one of the easiest things to intercept offstage.

The argument that randomness is inherently anticompetitive in a game of skill only has merit with respect to a random event that neither player can initiate, control, or adapt to in some form or fashion, and then to the degree to which it then affects the outcome of the scenario. All randomized character moves are 1) initiated by the controlling player intentionally 2) well understood statistically by the player base and 3) do not grant insurmountable advantages to the player that caused them, because they can in fact be used against them by a player that makes accommodations for their occurrence either during or ahead of time. I thought most people had learned to accept these traits for what they are, and can deal with them proficiently, and thus they should be a nonissue. It's disappointing that such an idea is on the table, only because of the fact that we have the capability to change it. Few people are in favor of it, and it's going to be destabilizing simply because it's not a huge nor problematic issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

[JCaesar]

Well said, Yeroc.

 

[lord karn]

As for peaches turnips, removing the stitchface would nerf them but they would by no means be bad. The reason Peaches pull turnips is because it gives her an amazing approach, not because of the off chance she will get a stitchface. Why don't we just remove the stitchface's ridiculous killing potential and make all of her other turnips do like 1 more dmg? We could even leave the stitchface dealing a lot of dmg. Bombombs and swords are just dumb, though. I don't really see how anyone could want those to stay in. . .

Honestly, with Luigi's I don't really see it being too big of a problem being ordered. He'd have to do like 7 before he'd get a misfire and that would be difficult for the Luigi to set up. And even then you know it's coming and you can edgeguard against it.

The thing with randomness is not that it's overpowered or that it cannot be used to a certain players advantage. The problem is that, in any situation where randomness could be a factor, why should a player be rewarded for something so arbitrarily. For instance, look at m2k vs. armada from pound when Armada pulled the bombomb on M2K. Theoretically, if they played another match and it went the exact same way except Armada ended up pulling a normal radish instead of a bombomb, why should Armada be rewarded in one match and not the other? Armada did all of the same things exactly the same, yet in one match he gets a really big reward and in the other he doesn't. That just seems ridiculous to me, even if he stacked the odds in his favor. Smash is a game of outplaying your opponent. If you choose the right option you beat the option your opponent chose. It's just a really deep version of rock/paper/scissors. Leaving randomness in is like having an option available that changes. Choosing that option without knowing which it will be is still random.

 

[5ive]

As for peaches turnips, removing the stitchface would nerf them but they would by no means be bad. The reason Peaches pull turnips is because it gives her an amazing approach, not because of the off chance she will get a stitchface. Why don't we just remove the stitchface's ridiculous killing potential and make all of her other turnips do like 1 more dmg? We could even leave the stitchface dealing a lot of dmg. Bombombs and swords are just dumb, though. I don't really see how anyone could want those to stay in. . .

Honestly, with Luigi's I don't really see it being too big of a problem being ordered. He'd have to do like 7 before he'd get a misfire and that would be difficult for the Luigi to set up. And even then you know it's coming and you can edgeguard against it.

The thing with randomness is not that it's overpowered or that it cannot be used to a certain players advantage. The problem is that, in any situation where randomness could be a factor, why should a player be rewarded for something so arbitrarily. For instance, look at m2k vs. armada from pound when Armada pulled the bombomb on M2K. Theoretically, if they played another match and it went the exact same way except Armada ended up pulling a normal radish instead of a bombomb, why should Armada be rewarded in one match and not the other? Armada did all of the same things exactly the same, yet in one match he gets a really big reward and in the other he doesn't. That just seems ridiculous to me, even if he stacked the odds in his favor. Smash is a game of outplaying your opponent. If you choose the right option you beat the option your opponent chose. It's just a really deep version of rock/paper/scissors. Leaving randomness in is like having an option available that changes. Choosing that option without knowing which it will be is still random.

I don't see the need to remove stichfaces at all. Un-needed removal is un-needed.

Bombombs and swords on the other hand need to be removed for sure. Swords especially have no place in Peach's arsenal.

 

[Glick]

What about making hammer riskier?

#1 is the only "bad hammer" in the bunch. The rest at least have hitboxes and do damage. If we increase the risk of the others hammers that might fix the #9 mechanic.

Then again, there is nothing wrong with the nine.

It's good that we are still discussing stuff like this. But it obvious that changes like this are completely unrealistic at this point.

Slight changes that barely affect game play is what we are working on now, so we can push this game out as a gold version and have no reason to not be taken seriously.

Making a big change and risking changing too much is something we can't risk.
----
Things that can be taken seriously at this point (IMO obviously):
Charizards extra jump(s) (If it's easy and glitch free)
Pokemon trainer buff
All the stuff veril sent to us to vote on

Overall, staying as conservative as possible at this point would be our best route. We already have a great game going for us.



@Randomness in smash
I think it comes with picking the character.
It's apart of them, and when you play as them you accept statistics. Picking up a bomb is statistically possible. Capitalizing on the bomb pull is another story. That's what stops it from being over powered.

Same goes for G&W. When you use the hammer, you're accepting the possibility that you most likely will not get a 9 hammer. You are accepting the fact that you may statistically get a 9. It's apart of the character and you would be losing an entire aspect of the game that's about statistics instead of just flat out luck.
Because remember, that G&W could have used a different move and had a 100% chance of inflicting damage. It all depends if it's statistically worth it.

 

[[TSON]]

I'm quite sure removing bob-ombs from randomly appearing would be seen by Peach mains as "stupid" anyways.