t3h Icy
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009
- Messages
- 4,917
Link to original post: [drupal=4766]Combos vs First Hits theories, and finding a new main[/drupal]
I spend a lot of time thinking about games and a lot about Melee in particular. One of the main things, like many others, is how to improve and how to break a game down to understand it more. Lately, I've been thinking about the ideas behind combos vs first hits, alongside with deciding on a new main.
Let's go over a basic fundamental of Melee. To win, a player needs to knock his/her opponent off the stage and keep them off. To aid in doing this, players rack up damage on their opponent. To rack up damage, players have to be able to get a hit, and along with hits come hitstun and worse defensive positioning to follow up with combos and continue damaging the opponent. So to win in Melee, a player has to be able to get first hits and has to be able to combo.
First, with a brief and vague look, which of these two is better; comboing or getting the first hits? Well obviously, if a player can't get a first hit, they can't hurt the opponent and would need the opponent to SD all their stocks, which is a terrible strategy. And if a player can't combo, racking up damage is much slower and requires many more of these first hits. Naturally, it would seem that first hits are better than comboing, because a first hit always comes before a combo, while the combo is just extra damage. In fact, if we have an expert of both aspects, a player that can get the first hit 90% of the time should be able to beat the opponent quantitatively. Even if they may need a dozen successful reads and hits, so long as a player isn't getting hit back, it doesn't matter how long it would take. On the other hand, a player that is able to do a death combo or chain of hits that leads to death after every single hit is a lot more dangerous, but that means nothing if they can't initiate it in the first place. So it seems like first hits are better, but there is much more to this topic.
I've written in a previous blog about how the two sides of competitive games are Math and Psychology. To be brief, the mathematics of Melee are mechanics built into the game such as frame data, hitboxs, all of those types of things, while the psychological aspect is reading, baiting, and playing against your opponent with your mind, beyond the game. When it comes to this topic, first hits is the psychological aspect of the game, while combos are the mathematical. Reacting to DI and understanding what works and what doesn't, a player can do the exact same combo an infinite number of times and it will always work (assuming the same DIs, positioning, etc). This is math. Getting the first hit may involve some math by players giving themselves "frame/mathematical traps" on the opponent, but the whole idea of spacing and approaching is largely based on what the player is thinking and how they're trying to outplay the opponent. This is psychology.
So we've established that so far, first hits seems to be more important. However, the first hits are psychologically based and not math. Furthermore, a player's ability to get the first hit is also largely based on the opponent and how skilled he/she is. Combos are the same on everyone. If I were to play against a weaker player that uses Falco and then against Mango's Falco, I could do the exact same combo (given the same DI, positioning, etc). However, getting that first hit would be significantly more difficult against Mango. So if I were to focus on getting so skilled with combos, the player I face wouldn't matter once I get the first hit, because from there, I gain a mathematical advantage and the rest is up to me to do the combo. This is similar to Mew2King's playstyle with Marth against spacies. You can watch him do ridiculous death combos on some unknown player's Falco and also see him do the same thing to Mango's Falco. It makes no difference. So the idea with this is that if a player were to get ridiculous with combos, they could KO anyone. Sure, getting the first hit has to happen, but if a player only needs to get one while the opponent needs to get several, that player should be winning most of the matches.
We could break this down into a game of statistics. Of course with Melee's dynamics, it's impossible to get a full list of everything, but for a generalized idea, let's do this:
Player A has an 85% chance of hitting Player B first, and takes 10 hits to beat Player B. For each hit, Player A has an 80% chance to do just 1, a 15% to do 2 and a 5% chance to do 3 hits.
Player B has a 15% chance of hitting Player A first, and takes 6 hits to beat Player A. For each hit, Player B has a 50% chance of getting 3 hits, a 25% chance of getting 2 hits, and a 25% chance of getting 1.
So who would win? Player A is getting most of the hits, but can't seem to combo, while Player B doesn't take long to get the KOs, but has trouble initiating. I could break it down and give the true answers, but I think my example is easy to understand on its own.
Now let's envision players with 99% ratings in first hits and combos. If a player gets the first hit 99% of the time, it's almost irrelevant how well the opponent can combo since that player will never get to. Even if the opponent could do a death combo every single time, it would only happen 1% of each neutral clash. And if a player can death combo 99% of the time, it does still matter how well that player can get the first hit, because they need to initiate. However, even a mere 25% chance of getting a first hit with such a godly comboing ability would be enough to defeat most players.
To give some real life examples and people I have theories about, let's use some of the pros. Hax for example has absolutely incredible comboing and is skilled enough to get the first hit most of the time, even against top pros. This is why I believe Hax tends to go through pools at national tournaments without dropping a game, but come the bracket, he has always had problems. Hax combos the opponents like a fiend and if he's much better at getting first hits too, then he'll make quick work of anyone. But in the bracket, players are very talented at getting their first hits, and while Hax is by no means a noob at them, he is outclassed, even if it's more related to his character. An example is Falcon vs Falco where Falco naturally (and mathematically) has a better chance of getting first hits and can combo well in various situations and in all sorts of ways. A pro on the opposite side of the spectrum would be Jman who doesn't tend to have very impressive combos, but is constantly getting the hits and not getting hit back. Again like Hax, Jman is by far no noob in comboing, but there are many other Foxs who are better at that aspect. Jman's wins come from getting those constant hits.
Here's an excellent set showing the two differences: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vHn-OkNQEY Jman is getting a much, much higher percentage of the exchanges, but when Hax does get his hits, he combos Jman significantly harder. And for fun, here's an example of a player getting both more exchanges and much better combos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6BqE0TiCTg&t=4m30s
So what's my answer to the question and what does this have to do with me? I personally feel that winning more exchanges is better than having a stronger combo game, and this is related to which characters I've been considering maining over Sheik. I've gone to three tournaments since moving to BC, and Sheik's basics and naturally reactive playstyle don't work for me. I'm naturally an aggressive player when it comes to competitive gaming and through years of playing various games with this playstyle, I've gained a good understanding of how people think and how to work with that to my advantage. Sheik does not work this way unless a player of her is significantly better than the opponent. Sheik does have nice moves, frame data, etc, but she's much better off playing defensively and reactively. Maybe players will disagree with that, but that's how I view Sheik and I can't play that way to my fullest potential.
The two characters I've been thinking of maining happen to be the best character for getting combos in general (Falcon) and for winning the most exchanges in general (Fox), and despite my opinion on which side is better, I've been using both characters and deciding which to stick with. With my Falcon, I can get nice combos, but I have difficulty with getting them started up. Even if I know what the opponent will do next, Falcon's natural abilities sometimes limit what he can do anyway, much like how Bottom Tiers are, except Pichu and Kirby are perma-limited. The thing with comboing too is that there is still a psychological factor to what's normally purely mathematical, due to the opponent doing mix-ups with DI, techrolls, recoveries, etc. So even if I get a nice first hit, I still have to keep reading the opponent in their defensive position to keep going. Again, playing reactively has always been a weakness of mine.
With Fox, things are much different. Fox can definitely combo, but it's nothing like Falcon or Falco, and is much more of a character that just keeps getting hits in, like Jigglypuff. I went to a Smashfest a short while ago and I played against players who get many more hits and deadlier combos on me as Sheik. As Fox, I noticed a large increase in my success per exchange and I could follow up with some basic combos. Of course, I still would get beaten rather hard, but I'm still learning with Fox and am playing against players that are simply more skilled than I am, but I can see the potential. Likewise, Fox is the natural choice for my theory on which is better between combos and first hits.
Game 1 here shows that no matter how deadly an opponent's combos are, they don't matter if they can't initiate them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXpH6VaTwiE
I spend a lot of time thinking about games and a lot about Melee in particular. One of the main things, like many others, is how to improve and how to break a game down to understand it more. Lately, I've been thinking about the ideas behind combos vs first hits, alongside with deciding on a new main.
Let's go over a basic fundamental of Melee. To win, a player needs to knock his/her opponent off the stage and keep them off. To aid in doing this, players rack up damage on their opponent. To rack up damage, players have to be able to get a hit, and along with hits come hitstun and worse defensive positioning to follow up with combos and continue damaging the opponent. So to win in Melee, a player has to be able to get first hits and has to be able to combo.
First, with a brief and vague look, which of these two is better; comboing or getting the first hits? Well obviously, if a player can't get a first hit, they can't hurt the opponent and would need the opponent to SD all their stocks, which is a terrible strategy. And if a player can't combo, racking up damage is much slower and requires many more of these first hits. Naturally, it would seem that first hits are better than comboing, because a first hit always comes before a combo, while the combo is just extra damage. In fact, if we have an expert of both aspects, a player that can get the first hit 90% of the time should be able to beat the opponent quantitatively. Even if they may need a dozen successful reads and hits, so long as a player isn't getting hit back, it doesn't matter how long it would take. On the other hand, a player that is able to do a death combo or chain of hits that leads to death after every single hit is a lot more dangerous, but that means nothing if they can't initiate it in the first place. So it seems like first hits are better, but there is much more to this topic.
I've written in a previous blog about how the two sides of competitive games are Math and Psychology. To be brief, the mathematics of Melee are mechanics built into the game such as frame data, hitboxs, all of those types of things, while the psychological aspect is reading, baiting, and playing against your opponent with your mind, beyond the game. When it comes to this topic, first hits is the psychological aspect of the game, while combos are the mathematical. Reacting to DI and understanding what works and what doesn't, a player can do the exact same combo an infinite number of times and it will always work (assuming the same DIs, positioning, etc). This is math. Getting the first hit may involve some math by players giving themselves "frame/mathematical traps" on the opponent, but the whole idea of spacing and approaching is largely based on what the player is thinking and how they're trying to outplay the opponent. This is psychology.
So we've established that so far, first hits seems to be more important. However, the first hits are psychologically based and not math. Furthermore, a player's ability to get the first hit is also largely based on the opponent and how skilled he/she is. Combos are the same on everyone. If I were to play against a weaker player that uses Falco and then against Mango's Falco, I could do the exact same combo (given the same DI, positioning, etc). However, getting that first hit would be significantly more difficult against Mango. So if I were to focus on getting so skilled with combos, the player I face wouldn't matter once I get the first hit, because from there, I gain a mathematical advantage and the rest is up to me to do the combo. This is similar to Mew2King's playstyle with Marth against spacies. You can watch him do ridiculous death combos on some unknown player's Falco and also see him do the same thing to Mango's Falco. It makes no difference. So the idea with this is that if a player were to get ridiculous with combos, they could KO anyone. Sure, getting the first hit has to happen, but if a player only needs to get one while the opponent needs to get several, that player should be winning most of the matches.
We could break this down into a game of statistics. Of course with Melee's dynamics, it's impossible to get a full list of everything, but for a generalized idea, let's do this:
Player A has an 85% chance of hitting Player B first, and takes 10 hits to beat Player B. For each hit, Player A has an 80% chance to do just 1, a 15% to do 2 and a 5% chance to do 3 hits.
Player B has a 15% chance of hitting Player A first, and takes 6 hits to beat Player A. For each hit, Player B has a 50% chance of getting 3 hits, a 25% chance of getting 2 hits, and a 25% chance of getting 1.
So who would win? Player A is getting most of the hits, but can't seem to combo, while Player B doesn't take long to get the KOs, but has trouble initiating. I could break it down and give the true answers, but I think my example is easy to understand on its own.
Now let's envision players with 99% ratings in first hits and combos. If a player gets the first hit 99% of the time, it's almost irrelevant how well the opponent can combo since that player will never get to. Even if the opponent could do a death combo every single time, it would only happen 1% of each neutral clash. And if a player can death combo 99% of the time, it does still matter how well that player can get the first hit, because they need to initiate. However, even a mere 25% chance of getting a first hit with such a godly comboing ability would be enough to defeat most players.
To give some real life examples and people I have theories about, let's use some of the pros. Hax for example has absolutely incredible comboing and is skilled enough to get the first hit most of the time, even against top pros. This is why I believe Hax tends to go through pools at national tournaments without dropping a game, but come the bracket, he has always had problems. Hax combos the opponents like a fiend and if he's much better at getting first hits too, then he'll make quick work of anyone. But in the bracket, players are very talented at getting their first hits, and while Hax is by no means a noob at them, he is outclassed, even if it's more related to his character. An example is Falcon vs Falco where Falco naturally (and mathematically) has a better chance of getting first hits and can combo well in various situations and in all sorts of ways. A pro on the opposite side of the spectrum would be Jman who doesn't tend to have very impressive combos, but is constantly getting the hits and not getting hit back. Again like Hax, Jman is by far no noob in comboing, but there are many other Foxs who are better at that aspect. Jman's wins come from getting those constant hits.
Here's an excellent set showing the two differences: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vHn-OkNQEY Jman is getting a much, much higher percentage of the exchanges, but when Hax does get his hits, he combos Jman significantly harder. And for fun, here's an example of a player getting both more exchanges and much better combos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6BqE0TiCTg&t=4m30s
So what's my answer to the question and what does this have to do with me? I personally feel that winning more exchanges is better than having a stronger combo game, and this is related to which characters I've been considering maining over Sheik. I've gone to three tournaments since moving to BC, and Sheik's basics and naturally reactive playstyle don't work for me. I'm naturally an aggressive player when it comes to competitive gaming and through years of playing various games with this playstyle, I've gained a good understanding of how people think and how to work with that to my advantage. Sheik does not work this way unless a player of her is significantly better than the opponent. Sheik does have nice moves, frame data, etc, but she's much better off playing defensively and reactively. Maybe players will disagree with that, but that's how I view Sheik and I can't play that way to my fullest potential.
The two characters I've been thinking of maining happen to be the best character for getting combos in general (Falcon) and for winning the most exchanges in general (Fox), and despite my opinion on which side is better, I've been using both characters and deciding which to stick with. With my Falcon, I can get nice combos, but I have difficulty with getting them started up. Even if I know what the opponent will do next, Falcon's natural abilities sometimes limit what he can do anyway, much like how Bottom Tiers are, except Pichu and Kirby are perma-limited. The thing with comboing too is that there is still a psychological factor to what's normally purely mathematical, due to the opponent doing mix-ups with DI, techrolls, recoveries, etc. So even if I get a nice first hit, I still have to keep reading the opponent in their defensive position to keep going. Again, playing reactively has always been a weakness of mine.
With Fox, things are much different. Fox can definitely combo, but it's nothing like Falcon or Falco, and is much more of a character that just keeps getting hits in, like Jigglypuff. I went to a Smashfest a short while ago and I played against players who get many more hits and deadlier combos on me as Sheik. As Fox, I noticed a large increase in my success per exchange and I could follow up with some basic combos. Of course, I still would get beaten rather hard, but I'm still learning with Fox and am playing against players that are simply more skilled than I am, but I can see the potential. Likewise, Fox is the natural choice for my theory on which is better between combos and first hits.
Game 1 here shows that no matter how deadly an opponent's combos are, they don't matter if they can't initiate them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXpH6VaTwiE
Where does Marth stand in all of this and when did you pick him up? What's your opinion on his playstyle versus the other characters you mentioned?