COMPETITIVE Brawl+: Code Agenda

[Ulevo]

@ulevo: you mean after the KB modifier, right?

Well, see, the KB Modifier is a high priority, but we are limited in that regard right now. I think the JC Grabs would be easier to code, and the code itself would effect every character.

 

[Greenpoe]

I am really adamant about Jump Canceled Grabs at this point. It would improve the grab game of many characters who are in desperate need for more viable options in to their grab game. I highly recommend this being our next priority.

How?
In Melee, what made a Jump Canceled Grab better than a regular one?

 

[kupo15]

I just realized something: Doesn't FF during tumble make AD even more effective? Not only can you AD to avoid strings, but you can FF the AD to get even better positioning. Has anyone found this to be true?

That's why you need the No AD in tumble

I believe you would have to FF, wiggle to escape tumble, and then AD. So no.

he was talking about just the FF tumble

Kupo, thats a horrid solution to try and balance out characters. Speeding up aerials so you can't Air dodge during tumble. This code provides no benefits and hurts half the cast. This may be your preference, but the goal of this project is character balance. Characters should not have to waste a double jump because you said so. Their best option now is solely to jump because you deemed it so.

And to speed up bowser or ike or dorf, yo'd have to cut their start–up in half.

Umm, no. I said that could a solution to the "problem" (as in no problem) and its not something I promote seeing how its not a problem. I was telling you you that your frame point wasn't accurate when frame data is constantly changing.

And please. Tell me what the problem is with forcing a jump? How is forcing an AD ok to punish (which gives worse reward) but forcing a jump is not? You cut off his option perfectly as to force him to recover another way. How is this broken? How does this not make sense? Why should they be able to not get punished or not have to worry about your perfect positioning and perform said move anyway?

Its so stupid and no way beneficial to this game. Don't fix what ain't broken. Especially when you try and fix something that isn't broken and break something else.

But it is broken. It breaks the risk/reward system so this code keeps the power of ADing in check for this one instance. This doesn't break anything else. Its your high hitstun that does. Don't you see how the risk reward system is compromised which is bad for this game?

Okay, the problem with the AD.

Problem: Punishing it yields too little reward, as it puts the defender in a better position.

Yes. This compromises the risk/reward system which results in an ultimately defensive and campy game which is something we are trying to avoid

Solution: Make the AD harder to perform by adding extra input for it, thereby justifying the advantage it gives.

I wouldn't say harder, just the fact that it takes a split second more

Problem with solution: People will eventually become skilled enough to AD outside of tumble, such that the solution won't make much of a difference.

People will become skilled enough to do this, I can assure you. What I can see this code doing, however, is separating the good players from the bad players.

You can't wiggle and AD faster than just ADing. Its not humanly possible so the time you take to wiggle out would be enough time to punish that defensive option if they set up to take it away

There really is no simple solution to this, is there?

Wiggle out the tumble. Its easy, it only affects the problem we have, and it does make a difference and works

How?
In Melee, what made a Jump Canceled Grab better than a regular one?

Less cool down lag, so it was harder to punish and I believe it had a little more range as well

 

[CountKaiser]

So your solution involves increasing the time it takes to AD.

How is this different than simply increasing the start-up lag?

 

[Ulevo]

How?
In Melee, what made a Jump Canceled Grab better than a regular one?

Well, if by regular grab you mean a standing grab, it meant that you could use it out of a dash. If by regular grab you mean dash grab, it has significantly less lag time and start up time, and in some cases longer range, because standing grabs tend to be superior.

 

[SketchHurricane]

I am really adamant about Jump Canceled Grabs at this point. It would improve the grab game of many characters who are in desperate need for more viable options in to their grab game. I highly recommend this being our next priority.

Jump Canceled Grabs would be another unnecessary stab at Melee. The core of the problem (as you see it) would be that certain characters' grabs need to be improved. We already have character specific methods of coding, so a much better solutions would be to fix grab speed editing (which used to have problems IIRC) and apply it where needed.

So your solution involves increasing the time it takes to AD.

How is this different than simply increasing the start-up lag?

It's not about the slower speed of the AD, it's about the fact that if you try to AD, fail, and take the hit (meaning you made the wrong decision to AD), your DI will be compromised from the "wiggle" you had to do before. A better decision would have been to maintain DI and try to FF your tumble to safety. IMO this is the core of what NAT and FFT (fastfall tumble) are trying to create, a situation in which you would not what to AD.

If it were the speed of the AD that mattered, you'd be correct in that we should simply edit the speed of the AD directly. But that solution breaks down on it's own, because if the AD suddenly becomes slower than some other option, now the other option simply replaces the AD every time and you have the same problem as before. If the AD is not slowed enough and is still the fastest option, you've done nothing.

All in all, I'm still on the fence about it. It does seem to balance the risk/reward of the AD though.

 

[CountKaiser]

It's not about the slower speed of the AD, it's about the fact that if you try to AD, fail, and take the hit (meaning you made the wrong decision to AD), your DI will be compromised from the "wiggle" you had to do before. A better decision would have been to maintain DI and try to FF your tumble to safety. IMO this is the core of what NAT and FFT (fastfall tumble) are trying to create, a situation in which you would not what to AD.

If it were the speed of the AD that mattered, you'd be correct in that we should simply edit the speed of the AD directly. But that solution breaks down on it's own, because if the AD suddenly becomes slower than some other option, now the other option simply replaces the AD every time and you have the same problem as before. If the AD is not slowed enough and is still the fastest option, you've done nothing.

All in all, I'm still on the fence about it. It does seem to balance the risk/reward of the AD though.

So not only are we, in a sense, making the AD come out later, but should the person ADing be punished, they can be put in a really bad situation, due to bad DI.

Also, won't people just jump out of combos now, since jumping is the fastest way out of something next to AD? Then again, according to Kupo, this isn't as bad since jumping does not put you in a good position while taking you out of the combo.

 

[Ulevo]

Jump Canceled Grabs would be another unnecessary stab at Melee. The core of the problem (as you see it) would be that certain characters' grabs need to be improved. We already have character specific methods of coding, so a much better solutions would be to fix grab speed editing (which used to have problems IIRC) and apply it where needed.

No, that's not a solution.

Dash grabs and JC grabs have different properties. For one, specific characters slide during a standing grab out of a run, such as Luigi. A dash grab halts his momentum. ZSS slides forward very far during her dash grab, and this can be a problem in close quarters. Some characters have various hit boxes for there grabs. Marth can grab characters on the ledge with his dash grab, while his standing grab is longer, and can grab characters easily out of short hops. The two of them have different uses depending on situations.

Simply giving dash grabs a speed buff for every character would not be nearly as beneficial.

 

[Eaode]

This code provides no benefits and hurts half the cast.

No benefits? Have you been ignoring this whole debate? Are you so fixed on the slight change in character balance that you can't grasp any other issue?

This may be your preference, but the goal of this project is character balance.

Wrong. If the goal of this project were character balance, we wouldn't have added hitstun, which is the primary nerf that the heavies got from Brawl+ (excluding Ganon's raep combos). Character balance may be an ideal, but I would hardly call it the goal of the project

Characters should not have to waste a double jump because you said so.

Characters should have to evaluate the situation and choose the best option given the scenario, not have a free homogenized solution 90% of the time.

Their best option now is solely to jump because you deemed it so. Its so stupid and no way beneficial to this game.

Can you please pay attention? No one said their only option is jump. Their options are:
-Wiggle out to AD
-FF Tumble and Tech
-Counterattack
-Jump out to Airdodge/attack

As opposed to:
- AIRDODGE
- Jump out (to something)
- Attack

NAT makes the options more balanced, so instead of airdodging 9 times out of 10, they have to evaluate the situation and choose the best option.

Don't fix what ain't broken. Especially when you try and fix something that isn't broken and break something else.

Well if Airdodging is the best option by a WIDE margin for most characters, I think it deserves looking into if we have the opportunity to add depth.

If it were the speed of the AD that mattered, you'd be correct in that we should simply edit the speed of the AD directly. But that solution breaks down on it's own, because if the AD suddenly becomes slower than some other option, now the other option simply replaces the AD every time and you have the same problem as before. If the AD is not slowed enough and is still the fastest option, you've done nothing.

All in all, I'm still on the fence about it. It does seem to balance the risk/reward of the AD though.

you can't just nerf the airdodge directly, because that would affect its use for simply dodging. NAT only nerfs AD as a means to escape combos.



Also, about JC grabs, a code for such would be pointless, as you can already shield-cancel grab so JC grabs would just be essentially the same thing but a different input.

 

[CountKaiser]

Character balance is now a goal of the project. If we didn't care about character balance, we wouldn't be so adamant about nerfing MK and buffing bowser.

Also, what's wrong with the current punishment for AD? You predict it, position yourself, hit them, and send them back into a bad position. They have taken damage and are still at you're mercy.

Yes, I know that AD puts the defender in a better position, but it seems that if you can predict this, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Punishing an AD is no more different than techchasing a roll, and if you do it enough, your opponent will try something different.

 

[Eaode]

Techrolls are more telegraphed, and are more vulnerable, whereas airdodging maintains aerial mobility and invulnerability. if someone Airdodges into the ground, they have no landing lag and can instantly shield, spotdodge, roll left or roll right. This high reward makes airdodging disproportionately safe for escaping a combo. even if the don't make it to the ground they can get to a much less disadvantageous position.

 

[CountKaiser]

Unless they are close enough to get to the ground, where they go shouldn't matter much if you predict it because you can still hit them and put them back into a bad situation.

This is also why I suggested adding landing lag to the AD.

 

[Finns7]

Adding landing lag would buff projectile camping. Im not for it, maybe we can make it so you lose a slight portion of your shield if you ad and hit the ground while doing it. Actually I think its fine as is tbh.

Hitstun did not **** heavies, you must be on something serious to say that. DK, Ganon, and Snake hold there own with the best. That free homogenized solution can get you wrecked also if the player who was attacking knows how to read...

 

[Eaode]

That free homogenized solution can get you wrecked also if the player who was attacking knows how to read...

wrecked enough/often enough to make you consider your other options? barely. ADing out of a combo is VERY safe most of the time

 

[SketchHurricane]

No, that's not a solution.

Dash grabs and JC grabs have different properties. For one, specific characters slide during a standing grab out of a run, such as Luigi. A dash grab halts his momentum. ZSS slides forward very far during her dash grab, and this can be a problem in close quarters. Some characters have various hit boxes for there grabs. Marth can grab characters on the ledge with his dash grab, while his standing grab is longer, and can grab characters easily out of short hops. The two of them have different uses depending on situations.

Simply giving dash grabs a speed buff for every character would not be nearly as beneficial.

I said where needed, not every. And even if we did globally speed things up, the properties would not change, just the speed. Once more, for effect, I'm suggesting character specific edits where needed.

I see your point about the different grabs being useful (although you only mentioned Marth, and BTW are you talking about Brawl or Melee?). Including JC grabs globally would buff characters that didn't need it, so we might end up fixing some unwanted buffs. On the other hand, giving JC grabs to certain characters seems a bit odd since it used to be universal.

Why don't you get specific and detail exactly who you think needs a grab-game buff?

Also, what's wrong with the current punishment for AD? You predict it, position yourself, hit them, and send them back into a bad position. They have taken damage and are still at you're mercy.

Yes, I know that AD puts the defender in a better position, but it seems that if you can predict this, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Punishing an AD is no more different than techchasing a roll, and if you do it enough, your opponent will try something different.

That was my initial argument against the code. The mixups still exist without the code, but the code does add an extra dimension to it. The game is fine without it IMO, but could stand to give it a try.

 

[Finns7]

Disregard this post, I got gayed

 

[CountKaiser]

wrecked enough/often enough to make you consider your other options? barely. ADing out of a combo is VERY safe most of the time

Yet if I kept punishing you for this, would you i your right mind keep doing it?

 

[storm92]

Also, about JC grabs, a code for such would be pointless, as you can already shield-cancel grab so JC grabs would just be essentially the same thing but a different input.

Actually you're really wrong here.
With shieldstun, shield grabs are not only slower, but don't give much of a slide at all compared to what a JC grab would.
Shield grabs are how they were in Melee, you basically stop then grab.

 

[shanus]

No benefits? Have you been ignoring this whole debate? Are you so fixed on the slight change in character balance that you can't grasp any other issue?

Wrong. If the goal of this project were character balance, we wouldn't have added hitstun, which is the primary nerf that the heavies got from Brawl+ (excluding Ganon's raep combos). Character balance may be an ideal, but I would hardly call it the goal of the project

Characters should have to evaluate the situation and choose the best option given the scenario, not have a free homogenized solution 90% of the time.

Can you please pay attention? No one said their only option is jump. Their options are:
-Wiggle out to AD
-FF Tumble and Tech
-Counterattack
-Jump out to Airdodge/attack

Notice how I reference in my 20 other posts. How about you read instead? And maybe respond to my frame data since its correct?

As opposed to:
- AIRDODGE
- Jump out (to something)
- Attack

NAT makes the options more balanced, so instead of airdodging 9 times out of 10, they have to evaluate the situation and choose the best option.

Well if Airdodging is the best option by a WIDE margin for most characters, I think it deserves looking into if we have the opportunity to add depth.





you can't just nerf the airdodge directly, because that would affect its use for simply dodging. NAT only nerfs AD as a means to escape combos.



Also, about JC grabs, a code for such would be pointless, as you can already shield-cancel grab so JC grabs would just be essentially the same thing but a different input.

No point to responding to this since I've proven all your points wrong. How about reading some more before jumping down my throat?

 

[shanus]

All in all, I'm still on the fence about it. It does seem to balance the risk/reward of the AD though.

I get punished plenty from AD plenty. I also escape plenty. Or I can hit them with an instant buffer aerial. There's risk and reward. Why do we need artificially encourage other options while damaging half the cast moreso than the others?

 

[Eaode]

what? you're just going to ignore ALL of the opposing points because I'm not reading up? I haven't seen you refute those points, All I've seen you do is go on about character balance. I responded to your frame data, or do you want me to just say "dur, those numbers r wrong" ?

Edit: ninja'd, but I have to go get a haircut, bai

 

[CountKaiser]

How are his numbers wrong? Do you have different values?

Unless we plan on adjusting the speed of character's aerials, they seem rather accurate.

I still see the change as essentially useless. AD can be punished just fine.

@Shanus: It may be best if you showed them video of someone getting punished for air dodging. Chances are you have one.

 

[shanus]

No benefits? Have you been ignoring this whole debate? Are you so fixed on the slight change in character balance that you can't grasp any other issue?

I said read my other posts because I clearly have not ignored your points. I just didn't feel the need to type it up for the 20th time.

Wrong. If the goal of this project were character balance, we wouldn't have added hitstun, which is the primary nerf that the heavies got from Brawl+ (excluding Ganon's raep combos). Character balance may be an ideal, but I would hardly call it the goal of the project

Well I'm glad character balance is your priority. Maybe thats why you support this code too?

Characters should have to evaluate the situation and choose the best option given the scenario, not have a free homogenized solution 90% of the time.

If you read the frame data, maybe you'll learn you have a lot of options as some chars. If you use air dodge every time, maybe your at fault? That or you play a character who has these innate disadvantages I've been citing.

Can you please pay attention? No one said their only option is jump. Their options are:
-Wiggle out to AD
-FF Tumble and Tech
-Counterattack
-Jump out to Airdodge/attack

This is why I said to read my previous MASSIVE post like 3-4 pages ago. I started off with these EXACT points. Don't lecture me on something I've been arguing about for the past 2 weeks.

As opposed to:
- AIRDODGE
- Jump out (to something)
- Attack

NAT makes the options more balanced, so instead of airdodging 9 times out of 10, they have to evaluate the situation and choose the best option.

Makes options more balanced, laughable (jump will be the single best frame option for half the cast whereas other characters such as luigi or MK can do aerials onthe exact same frame as AD). Makes characters less balanced. Hmm, so I try and tell people why Brawl+ is better, oh cuz you can't air dodge out of a tumble! lol

Gone again for the night. Have fun with the numbers instead of just saying "I don't trust them."


That better?

Kaiser, on a weekday I'll upload one.

 

[Ulevo]

Also, about JC grabs, a code for such would be pointless, as you can already shield-cancel grab so JC grabs would just be essentially the same thing but a different input.

Shield cancel grab cannot slide, it takes longer to execute frame wise, and if you're shield is hit during this you're vulnerable. It's inferior in every way to a JC Grab except if you want to stop dead and grab, which most of the time you wouldn't have to anyway.

And don't mention dash canceled grab, as that is even worse.

 

[abcool]

I'm not saying to spam lasers when they're right next to you.
When and why are lasers already very useful? When they're far enough away to spam without punishment. What happens then? The opponent must approach. My point wasn't "Fox spam laser equal shield break" but that when you're on one side of FD, and they're on the other, if Fox starts firing lasers, they need to approach (unless they have a reflector). It's not like Falco's lasers, which you can spotdodge all day long or perfect shield them, or Wolf's lasers, which you can just airdodge/shield, Fox's lasers force an approach, then, when they're close enough to the point that spamming lasers is no longer smart, Fox does what he does best: Approach!

Besides, Fox is already a great character. Don't buff those who already are amazing, or you'll have to rebuff everyone else.

First off let me start by saying. FOX CAN get the same DI results if i jump backwards and laser, this has been discovered by me today. The stupid part about it is brawls mechanics and it screwing with the move as a whole..

This is what Di with lasers is all about. Ex. You know how you can FF ya aerials, well Di with lasers gives the same results, not just lasers any projectile user. What happens is i have to jump backwards Then laser i get that backwards trajectory, i would usually get if i laser and hold back on my joystick. Now you ask yaself what is the problem then. That is brawls dumb mechanics and why Di was implemented during the projectile animation. When i jump backwards and buffer a laser i automatically turn around during my laser animation, i guess for easier turn around lasers, So now i have to jump backwards and smash my joystick forward let go unless i wannai illusion off the **** stage for what!! a slightly backwards movement during my aerial.

Guys come on open ya minds and stop thinking i'm trying to buff lasers i am trying to help with SPACING my lasers when i am in the air which is already possible, this adds option not make fox broken. This also helps to control his momentum during retreat lasers as the stages are cramped as hell and i usually go flying off the sides, for what!useless lasers that will cost me a stock at the expense of 3% damage. Start to point out how this is OP and i will start to think another way. Also a vid to show how laser spacing is an option to mobile foxes and not a new adjustment to the fox metagame. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfk2vgePkZs

 

[kupo15]

So your solution involves increasing the time it takes to AD.

How is this different than simply increasing the start-up lag?

Its different because that is nerfing air dodge as a whole. Altering air dodging attributes to fix this problem will nerf it away for the many other situations where its not overpowered. I've said this several times over.

If it were the speed of the AD that mattered, you'd be correct in that we should simply edit the speed of the AD directly. But that solution breaks down on it's own, because if the AD suddenly becomes slower than some other option, now the other option simply replaces the AD every time and you have the same problem as before. If the AD is not slowed enough and is still the fastest option, you've done nothing.

No you are wrong as well. Read above why changing the physical attributes of the air dodge is an even greater nerf than NAT

Also, what's wrong with the current punishment for AD? You predict it, position yourself, hit them, and send them back into a bad position. They have taken damage and are still at you're mercy

Yes, I know that AD puts the defender in a better position, but it seems that if you can predict this, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Because, predicting the AD and punishing is an even worse reward for them not even attempting it in the first place. If they don't know how to react out of hitstun, they can just mindlessly spam the air dodge because it puts them in a better situation regardless of if it was the right move or not. This cripples the risk vs reward system and makes the game defensive and campy

This is also why I suggested adding landing lag to the AD.

To my knowledge, we can't because there is no "special landing" ID

How are his numbers wrong? Do you have different values?

Unless we plan on adjusting the speed of character's aerials, they seem rather accurate.

I still see the change as essentially useless. AD can be punished just fine.

@Shanus: It may be best if you showed them video of someone getting punished for air dodging. Chances are you have one.

How many times do I have to say that punishing an air dodge is not the problem? Do you even listen to me or read what I write? Why do you keep asking the same questions when I answer it with the same response? I must have went over why ADing is a worse reward and how it cripples the risk reward system ect ect ect. I have yet to see you are anyone say I'm wrong.

I have videos to upload today showing what a match with NAT looks like and how much better it is for the risk reward game. It shows you how your efforts for hitting someone to begin with pays off.


On another note, I hate swimming. I feel it destroys certain levels by making recovery really easy. So instead of simply removing the swim, I propose we remove swimming and let the water act like moon gravity. This way you can't recover and get your jumps back in the water, but you fall slowly like a 2D sonic game. It makes sense to me. Thoughts?

 

[Ulevo]

On another note, I hate swimming. I feel it destroys certain levels by making recovery really easy. So instead of simply removing the swim, I propose we remove swimming and let the water act like moon gravity. This way you can't recover and get your jumps back in the water, but you fall slowly like a 2D sonic game. It makes sense to me. Thoughts?

How does it destroy levels? On all the levels that have water, being three of them, they are all counterpicks. It's called an advantage. It improves the recoveries of specific characters, and a player can take advantage of this. Not only that, but characters are vulnerable in water because they are forced to leave the water promptly to prevent drowning, they have lag when they enter the water (depending how deep they go), and they are at risks from spikes more so than usual. It also only improves the recoveries of specific characters, such as Olimar, Ike or Link. Characters such as Meta Knight suffer here because they can't effectively use their special(s) to recover very well due to the water being high and close to the stage line.

I'm against the idea personally.

 

[kupo15]

^^ and what if you don't have a spike? Edge hogging does nothing. If I send you away to where on a normal level you would die from not making it back, you could because you could just jump around in the water near the kill zones to refresh you jumps and make it back. It doesnt make sense to me why you should be able to refresh your recovery options in the water as well as the stage and the ledge.

And what about the possibility of stalling? You could stay out in the water and jump around waiting for them to approach then turn the tables on them and if they aren't willing to come out, its stalling. Does the drowning timer reset when you exit the water?

And you say that it helps improve recoveries? Well, my suggestion does as well because of the lowered gravity. This means your jumps last longer and your recovery moves send you farther. At least this way, you can't turn a bad situation into a reward

 

[CountKaiser]

@kupo: Wait, so I get less reward from punishing the AD than I do from not punishing it? I don't quite understand what you're saying.

If you can punish it, what's so bad about the reward that it warrants a nerf? Are they no longer in a bad position afterwards? Is it the spammability of it, such that if they keep doing it, it may work?

Also, what are you thoughts on Shanus' post on the last page?

 

[kupo15]

@kupo: Wait, so I get less reward from punishing the AD than I do from not punishing it? I don't quite understand what you're saying.

Umm no? I said that punishing an AD is less a reward than them not even attempting the air dodge. As in. If they chose not to attempt to escape at all when exiting the hitstun, you punish them when they exit hitstun which is more of a reward then punishing an AD after they exit hitstun. This means that even when they don't know what the right choice is, the air dodge is the cop out, the scape goat for minimizing punishment. Its essentially a "get out of jail free" card

Also, what are you thoughts on Shanus' post on the last page?

I believe I did respond to them

 

[Heroes_Never_Die]

(On the subject of water) I agree with Ulevo, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea to try out if possible.

 

[CountKaiser]

Umm no? I said that punishing an AD is less a reward than them not even attempting the air dodge. As in. If they chose not to attempt to escape at all when exiting the hitstun, you punish them when they exit hitstun which is more of a reward then punishing an AD after they exit hitstun. This means that even when they don't know what the right choice is, the air dodge is the cop out, the scape goat for minimizing punishment. Its essentially a "get out of jail free" card

So the reward for punishment from an AD is not enough, in our eyes, and thus the tumble code fixes this by forcing the defender to wiggle in order to do it. This

A. makes it no longer nigh instantaneous.
B. Puts the defender at risk of screwing up the DI of the next hit.

If this is the case, people should simply use their fastest aerial against the attacker, or jump, or use up-b.

The risk associated with the NAT is so high that it may no longer be used. In every other situation, if it gets predicted, you get hit again. In this case, you get hit, and are sent to a worse place than usual trying to perform the AD.

Also, even if the reward is worse for the punishment, the fact is that you are still punishing them. That should click something in the defender's min to do something different, unless they like getting hit.

 

[Zelc]

It seems like Kupo would have issues with a RPS game where winning with Rock gives you 3 points, winning with Scissors gives you 2 points, and winning with Paper gives you 1 point. According to what I understand of Kupo's argument, spamming Rock is obviously the best strategy here, because if they don't predict your Rock you get 3 points (which is the most you can get!), and if they do predict your Rock they only get 1 point (which is the least you can give away!). That means this RPS game lacks depth. Is this a proper analogy of your point, Kupo?

(Points to win set at something like 100 to prevent near-end-game effects changing the payoffs)

Seems like in such a game people would play Paper enough such that automatically playing Rock is a bad idea, and playing Scissors every now and then to predict their Paper is a good strategy.

 

[kupo15]

So the reward for punishment from an AD is not enough, in our eyes, and thus the tumble code fixes this by forcing the defender to wiggle in order to do it. This

A. makes it no longer nigh instantaneous.
B. Puts the defender at risk of screwing up the DI of the next hit.

If this is the case, people should simply use their fastest aerial against the attacker, or jump, or use up-b.

Or people can just learn when the air dodge can be a viable option or not. This code does not force you to do a certain escape option. This code is bringing this one escape option (which clearly over powers the rest) down to the level of the other options so that you have to decide which is the appropriate escape option of the four depending on the situation your put in. This makes it so that the air dodge isn't the best choice to minimize your damage at all times. This does not mean that the air dodge is a useless choice indefinitely because it all depends on the situation your opponent puts you in and your skill and ability to recognize if you can air dodge to escape or not and perform it.

If you attempt to wiggle out and air dodge because you think you have enough time and your wrong causing poor DI on the next hit, that is your fault. You should have jumped, attacked, or fast fell. One of them is the right choice depending on the situation and its your responsibility to pick the right one, not the game's.

If you don't support this code, then you're proposing to hold the player's hand and saying that its ok to not be skilled at escaping the bad situations they were forced into by a good player, and that its wrong for them to be punished for choosing the wrong action; so they should be able to use this one option all the time when in doubt to minimize damage.

The risk associated with the NAT is so high that it may no longer be used. In every other situation, if it gets predicted, you get hit again. In this case, you get hit, and are sent to a worse place than usual trying to perform the AD.

If you suck at making fast decisions so that the wrong decision puts you in a worse place than you were before, then that is your fault. There is nothing wrong with blocking a viable escape option as to punish them if they try it anyway. Air dodging can be used if the opponent doesn't block that escape option.

Also, even if the reward is worse for the punishment, the fact is that you are still punishing them. That should click something in the defender's min to do something different, unless they like getting hit.

So you are saying that if I hand in a 10 page essay that I clearly did a D job at doing because I didn't care about the assignment, that I should get a C? A "C" is a bad grade and is punishment for not striving to do well on the paper so its good enough to click in my head to not do it next time even though I deserved a "D", right?

And will a worse punishment not click in their heads also? In fact, it would be a more powerful click for them to remember more vividly their mistake. If you make the wrong choice because the defender blocked that option causing massive punishment, there is nothing wrong with this. If you risked a defensive move that got you punished even worse because you risked instead of choosing another option that you know you would have escaped from, this is not unfair. There is nothing wrong with a punishment to equal the mistake you made.

 

[Almas]

Zelc makes a good analogy, and what I consider to be approximately correct of the current system.

Airdodge is certainly the best option in almost every case. But the fact that it is the best option doesn't make it anything close to the only viable option. If you repeatedly use the same method, you will get punished for it. It is certainly possible to predict and punish airdodges in any situation other than some floor juggles, most of which are true combos to begin with.

Even if so, is the combo game really underpowered at the moment? Can you really justify the argument that offense needs to be boosted further?

Similarly, what is bowser meant to do to escape a combo now? Of course I use bowser as an example, but many other characters suffice for this argument. You can't wiggle->dodge just before the next hit of the combo because you must prepare to DI it, and this is often the only time when you'd be potentially able to escape. Bowser has no aerials to allow him to counterattack because they are all so sluggish, and he can only jump once. After that he is limited to fortress, which is extremely easy to punish.

As it is, the code vastly unbalances many characters' defensive games. I agree that given tweaking (for example, making certain characters receive less hitstun, or letting them AD out), the code could become viable. But in its current state, it is truly unusable.

I also believe that the voices of a large amount of the Brawl+ community (atleast half of the players) is enough to warrant that this code should not be included in the Brawlplusery codeset. The code is more awkward to get used to than many other codes for a Brawl player. When I play Brawl, I often think "gee, I miss hitstun", but I can't recall thinking "gee, I really miss the fact that my enemies couldn't AD out of combos".

 

[kupo15]

Even if so, is the combo game really underpowered at the moment? Can you really justify the argument that offense needs to be boosted further?

Not everyone relies on hitstun to combo in this game. Some combo more heavily via strings and when you have something like this where you can always air dodge to prevent the most amount of punishment instead of buffing that punishment to be equal to the other 3 options, this hurts those characters. So if you want to achieve a better balance amongst the characters, the better option would be to reduce hitstun so that those characters that take the most advantage from hitstun balance out with those who rely on better rewards in strings. Without this code, you are hurting characters who rely more on strings.

The plussery set right now has a really high hitstun value. Why? Is it because the other characters can't combo well on a low hitstun setting so you think that more hitstun will solve the problem? If that is the case (which I believe it is) then this is the wrong solution (which is what the plussery is doing) I think this because the more you raise hitstun, the more god like the naturally gifted comboers are going to be since they can use the full power of hitstun to their advantage, which doesn't help in balancing the roster. If, however, you actually cater to the the characters playstyles better, then you would see more balance in the roster. This would require you to not have favoritism towards one of the two forms of comboing and actually make them equal! This would mean that lowering hitstun and including the tumble codes actually balances the roster better.

Similarly, what is bowser meant to do to escape a combo now? Of course I use bowser as an example, but many other characters suffice for this argument. You can't wiggle->dodge just before the next hit of the combo because you must prepare to DI it, and this is often the only time when you'd be potentially able to escape. Bowser has no aerials to allow him to counterattack because they are all so sluggish, and he can only jump once. After that he is limited to fortress, which is extremely easy to punish.

You can't give me one situation and tell me to disprove it and expect that to be proof in itself on limited facts. There are sooo many factors that go into this game and determine the outcome of the situation with this code on that this is simply not enough information for me to respond to.

I also believe that the voices of a large amount of the Brawl+ community (atleast half of the players) is enough to warrant that this code should not be included in the Brawlplusery codeset. The code is more awkward to get used to than many other codes for a Brawl player. When I play Brawl, I often think "gee, I miss hitstun", but I can't recall thinking "gee, I really miss the fact that my enemies couldn't AD out of combos".

This is not a valid excuse. All the codes we have are hard for people to adjust to from vbrawl, why should this be special? How is this code more awkward to get used to than lets say NASL? IIRC, a lot of the community dislikes this code and still detest it to this day. Why haven't you removed this yet?

 

[B.W.]

Hitstun won't solve all problems. There are enough characters that have to make combos out of tumbles, which makes the no AD out of tumble code a very much needed code. Otherwise the characters that can just chase a launched character will be the only characters played.

Even if you raise hitstun to a stupidly high level, it still won't help those characters that need people to be helpless, to a point, in the tumble since the launch animation has to turn to a tumble animation at some point.

 

[Heroes_Never_Die]

Let's say that "Rock" is AD, and "Paper" is punishing an AD. Okay, but what is "Scissors?"

 

[Swordplay]

Really your looking for Scissors? How about attack!!!!

As a Link player I don't often even bother AD unless I AD before I zair. I always mix it up.

I use a super powerful high priority technique called Links Dair. It ***** those who think I am going to air dodge as hits long lasting super priority hitbox descends and deals death to my opponent.

Opponents eventually learn to flee and try to punish my dair but because I mix it up it is awfully hard. Eventually I can integrate other options including the AD

@Almas

NOOOOOO......you cannot give individual hitstun. That means you get into *specific character combo strings* and with over 35 characters in this game, that is going to be a mind **** for many players.

 

[Heroes_Never_Die]

Attacking doesn't always work since your opponent doesn't need to be committed to punishing an AD (you punish an AD's lag, not its startup). Attacking also doesn't work if you're outclassed aerially. Everyone can AD, and everyone can punish an AD, but not everyone can punish punishing an AD.

What I really want to get at is that the RPS analogy doesn't really work in Brawl (at least not in the air) because there is no aerial shield or aerial grab (except for a few specials, but it's a moot point without an aerial shield).