Official Character Competitive Impressions - Tourneys, Tiers, Theories, Tactics

[Blobface]

This comes up a lot.
In short, the risk-reward just isnt there most of the time. Shaya made a really good post about it but I can't find it.

To be honest I remember that post, and I really don't agree with it.

People don't edgeguard yet because edgeguarding is complicated and more or less specific to each matchup. Hypothetically I think edgeguarding is very rewarding for most characters, but it'll take lots of time to become commonplace.

 

[Yonder]

EpicSonicLatios

It might be worth noting that pit is good at gimping luigi especially, and rosalina as much as any good edgeguarding character.

LancerStaff if you perfect shield multi hit moves that hit fast enough (not sure which these are, but pits are fast enough) you get the faster shield drop frame advantage of a powershield at the end of the hit sequence.

Yep, my friend is a good Pit secondary, one dair spike on Luigi's green missile and he's finished.

Of course, Pit is also prone to dair spikes and tornado gimps from Luigi himself...

 

[Luco]

Most of those things were removed because they were glitches, end of story. Doesn't matter if they were crucial or useless to the character, they weren't intended by the developers.

Like many other returning Brawl characters Lucas has had his most oppressive traits toned down (namely his insane aerial shield pressure) while having his formerly useless tools brought up to snuff (throws, PK Freeze). Like, Brawl Lucas was so good at hitting shields with aerials that you tend to forget he had a nearly nonexistent grab game.

Now while his aerials can't pressure shields 'till they crack anymore they serve a different purpose by creating openings for his grab to land (while still creating minor followups should they actually land). But with his dtilt he's not totally reliant on reads or whiff punishes to get them either.

The adjustments to his aerials and PK Freeze also make him a MUCH more efficient edgeguarder, due to both having better hitboxes and power (especially fair and bair). Freeze's improved frame data allows him to create opening for those aerials to land, and magnet is also extremely lethal when used correctly.

You've singled this post out, but my post isn't even about his ATs - they're just a means to what I'm trying to say, and I'm not trying to put any personal 'pain' into that post. Of course they weren't intended and of course they were removed for that reason.

I responded with that post to illustrate to MaskO' that Lucas, especially in comparison to most other Brawl vets lost most of his ATs, thus contributing to why most Lucas mains were unsure if it had helped or hurt his viability that much of his old playstyle had been focused into a different playstyle this game.

All of this stuff definitely applies, but the fact remains that Lucas mains weren't really sure how Lucas would turn out because of how different he was.

 

[EpicSonicLatios]

It could be that people are still adjusting to the new mechanics provided by smash 4, but there are other factors in place as well. The removal of ledge-hogging, buffed recoveries across the board, and the addition of characters with great recoveries (Greninja, pac-man, villager, etc), all contribute to this. Unless you have the recovery to consistently make it back and avoid "counter-gimps" for trying to go offstage, it really isn't worth it a lot of the time, especially if you are a character with reliable onstage kill options, a character with predictable recovery, or both, like ness. Falling speed can also be a negative impact on your ability to use multiple aerials offstage. This is why fox's offstage game is bad, because he not only has a predictable recovery, but his fall speed means that the opponent has more time to react to the Firefox coming up because it takes a while to get there after a deep gimp attempt. Some characters just flat out don't have the tools to be a real threat offstage, like little Mac. The point is, it takes specific attributes to be able to gimp effectively, namely:

-Reliable recovery specials, especially those that are hard to hit in the first place, those with low startup, and those with long range.
-A good second jump, or even better, multiple jumps
-Fast aerials, preferably those with a low FAF for using multiple aerials.
-A spike (not ALWAYS a necessity, but it helps with putting away characters having predictable recoveries)
-Lower fall speed helps, but isn't an end all be all
-The matchup, which determines if the opponent can actually be gimped on a semi-reliable basis.
-And finally, the strength and hitboxes on offstage tools to effectively take stocks or gimp recoveries offstage.

In brawl, you could often gimp players by just edge-hogging them, especially against tether recoveries. This was a lot safer than jumping offstage. With buffed tether recoveries, and no edge-hogging, as well as trump follow ups being easily countered, the only real gimp options are to jump offstage, or try to abuse the 2 frame ledge snap window, which isn't easy for some characters.

Despite all of this, I believe that every character in the game should be able to gimp offstage when the time is right. This doesn't mean trying to challenge bouncing fish offstage, but it might mean trying to hit that low recovering Mario with a quick aerial, even if it requires strict timing to ensure that you can still recover. Knowing your limits offstage, and knowing the risk/reward of trying to gimp a character, you should be able to get some gimps in your matches, even if your character isn't built for gimping. I main fox, and despite knowing the risks of jumping offstage, I also know how much it benefits me to gimp other characters despite gimping not being a strong point.

 

[Mazdamaxsti]

One big issue with Pit is his landing lag. He can't do late aerials or else he gets hit by that hard landing lag, so if he doesn't do an aerial on the way up you can guaruntee he is empty-hopping. To add on to this, (I could be wrong tho) his aerials don't seem to be the safest things on shield. His recovery is also gimpable also.

I have a Dark Pit main friend that says he has a better MU against Rosa than Pit, and it's enough to conider DP better than Pit. Is this reliable or full o' crap?

 

[wedl!!]

Dark Pit is objectively worse than Pit simply because of how impactful the arrow differences are. Still only separates them by one tier spot.

Being better against Rosa does not the better character make.

 

[Mazdamaxsti]

Dark Pit is objectively worse than Pit simply because of how impactful the arrow differences are. Still only separates them by one tier spot.

Being better against Rosa does not the better character make.

Tier lists are heavily based on MUs tho, is there any top tier MUs significantly effected by arrows? Idk man I don't play the pits lol

 

[Pazx]

Tier lists are heavily based on MUs tho, is there any top tier MUs significantly effected by arrows? Idk man I don't play the pits lol

Every single character is affected by arrows, because of this Pit does marginally better against every single character in the cast bar Rosalina (possibly Mac too, although I think that one is largely stage dependant) than Dark Pit does. The better arrows means better reward when his opponent is above him or offstage, better neutral through fullhop arrows, and it even slightly impacts his recovery and ability to land by angling them downwards, giving Pit's opponents another thing to worry about. The differences are minor but Pit is undoubtedly the better character, and this should be reflected in a tier list.

A harder (although similar) thing to determine is how close Marth and Lucina should be on a tier list.

 

[TriTails]

EDIT: Damn my horrible mouse control and clicks.

I can somewhat agree with edgeguarding not being much of a good risk:reward. But it's silly to never edgeguard.

Nairo took on Villy's freakin' bowling balls with his wide open PoF but he was only gimped once (And that's because of a misangling). Take a look on how deep he goes. He stage-spiked Dabuz below the stage. Reward definitely is there when you try.

Albeit, this is Pit we're talking about.

 

[Ghostbone]

Villager's recovery is really slow and pit has 3 jumps and can recover without them from anywhere.

Not really close to the average edgeguarding case.

 

[meleebrawler]

It could be that people are still adjusting to the new mechanics provided by smash 4, but there are other factors in place as well. The removal of ledge-hogging, buffed recoveries across the board, and the addition of characters with great recoveries (Greninja, pac-man, villager, etc), all contribute to this. Unless you have the recovery to consistently make it back and avoid "counter-gimps" for trying to go offstage, it really isn't worth it a lot of the time, especially if you are a character with reliable onstage kill options, a character with predictable recovery, or both, like ness. Falling speed can also be a negative impact on your ability to use multiple aerials offstage. This is why fox's offstage game is bad, because he not only has a predictable recovery, but his fall speed means that the opponent has more time to react to the Firefox coming up because it takes a while to get there after a deep gimp attempt. Some characters just flat out don't have the tools to be a real threat offstage, like little Mac. The point is, it takes specific attributes to be able to gimp effectively, namely:

-Reliable recovery specials, especially those that are hard to hit in the first place, those with low startup, and those with long range.
-A good second jump, or even better, multiple jumps
-Fast aerials, preferably those with a low FAF for using multiple aerials.
-A spike (not ALWAYS a necessity, but it helps with putting away characters having predictable recoveries)
-Lower fall speed helps, but isn't an end all be all
-The matchup, which determines if the opponent can actually be gimped on a semi-reliable basis.
-And finally, the strength and hitboxes on offstage tools to effectively take stocks or gimp recoveries offstage.

In brawl, you could often gimp players by just edge-hogging them, especially against tether recoveries. This was a lot safer than jumping offstage. With buffed tether recoveries, and no edge-hogging, as well as trump follow ups being easily countered, the only real gimp options are to jump offstage, or try to abuse the 2 frame ledge snap window, which isn't easy for some characters.

Despite all of this, I believe that every character in the game should be able to gimp offstage when the time is right. This doesn't mean trying to challenge bouncing fish offstage, but it might mean trying to hit that low recovering Mario with a quick aerial, even if it requires strict timing to ensure that you can still recover. Knowing your limits offstage, and knowing the risk/reward of trying to gimp a character, you should be able to get some gimps in your matches, even if your character isn't built for gimping. I main fox, and despite knowing the risks of jumping offstage, I also know how much it benefits me to gimp other characters despite gimping not being a strong point.

Boy, Mewtwo has pretty much most of the points you mentioned for good edgeguarding. Arguably even the multiple jump thing with confusion. Fall speed isn't slow but not too fast for gimping either.

 

[J-Lit]

For matchup purposes, I don't think there's much reason to use dark pit over pit. Pit has the better arrows in every matchup. Electroshock can set up edge guards and knock luma offstage(overrated IMO because you still eat a punish). Upperdash is a more reliable kill tool and can be used to armor through a landing option from rosa and kill her off the top.

 

[Wintropy]

I myself have tried to pick pit up in the past, and I like him a lot more than other sword users due to his mobility. However, I just see no reason for me to use pit when he doesn't necessarily provide specialized matchup advantages against characters that fox loses to, Rosalina, luigi etc, to the point where I can easily beat these characters without much practice. Why would I use pit when I can just prepare extra hard as fox and not sacrifice practice time? I almost WANT to find a reason to use pit, because I really like his style, but I don't see the point in sacrificing practice time for a character that to my knowledge wouldn't provide significant matchup help for my main. A well-rounded character with limited weaknesses is attractive as a secondary, but my question is, in what situations would pit naturally have the advantage over a solo-main, which in this case is fox?

Wintropy, I read everything in that huge post of yours a few pages back, and it essentially reaffirmed my opinion. However, I am wondering if he could make a solid secondary for certain characters, despite his lack of specialization and polarizing match ups that some characters possess.

Bit late but bear with me~

If your main is good at what your main does and you need somebody to cover very specific matchups, I don't think you need to pick up Pit. Especially if that main is Fox. You'd want a character with more extreme strengths and polarising matchups: unless you want to play Pit as a kind of secondary character or something, I'd say pocket the character you know will do the job specifically for that small handful of matchups.

I do believe Pit is a very good main to have, and I maintain that he has the potential to be solo-viable even at the highest level of play, but I don't think he's a very good counterpick character. If you define "secondary" as a character you play often, but not to the same extent as your main, then yes, he's a great secondary due to his relative ease of use and consistency in matchups; otherwise you'd want to be using him quite a bit to justify picking him over a character that does have an objective advantage over your weaker matchups.

One big issue with Pit is his landing lag. He can't do late aerials or else he gets hit by that hard landing lag, so if he doesn't do an aerial on the way up you can guaruntee he is empty-hopping. To add on to this, (I could be wrong tho) his aerials don't seem to be the safest things on shield. His recovery is also gimpable also.

I have a Dark Pit main friend that says he has a better MU against Rosa than Pit, and it's enough to conider DP better than Pit. Is this reliable or full o' crap?

Dark Pit may be better than Pit in that one matchup (and even then, it's debatable: Electroshock can get rid of Luma, but you're gonna get punished unless it's detached from Rosie; Upperdash doesn't negate Luma's existence, but it's great for killing Rosie off the top due to her meager weight), but otherwise, no, he is not a better character. Pit's more versatile arrows and the ability to kill with f-tilt make him the inferior of the two Pits in competitive play.

Dark Pit is objectively worse than Pit simply because of how impactful the arrow differences are. Still only separates them by one tier spot.

Being better against Rosa does not the better character make.

...as neatly demonstrated in this post.

Pit's better, but by about one entire tier spot. Yippee, diversity~

Otherwise it's a case of whether you want Electroshock's horizontal knockback and off-stage positioning or Upperdash's early vertical kills. Personally I think Upperdash is the more useful of the two, in that the reward is greater and more consistent, but otherwise it's much for muchness. You won't handicap yourself in any significant way if you want to play Pittoo over Pit.

Villager's recovery is really slow and pit has 3 jumps and can recover without them from anywhere.

Not really close to the average edgeguarding case.

Very true. Pit is indeed a special snowflake~

And that's why I think Pit players especially should be trying to edgeguard more often. We do have the tools to be great edgeguarders, and unless the character is, I guess, Sheik or ZSS or something, there's not much risk of failing or being punished if you try. Pit will get back to the stage nine times out of ten even if he goes in full deep. That is an option I don't think is explored enough by Pit players and I think it'd be worth examining in finer detail.

 

[Sonicninja115]

Boy, Mewtwo has pretty much most of the points you mentioned for good edgeguarding. Arguably even the multiple jump thing with confusion. Fall speed isn't slow but not too fast for gimping either.

At the very least you can use Nair. On predictable recoveries, Bair is amazing. Large hitbox, 13% and a lasting hitbox.

As long as you don't lose DJ, you're fine.

 

[Mr. ShinyUmbreon]

Why does it matter how a character was better in the previous game compared to this game? Isn't that the whole reason why such few people played Meta Knight when this game released? And look where he is on the tier list now. Why does a character being better in the game before make that character not a good choice in this game?

 

[KeithTheGeek]

Why does it matter how a character was better in the previous game compared to this game? Isn't that the whole reason why such few people played Meta Knight when this game released? And look where he is on the tier list now. Why does a character being better in the game before make that character not a good choice in this game?

It largely has to do with player preference, I think. If you're used to how a character plays in another game and you come into the new one and they're different, you have to make a choice to either tough it out and relearn the character or move on to someone different.

I refuse to use Marth in Smash 4 for example because he just feels so different from Melee, regardless of whether he's worse off or not.

I think a large part of the reaction to Meta Knight early on was because the transition was kinda awkward from Brawl. His moves were toned down in many ways, from awkward hitboxes to worse frame data and less safety on shield, his recovery took a hit (though still really strong in all honesty)...he was practically a different character, and clearly weaker. After a few patches and people actually putting in the time to lab him out he's become a tournament threat yet again, but there's no debate that the nerfs and tweaks to his kit changed how he works.

As for the last question, a characters relevancy in one game doesn't (or shouldn't, at least) affect them in another, but tweaks to characters to make them less abusive can have the negative effect of making them undertuned for the new game. See what happened to Dedede for example.

 

[Wintropy]

Why does it matter how a character was better in the previous game compared to this game? Isn't that the whole reason why such few people played Meta Knight when this game released? And look where he is on the tier list now. Why does a character being better in the game before make that character not a good choice in this game?

Well, that and the fact that Meta Knight was a wonky mess when the game first released. Patches did help.

But yeah I see what you mean. It's not even that they're not a good choice because they're not as good as they were in Brawl or Melee though, just that some characters play differently now, and in some cases it doesn't go down very well in the current meta.

Marth, for example, had his autocancels, great frame data (shorthop double f-air - remind us lest we forget), disjoints to space out half the roster and Dancing Blade shenanigans that made him oppressive for most of the weaker characters; now his gameplan has been tweaked to emphasise the tipper mechanic and adequate spacing, at the cost of the speed and dexterity that made him so good. Nobody would care if he wasn't as good as he was in Brawl if he was still good in this game. The only thing that counts is the current meta we have right here and now. Everything else is just window-dressing and comparing for the sake of indistinct interest.

It's just that the way he's currently designed is...not good in this game.

That reminds me of something I've been wondering for a while, and I'm interested in feedback on this thesis:

Is this game's roster too centralised on individual gimmicks / mechanics?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say you can define a good number of characters in this game by their "gimmick" or "trick", the thing that makes them stand out from everybody else. It's the cornerstone of their gameplay and something unique to them. You've got Mac's dichotomy between ground and air-based combat (KO Punch might tie into this?), Olimar's Pikmin micromanagement, Peach's float, Rosalina's puppeteering, Palutena's customs, Robin's tomes, Shulk's Monado, Wario's Waft, the aforementioned tipper (Roy may be an inverse of this with the same end result)...

What I'm wondering is, is there a greater emphasis placed on individual mechanics in this game, and is it potentially detrimental to the viability of certain characters? I know Abadango's talked about how Wario is "centralised" on the Waft to an extent, and he's probably said a similar thing about Pac-Man's reliance on hydrant / fruit setups - and while I don't doubt they're good characters, I wonder how much of that is because of their gimmick (for want of a better and less pejorative term), and how much they suffer if they can't find adequate room to make use of said gimmick.

I dunno, just something I've been thinking about.

Discuss~

 

[Routa]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say you can define a good number of characters in this game by their "gimmick" or "trick", the thing that makes them stand out from everybody else. It's the cornerstone of their gameplay and something unique to them. You've got Mac's dichotomy between ground and air-based combat (KO Punch might tie into this?), Olimar's Pikmin micromanagement, Peach's float, Rosalina's puppeteering, Palutena's customs, Robin's tomes, Shulk's Monado, Wario's Waft, the aforementioned tipper (Roy may be an inverse of this with the same end result)...

And then there are the Miis and their banned "gimmick"...

I'm not bad at all...
*Über mad*

 

[KeithTheGeek]

I don't think gimmicks should be seen in a negative light, particularly if those gimmicks reward strong fundamentals. Marth's tipper is a great example. You have to be very comfortable with spacing, controlling your movement near-perfectly to get where you need to be to hit. I think the difficulty and reward are a bit too overtuned in Smash 4, as it's notably harder to hit with it while granting a very significant reward, and it kinda feels like they overcentralized Marth to this even moreso than he already was...but I digress.

I think Pac-man is another good example of a gimmick fitting in within the game's core. The level of item play involved, as well as taking control of the stage with hydrants and trampolines, it's something that already exists in Smash but Pac takes it to an extreme. Dedede would be another example of a stage control character, in that you have to make use of his range and presence alongside setting Gordo traps to put people where you need him, but his flaws hold back his strengths a little TOO well.

I mean it kind of begs the question if those characters are gimmicks, and they probably are...but they appeal to aspects of Smash you wouldn't necessarily get from playing the standard archetype that performs well, which are your Sheiks, Zero Suits, Pikachus, and especially Foxes. I'm rambling at this point but the gimmicks themselves aren't a bad thing, it's how centralized some characters are around their gimmicks that is, if that makes any sense.

 

[outfoxd]

Well, that and the fact that Meta Knight was a wonky mess when the game first released. Patches did help.

But yeah I see what you mean. It's not even that they're not a good choice because they're not as good as they were in Brawl or Melee though, just that some characters play differently now, and in some cases it doesn't go down very well in the current meta.

Marth, for example, had his autocancels, great frame data (shorthop double f-air - remind us lest we forget), disjoints to space out half the roster and Dancing Blade shenanigans that made him oppressive for most of the weaker characters; now his gameplan has been tweaked to emphasise the tipper mechanic and adequate spacing, at the cost of the speed and dexterity that made him so good. Nobody would care if he wasn't as good as he was in Brawl if he was still good in this game. The only thing that counts is the current meta we have right here and now. Everything else is just window-dressing and comparing for the sake of indistinct interest.

It's just that the way he's currently designed is...not good in this game.

That reminds me of something I've been wondering for a while, and I'm interested in feedback on this thesis:

Is this game's roster too centralised on individual gimmicks / mechanics?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say you can define a good number of characters in this game by their "gimmick" or "trick", the thing that makes them stand out from everybody else. It's the cornerstone of their gameplay and something unique to them. You've got Mac's dichotomy between ground and air-based combat (KO Punch might tie into this?), Olimar's Pikmin micromanagement, Peach's float, Rosalina's puppeteering, Palutena's customs, Robin's tomes, Shulk's Monado, Wario's Waft, the aforementioned tipper (Roy may be an inverse of this with the same end result)...

What I'm wondering is, is there a greater emphasis placed on individual mechanics in this game, and is it potentially detrimental to the viability of certain characters? I know Abadango's talked about how Wario is "centralised" on the Waft to an extent, and he's probably said a similar thing about Pac-Man's reliance on hydrant / fruit setups - and while I don't doubt they're good characters, I wonder how much of that is because of their gimmick (for want of a better and less pejorative term), and how much they suffer if they can't find adequate room to make use of said gimmick.

I dunno, just something I've been thinking about.

Discuss~

I kinda appreciate the gimmicks in the face of more uniform bent of the engine (may be talking out my butt). Like, DH, i tend to live and die by my canwork and the interactions of my projectiles in general, and counting on seeing character specific stuff like that is exciting to me.

Although the shutting down of said gimmicks is likely why there's so much need for pockets this go round. The toppest tiers all have functioning back up plans. Or general dominance.

 

[Wintropy]

I'm rambling at this point but the gimmicks themselves aren't a bad thing, it's how centralized some characters are around their gimmicks that is, if that makes any sense.

Although the shutting down of said gimmicks is likely why there's so much need for pockets this go round. The toppest tiers all have functioning back up plans. Or general dominance.

My point exactly, and why I don't like to use the term "gimmick" (but it's easier than saying "character-dependent mechanic" every time). I appreciate the diversity these unique options bring to the table, I'm just concerned that some characters kind of...need that unique options to survive, otherwise they're high and dry. The backup plan thing said exactly what I wanted to say, but more concisely.

I mean, I think Wario's a fine character, but I feel that a good deal of his gameplan in this game (especially in a 2-stock meta) is based on what is essentially a crapshoot. Not that it's inherently a bad thing to have that kind of potential power, just that I wonder if it compromises the viability, in the purest and highest-level sense, of Wario and certain other characters that they live and die by these options. It's good to have a contingency plan in this case, but a few characters (Duck Hunt being a good example) don't have that safety net to fall back on.

 

[Pazzo.]

I've personally hated the word "gimmick" when referring to character. It holds a negative connotation that is unfit to describe a character's foundational gameplay aspects.

Under this line of thought, describing a character as relying on said "gimmick" will form negative impressions of any given character, regardless of the tone of the description.

Ergo, whether we realize it or not, describing a character like, for instance, the Mii Fighters, as "gimmicky" will cause users to look poorly on the characters, putting them into their current limbo of legality.

 

[outfoxd]

My point exactly, and why I don't like to use the term "gimmick" (but it's easier than saying "character-dependent mechanic" every time). I appreciate the diversity these unique options bring to the table, I'm just concerned that some characters kind of...need that unique options to survive, otherwise they're high and dry. The backup plan thing said exactly what I wanted to say, but more concisely.

I mean, I think Wario's a fine character, but I feel that a good deal of his gameplan in this game (especially in a 2-stock meta) is based on what is essentially a crapshoot. Not that it's inherently a bad thing to have that kind of potential power, just that I wonder if it compromises the viability, in the purest and highest-level sense, of Wario and certain other characters that they live and die by these options. It's good to have a contingency plan in this case, but a few characters (Duck Hunt being a good example) don't have that safety net to fall back on.

Falls to us to innovate with said mechanic. If possible. Could lead to work arounds but far more likely to lead to nothing in the face of more evenly designed, fundamentally sound characters.

 

[Sonicninja115]

If gimmick didn't have the negative meaning it has, a lot of things would be better. I don't think Waft is a "bad/gimmicky" move just because without it, Wario would be bottom of mid, or in the kinda viable tier.

If your playing a character with amazing frame data, unbeatable recovery, kill combos and fast aerials, then you can't complain about Wario with his sorta mediocre moveset, having an equalizer.

 

[thehard]

What I'm wondering is, is there a greater emphasis placed on individual mechanics in this game, and is it potentially detrimental to the viability of certain characters? I know Abadango's talked about how Wario is "centralised" on the Waft to an extent, and he's probably said a similar thing about Pac-Man's reliance on hydrant / fruit setups - and while I don't doubt they're good characters, I wonder how much of that is because of their gimmick (for want of a better and less pejorative term), and how much they suffer if they can't find adequate room to make use of said gimmick.

I dunno, just something I've been thinking about.

Discuss~

Sakurai: ...But given the circumstances of the series, and there are so many factors, it comes down to a quite simple process, where you give characters a special—something special that no other character has. A special technique. And at the same time, as that ratchets up their strength, you also have to take something away, so it becomes a sort of game of checks and balances where you're adding and removing.

So again, it's very important to have that system of checks and balances where if a character has some very strong point, you have to give him something weak. If a person really likes that character, and they want to have that special strength, they're going to have to sacrifice something to be able to take that weakness and create sort of a balance in that sense, where each character has something that certain people like.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Every iteration of Smash there's a lot of emphasis put on individualizing the characters more than they can already be. Looking back to 64, so many characters share moves and animations (the sex kicks!) and the process of separating them continues to this day. Of course, this has been the case because of rushed development, hardware limitations, and fans being too attached to a character's moveset (Captain Falcon is essentially a Smash OC [he was the prototype fighter for when the game was called Dragon King] but you'd be a dead man if you ever tried changing his moveset) rather than laziness.

So yeah, the games are definitely designed like that. Now do some characters suffer because of it? Maybe. But take a character like Wario- isn't Waft so good partly because of his aerial mobility that lets him set up into it, his Chomp that lets him mix-up scared-shielding opponents, and his zone breaker Bike (and rage)? His overall moveset "nurtures" the Waft, which is good! And he's still decent without it. Else you'd see Warios camp for time or bike stall just to have it, but watch someone like Reflex and it's clear Wario is capable otherwise. This extends to Pac-Man too. Hydrant gives you the space you need to select your fruit. It pushes opponents, directly or indirectly, into your traps. And so on. So if the moveset flows to and from your unique trait(s)... I think you're a good character.

Also, I consider gimmicks to be things that work only the first few times or fall flat to experienced players. Ergo, Waft is not a gimmick.

 

[Pazzo.]

So to solve a problem and not just identify it, the term "design" or "facet" could be used instead of "gimmick".

Both carry neutral meanings, allowing for more unbiased discussion. Instead of trying to prove why our character's design is good, you'll start your discussion from a neutral standpoint.

For instance, I'll use two people, A and B, to illustrate my argument. "A" will speak, and "B" will respond by thinking.

Example 1:

A: Mii Fighters' gimmick is their multiple specials.

B: (That doesn't sound pleasant, why should I let a trick fight against my hard work/character? I don't like Mii Fighters' multiple specials.)

Example 2:

A: Mii Fighters' design allows them to have multiple specials.

B: (I wonder how that plays into competitive play? Maybe I should ask some questions or research on these guys.)

If we are to discuss something with as much logos as possible, we must strive and remain cognizant of sounding neutral.
Only then can we be objective.

 

[meleebrawler]

Sakurai: ...But given the circumstances of the series, and there are so many factors, it comes down to a quite simple process, where you give characters a special—something special that no other character has. A special technique. And at the same time, as that ratchets up their strength, you also have to take something away, so it becomes a sort of game of checks and balances where you're adding and removing.

So again, it's very important to have that system of checks and balances where if a character has some very strong point, you have to give him something weak. If a person really likes that character, and they want to have that special strength, they're going to have to sacrifice something to be able to take that weakness and create sort of a balance in that sense, where each character has something that certain people like.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Every iteration of Smash there's a lot of emphasis put on individualizing the characters more than they can already be. Looking back to 64, so many characters share moves and animations (the sex kicks!) and the process of separating them continues to this day. Of course, this has been the case because of rushed development, hardware limitations, and fans being too attached to a character's moveset (Captain Falcon is essentially a Smash OC [he was the prototype fighter for when the game was called Dragon King] but you'd be a dead man if you ever tried changing his moveset) rather than laziness.

So yeah, the games are definitely designed like that. Now do some characters suffer because of it? Maybe. But take a character like Wario- isn't Waft so good partly because of his aerial mobility that lets him set up into it, his Chomp that lets him mix-up scared-shielding opponents, and his zone breaker Bike (and rage)? His overall moveset "nurtures" the Waft, which is good! And he's still decent without it. Else you'd see Warios camp for time or bike stall just to have it, but watch someone like Reflex and it's clear Wario is capable otherwise. This extends to Pac-Man too. Hydrant gives you the space you need to select your fruit. It pushes opponents, directly or indirectly, into your traps. And so on. So if the moveset flows to and from your unique trait(s)... I think you're a good character.

Also, I consider gimmicks to be things that work only the first few times or fall flat to experienced players. Ergo, Waft is not a gimmick.

Changing Falcon's moveset from 64 is how we got the knee though.

 

[Nu~]

That reminds me of something I've been wondering for a while, and I'm interested in feedback on this thesis:

Is this game's roster too centralised on individual gimmicks / mechanics?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say you can define a good number of characters in this game by their "schtick", the thing that makes them stand out from everybody else. It's the cornerstone of their gameplay and something unique to them. You've got Mac's dichotomy between ground and air-based combat (KO Punch might tie into this?), Olimar's Pikmin micromanagement, Peach's float, Rosalina's puppeteering, Palutena's customs, Robin's tomes, Shulk's Monado, Wario's Waft, the aforementioned tipper (Roy may be an inverse of this with the same end result)...

What I'm wondering is, is there a greater emphasis placed on individual mechanics in this game, and is it potentially detrimental to the viability of certain characters? I know Abadango's talked about how Wario is "centralised" on the Waft to an extent, and he's probably said a similar thing about Pac-Man's reliance on hydrant / fruit setups - and while I don't doubt they're good characters, I wonder how much of that is because of their gimmick (for want of a better and less pejorative term), and how much they suffer if they can't find adequate room to make use of said gimmick.

I dunno, just something I've been thinking about.

Discuss~

Caution: @Ffamran tier wall o' text ahead!!



To an extent, I do think the roster is quite fixated on individual mechanics or unique trait.
And I think that's what the dev's are trying to remedy in the form of patches. We've already seen countless changes to characters who's gimmicks were too polarizing (Diddy, luigi, rosa...), the pattern is there.
But is it a potential weakness...I would say that it depends on both the strength of the trait and the weakness of the other attributes of the characer. Luigi has awful mobility and terrible traction, but his reward was SO POWERFUL that it almost didn't matter. Pre patch Diddy was another example of a character who revolved around one powerful tool, but what made him stupid was the fact that the rest of his moveset wasn't weak enough to compensate. Even with his pre patch dash attack and jab, his moveset was oppressive all around. I see no problem with having an aspect that makes a characer unique however, it's fun to have diversity in the roster.

Funny you mentioned pacman because I was just thinking about something related to the topic at hand. Is pacman overly reliant on fruit/hydrant zoning? I think so, but only if he continues to be played the way Abadango and many others did/do currently.

He isn't being played to his strengths because well...Pac-Man is not a zoner. In fact, he's terrible at zoning and more people will realize this as time goes along.

Now before many of you unsheathe your keyboards and angrily explain how I am wrong, I want to explain why he isn't the characer we initially thought he was.

Unfortunately, many of us Pac-Mains have adopted a game of "set up a fortress and run" as a primary focus in nuetral. This goes against the natural strengths of the character. Pacman isn't a real zoner because fruit and hydrants aren't built for keeping people out. Fruit come out on frame 12, have an FAF of 45, 5 of them bounce off of shields which allow opponents to easily catch them, and they lose to most attacks when thrown. You can't dream of zoning an opponent out with data like this. Same with hydrant. Loses to any attack when launched, can be sent back to us by the opponent, and fast characters can straight up quantum tunnel right through it (man that is a dumb mechanic).
All of these flaws lead many pacman mains to lean heavily on gimmicky, complex, and all around situational setups to keep the opponent out. It became the bulk of our gameplan. It sort of covers up the flaws of his individual "camp tools".

But we've neglected our normals, our z drop game, our offensive game...we've put too much into one inefficient gameplan.
The way I see our fruit and hydrant tools is the same way I view spin dash. Spin dash is also misinterpreted as sonic's only gimmick. The famous "Spin2Win" strategy of FG newbies.

In reality, spin dash is a weak move when used this way. It loses to most attacks, can be punished by OoS aerials, disjoints give it hell...sound familiar? For sonic, spin dash is only meant to compliment his game play. It forces you to keep guessing sonic's next move and punishes you heavily for overextending and guessing wrong. Pac-Man's tools are the same way, but complement a different style of play.

It isn't zoning, it isn't rush down, it isn't bait and punish or hit and run... I don't know what it is called but he continuously forces you into trap situations with his tools that allow him to transition into a heavily damaging offensive game. An example of this can be how the trampoline is downright broken when used to limit options on the ledge, but rather weak when used against a rush down characer to slow down an approach in nuetral. We should have a free combo on the opponent when ever the trampoline launches them into the air instead of simply waiting on the other side and b-airing them back to the other side.

His normals are further proof of this. He was given average moves all around because his traps + better normals would have been too oppressive. His grab is trash because his z drop fruit pressure already handles it. Oh...and for some reason, fruit are indestructible when z dropped.

A better analogy for those of you that have played yugioh is that Pac-Man is like an Aggro/stun deck (my favorite type!)
Using stun as a means to limit all of your opponent's options so you can relentlessly beat them down. People are currently focusing too heavily on the stun aspect.

 

[thehard]

Changing Falcon's moveset from 64 is how we got the knee though.

Oops

Still, it's been 14 years, I'd say there's too much legacy behind him now for drastic changes.

Also Nu~ , I wouldn't really consider Luigi and Diddy's throw game to be their defining traits, rather stuff that went under the devs' radar. Luma, obviously, is intentional.

 

[outfoxd]

Caution: @Ffamran tier wall o' text ahead!!



To an extent, I do think the roster is quite fixated on individual mechanics or unique trait.
And I think that's what the dev's are trying to remedy in the form of patches. We've already seen countless changes to characters who's gimmicks were too polarizing (Diddy, luigi, rosa...), the pattern is there.
But is it a potential weakness...I would say that it depends on both the strength of the trait and the weakness of the other attributes of the characer. Luigi has awful mobility and terrible traction, but his reward was SO POWERFUL that it almost didn't matter. Pre patch Diddy was another example of a character who revolved around one powerful tool, but what made him stupid was the fact that the rest of his moveset wasn't weak enough to compensate. Even with his pre patch dash attack and jab, his moveset was oppressive all around. I see no problem with having an aspect that makes a characer unique however, it's fun to have diversity in the roster.

Funny you mentioned pacman because I was just thinking about something related to the topic at hand. Is pacman overly reliant on fruit/hydrant zoning? I think so, but only if he continues to be played the way Abadango and many others did/do currently.

He isn't being played to his strengths because well...Pac-Man is not a zoner. In fact, he's terrible at zoning and more people will realize this as time goes along.

Now before many of you unsheathe your keyboards and angrily explain how I am wrong, I want to explain why he isn't the characer we initially thought he was.

Unfortunately, many of us Pac-Mains have adopted a game of "set up a fortress and run" as a primary focus in nuetral. This goes against the natural strengths of the character. Pacman isn't a real zoner because fruit and hydrants aren't built for keeping people out. Fruit come out on frame 12, have an FAF of 45, 5 of them bounce off of shields which allow opponents to easily catch them, and they lose to most attacks when thrown. You can't dream of zoning an opponent out with data like this. Same with hydrant. Loses to any attack when launched, can be sent back to us by the opponent, and fast characters can straight up quantum tunnel right through it (man that is a dumb mechanic).
All of these flaws lead many pacman mains to lean heavily on gimmicky, complex, and all around situational setups to keep the opponent out. It became the bulk of our gameplan. It sort of covers up the flaws of his individual "camp tools".

But we've neglected our normals, our z drop game, our offensive game...we've put too much into one inefficient gameplan.
The way I see our fruit and hydrant tools is the same way I view spin dash. Spin dash is also misinterpreted as sonic's only gimmick. The famous "Spin2Win" strategy of FG newbies.

In reality, spin dash is a weak move when used this way. It loses to most attacks, can be punished by OoS aerials, disjoints give it hell...sound familiar? For sonic, spin dash is only meant to compliment his game play. It forces you to keep guessing sonic's next move and punishes you heavily for overextending and guessing wrong. Pac-Man's tools are the same way, but complement a different style of play.

It isn't zoning, it isn't rush down, it isn't bait and punish or hit and run... I don't know what it is called but he continuously forces you into trap situations with his tools that allow him to transition into a heavily damaging offensive game. An example of this can be how the trampoline is downright broken when used to limit options on the ledge, but rather weak when used against a rush down characer to slow down an approach in nuetral. We should have a free combo on the opponent when ever the trampoline launches them into the air instead of simply waiting on the other side and b-airing them back to the other side.

His normals are further proof of this. He was given average moves all around because his traps + better normals would have been too oppressive. His grab is trash because his z drop fruit pressure already handles it. Oh...and for some reason, fruit are indestructible when z dropped.

A better analogy for those of you that have played yugioh is that Pac-Man is like an Aggro/stun deck (my favorite type!)
Using stun as a means to limit all of your opponent's options so you can relentlessly beat them down. People are currently focusing too heavily on the stun aspect.

Ive seen simebody try to use DH as a camping pocket and watch them fall apart trying to enact the gameplan. Sometimes the gameplans don't make sense with a glance at the move spread alone. I think we are still trying to figure out this freaking character to overcome the flaws.

 

[Sonicninja115]

Ive seen simebody try to use DH as a camping pocket and watch them fall apart trying to enact the gameplan. Sometimes the gameplans don't make sense with a glance at the move spread alone. I think we are still trying to figure out this freaking character to overcome the flaws.

Duck hunt is amazing. Eventually, he is the character I aspire to play. I played my characters in a specific order as my tech skill increases. Luigi, Diddy, Shulk and now Mewtwo ( I dropped luigi some time ago.) DHD is one of the best characters in the Smash games IMO. He is super different and insanely fun to watch/play. I think that as the meta progresses, we are going to see more and more DHD.

Some buffs to his smashes would nice too...

 

[RonNewcomb]

Boy, Mewtwo has pretty much most of the points you mentioned for good edgeguarding. Arguably even the multiple jump thing with confusion. Fall speed isn't slow but not too fast for gimping either.

My Link doesn't always die to Mewtwo, but when he does, he dies to edgeguarding.

Is this game's roster too centralised on individual gimmicks / mechanics?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say you can define a good number of characters in this game by their "gimmick" or "trick", the thing that makes them stand out from everybody else. It's the cornerstone of their gameplay and something unique to them. You've got Mac's dichotomy between ground and air-based combat (KO Punch might tie into this?), Olimar's Pikmin micromanagement, Peach's float, Rosalina's puppeteering, Palutena's customs, Robin's tomes, Shulk's Monado, Wario's Waft, the aforementioned tipper (Roy may be an inverse of this with the same end result)...

What I'm wondering is, is there a greater emphasis placed on individual mechanics in this game, and is it potentially detrimental to the viability of certain characters? I know Abadango's talked about how Wario is "centralised" on the Waft to an extent, and he's probably said a similar thing about Pac-Man's reliance on hydrant / fruit setups - and while I don't doubt they're good characters, I wonder how much of that is because of their gimmick (for want of a better and less pejorative term), and how much they suffer if they can't find adequate room to make use of said gimmick.

I dunno, just something I've been thinking about.

Discuss~

Nah, I feel that the unique character mechanics (UCM) are the only thing keeping the characters from being too same-y. Smash doesn't get as much mileage from slightly different hitbox placements as traditional fighters do, so UCMs are much more important.

The only balance problem with them is if one character's UCM is "safety".

Ive seen simebody try to use DH as a camping pocket and watch them fall apart trying to enact the gameplan. Sometimes the gameplans don't make sense with a glance at the move spread alone. I think we are still trying to figure out this freaking character to overcome the flaws.

When I first saw DuckHunt's run speed I thought of Tink and "mobile zoner".

 

[Pazzo.]

"Unique Character Mechanics" (UCM) would be sufficient as a replacement to "gimmicks".

 

[C0rvus]

No more pointless acronyms please. They only seem to confuse people needlessly. Do we need a term for stuff like Luma and Pikmin and the Mega Buster? They are all pretty character specific and self explanatory. Gimmick, connotations aside, isn't even a term that means anything. It's an excuse most of the time. Good players simply shouldn't use it.

 

[Pazzo.]

No more pointless acronyms please. They only seem to confuse people needlessly. Do we need a term for stuff like Luma and Pikmin and the Mega Buster? They are all pretty character specific and self explanatory. Gimmick, connotations aside, isn't even a term that means anything. It's an excuse most of the time. Good players simply shouldn't use it.

Regardless, "gimmick" has entered the competitive Smash vocabulary, and needs a replacement.

It doesn't have to be an acronym tough. Perhaps they are a bit convoluted.

 

[LancerStaff]

Myself, I never saw the negative connotations with the word "gimmick." Every non-clone (and most clones) in Smash has a gimmick unique to them, wether it's something funky like Monado Arts or Pikmin or something more basic like Mario's easy-ness or Luigi's "spam fireballs, get grabs" gameplan. Most everybody can be summed up in only a few words, like "ain't no air fighter," "power and nothing else," or "aura," and it should be obvious who I'm talking about too.

It boggles the mind that people think that characters could get into Smash without a real gimmick. When your character pitch boils down to "uses a shovel/claws/axe/hair/whatever" it's pretty apparent that said character doesn't have a place in Smash. There's still a lot of ideas that could be applied to Smash, such as a character that can string together the longest of combos at the mercy of a rechargeable meter, or a character that's somewhat weak by default but then can choose to slant itself into a different playstyle after charging a gauge enough through combat. There's still plenty of room for creativity.

We're pretty far off track with this gimmick talk though...

 

[Mr. Johan]

Just call the gimmicks "character quirks". That's an inherently neutral term.

As for this Smash iteration emphasizing quirks more than prior installments, I thought that was apparent from the Smash trailers. Rosalina's trailer had emphasized Luma focus, Robin made a note of his equipment running dry, a quarter of the Shulk trailer was showcasing the arts, Palutena's was the custom move smorgasbord, and Doc Louis gave commentary on Mac's stuff during the entire trailer.

The trailers that didn't go make the quirky stuff the central point was Villager, Greninja, Wii Fit, Mii Fighters, Megaman, Bowser Jr. Pac-Man, and Duck Hunt. But, everyone there are those that you wouldn't dare to put on any character roster before the Sm4sh announcement, so their inclusion is effectively a quirk in and of itself.

Of all the newcomers, excluding Lucina and Dark Pit, I'd actually say Greninja is the most "normal" of them. Nothing about his kit screams "standout".

 

[Horseketchup]

Funny you mentioned pacman because I was just thinking about something related to the topic at hand. Is pacman overly reliant on fruit/hydrant zoning? I think so, but only if he continues to be played the way Abadango and many others did/do currently.

He isn't being played to his strengths because well...Pac-Man is not a zoner. In fact, he's terrible at zoning and more people will realize this as time goes along.

Now before many of you unsheathe your keyboards and angrily explain how I am wrong, I want to explain why he isn't the characer we initially thought he was.

Unfortunately, many of us Pac-Mains have adopted a game of "set up a fortress and run" as a primary focus in nuetral. This goes against the natural strengths of the character. Pacman isn't a real zoner because fruit and hydrants aren't built for keeping people out. Fruit come out on frame 12, have an FAF of 45, 5 of them bounce off of shields which allow opponents to easily catch them, and they lose to most attacks when thrown. You can't dream of zoning an opponent out with data like this. Same with hydrant. Loses to any attack when launched, can be sent back to us by the opponent, and fast characters can straight up quantum tunnel right through it (man that is a dumb mechanic).
All of these flaws lead many pacman mains to lean heavily on gimmicky, complex, and all around situational setups to keep the opponent out. It became the bulk of our gameplan. It sort of covers up the flaws of his individual "camp tools".

But we've neglected our normals, our z drop game, our offensive game...we've put too much into one inefficient gameplan.
The way I see our fruit and hydrant tools is the same way I view spin dash. Spin dash is also misinterpreted as sonic's only gimmick. The famous "Spin2Win" strategy of FG newbies.

In reality, spin dash is a weak move when used this way. It loses to most attacks, can be punished by OoS aerials, disjoints give it hell...sound familiar? For sonic, spin dash is only meant to compliment his game play. It forces you to keep guessing sonic's next move and punishes you heavily for overextending and guessing wrong. Pac-Man's tools are the same way, but complement a different style of play.

It isn't zoning, it isn't rush down, it isn't bait and punish or hit and run... I don't know what it is called but he continuously forces you into trap situations with his tools that allow him to transition into a heavily damaging offensive game. An example of this can be how the trampoline is downright broken when used to limit options on the ledge, but rather weak when used against a rush down characer to slow down an approach in nuetral. We should have a free combo on the opponent when ever the trampoline launches them into the air instead of simply waiting on the other side and b-airing them back to the other side.

His normals are further proof of this. He was given average moves all around because his traps + better normals would have been too oppressive. His grab is trash because his z drop fruit pressure already handles it. Oh...and for some reason, fruit are indestructible when z dropped.

A better analogy for those of you that have played yugioh is that Pac-Man is like an Aggro/stun deck (my favorite type!)
Using stun as a means to limit all of your opponent's options so you can relentlessly beat them down. People are currently focusing too heavily on the stun aspect.

I think you're maybe applying the concept of zoning too narrowly. Zoning is a pretty broad concept, but at its core it just involves controlling your opponent's space with attacks or the threat of attacks. (Btw really enjoyed the in depth discussion about zoning/spacing/footsies a few pages back)

Pacman isn't a necessarily a "wall you out" zoner like Villager/Link, but instead more of a trap-oriented character like Duck Hunt. But I think "trapping" is just a subcategory of zoning, as it still involves using multiple projectiles to limit your opponent's space and options. When pacman kicks a hydrant at an opponent near the edge, he's limiting their movement/options, which he can then exploit with fruit, z-drops, grabs, etc. Instead of zoning opponent's out of his own bubble, he's zoning opponents into their own bubble. It's a different approach that some other zoner characters, but I think trapping is still just as valid as a type of zoning. I guess it could be seen as a more aggressive form of zoning as opposed to a defensive one.

 

[Nu~]

I think you're maybe applying the concept of zoning too narrowly. Zoning is a pretty broad concept, but at its core it just involves controlling your opponent's space with attacks or the threat of attacks. (Btw really enjoyed the in depth discussion about zoning/spacing/footsies a few pages back)

Pacman isn't a necessarily a "wall you out" zoner like Villager/Link, but instead more of a trap-oriented character like Duck Hunt. But I think "trapping" is just a subcategory of zoning, as it still involves using multiple projectiles to limit your opponent's space and options. When pacman kicks a hydrant at an opponent near the edge, he's limiting their movement/options, which he can then exploit with fruit, z-drops, grabs, etc. Instead of zoning opponent's out of his own bubble, he's zoning opponents into their own bubble. It's a different approach that some other zoner characters, but I think trapping is still just as valid as a type of zoning. I guess it could be seen as a more aggressive form of zoning as opposed to a defensive one.

Yeah, an aggressive zoner. That's what I wanted to say.

I didn't quite know the entire concept of zoning, I thought it was primarily to just keep the opponent out of your bubble. Your description makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

 

[J-Lit]

No need to have an official term to describe all "gimmicks". There's a lot of difference between unique character mechanics like luma and a simple overtuned d-throw upair combo. It's like the brawler, gunner, swordsman classifications; it oversimplifies things needlessly and we should just use a character by character basis to be more in depth.