Changing the Damage Ratio

[The_World]

I had never really considered it until my friend made a note of it the other day, but has anyone considered turning the damage ratio on Smash 4 to 1.2? The other day my friend was complaining that it took to long to KO someone in comparison to the other games, and I had suggested that we change the damage ratio to 1.2, which makes knock-back work more like it did in Melee and Project M. We noticed that the pace of the game was much faster, and I began to wonder if an increased damage ratio would improve competitive play in any way. I haven't formed much of an opinion myself, but these are some points about that matter that stick out to me: If the pacing becomes faster, stocks can be set to 4 again, but will that affect any existing mechanics and high level play in a way that actually makes Smash 4 worse to play? Will Online play become useless?

I'm curious to hear everyone's opinions.

 

[Doval]

I argued against this recently so I'll just copy that post:

The first issue with changing the damage ratio is that it's a game-wide change which won't have uniform effects. Suddenly things that didn't combo will (e.g. Jabs to Smash attacks), moves that were fairly harmless offstage might become deadly semispikes, and combos that used to work might not any more and shield pressure strings that used to allow rolling out in between the hits might become shield breaks. You pretty much have to re-examine the whole game every time you change that number, and the choice of number is subjective - why should we play at a ratio of 1.7 instead of 1.8?

The second issue is that every game mode uses 1.0 by default, and some don't allow changing the damage ratio. Changing that number means new players to the scene get the rug pulled out from under their feet and invalidates a lot of the experience they've accumulated playing the game alone or casually.

The third issue is that I'll bet any thing the game was playtested on 1.0 so even if there's no a priori reason to prefer one ratio over another, you get the highest probability of ending up with a balanced game at that ratio.

 

[popsofctown]

If you play Melee, you can set stocks to 4 again.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

If you want to play a game that feels like Melee or PM, then play Melee or PM. Why do people insist in trying to make a new, individual game like a previous one?

 

[T0MMY]

The first issue with changing the damage ratio is that it's a game-wide change which won't have uniform effects. Suddenly things that didn't combo will (e.g. Jabs to Smash attacks), moves that were fairly harmless offstage might become deadly semispikes, and combos that used to work might not any more and shield pressure strings that used to allow rolling out in between the hits might become shield breaks.

Assuming "uniform effects" is equivalent to saying "changes stuff" then this would make sense. However, I think changing a setting is supposed to "change stuff". So, kind of a moot point.

You pretty much have to re-examine the whole game every time you change that number, and the choice of number is subjective - why should we play at a ratio of 1.7 instead of 1.8?

So the first thing we should ask when proposing a damage ratio change is "which option is preferred?", but it does not follow that one would have to re-examine the "whole" game "every" time that setting is changed (just for the testing stage would be sufficient), that would be a ridiculous amount of work for the amount of payoff.

The second issue is that every game mode uses 1.0 by default, and some don't allow changing the damage ratio. Changing that number means new players to the scene get the rug pulled out from under their feet and invalidates a lot of the experience they've accumulated playing the game alone or casually.

The default setting shouldn't be a deterrent, if that were the case then it would follow that we should only be playing 2 minute time matches with default items/stages on.
Damage Ratio should be found in Smash => Rules => Damage Ratio. This should be accessible even with first-time used software.
Nothing, therefore, is "invalidated", the same as it was for every Smash game played in tournaments.

The third issue is that I'll bet any thing the game was playtested on 1.0 so even if there's no a priori reason to prefer one ratio over another, you get the highest probability of ending up with a balanced game at that ratio.

A priori is not used to justify opinion (preference of one ratio over another), it is used as an epistemological justification independent of experience (that experience being testing ratio settings).
Regardless, reason is not inclusive of bets and speculations.

Although I am not an advocate of changing the Damage Ratio on a nation-wide scale for tournament use, I cannot rationally agree with your reasoning against it. In fact I might just pull out my game and start looking at the effects it has on the gameplay.

 

[san.]

At 1.2, you can't really combo into much very easily. Anything above 1.0 and windboxes (and most likely waterboxes) become absurdly powerful, too powerful imo. Other than that, 1.1 didn't seem too bad at first glance.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

I remember x1.1 damage being toyed with in Brawl, but like you said, it would make pushboxes much stronger. In particular Greninja's Hydro Pump gimps would just become absolutely absurd. They already have ridiculous base knockback as it is.

 

[Tagxy]

Theres no reason to be hostile with the "if you want things changed play something else". If you feel the suggestion is incorrect then state why like San. did.

 

[Doval]

Assuming "uniform effects" is equivalent to saying "changes stuff" then this would make sense. However, I think changing a setting is supposed to "change stuff". So, kind of a moot point.

Changing stocks vs time "changes stuff" but the game plays exactly the same; the only thing that changes is when the match changes. The same is not true for changing the damage ratio.

So the first thing we should ask when proposing a damage ratio change is "which option is preferred?", but it does not follow that one would have to re-examine the "whole" game "every" time that setting is changed (just for the testing stage would be sufficient), that would be a ridiculous amount of work for the amount of payoff.

There's simply no way to find out if changing the damage ratio leads to a better meta in any reasonable amount of time. It'll be years before we can figure out the current meta with the default damage ratio. You'd be playing a different game based on a hunch.

The default setting shouldn't be a deterrent, if that were the case then it would follow that we should only be playing 2 minute time matches with default items/stages on.
Damage Ratio should be found in Smash => Rules => Damage Ratio. This should be accessible even with first-time used software.
Nothing, therefore, is "invalidated", the same as it was for every Smash game played in tournaments.

Classic, All-Star, Training, and Stadium don't let you change the damage ratio, and in practice very few people change the damage ratio for Smash mode either. So you're throwing out the combos they've learned, possibly the way they approach edgeguarding as well since moves that used to be too weak to be practical now knock people away further.

 

[Thinkaman]

Merits (or lack of therefore) aside, making a different knockback ratio tourney standard is just about the biggest possible middle finger we could ever give to new players.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

This thread has been posted many times before. Please talk about this in the stickied ruleset thread please.