kupo15
Smash Hero
im using .95 so I don't have to adjust back to a brute
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
COMPETITIVE Brawl+: Code Agenda
- Thread starter kupo15
- Start date
kupo15
Smash Hero
Yea its just like the other code. ROB still rockets. Should that go also?
goodoldganon
Smash Champion
Why? Falcon died from a missed side-b by an edge in every iteration of Brawl and Brawl+. Sure Ganon could save himself, but it's not that big of a loss. Only thing I can say is it makes for some nice platform escapes now. *shrug* It took me one match to readjust to not side-bing next to edges with Gdorf.
thesage
Smash Hero
It also looks hella cool.
kupo15
Smash Hero
IMO the ganoncide thing goes both ways. It can help ganon cide you better from on the stage, and it can prevent a ganoncide from off the stage since it can carry you on the stage. This also helps falcon's recovering. Its riskier but its pretty awesome if you can recover like that.
leafgreen386
Dirty camper
A little change in topic, revisiting an old idea that we've sorta fixed now but not really.
Powershielding.
Yeah, we've made it so it happens less often by random chance, but it still happens too frequently and without any good reason to. Ultimately, we need to just completely strip the R and L buttons of the ability to powershield. The problem comes from the "parry" being the same input as the normal "guard." It's just bad game design. But the actual PS itself is not. So it should be remapped to some other button. But where should this function be remapped to? I think the most logical location would be the taunt buttons, aka the + control pad, which is currently not used for anything actually related to fighting.
But wait. Wouldn't that be incredibly risky (and not to mention completely ineffective if the PS didn't also cancel the taunt)? Why yes, it would. If you attempted a PS and the opp didn't attack, you'd be wide open.
Enter: taunt canceling
Let's say that we set it so that the first three frames of a taunt have PS properties, and if you successfully PS something, you will be able to immediately act out of your taunt with anything you want. But what if you don't PS anything in those three frames? Well, for the next four frames of the taunt, you shouldn't be able to do anything, but starting on say, the 8th frame of the taunt, you can interrupt it with anything (except maybe the shield). There would also be a timer placed on PSing (say... 20 frames?) so you would be able to do something like taunt -> taunt, but you wouldn't get the PS frames on the second taunt (unless you started it at least 20 frames since your last taunt). The delay between the PS frames and the normal cancel would be so there's at least some lag to take advantage of. If someone just taunts right in front of you when you're not doing anything, you should still be able to smack them for it.
It'd be pretty line intensive, but I think it'd be pretty sweet. We're due to be getting more lines with geckoOS 2.0, so that might not be a problem anymore. Thoughts?
Powershielding.
Yeah, we've made it so it happens less often by random chance, but it still happens too frequently and without any good reason to. Ultimately, we need to just completely strip the R and L buttons of the ability to powershield. The problem comes from the "parry" being the same input as the normal "guard." It's just bad game design. But the actual PS itself is not. So it should be remapped to some other button. But where should this function be remapped to? I think the most logical location would be the taunt buttons, aka the + control pad, which is currently not used for anything actually related to fighting.
But wait. Wouldn't that be incredibly risky (and not to mention completely ineffective if the PS didn't also cancel the taunt)? Why yes, it would. If you attempted a PS and the opp didn't attack, you'd be wide open.
Enter: taunt canceling
Let's say that we set it so that the first three frames of a taunt have PS properties, and if you successfully PS something, you will be able to immediately act out of your taunt with anything you want. But what if you don't PS anything in those three frames? Well, for the next four frames of the taunt, you shouldn't be able to do anything, but starting on say, the 8th frame of the taunt, you can interrupt it with anything (except maybe the shield). There would also be a timer placed on PSing (say... 20 frames?) so you would be able to do something like taunt -> taunt, but you wouldn't get the PS frames on the second taunt (unless you started it at least 20 frames since your last taunt). The delay between the PS frames and the normal cancel would be so there's at least some lag to take advantage of. If someone just taunts right in front of you when you're not doing anything, you should still be able to smack them for it.
It'd be pretty line intensive, but I think it'd be pretty sweet. We're due to be getting more lines with geckoOS 2.0, so that might not be a problem anymore. Thoughts?
shanus
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 6,055
lol +10 creative points, but I just think its unnecessary. Also, I don't think random power shields are nearly as much of an issue at 2 frames anymore.
Jiangjunizzy
Smash Lord
i think crouching for powershielding is better.
zxeon
Smash Lord
Well, it should be remapped but putting it on taunt seems silly.
I still say we should stick to one of the shoulder buttons being for PS and the other for shielding.
And yeah, this idea has been criticized to death, mainly because some people shield with L and others with R. But I have an idea to make this work AND to let people map PS and shield to either L or R at will.
We could get a code that makes it so that if you map shield to a shoulder button, you'll shield, but if you map something no one would in their right mind map to that button, such as jump, it'll instead map PS.
So, with this code, let's say I wanna map normal shield to R and PS to L. AT the Controls screen, I would map Shield to R, and Jump to L. The code would see Jump assigned, and instead of assigning Jump to L, it will instead make it so the game reads it as PS. Similarly, one could make R Jump, and you'll get PS assigned there.
How's that?
And yeah, this idea has been criticized to death, mainly because some people shield with L and others with R. But I have an idea to make this work AND to let people map PS and shield to either L or R at will.
We could get a code that makes it so that if you map shield to a shoulder button, you'll shield, but if you map something no one would in their right mind map to that button, such as jump, it'll instead map PS.
So, with this code, let's say I wanna map normal shield to R and PS to L. AT the Controls screen, I would map Shield to R, and Jump to L. The code would see Jump assigned, and instead of assigning Jump to L, it will instead make it so the game reads it as PS. Similarly, one could make R Jump, and you'll get PS assigned there.
How's that?
leafgreen386
Dirty camper
The problem with that is you're essentially telling people who shield with one button over the other "you're wrong." One thing I really like about smash is that you have a bunch of different ways to use the controller, and you use whatever suits your style the best. There isn't an option for "powershield" in the controller options menu, so we couldn't even let people choose which shoulder button they want to use for their normal shielding. Basically, it would needlessly alienate players. As for making it read "jump" as "PS" when assigned to a shoulder button, that wouldn't work, either, as people actually do map "jump" to their L/R buttons specifically to perform certain techs (ie. pk wavelanding with lucas or whatever that's called). Similarly, specials get assigned to this button for the same purpose, and attacks can get mapped there for the purpose of performing DACUS. No matter what you make it, you're going to alienate players.
As for crouching being the way to PS, I don't like that, seeing how crouching during a dash is already a main way to approach for some characters. It would just add even more luck into the game. At least with the shield buttons, you're expecting to have to defend and to have shieldstun, so you aren't going to be looking to get a dtilt or ftilt or whatever off on your opp at the first possible moment. But on crouch, you would already be expecting to get off an attack afterward, so more often than not you would be able to easily hit your opponent afterward, even if you weren't actually expecting the PS. It would be stupid.
If we remap the PS command, the most logical location really is the taunt button, which isn't used for anything in competitive play at the moment.
zxeon
Smash Lord
Boo, It sucks and everyone knows it. Lets do something about it.
Read my edit.
..Not really. We've already decreased the window for powershield, and it was linked to normal shield in Melee. Mapping it differently to something that isnt a shield is not smash-ethical and it makes no sense. Plus I dont think it would sit well with most people.
zxeon
Smash Lord
Z + B for Powershield?
leafgreen386
Dirty camper
Read mine.
GHNeko, just because it was linked to shield in melee doesn't mean it's good design. Yes, I did just call melee out on a design flaw. It was a *nearly* perfect game, but it did screw up with the PS, as did brawl.
I still dont think we should change how you powershield. That's just stepping a bit too far imo. Shielding for powershield. Changing it would make it more complicated.
How the hell is it a design flaw? I really need you to TRY to explain that to me.
How the hell is it a design flaw? I really need you to TRY to explain that to me.
zxeon
Smash Lord
The problem is that there is no risk in attempting a powershield.
goodoldganon
Smash Champion
Agreed with SHeLL. It sounds great and I'd love the depth it adds, but the way the game controls (on the elementary level) shouldn't be changed.
There should be a risk? Powershielding is a reward for good timing in guarding. And by good timing, I mean near-frame perfect timing. Why should there be a risk for something thats hard to do?
Dark Sonic
Smash Hero
@Zxeon- So? There's no risk in attempting a Parry either (or a melee powershield for that matter). The only risk is "you are now guarding."
zxeon
Smash Lord
Parrying what?
leafgreen386
Dirty camper
It's a design flaw because the same action performs both the supposedly "riskier" and more perfect defense and the "safer" imperfect defense. If you're not confident enough to go for the PS, you should not be rewarded with a PS just because you happened to press the button in the right timeframe. By that same token, if you mistime your PS, you should not just have the regular shield pop up and save you. It's a matter of risk vs reward, and atm there just isn't enough risk to PSing, while sheer luck can give a disproportional amount of reward for a regular shield.
This is just completely contradictory to the whole point of a risk vs reward system. Something that is hard to do creates a higher risk, but if the reward is high enough (as it is with PSing), then it becomes worthwhile to attempt. There should be a greater risk associated with a guard option that gives you a perfect defense, rather than a guard option that gives you decent defense.
No risk in attempting a parry? I thought in street fighter if you held forward with good timing, you could get a parry, while holding back would give you a regular guard. They're different inputs with different risks/rewards, as opposed to being unified by a single button input ruining the integrity of both of them.Dark Sonic said:
B.W.
Smash Champion
The risk is you messed up, and now you're shield is up so you're now able to be grabbed.
Of course that was much more so in Melee, same principle here. We've still got plenty of time to figure out how to force shields to stay up in B+
Of course that was much more so in Melee, same principle here. We've still got plenty of time to figure out how to force shields to stay up in B+
Shell
Flute-Fox Only
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,042
Eh, in Melee at least there was plenty of risk. I've eaten plenty of Falco lasers attempting to PS them back. This is not the case in Brawl, though.
That doesn't change the fact that we're adding un-necessary complexity to a project whose secondary goal is simplicity.
That doesn't change the fact that we're adding un-necessary complexity to a project whose secondary goal is simplicity.
Exactly. Guarding is a risk in itself because of the fact that your guard, as long as its active, will always lose life. If someone is putting on a pressure game and is eating up your shield, you want a way out. Why should there be a risk for someone who properly times a shield right to minimize the loss of shield life and gains the ability to stop a relentless assault on your shield. You'd be giving more power to offense and taking away from defense, which has already been stripped considerably by B+.
It makes no sense and the concept is still to alien. You introduce too many alien concepts and it turns off appeal to people who arent into exotic things.
PanzerOceania
Smash Ace
I also agree with GHNeko, there is no reason that they should be different buttons. It's still a shield, it's just a well timed one. Keep it the same.
Jiangjunizzy
Smash Lord
i think that the PS mod isn't working correctly, imo. i think maybe the amount of frames probably cuts off at a higher number than 2; making it seem like PSing is still easy.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I facepalmed...
You see, people actually map things like attack and jump to shoulder buttons, it makes hydroplaning and some DACUS with hard timings a breeze.
Edit: Sorry if I sounded harsh.
Shell
Flute-Fox Only
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,042
The only way to really balance the risk/reward system is to have the initial shielding animation take longer. This way if you intend on PS and you miss it, you'll be hit by the move more often ala Melee.
However, as I don't really want to take away from other Brawl uses of the shield such as being a movement tool, I'd say keep it as is.
However, as I don't really want to take away from other Brawl uses of the shield such as being a movement tool, I'd say keep it as is.
kupo15
Smash Hero
ok on a different subject, I was originally for fresh attacks BONUS but I am no longer. Why? There is no control. You don't know exactly when your attack will get the bonus either. It just happens. Lets say I need to use this one move to continue the combo and the move is fresh. I have no choice but to get a bonus from the attack. The problem is that unexpected increase in kb or even expected ones have a negative affect on the combo game.
You are mainly using damage as a judge and you know how far your moves should send someone and a fresh bonus will make you lose the combo because they are sent further than expected. This I feel limits your options because if you chose another move then the ideal move, you may lose the combo because the set up to the next move is not as good but if you use the ideal move, the fresh bonus still puts them in an undesired spot.
I am not against the fresh bonus idea concept, I am against how fresh hits are implemented. You should have a choice whether or not to use the fresh hit or not. It's great for kill moves, but bad on combos when you have such limited control
You are mainly using damage as a judge and you know how far your moves should send someone and a fresh bonus will make you lose the combo because they are sent further than expected. This I feel limits your options because if you chose another move then the ideal move, you may lose the combo because the set up to the next move is not as good but if you use the ideal move, the fresh bonus still puts them in an undesired spot.
I am not against the fresh bonus idea concept, I am against how fresh hits are implemented. You should have a choice whether or not to use the fresh hit or not. It's great for kill moves, but bad on combos when you have such limited control
Starscream
Smash Ace
So I assume that if we use the universal size modifier then all the jump heights from the Brawlplusery codeset will be skewed?
goodoldganon
Smash Champion
From what I can tell Starsceam, no they aren't.
leafgreen386
Dirty camper
*sigh*
I see most people aren't too fond of the idea of moving the PS to taunt. Oh well. I tried. I know a lot of people didn't like that they were tied together before, and also that a lot of people were fond of taunt canceling, so I figured an implementation that combined the two would be fairly well received. I guess not.
As for the fresh bonus thing... I completely agree. The more I play the more I see that it isn't necessary to keep a fresh bonus. No stale moves and no fresh bonus.
I see most people aren't too fond of the idea of moving the PS to taunt. Oh well. I tried. I know a lot of people didn't like that they were tied together before, and also that a lot of people were fond of taunt canceling, so I figured an implementation that combined the two would be fairly well received. I guess not.
As for the fresh bonus thing... I completely agree. The more I play the more I see that it isn't necessary to keep a fresh bonus. No stale moves and no fresh bonus.