Combos are stupid??

[Lotopius]

Not sure if this is where the topic should be, but there is no "general smash discution" board.

I've been thinking about combos, and what they represent in fighting games' metagame, and came to the conclusion that they are completely useless.
The majority of popular fighting games seem to have combos (melee, SC, SF) and people seem to enjoy it (players went as far as hacking brawl to get the game back to a melee feeling). Now I don't entirely lack common sense, and when the rest of the world develops something that seems stupid to me, there is probably a mistake in my reasoning; reasoning which is the following:



A combo aims at dealing a maximum of damage to the opponent by stringing several attacks together until you can't anymore because the opponent is out of reach/is able to react. A combo is, if done properly, inescapable from the starting to the finishing move.
For example, say falco's utilt (9%) leads to nair (12%) to a bair (13%) for a total of 34%. That's unescapable until higher percents, percents at which tacking on damage is not important anyway, and you will be seeking to land a killing move.
In these circumstances, why not simply let utilt deal 34% and knock the opponent away?
Where is the need to pollute the players mind (and time, since you have to practice to get it down) with a set of precise command inputs? Especially since the players WILL get it down and WILL use it, meaning that landing falco's utilt will automatically lead to 34% damage.

If I were to compare the two extremes of combo: smash 64 and brawl
Smash 64's metagame is accrately depicted by Isai's advice "Don't get hit": landing a hit in smash 64 usually meant a stock (except fr the low tier characters); and the percentages therefore became almost obsolete. The stocks burn down to: landing a hit withought getting hit yourself, and combo from 0-death. You do have to fake out your opponent, but once only, the rest lies in your fingers.

On the other hand, in brawl, landing a move merely puts you into a favorable position to land another (or deals good damage). Each stock requires many more "intelligence confrontations" or mindgames on different aspects (defence, placement, momentum of the match, approach, conditioning) of the player's situation and possibilities, aspects which vary after every hit (or nearly). As a result, the game gains much more depth.

Now if we look at melee, which seems to be a compromise between the two, I still cannot see the the use of combos, although they were toned down from taking a stock to just a chunk of it. I agree that the mindgame aspect is deep (although I could argue that it's not as deep as brawl's, but that's besides the point), but the existence of combos does not seem to enhance it in any way.

As a side note, I don't think combos should sanction of the technical skill of the player, since the controller should be an extent of your mind, not an obstacle to overcome: If I were to do something that requires me to move my body fast and precisely, I'd rather do a sport or martial arts; at least it keeps you healthy.



So help me, fellow smashers; where is my reasoning incorrect?

 

[Rambo Hayabusa]

Fun is stupid I guess? If your not playing sports or something than no need for any action? Pardon my overlooking of stuff but someone else will be more helpful

 

[Red Arremer]

What a dumb question.

It's part of skill to find out and utilize certain strings of hits (combos) for a maximum of the results. So, to take your example - making Falco's UTilt deal 34% would not only make the move broken, but also wouldn't change the fact that you could use the other moves still.

If you don't want a game with combos, make a fighting game with only one move for each character. Let's see how well that one fares, then.

 

[Lotopius]

What a dumb question.

Thanks ^^ *prepares flameshield*

It's part of skill to find out and utilize certain strings of hits (combos) for a maximum of the results.

It doesn't require anything to develop muscle memory except hard work, and anybody can do that. Players are only limited by their physical condition (having fast fingers/reflexes...)and the amount of training put in when comboing; since the opponent has no influence whatsoever during the combo

So, to take your example - making Falco's UTilt deal 34% would not only make the move broken, but also wouldn't change the fact that you could use the other moves still.

But isn't the move broken already, since it the oppnent WILL recieve 34 damage as soon as you land it, as the string of moves in inescapable?

If you don't want a game with combos, make a fighting game with only one move for each character. Let's see how well that one fares, then.

Pardon me, but I don't see where I implied that I didn't want games with combos in my post.
Furthermore, there already exists a game withought combos: Super Smash Brothers Brawl. <---NOT TRUE, I was stupid on that one ^^.

 

[GwJ]

Brawl has combos.

/thread

 

[Red Arremer]

Furthermore, there already exists a game withought combos: Super Smash Brothers Brawl.

I think the Sheik-, Fox-, Pikachu-, Zero Suit Samus-Boards and several other character boards will disagree with you about this.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

This thread makes me sadface. =C

 

[Lotopius]

True, I was wrong about that, brawls does have combos.


But it still doesn't justify the usefulness of combos in the game...

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

If you don't want combos go play Rock Paper Scissors.

 

[Red Arremer]

It doesn't require anything to develop muscle memory except hard work, and anybody can do that. Players are only limited by their physical condition (having fast fingers/reflexes...)and the amount of training put in when comboing; since the opponent has no influence whatsoever during the combo

Muscle memory is part of the skill. And anybody can be skilled, except if they have a physical limitation.

But isn't the move broken already, since it the oppnent WILL recieve 34 damage as soon as you land it, as the string of moves in unescapable?

No. For the combo to work, you have not only to be able to pull the string of moves off, you also have to land them on an opponent, and use them in the right situation.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Combos are largely inevitable in any fighting game. The fact that hitting with attacks puts you at an advantage pretty naturally means sometimes you are guaranteed to hit with another attack. This is just unavoidable.

I don't think your question is dumb though. In fact, it's addressing one of the most important questions in fighting game design. What is the purpose of a combo from a design standpoint? This is how I see it...

A combo, by definition, is a series of moves that are guaranteed to connect after the first one does. However, it bears reminding that there are situations to everything. What if the second hit is only guaranteed if the first hit is landed by utilizing a very particular part of the first move's hitbox? What if the sequence only works against some characters? What if the sequence only works when some temporary character parameters are aligned right (smash has damage percentages and stale moves; other fighters have things like juggle counters and dizzy "meters")? What is positioning on the stage matters for the combo (like, in smash it might not work when a platform is low overhead; in Street Fighter it might only work in the corner)? There are simply too many relevant parameters for a player to reasonably weigh them all at any given time if they are all indeed relevant. Instead players will seek out the conditions that enable the combos to work most of the time and adopt their playstyles to match them. For instance, character A may have several highly damaging combos at close range so players who use that character will try to stay close to the opponent. Of course, the situations that enable effective combos are often contrary to other desirably conditions (while low range is usually best for combos, max range is usually safest, as an example), and it becomes an element of skill to weigh the risks and rewards of each. Just setting Falco's up tilt to do 34% doesn't really address the complexity of this. Throwing out Falco's utilt at max range against a highly damaged opponent isn't really playing for a combo at all while getting the not very damaged opponent right on top of Falco and doing the utilt is probably a pretty serious play for it that puts the Falco player at serious risk in exchange for that 34%.

This only really addresses situational combos though. There are indeed the "really sure thing" combos in many fighters (in melee and brawl it's basically just chainthrows since SDI lets you out of pretty much any other "combo"), and I can't deny that I'm not a fan. It's actually one of my biggest complaints with Guilty Gear; the combos are pretty hard to do, and they really aren't all that situational (unless by "situational" you mean "cases where you can land the first hit"). It adds a large and, in my opinion, needless technical component to the game (some people love it, but there's no accounting for taste). However, sometimes there is something deep there. Like, let's say A -> B is a combo. Let's say neither A nor B are all that damaging, but as a combo together they're not bad. Now, let's say I have two more moves C and D that are quite damaging. Hitting with A does let me link to B for a sure thing decent payoff, but hitting with A also puts my opponent at a general disadvantage. Perhaps his responses are so limited that he cannot protect himself from both C and D. If I predict him properly, I can pull off the "fake combo" or, more kindly, "pressure string" A -> C or A -> D which is much better to land than A -> B. Of course, that is inherently risky, and maybe sometimes I weigh the situation and decide the less rewarding but more sure A -> B is my best plan. Sometimes it gets more complex as particular moves use resources such as charges or super meter, and the value of those resources must be weighed in as well. Sure A -> E may be a combo, but E uses super meter. I may be able to get more in the long run by doing something else after A and saving that super meter for the far more damaging F.

The conclusion here is that combos aren't necessarily stupid; they just have to be a part of a bigger network of decision making. Having a move Y that is 100% always the best thing to do after a move X is probably poor design. Having a move Y that can be comboed into from X but assorted circumstances make it not always what you do after hitting with X is good design. Long winded combos are usually lame, but short and situational combos are usually interesting. Just making combo starter style moves really damaging would definitely remove depth from most fighters, though it's an important point to consider that a fighter in which that isn't true is probably a bad game.

 

[Lotopius]

All right, I think I looked too closely at smash 64 and brawl, which made me overlook the A->B/A->D dilemna: smash 64 is too much of a "sure combo game" while brawl is a bit too much of a "situational combo game".
Very stupid of me.

One last question: Quoting Ampharos' last paragraph, would you say melee is very well designed? (I never got to play melee seriously)
In other words, is the sure combo/situational combo balance particularly good?

 

[Mic_128]

A combo aims at dealing a maximum of damage to the opponent by stringing several attacks together until you can't anymore because the opponent is out of reach/is able to react. A combo is, if done properly, inescapable from the starting to the finishing move.
For example, say falco's utilt (9%) leads to nair (12%) to a bair (13%) for a total of 34%. That's unescapable until higher percents, percents at which tacking on damage is not important anyway, and you will be seeking to land a killing move.
In these circumstances, why not simply let utilt deal 34% and knock the opponent away?
Where is the need to pollute the players mind (and time, since you have to practice to get it down) with a set of precise command inputs? Especially since the players WILL get it down and WILL use it, meaning that landing falco's utilt will automatically lead to 34% damage.

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't this the same as saying "why not just change [sport] by removing all the tedious passing from person to person and just change it to one person in front of a goal and the other shooting?"

 

[Lotopius]

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't this the same as saying "why not just change [sport] by removing all the tedious passing from person to person and just change it to one person in front of a goal and the other shooting?"

It's more something like: "if passing to player 2 guarantees that the ball will be passed to player 6 then 8 then score, why not get player 2 to score automatically as soon as he gets the ball?"

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I'm not sure Brawl is "too much" on the situational side; discounting SDI that sort of thing comes up all the time. Like, Snake can do jab 1 -> ftilt1 frequently, but it's not strictly a sure thing. On the other hand, the more boring jab1 -> jab2 is much more sure.

Actually SDI does play into an interesting "combo" of sorts. Notably, Ike can chain jab1 together in what sure seems like a "true combo" (there may be a window to get out without SDI that I have missed)... except you can SDI the jab1, and it doesn't do much damage. Now, Ike could also follow jab1 with jab2 -> jab3 which do a lot of damage. What Ike wants to do is land jab1 a bunch and then, right before you would SDI out, finish with jab2 -> jab3. Note that jab2 and jab3 are necessarily two moves even since if jab3 followed straight from jab1 you could sometimes combo to jab3 on reaction to the SDI (jab3 has great range, unlike jab2).

Almost the entire cast has some variant on the whole"end jab combo early for pressure games versus finish jab combo for damage" thing, and then you have situations like deciding when to end Falco's or King Dedede's chainthrows which isn't always obvious... The pressure games in Brawl in general are really deep; true combos don't play into them much, but you can't discount it. Of course, there are also the somtimes combos in Brawl that come down to chance that you may or may not be able to react in time to for an optimum follow up, and that's from those moves that sometimes trip on hit (like Lucas's dtilt). Dtilt -> fsmash is so good on Lucas, but the whole thing ends pretty badly if dtilt doesn't trip.

Anyway, to address the question about melee, it's mostly pretty good though there are a few cases that, personally, I've always felt are excessive (Fox gets away with a little too much zany combo fun [maybe Captain Falcon too], and Sheik's down throw chaingrab against some characters is just a mindless massacre). It bears noting that in both melee and brawl the Ice Climbers are not a very well designed character due to their big focus on an infinite that does require some set-up (so real depth/gameplay) but has the obvious problems you might expect from an infinite. Still, there is a lot of mindgamish stuff in the after the hit game, and the A->B/A->D situation definitely comes up (Sheik in particular can sneak ftilt just about anywhere as a combo but it's way less rewarding than her other stuff). The overall focus of melee is the before the hit game, but there's stuff there after the hit that does involve combos.

Really, both melee and brawl are good case studies for well designed fighters that integrate particular after the hit mechanics into an overall deep game (and smash 64 is an example of doing it wrong I guess). Brawl concerns itself a lot more with pressure and positional advantages while melee explores the side that has more combos and easy follow ups.

 

[Lotopius]

All right, thanks for clearing that point out Ampharos.

 

[HEYPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEP]

Not sure if this is where the topic should be, but there is no "general smash discution" board.

I've been thinking about combos, and what they represent in fighting games' metagame, and came to the conclusion that they are completely useless.
The majority of popular fighting games seem to have combos (melee, SC, SF) and people seem to enjoy it (players went as far as hacking brawl to get the game back to a melee feeling). Now I don't entirely lack common sense, and when the rest of the world develops something that seems stupid to me, there is probably a mistake in my reasoning; reasoning which is the following:



A combo aims at dealing a maximum of damage to the opponent by stringing several attacks together until you can't anymore because the opponent is out of reach/is able to react. A combo is, if done properly, inescapable from the starting to the finishing move.
For example, say falco's utilt (9%) leads to nair (12%) to a bair (13%) for a total of 34%. That's unescapable until higher percents, percents at which tacking on damage is not important anyway, and you will be seeking to land a killing move.
In these circumstances, why not simply let utilt deal 34% and knock the opponent away?
Where is the need to pollute the players mind (and time, since you have to practice to get it down) with a set of precise command inputs? Especially since the players WILL get it down and WILL use it, meaning that landing falco's utilt will automatically lead to 34% damage.

If I were to compare the two extremes of combo: smash 64 and brawl
Smash 64's metagame is accrately depicted by Isai's advice "Don't get hit": landing a hit in smash 64 usually meant a stock (except fr the low tier characters); and the percentages therefore became almost obsolete. The stocks burn down to: landing a hit withought getting hit yourself, and combo from 0-death. You do have to fake out your opponent, but once only, the rest lies in your fingers.

On the other hand, in brawl, landing a move merely puts you into a favorable position to land another (or deals good damage). Each stock requires many more "intelligence confrontations" or mindgames on different aspects (defence, placement, momentum of the match, approach, conditioning) of the player's situation and possibilities, aspects which vary after every hit (or nearly). As a result, the game gains much more depth.

Now if we look at melee, which seems to be a compromise between the two, I still cannot see the the use of combos, although they were toned down from taking a stock to just a chunk of it. I agree that the mindgame aspect is deep (although I could argue that it's not as deep as brawl's, but that's besides the point), but the existence of combos does not seem to enhance it in any way.

As a side note, I don't think combos should sanction of the technical skill of the player, since the controller should be an extent of your mind, not an obstacle to overcome: If I were to do something that requires me to move my body fast and precisely, I'd rather do a sport or martial arts; at least it keeps you healthy.



So help me, fellow smashers; where is my reasoning incorrect?

I didn't read any of this, it was way too long.

 

[noahbaby94]

Well then why the hell did you post?

 

[HEYPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEP]

Well then why the hell did you post?

For future reference, please only speak to Team Jessibell when spoken to, thanks.

 

[kr3wman]

For future reference, please only speak to Team Jessibell when spoken to, thanks.

Your post still makes no sense whether you want it or not.

 

[Red Arremer]

Your post still makes no sense whether you want it or not.

He doesn't. He's an obvious troll.

 

[HEYPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEP]

Your post still makes no sense whether you want it or not.

oh imsorry

let me explain (imsorry)

Team Jessibell > you.

Now go on girl GIT

 

[HEYPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEP]

He doesn't. He's an obvious troll.

Team Jessibell does not troll, imsorry.

 

[GwJ]

Oh my god, I'm reporting this ****. I don't want an expanded screen or a troll on SWF.

 

[metalmonstar]

It really comes down to two different philosophies on how a fighting game should operate. I don't think there is really anything wrong with either as long as the game is playable.

Combos give a player a sense of accomplishment and they are entertaining to watch. However they are not required to have a competitive game. One can logically argue that combos are needless tech skill and limit the usefulness of the mental aspect.

The argument really comes down to which is more important to you tech skill or mental skill. I am sure every player would say that balance between the two is key to a great fighter. However if you asked them to describe the ideal fighting game to you, it would become obvious that the player prefers one over the other.

 

[HEYPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEP]

Oh my god, I'm reporting this ****. I don't want an expanded screen or a troll on SWF.

You're reporting me to god?

imsorry if Team Jessibell is causing you any unfortunate side effects such as: ****. imsorry

 

[Hyrus]

Props to Amazing Ampharos for being one of the only people in this thread without an ego problem. Everyone else was quick to belittle, insult, and utterly ignore the OP.

I do see a fundamental value to combo attacks. When a combo is only performable under certain circumstances (i.e., a platform/wall would interfere or only during certain %'s), it requires awareness from the player. Because a combo is going to move the opponent into a new position, it creates a condition that a singular move can't create on its own to maximize damage. That's a decent reason to support combos.

But in general, I don't value most combos in games. I agree that it's little more than drilling and memorizing... something that isn't necessary to add depth to the game.

Super Smash Bros' most unique characteristics are the physics heavy effects of the game. High jumps and knockback create vertical scenarios unlike other fighters, spacing and pressure through an opponent where most fighter games have autofacing, the gimping/ledgegame etc. Combos are the least original feature, and as Brawl shows (amidst it's lameness) aren't required.

The argument really comes down to which is more important to you tech skill or mental skill.

Fair point.

 

[Superstar]

You can have your discussion, but I'd like to address a false idea about SSB64:

Smash 64's metagame is accrately depicted by Isai's advice "Don't get hit": landing a hit in smash 64 usually meant a stock (except fr the low tier characters); and the percentages therefore became almost obsolete. The stocks burn down to: landing a hit withought getting hit yourself, and combo from 0-death. You do have to fake out your opponent, but once only, the rest lies in your fingers.

SSB64's combos and such are insane compared to Melee and Brawl, but not to this degree. Most of the time, landing a combo will not lead immediately to death, instead doing 50->70% damage or so. Usually, it takes 2->3 combos to finish off a stock, and towards the higher percentages it's just easier to throw them off and edgeguard. Add to this that DI actually exists in 64, it's just very hard to do. Good people can escape the deadly combos without dying, and lesser people can't perform them. This, and the standard stock count is 5.

However, while the whole game doesn't go to 0-deaths, they DO happen, but they are very situational and depend a lot on your character pick. What would be considered an amazing 3->4 hit "combo" in Melee would be a 0-death in 64. Course, there are differences between true and untrue 0-deaths. Training mode 0-deaths don't usually happen in real matches, I will say.


About this:

The argument really comes down to which is more important to you tech skill or mental skill.

There are arguments where Brawl actually has less of both than the rest of the series. While Brawl focuses more on Mental Skill is undeniable, just because it focuses doesn't mean it adds more. I don't need to argue why, there's too much of that.

 

[Calixto]

As some posters have said before, combos are necessary in a fighting game to create a sort of skill gap that separates good players from bad. I mean yes, they are simply drills and muscle memory but isn't that basically strength and endurance building for sports? Isn't that learning how to hold and swing a racket for tennis or racketball? I really don't see how you could just 'get rid' or combos, and keep a game from becoming a bland reworking of pong, or rock paper scissors.


As for the question about Melee being well designed, I would say yes, but there is a caveat. The game itself, techs, speed, hit stun, the concept in general seems very good and solid, but there seems to have been very little thought given to character balance, and advanced play.

The free form combos we enjoy(and wavedashing I might add) in Melee seem to have arisen accidentally from the developers looking at 64, saying they needed to tone down these combos a bit, and in doing so have stumbled upon this geniusly fun fighting-game-type. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to want to continue that formula, perfect it, and instead they gave us Brawl.


Yes, I hate Brawl.

 

[Jman115]

I think his basic point and one of the reasons I enjoy Brawl more, is that yes there are combos in Brawl. However, you don't live and die by combos. Combos are toned done and play a smaller role. In many fighting games, including melee, often times getting caught up in a combo simply meant death no matter your percentage. So in essence, all you are doing is learning a combo, trying to fake the other person out and land it.


In Brawl you are constantly playing mind games and landing a hit usually does not get you into a guaranteed combo. If it does, it definitely does not guarantee you a stock. Not by a long shot. I like the toned downed nature of combos in brawl. I don't mind them playing less of a role. Brawl is fun to play, less fun to watch for the very reason that it is more of a strategic battle of how to approach or defend. You are chipping away at your opponent instead of demolishing them in 4 seconds.

 

[Calixto]

I think his basic point and one of the reasons I enjoy Brawl more, is that yes there are combos in Brawl. However, you don't live and die by combos. Combos are toned done and play a smaller role. In many fighting games, including melee, often times getting caught up in a combo simply meant death no matter your percentage. So in essence, all you are doing is learning a combo, trying to fake the other person out and land it.

That is certainly true for some other fighting games, but free form combos are what make Melee unique, so while are some instances where you simply memorize something and then execute (chain grabs come to mind) I would say most of it is hitting, opponent DIing, and proceeding to followup with another attack, which requires a bit more mind games, and give the one being comboed to escape the combo with proper DI, or other factors.


I can see what you're saying with Brawl and attempting to get in stabs with constant mind games, but that is also what makes it frustrating. You spend several fake outs and spaced attacks to get in, but all for what? One tilt? And then you start it all up again to land another tilt? The same reason it is boring to watch, to me, seems the same reason it is boring to play.

 

[harriettheguy]

Do what it takes to break the other guy's ego. no pancea. that is satisfaction.mmmmmmm

 

[JOE!]

Its 50/50 for me personally.

Somethings I find cool, like Ike's up/dthrow? to Aether. Just looks neat.

Others, I find annoying and stupid: Kirby's out of throw shenannigans.

Even though they can be DIed out of, It seems all kirby mains i come across do is try to grab and set those up. I mean, sure, thats cool that just because you picked kirby you can rack damage like that, but come on, try actually doing some stuff other than that...

 

[GwJ]

Well Joe, if it's escapable, escape it. It really isn't that hard. And 9 times out of 10, you can counter-attack WHILE escaping the combo attempt.

 

[Sneak8288]

since brawl hardly has any combos there is no reward for attacking your opponent creating the defensive/campy strategy that you see from mks. I dont think intellegence has much to do with it

 

[Rocann]

That could be an argument against combos in Street Fighter/SoulCal or something like that; I don't know, you'd have to ask them. But in Brawl (and Melee) the combos are freeform, and therefore escapable because you have to predict/read DI every step of the way, and nothing is guaranteed. So no, combos in the Smash series (except maybe 64, I have no idea, never played it) are not "stupid."

 

[metaXzero]

Its 50/50 for me personally.

Somethings I find cool, like Ike's up/dthrow? to Aether. Just looks neat.

Others, I find annoying and stupid: Kirby's out of throw shenannigans.

Even though they can be DIed out of, It seems all kirby mains i come across do is try to grab and set those up. I mean, sure, thats cool that just because you picked kirby you can rack damage like that, but come on, try actually doing some stuff other than that...

Why change it up if it consistently works? Until you start DIing, they will continue.

Changing up your tactics is only when doing the same thing repeatedly gets punished.

 

[Sneak8288]

even if its people who were actually good at comboing in melee were rare and pretty much separated pros from the rest, its not like everyone you played was just gonna 0-death every stock like rocann said you have to predict and read DI the whole way through... its not like your pressing the exact same button sequence everytime

 

[JOE!]

Well Joe, if it's escapable, escape it. It really isn't that hard. And 9 times out of 10, you can counter-attack WHILE escaping the combo attempt.

I never said it had to be inescapable for me not to like it

im more or less pissed off at people just trying for "the ken combo" or whatever instead of playing in their own way

 

[SpongeBathBill]

im more or less pissed off at people just trying for "the ken combo" or whatever instead of playing in their own way

They're just doing what's known to be effective; to use a cliche, why reinvent the wheel?