COMPETITIVE Brawl+: Code Agenda

[kupo15]

what was his recommendations again? And why don't you quote me and respond in the nightly builds thread?

Updated set. Check nightly builds

 

[Perfect Chaos]

Because of Lucario's new up-b properties, I decided to experiment using Lucario with tap-jump off, and I found a glitch. It turns out that this problem also exists in vBrawl (but I couldn't find any mention of it, anywhere, though). This problem doesn't really come up that often in vBrawl since people have little reason to turn tap-jump off (aside from just plainly disliking it) there; but since there's a good reason to turn tap-jump off in Brawl+ now, this problem may need fixing.

With tap-jump off, whenever Lucario does his up-b while airborne, or if he does his up-b on the ground and just skids across the ground without going upwards, after landing, from that point until the point where he gets off the ground, he can't use up-b.
Quite annoying that you would have to "reset" this glitch by doing a small hop every time this occurs... Happens much more frequently than the Sonic up-b glitch that I found, too, so I think this should be listed until "Future codes" section in the first post if the "Sonic's triple jump glitch" is there.

Edit: What's up with me and discovering glitches dealing with up-b moves that can be "reset"-ed by doing a short-hop fast-fall...

 

[cookieM0Nster]

hmm. that is wierd! someone fix this.

 

[GPDP]

Yeah, I noticed that too. Quite annoying. Since it was in vBrawl, too, it should qualify as a glitch to be fixed.

 

[kupo15]

Because of Lucario's new up-b properties, I decided to experiment using Lucario with tap-jump off, and I found a glitch. It turns out that this problem also exists in vBrawl (but I couldn't find any mention of it, anywhere, though). This problem doesn't really come up that often in vBrawl since people have little reason to turn tap-jump off (aside from just plainly disliking it) there; but since there's a good reason to turn tap-jump off in Brawl+ now, this problem may need fixing.

With tap-jump off, whenever Lucario does his up-b while airborne, or if he does his up-b on the ground and just skids across the ground without going upwards, after landing, from that point until the point where he gets off the ground, he can't use up-b.
Quite annoying that you would have to "reset" this glitch by doing a small hop every time this occurs... Happens much more frequently than the Sonic up-b glitch that I found, too, so I think this should be listed until "Future codes" section in the first post if the "Sonic's triple jump glitch" is there.

Edit: What's up with me and discovering glitches dealing with up-b moves that can be "reset"-ed by doing a short-hop fast-fall...

I have had this happen to me and never knew why. It must be fixed

 

[shanus]

This upB glitch has been known for a long time. It actually seems to be a side property of his wall-cling mechanics wherein if you upB while on the ground or into the ground you need to rejump to reset the upB counter.

As a Lucaripro user however, I think it is a very fair mechanic. The move is both versatile in the offense and defensive game, and it becomes habit to know that you need to reset your upB. It already can be used evasively on the ground akin to a retreating superwavedash almost and is extremely versatile. In my opinion, I think it should stay in for the sole sake that it might be too good then. I'm fairly certain Lucaripro plays as one of the best characters in the game with this change already in place.

 

[zxeon]

I can agree with that. Better safe than sorry.

 

[Sterowent]

yeah, the versatility it gives now is so much fun to see. i swear, i saw some luc users using it during apex's late night stream.

he used it...well. and i loved every second of it.

it's only fair to have to use some kind of tech skill to do it, even if it's a rather weak one.

 

[kupo15]

This upB glitch has been known for a long time. It actually seems to be a side property of his wall-cling mechanics wherein if you upB while on the ground or into the ground you need to rejump to reset the upB counter.

As a Lucaripro user however, I think it is a very fair mechanic. The move is both versatile in the offense and defensive game, and it becomes habit to know that you need to reset your upB. It already can be used evasively on the ground akin to a retreating superwavedash almost and is extremely versatile. In my opinion, I think it should stay in for the sole sake that it might be too good then. I'm fairly certain Lucaripro plays as one of the best characters in the game with this change already in place.

I am not entirely sold on keeping a glitch on a character like this. I don't see how this is different than pika's QAC where the QAC has more versatility on the ground than this does. The reasoning for keeping this glitch sounded very similar to that of not fixing the triple jump glitch. I believe the glitch should be fixed because glitches against characters are not fair or good for competition IMO and if you feel that it makes the move OP (I don't think so), then we should do something else to fix it. It would be as if mewtwo couldn't perform an up b from the ground if he up bs to the ground. This sort of restriction doesn't make sense to me

 

[Perfect Chaos]

... if you upB while on the ground or into the ground you need to rejump to reset the upB counter.

It's not just that; If you up-b from the air, and land after the animation is over (even if you wall cling out of up-b then wall-jump back onto the stage), as long as you don't hang onto the ledge before touching the ground, you can't up-b until you rejump.

As a Lucaripro user however, I think it is a very fair mechanic...In my opinion, I think it should stay in for the sole sake that it might be too good then.

The thing is, it only affects people without tap-jump, so it's already discriminatory. (I guess you can call it a balancing factor for making up-b'ing without using your jump easier. But then people can use B-stick for that purpose and not have to deal with the glitch [although this is not as effective in Lucario's case as tap-jump off].)

 

[Phantom1987]

its not just that... with the new update that gives lucario de posibility to attack after his up-B.. if you make the up-b from the ground, you can jump in middle air to regain your up-b. This means you can make 2 up-bs in a row. If you don't jump, you don't regain the up-b. Lucario's extreme speed have unique and rare properties.

 

[Sterowent]

i made a post about this in the luc+ thread a little while back.
works on any buffer no prob, and the JC is easy as hell to do.

asking for a fix on something like this seems to be arbitrary though. it can still be done with tap jump off, it's simply more difficult.

but that's true for a lot of things. JCing into anything from shield is one of these and hasn't been asked to be 'fixed'. and that effects just about every character.

really, if the fix comes, then so be it...but, in the end, it's simply a very small barrier for lucario users to pass through.

 

[kupo15]

Ugh, this argument can go both ways.
I believe that you should either hit them on time and not get hit.
You're saying the person recovering should go through hell recovering.
Im saying that its not that hard to gimp most of the gimpable characters.

Considering the fact that you have a big sweet spot range and reverse grabbing, making the ledge function like a ledge without auto sweetspot from below nonsense, no, returning won't be hell. Recovering in 64 was hell yet you can still mindgame your way back to stage and if this is possible in limited 64, I sure do not see how it would be impossible here giving the fact that recoveries are better and the ledge is more forgiving.

If they somehow hit you because you're being sloppy then I dont see the big deal on them auto-sweet-spotting.
What youre sayin is a valid reason why it should go but thats just my opinion about the matter.

A failed edge guard is determined by whether or not they make it back to the ledge and on the choices the returning player makes with what to hit you. If that attack is strong enough to knock you away then it works but if not, then they should be punished for using the wrong move. For example, at low percents, marths up b will do nothing to knock the person away opposed to someone at around 100%. So by keeping the auto sweet spot, you are turning a failed recovering attempt into a successful one for no apparent reason. It doesn't matter if you hit me or not.

Not arbitrary when it's made for a purpose: making edgeguarding skillful.
Also, the part of "making the game inconsistent" doesn't make sense. A lot of moves act differently when you hit someone, and that applies to almost any fighter.

Sometimes you will auto sweet spot sometimes not. The object is to have no auto sweet spots unless you are traveling down. Not "mostly no auto sweet spots with the occasional unexpected auto sweet spot." This is bad inconsistency that I am talking about. Its all or none.

If they are playing more intelligently than you and they react to your moves, you are punished. That's what a fighting game is about.

You are punished with the hit but if they use that auto sweet spotted move at the wrong time, then you get an opportunity to punish their counter attack with your counter to the counter which is impossible with the ridiculous ledges.

Man... EVERY single rule in a game is arbitrary. The only thing that matters is if it helps the game more than it hurts and if it's a balanced rule.

Yes to an extent. But the object is to make your rules not get in the way of the player and so it makes sense. If the mechanics are in place and you don't notice them, then its doing its job.

You say that the game should not force you and you should decide how to edgeguard by your own. But the game IS already limiting you. The physics of the game are limiting you, the propierties of the attacks are limiting you, the frames of invencibility on the ledge are limiting you. It's not like: oh, I'm losing my freedom because they can sweetspot easier. That makes that argument invalid.

Of course you need limits, but you are not limited to how to use those moves. You can break the rules on purpose and do uunorthodox things if you want and make it work. These mechanics are limiting in a different way then what I am talking about. The fact is, the code is "no auto sweet spots" and seeing how you can still auto sweet spot side bs and such means that this mechanic favors throwing yourself off the ledge to keep them from returning. If it was working properly, then you would have a choice because you are not forced by the bias of the game mechanic but rather the player.

For now, and IMHO, it has been proved to be a balanced feature, so I would let it as it is.

The forgiving window of powershielding proved to be balanced much like you suggest, yet we change it to make it harder. The same applies here. I am focused on make the game right and fixable instead of dealing with glitches we obviously know shouldn't be there and that make the game less competitive.

 

[ratts]

hey Kupo, love your set, I was wondering if Corneria could be any bigger. I loved Sector Y in smash 64 and would like to get at least a LITTLE closer to that size.

Big fan of all your work, thanks!

 

[Zantetsu]

hey Kupo, love your set, I was wondering if Corneria could be any bigger. I loved Sector Y in smash 64 and would like to get at least a LITTLE closer to that size.

Big fan of all your work, thanks!

Sector Y? Lol

Plus, I think there's a modifier that allows you to edit the size of the ship yourself. It shouldn't be too hard if you really really want Sector Z.

 

[kupo15]

hey Kupo, love your set, I was wondering if Corneria could be any bigger. I loved Sector Y in smash 64 and would like to get at least a LITTLE closer to that size.

Big fan of all your work, thanks!

Wow, thanks! Sorry about the little ROB glitch in the last set. I forgot he doesn't have a fall special landing lag which is why air dodging to the ground freezes with him. It will be fixed though and I plan on making corneria a little bigger.

BHLMRO: Actually, the hardest part is modding the stage boundaries because they don't change when you mod the stage.

 

[ratts]

heh whoops I meant sector Z, do you know what part I would have to modify to do that?

EDIT: whoops didn't see your post kupo, I didn't know that, that makes sense.

Thanks for answering my question!

 

[GPDP]

Hmm, would the landing lag from ADs make MAD/HAD usable without stacking?

 

[kupo15]

Hmm, would the landing lag from ADs make MAD/HAD usable without stacking?

yes it would

 

[illWill]

Hey Kupo I just downloaded your latest file and just like the last one I downloaded from you (May 15) I am having problems with the camera and CSS not being there. I always download both GCTs in your post but I got exactly the same problem as last time. The only GCT file that ever worked (and still does) flawlessly was the first one I ever downloaded from you; the one from May 13th.

The fighting camera, pause camera freedom, stage freezes (Pictochat/Luigi's Mansion/PK Stadium 2/etc), and the Yeroc custom screen are missing. It's annoying the hell out of me going back to that wackass vBrawl character select screen.

Is anybody else having a problem similar to mine? I don't understand why I can use your May 13th file with no problem, but in all GCTs after that the codes I mentioned above are having no effect. And yes, I have the latest Gecko OS and I also made sure to try both GCTs, the ones with the camera and the ones without...




EDIT: Aight, I figured out on my own. Both the GCTs Kupo uploaded have the camera and all the jazz I mentioned disabled. I had to make a GCT with Ocarina from the txt file codeset to turn all those things on. BTW, ROB is unfortunately still freezing

 

[kupo15]

Both have cameras turned off? That doesn't explain the bad CSS though and did you get my pm on the ROB freezing problem? Now that I have info on my troubles with code editing, I can finally release a new version soon.

 

[illWill]

Both have cameras turned off? That doesn't explain the bad CSS though and did you get my pm on the ROB freezing problem? Now that I have info on my troubles with code editing, I can finally release a new version soon.

I read your PMs bro. I just thought that the ROB problem was rectified in your latest set because you replied 4 days ago to Ratt about releasing a new patch fixing the problem, yet your latest file (yesterday's) still has the problem. Just an incorrect assumption.

As for the missing codes I mentioned, I'm sure it's not just my SDHC card because a friend of mine tried the same thing with both codesets from a week ago and we experienced the same problems with both camera and noncamera GCTs. And he only has a regular 1GB SD card. I don't know why no1 has reported such a problem. I can't be this unlucky, can I?

BTW, what does "landing lag from ADs make MAD/HAD usable without stacking?" mean? What's MAD/HAD?


EDIT: I'll give some feedback when I get to test the file you put up like 30 minutes ago.

 

[kupo15]

BTW, what does "landing lag from ADs make MAD/HAD usable without stacking?" mean? What's MAD/HAD?

MAD is melee air dodging and HAD is hybrid air dodging. When you wavedash into the ground, you don't get landing lag like in melee but instead go into the standing animation. So by adding landing lag to air dodges, it can act closer to melee's wavedash but my assumption is that it still won't feel as smooth as melee's

 

[abcool]

Kupo i really like ur codeset. But onenight when i was in the IRC, shanus said it won't ever be used in tournaments. I like ur codeset because it's not as floaty, has more of the melee esque feel, But what is the point of using it, if i can't use it at tournaments? Atleast he said 99.9% sure it won't be used.

 

[GHNeko]

Kupo i really like ur codeset. But onenight when i was in the IRC, shanus said it won't ever be used in tournaments. I like ur codeset because it's not as floaty, has more of the melee esque feel, But what is the point of using it, if i can't use it at tournaments? Atleast he said 99.9% sure it won't be used.

The point would be, I BELIEVE, to show the difference of his set and plussery, and changes that the general public adore/approve up can be adopted in to plussery, which would make Plussery B+ better by Kupo's standards.

Like for example, if plussery had, throwing numbers out, 10 frames of shield stun, and Kupo's had 6 frames, and everyone who tries kupo's set, preferred 6 to 10, they could try and get it into plussery. And by everyone, I mean a **** load of people who play plussery, not just people who play kupos. LOL.


That's my idea though.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Would there be a way to have the glide stop not affect Charizard? His glide is already pretty bad as it is and he needs all the recovery he can get.

I'd still like to see a code to increase the number of frames in which you can glide toss. Lots of characters could have great ones if they were allowed to (Lucario comes to mind especially).

I'd also like it if Z, in the air, had attack priority over airdodge, as well as making R+A or Z the only way to grab an item in midair (In Melee this was the case, in brawl you can grab with an airdodge or attack separately). Finally, in this regard, I'd love to see jump-canceled grabs, if only for the sake of having them available.

My last, seperate note; has Crouch Cancling been made yet?

 

[Rudra]

Is there anything that can be done about Super Armor on Grabs? I know it doesnt happen too often, but I dont think its fair in that a rapid attack (Falco's infinite Jab comes to mind, right before the start of the infinite) and on occasion, stronger moves can make contact with an opponent and yet, you find yourself getting grabbed. Imo, if the grabber takes damage from the opponent being grabbed, a grab break should occur at least, instead of the grabber being allowed to get a potential combo or kill.

 

[CloneHat]

Is there anything that can be done about Super Armor on Grabs? I know it doesnt happen too often, but I dont think its fair in that a rapid attack (Falco's infinite Jab comes to mind, right before the start of the infinite) and on occasion, stronger moves can make contact with an opponent and yet, you find yourself getting grabbed. Imo, if the grabber takes damage from the opponent being grabbed, a grab break should occur at least, instead of the grabber being allowed to get a potential combo or kill.

Grab super armor=grab priority.

Since grabs aren't attacks, SA makes it so they beat out smaller attacks. It does not make them OP, however, 'cause without you would have trouble grabbing much more than a shield.

 

[Revven]

Player priority, unfortunately, cannot be fixed according to what PK told me. Basically, the Wii doesn't keep track of all four players so... there's no way to fix it or remove it rather. At least, that's what I remember PK telling me...

Probably should be removed from the OP, kupo (port priority as something to fix since there's really no way to fix it other than removing it).

 

[Rudra]

Grab super armor=grab priority.

Since grabs aren't attacks, SA makes it so they beat out smaller attacks. It does not make them OP, however, 'cause without you would have trouble grabbing much more than a shield.

They only beat out smaller attacks? I could have sworn that a grab actually did beat out my FSmash with Falco too once, but maybe it only read the attack's tip instead of the base of his wings. Oh well, I guess that I'll have to space my jabs just a little better to avoid that grab since the second hit leading into the infinite's too slow to avoid a grab at close range, though I still think that the grabee taking any damage from the grabbed should result in a grab break...

Player priority, unfortunately, cannot be fixed according to what PK told me. Basically, the Wii doesn't keep track of all four players so... there's no way to fix it or remove it rather. At least, that's what I remember PK telling me...

Probably should be removed from the OP, kupo (port priority as something to fix since there's really no way to fix it other than removing it).

 

[MorpheusVGX]

There are many interesting hacks in here!! This is great!!

AS I LOVE WAVE DASHING AND ALSO LIKE THE AIR DODGE SYSTEM OF BRAWL, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE MELEE AIR DODGE ON ONE BUTTON AND BRAWL AIR DODGE IN THE OTHER. IT WOULD BE GREAT!!! PLEASE CONSIDER THIS!

 

[Deleted member]

1) calm down on the caps, we can read.
2) the melee airdodge is not a priority to adjust at all, so don't expect any coder to spend time on it.
3) try the hybrid airdodge

 

[Shaya]

Momentum Cancelling

In vBrawl, Momentum Cancelling was a very important aspect of survivability and DI 'skill'.

Momentum cancelling made characters such as Game and Watch better for example, with even out of place weight lists, the survivability of individual characters were based on their momentum cancelling AND weight instead of purely just weight.

At the moment in Brawl+, there is ever growing 'hitstun', momentum cancelling is completely nullified and useless. Characters are dieing earlier, and characters such as D3 and G&W's momentum cancelling properties have been absorbed for the 'greater good'.

I don't think Momentum Cancelling, a 'technique' in Brawl that takes skill to master, should be completely removed from Brawl+'s future iterations.

How?

In vBrawl, hitstun still applies to many moves in a 'normal' (i.e. melee-esque) fashion, such as Marth's JAB and Sheik's ftilt. These moves do no allow for air dodging at the same frame until HIGHER percentages. Marth's untippered jab for example NEVER reaching this 'higher point' has 100 frames of hit stun at 999%, whilst still killing, the move completely ignores momentum cancelling.

To include hitstun and combos into brawl+, the process of 'tumbling' in which when a move reaches a certain damage (or some moves start at this point) that the tumble can then be cancelled by an airdodge/aerial was REMOVED. Literally destroying the idea of momentum cancelling.

However, as I said before, moves such as Marth's jab EVEN AT KILL PERCENTS never induces tumbling. This a property that MANY moves in the game could have added to them. It would require WORK and tedious balancing. In other words, every character has COMBO potential moves, that should never induce tumbles, as to allow combos; BUT REAL KILL MOVES THAT WILL SEND AN OPPONENT WAY OUT OF A 'COMBO RANGE' COULD VERY WELL HAVE MOMENTUM CANCELLING.

This will in fact then give a boost to characters such as Rob or Pit, who after a hit that's been momentem cancelled (reducing how early they die off the sides) can then be hit by their lasers/arrows to kill them (lol).

tl;dr
In vBrawl:
Some (rare) moves don't induce tumbling, giving REAL hit stun.
Most moves cause tumbling, allowing an airdodge or whatnot at around frame 13.

Currently in brawl+
No moves induce tumbling (I don't think?)

If brawl+ can be twiqued so to return 'tumbling' into brawl+ at a workable medium (i.e. higher percent kill moves only (e.g. Snake's utilt after 90% or something?) IT COULD BE BETTER FOR THE OVER ALL DEPTH AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE GAME.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Currently in brawl+
No moves induce tumbling (I don't think?)

That is simply not true at all. Tumbling is determined by the launch speed a move causes. This is a static value, not a move property.

If brawl+ can be twiqued so to return 'tumbling' into brawl+ at a workable medium (i.e. higher percent kill moves only (e.g. Snake's utilt after 90% or something?) IT COULD BE BETTER FOR THE OVER ALL DEPTH AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE GAME.

The vast majority of moves already cause tumble. Only set knockback moves, or moves that don't break the launch speed needed for tumble (even at 999% on the lightest character) would even be capable of NOT causing tumble at some point. There were simply a few moves in vbrawl that disabled momentum cancels on them (and we have absolutely no idea how that worked, not to mention that our most briliant coder is taking a well deserved break at the moment).

Momentum canceling will simply not be able to return to brawl+ anytime soon. Not to mention that all that momentum canceling really does is make characters with quick aerials/good aerial acceleration (a second jump that goes far, or some quick move that gives forward momentum like ZSS's down B) more survivability, making these traits more important than the weight or fall speed of the character (which is what determines how far a character is sent in the first place).

And you also haven't really explained WHY momentum canceling should return (not to mention your "how" doesn't work either, as explained earlier). Momentum canceling favors the characters who have faster aerials (which happen to be mostly fast characters), which would scew the balance that we currently have (not that it's perfect, but I think we've done a decent job so far). And for this extra work now added to balancing the game, we gain a technique that becomes strictly muscle memory (do you ever NOT want to momentum cancel?). Even DI can be done by pure reaction on most moves, do you not think momentum canceling would be the same? (it was certainly that way in vbrawl)

The purpose of hitstun is to disable a player from taking ANY action for a certain amount of time after a hit. Why should high launch speed moves be treated differently than low launch speed moves in this regard? Momentum canceling is NOT hard to learn, and the net result is simply a shift in survivability. Any "skill" added by it is insignificant, as it can essentially be commited to muscle memory in a 10 minute training session.

 

[goodoldganon]

Momentum Cancelling

In vBrawl, Momentum Cancelling was a very important aspect of survivability and DI 'skill'.

Momentum cancelling made characters such as Game and Watch better for example, with even out of place weight lists, the survivability of individual characters were based on their momentum cancelling AND weight instead of purely just weight.

Agreed. G and W mains have accepted it as a nerf to their weight. G and W's survivability in B+ fell, HARD.

At the moment in Brawl+, there is ever growing 'hitstun', momentum cancelling is completely nullified and useless. Characters are dieing earlier, and characters such as D3 and G&W's momentum cancelling properties have been absorbed for the 'greater good'.

Wrong. Momentum canceling still exists in Brawl+, you just have to wait to exit hitstun. I suppose that doesn't make it true momentum canceling but a less form of it still exists in Brawl+. You can still jump and aerial after hitstun ends to prevent being pushed back further.

I don't think Momentum Cancelling, a 'technique' in Brawl that takes skill to master, should be completely removed from Brawl+'s future iterations.

I'd argue that it really doesn't take skill but that is besides the point. The point is, in vBrawl there was no reason to not momentum cancel a KO move. Why would you NOT want to live longer. Arbitrary tech skill is something we are avoiding in Brawl+, hence no l-canceling. You don't HAVE to dash cancel every run, it just gives you extra options on the approach if you choose to. Dash attack, grab, etc are still viable options instead of a dash cancel.

In vBrawl, hitstun still applies to many moves in a 'normal' (i.e. melee-esque) fashion, such as Marth's JAB and Sheik's ftilt. These moves do no allow for air dodging at the same frame until HIGHER percentages. Marth's untippered jab for example NEVER reaching this 'higher point' has 100 frames of hit stun at 999%, whilst still killing, the move completely ignores momentum cancelling.

To include hitstun and combos into brawl+, the process of 'tumbling' in which when a move reaches a certain damage (or some moves start at this point) that the tumble can then be cancelled by an airdodge/aerial was REMOVED. Literally destroying the idea of momentum cancelling.

No, that's called hitstun.

However, as I said before, moves such as Marth's jab EVEN AT KILL PERCENTS never induces tumbling. This a property that MANY moves in the game could have added to them. It would require WORK and tedious balancing. In other words, every character has COMBO potential moves, that should never induce tumbles, as to allow combos; BUT REAL KILL MOVES THAT WILL SEND AN OPPONENT WAY OUT OF A 'COMBO RANGE' COULD VERY WELL HAVE MOMENTUM CANCELLING.

So you basically want a blanket nerf to KO moves across the board or to give some characters more weight?

This will in fact then give a boost to characters such as Rob or Pit, who after a hit that's been momentem cancelled (reducing how early they die off the sides) can then be hit by their lasers/arrows to kill them (lol).

I heard ROB needs help...

tl;dr
In vBrawl:
Some (rare) moves don't induce tumbling, giving REAL hit stun.
Most moves cause tumbling, allowing an airdodge or whatnot at around frame 13.

Currently in brawl+
No moves induce tumbling (I don't think?)

If brawl+ can be twiqued so to return 'tumbling' into brawl+ at a workable medium (i.e. higher percent kill moves only (e.g. Snake's utilt after 90% or something?) IT COULD BE BETTER FOR THE OVER ALL DEPTH AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE GAME.

It comes down this. Why would you not want to momentum cancel a KO move? This would basically be an increase to everyone's weight in the game for what? Longer matches? More edgeguarding? I'd rather not. Here's an idea...don't get hit by the KO move or the move that leads into it. What you are asking for is an entire retooling of the way B+ works for a simple to learn tech skill that offers 0 depth to the game and instead just makes everyone slightly harder to kill.

It really is one of the reasons many of us moved to Brawl+. Not enough punishment for a mistake. I wish I hadn't ****ed up my approaches from time to time and gotten KO'd for it, but tough luck. I'll play better next time and learn from my mistakes.

Also, you are misusing the word tumble. Go thunderstomp someone with Ganondorf around 60% and you'll see they go into tumble, you just can't Air dodge during that time because you are in hitstun. So basically you are asking for the ability to air dodge directly out of all KO moves when you are in kill range? Sorry that isn't going to happen. You're better off asking for certain characters to have more weight attached to them. But weight isn't always a buff. Look at Roy. 'Heavier' then Marth but gets combo'd like a mofo.

 

[Shaya]

I like the argument =)

However if you have a KO move hitting you, it only increases a character's survivability by so much. Good DI makes a move kill perhaps 20% later, momentum cancelling (unless it's a very long distance, or they have things like bucket breaking) is more important on the longer distances.

AS brawl+ doesn't have move decay, as brawl+ has larger hit stun, and as there is no momentum cancelling (I'm sure there are other things), characters are losing stocks extensively earlier than before. Is this a good thing? Is this better for the competitiveness of the game that things inherently go faster? Yes, probably.

Tacking on weight to individual characters is perhaps worse, as you've said, making them combo beacons, an attempt of balance between the heavies and lighter characters in smash (inc vbrawl). You could then say momentum cancelling gave even more advantages to lighter characters, but as a character like D3 having the 4th weight, but multiple jumps and one of the best aerials for a heavy, he has amazing momentum cancelling and survivability...

Yes you wouldn't 'not' want to momentum cancel, to most it becomes an automatic part of their playing, it's still character situational to a degree, but as it does add a semblance of depth to characters (G&W and rob/pit also being examples).

Having brawl's momentum cancelling is one thing, a brawl+ style of momentum cancelling is another (perhaps 50% hit stun, not just 13 frames... who knows). But if it's definitely infathomable that KO (maybe even 'some', to me this all seems to attach depth) moves that are exceeding average death speeds (6000mph?) could be momentum cancelled, and detracts away from the idea of "punishment" being more applicable in brawl+, and being faster, etc etc, then take the suggestion as it were, 'useless'.

But I think it could work.
Sorry that I may not have been using the right terms here (i.e. tumbling).
And sorry for Dark Sonic for not really addressing anything you said, I agree it makes characters with faster aerials 'better', but that is an avenue of change for brawl+.

As in, Brawl+ taking away inherent things that were apart of vBrawl, instead of perhaps using them for it's advancement may not make the 'near completed' project as AWESOME as it could possibly be.

I really enjoy brawl+, and because I like it I will always attempt to present ideas that I feel could be beneficial to it's development .

 

[Deleted member]

I'm just gonna say that I'm NOT gonna spend time on this. for reason see DS and GoG their posts.

 

[kupo15]

Removed port priority from the list. How does this sound. If you grab a player and get damage, then it forces a grab break.

 

[Rudra]

Removed port priority from the list. How does this sound. If you grab a player and get damage, then it forces a grab break.

Sounds good to me.

 

[kupo15]

I'm not saying that I agree to add momentum canceling because that means we would have to remove hitstun, but

I'd argue that it really doesn't take skill but that is besides the point. The point is, in vBrawl there was no reason to not momentum cancel a KO move. Why would you NOT want to live longer.

So what? There is something that is added by being able to DO it... to perform a skill. If you limit yourself to things that are situation and critical thinking, I believe that you are missing out on some of what it takes to be a good player and to be good at a game. As we are well aware, the technical aspect of this game is severely lacking and it seems like we are trying our best to keep it this way by not accepting things that are technical.

You have decision making and technique of being able to perform the things that you want. By only limiting it to the decisions, it could make things a little bland because its much easier to decide what to do when you have no technical restrictions, but by adding back technique in addition to decisions makes the game a bit more interesting and skillful because you have to be more engaged. Every game has its decision making but what makes it interesting is the technical aspect behind the game as well.

I don't think that even for something straight forward is bad to include because its another aspect of the game to brush up on and get good at. You get hit, the best option is to chose your fastest aerial then recover. Is it technically hard? No. But there is the aspect of being able to react to an unsuspecting hit which is a different type of depth that we ignore because its "arbitrary tech skill." When you have a lot of things to keep track of, even adding something simple technically could still add something to the game and give you something to think on so your mind can't take a break and when you do decide to daydream a little bit, you get punished even if the task is simple.

So basically what I'm saying is, "arbitrary tech skills" may not be as bad as we thought it was and maybe we should think about these "arbitrary tech skills" in a different way because if we remove the technique from the game, then all we have is the decision making which is easier to do without learning technique. There is some merit in having technique in this game to master even if its small.

(I don't support momentum canceling)