Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Thinkaman]

I actually disagree with Ampharos on this one, or at least the way his point was presented.

Can you tell me why, as a player, I don't deserve to have advantages from my unique skills?

I think this is the wrong way of looking at it. I think the correct way can be summed up plainly:

• Simply knowing things is a really poor skill test.
• Memorizing information is tedious to do and boring to watch.
• We could easily add tons of memorization tests to any game, and it would make them transparently worse.
• This is because simply knowing something is a binary skill test, the lowest-grade kind.
  • The only saving grace is that everyone is capable of learning knowledge somewhat easily and quickly.

• Applied knowledge is almost always a much deeper skill test.
• Figuring how how to utilize information and find dynamic solutions is exciting to both play and watch.
• Memorization has zero creativity, but application often allows immense creativity.

To be blunt, I don't think you (or I or anyone) deserve to have any sort of advantage purely because they discovered or memorized a lot of stuff.

I think we should have to work to apply that information, before we become entitled to any sort of result.

 

[<π]

I actually disagree with Ampharos on this one, or at least the way his point was presented.



I think this is the wrong way of looking at it. I think the correct way can be summed up plainly:

• Simply knowing things is a really poor skill test.
• Memorizing information is tedious to do and boring to watch.
• We could easily add tons of memorization tests to any game, and it would make them transparently worse.
• This is because simply knowing something is a binary skill test, the lowest-grade kind.
  • The only saving grace is that everyone is capable of learning knowledge somewhat easily and quickly.

• Applied knowledge is almost always a much deeper skill test.
• Figuring how how to utilize information and find dynamic solutions is exciting to both play and watch.
• Memorization has zero creativity, but application often allows immense creativity.

To be blunt, I don't think you (or I or anyone) deserve to have any sort of advantage purely because they discovered or memorized a lot of stuff.

I think we should have to work to apply that information, before we become entitled to any sort of result.

It may not be optimal but that will always be how it is. In melee and brawl memorizing chain grabs gave players a huge advantage over players who did not take the time to for example. Players in a competitive environment will always be looking at data memorization as a way to advance themselves and give them an advantage or edge. It doesn't make sense not to.

It is up to designers and then us the ruleset creators to determine how impactful that stuff is. but even there are hard bans (regrab limit in smash 4, infinite breaks in other fighters) or soft community proposed bans (chain grab limits for example) players will sit down and memorize some other useful skill.

Personally I think the idea of widening the game so that memorizing every nuance and detail becomes some unreasonable task is a great option. yes you may have your chain grabs down. but on this stage you can't do it! yeah you understand this stage better than me, but I have my counter pick that I've been working on. A wide ruleset gives us an opportunity to counter memorization when one can only memorize so much. When you find yourself in a new situation I believe THAT is where the game gets exciting for players and even more so for spectators.

 

[dragontamer]

It may not be optimal but that will always be how it is. In melee and brawl memorizing chain grabs gave players a huge advantage over players who did not take the time to for example. Players in a competitive environment will always be looking at data memorization as a way to advance themselves and give them an advantage or edge. It doesn't make sense not to.

Chain-grabs is depth of memorization, not breadth of memorization. Learning about 12-attacks, 9-of which you don't plan to use: Breadth. You're spending more time learning about stuff that doesn't actually affect the current game... at best, it affects the metagame / character choice screen. But not the actual combat situation.

Learning about the 5 or 6 different combos after one attack: Depth of Knowledge. I think everyone can agree that knowledge depth is a good thing and makes things interesting.

Smash4 already has a seriously huge breadth issue compared to Melee and Brawl. Again, if you have a primary and secondary, that's 98 matchups you have to learn in this game. Compared to 52 Matchups in Melee (which was severely unbalanced. You probably could have gotten away with only the matchup knowledge of the top 6 characters on the tier list for ~12 matchups), or 78 Matchups in Brawl (also severely unbalanced and only had to learn maybe ~20 matchups in practice).

To prepare yourself against a variety of opponents is breadth. Only one matchup matters during a fight: the current one. There's no need to worry how Lucario's aura-sphere changes in priority, size, and damage at higher aura if you're fighting in a Mario vs Luigi match. But both the Mario and Luigi players had to learn that knowledge anyway.

 

[Thinkaman]

However, I always always always prefer games that reward depth of knowledge beyond breadth of knowledge.

First, I can't tell you what a relief it is when someone understand the distinction. People who say depth when they mean breadth makes discussing many topics really difficult and annoying.

But anyway, it could be a character-choice issue. Studying and fully mastering Pacman's neutral B takes an extraordinary amount of time longer than most characters. That single attack represents 8 different projectiles in Pacman's toolkit... a total of 24 different projectiles that I have to teach myself in the customs metagame (each of which cross each other in a Pacman vs Pacman mirror).

Yeah... Cherry, Freaky Cherry, Lazy Cherry, Strawberry, Freaky Strawberry, Lazy Strawberry... Orange, Apple, Melon, Galaga, Bell... Key, Freaky Key, Lazy Key. Total of 24 when you count them out, each with their own damage, hitbox, speeds, knockback, priority.

The "rethrow" also changes the priority of the projectile. B-thrown Cherry cancels out Lucario Aura Spheres, but pick it up and throw it with A lowers its priority. Instead of clashing, it gets beaten... but only in the Lucario Matchup it seems. So really, there are 48 projectile properties I need to learn (24 from throwing it with "B", and then 24 more from catching it and rethrowing with "A"), some of which have combo opportunities (There are some vanilla Galaxian combos across Battlefield involving attacking while simultaneously catching the Galexian as it "loops" in the direction of one of its 3 random cycles), and all of which are affected by matchup knowledge.

That's a lot of matchup knowledge I have to learn, and that's only one single vanilla attack. So maybe things look far harder for me due to my choice in who I main.

Heh, you beelined for the worst-case knowledge burden.

Bonus Fruit is truly a crazy move, almost certainly the single most complicated move in the game. Learning it is truly daunting.

This makes Freaky Fruit easily the most difficult custom to learn. There's no way around it. It's 8 more things to learn, though 4 of them are very similar.

Slow Fruit would be too, but people tend to agree that it's not very good or worth using. It's too weak, too easy for the enemy to catch initially, and simply too slow to be a threat. It lacks the shield pressure and stage control of the others, with nothing in return; it might be decent if Pac-Man had a really good grab to work with it, but LOL. For better or for worse, the third Fruit option is not actually an option. (Sort of a shame; slow galexian and slow key are pretty fun if not actually good)

There are a few other customs that are non-trivial to learn:

• Understanding all the options out of Super Speed is daunting, because the answer is "basically all of them".
• Lightweight also changes up a lot of Palutena behaviors.
• Timber Counter emphasizes knowing exactly which moves do at least 15%, and thus can OHKO the tree.
• Extreme Monado Arts is unpopular, but does require relearning a lot about the character if you want to learn it.
• Zigzag Can totally changes how Duck Hunt is played.
• Luma Warp opens up a lot of new, faster options with Luma.

However, these are definitively exceptions. While they are non-trivial, they represent barely 1% of the special moves in the game.

What's more, we can look at them on a case-by-case basis. Each of them adds an usually significant amount of gameplay to the game, the more than excuses the knowledge burden.

This is much the same way as adding entire characters increases the knowledge burden, but is absolutely worth it due to the gameplay added.

 

[<π]

I don't believe match up memorization is the kind of "bad" memorization thinkaman was talking about. But more of memorization that gives a player a polarizing advantage over another player without that same knowledge. D3's chain grab for example gave him easy wins over a large percentage of the cast, it didn't require character specific memorization. Or worse the Ice climbers with the infinites. This kind of memorization leads to uninteresting game play for all parties involved except MAYBE the Chain grabber... maybe, some people have the god complex. It creates these situations where there is no drama or suspense... and that isn't dramatic or suspenseful.

I'm sure there are other things one can memorize that give you a polarizing advantage. quirks in a level, a "random" glitch, but I feel that by expanding the scope (or shrinking it in some cases) of a ruleset you mitigate the effects of these types of memorization, through stage bans and solid play.

match up knowledge is neat but when you are up against another player there will constantly be other factors being thrown into the mix that you just can't memorize; the parts before the chain grab, before the infinite.

 

[dragontamer]

@ Thinkaman

Its less me beelining towards that option, and the blatantly obvious one that's been staring at me in the face since we started this discussion. My main is PacMan... so needless to say I'm quite intimidated at relearning Fruit. And Hydrant for that matter. Fire Hydrant is popular, and relearning its attacks (after learning the timing for hydrant dashing and Hydrant floating) is... also intimidating.

If the other characters are simpler, maybe I'd be up for it. But again, I'm honestly very intimidated at options that the custom moves offer.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Knowledge isn't a boolean thing though; it's not that you either know things or don't. Everyone knows some amount of stuff and doesn't know some other amount of stuff; no player has perfect knowledge. Just looking at it as a barrier of entry is greatly simplifying, and honestly your long explanation of Pac-Man's Bonus Fruit only re-enforces what I'm trying to get at here. Do you really think any opponent of yours, excluding perhaps another Pac-Man main, is going to know half the stuff you do about that move? Of course not! I consider Pac-Man a low priority (since I think he's bad) and probably couldn't even tell you the precise order his fruits cycle, and I study a lot of stuff about the game. Other people who study less might not even realize the fruit is catchable or something else more drastic. Does what you know give you an advantage? Well, I sure hope so; it wasn't very worthwhile for you to study all of those details if you aren't being helped by knowing them. If you win over an opponent who doesn't know as much as you, is it a dirty win since they were, relative to you, ignorant? I wouldn't say so. Why would you even learn to play a complicated character if not to secure a knowledge advantage? Why not just drop Pac-Man for Diddy who has a much easier to learn neutral special and is better anyway if you don't even like winning thanks to your esoteric Pac-Man knowledge?

I do agree high knowledge opponents are my favorite ones to play, but there is a very real asymmetry in my knowledge versus any other high knowledge player, and the fun there is in seeing which of us made better choices in what to focus on as will be judged by the win. When I play low knowledge players, who often are way better than I am at execution and other such things and will pretty much always beat me in a "straight up" fight, my goal is to dig into my bag of tricks to find something they don't know how to deal with or at the very least are impeded by enough to let me squeak by. While I certainly enjoy the game of chess with high knowledge players the most, playing against opponents who are "better" than I am and playing the game of consulting my mental library to see if I have something, anything, that can change the story is something I love doing too. I love seeing players with skillsets completely different from my own challenge me and force me to try to fight their deadly apples with my oranges, and I don't think we need to write the rules to make my oranges less effective since they always do have the option of just being even faster yet or whatever it is they're good at to render my tricks and traps insufficiently advantageous to me to secure the win.

I think the depth vs breadth thing misses the bigger picture here. Just like knowledge isn't boolean for players (it's not just ignorant players versus informed players; every player is somewhere in-between), the type of knowledge you have is variable too. You can precisely learn how one thing interacts with every other thing as a case by case memorization study. Alternatively, you can look for ways to generalize. So I was playing a Charizard player the other day and discovered Luma Warp was very good at hitting him past his safe Flamethrowers that were otherwise out of range of my other punishes. I could leave it at that; memorize that, in the Rosalina versus Charizard match-up, Luma Warp is a useful answer to Flamethrower. That's narrow knowledge. I could instead generalize. What if instead of a Charizard using Flamethrower it was a Shulk spacing nairs? Would the same thing work? I bet it would. What if a Villager player is weaving in and out of Timber Counter, using the threat of its hitboxes to keep me away? I could Luma Warp that too! What I really needed to learn was how to use Luma Warp to counter zoning which is a general piece of knowledge. Then I can apply that to any situation in which I'm getting zoned, and it's so general that I could even apply it against characters who don't typically zone (like maybe some unorthodox Diddy Kong player is zoning with his long ftilt; I could use Luma Warp as an option to shut that down despite the fact that I never will again fight a Diddy Kong player who uses a zoning gameplan).

That's why I think it's bunk to say the game already has a breadth issue. You don't learn 1/51 match-ups and only use what you learned in that one and find it useless in the other 50/51. Everything you learn can be made applicable in a ton of situations, and part of the interesting skill test of being a high knowledge player is figuring out how to connect the dots. Learning how to deal with Lucario's aura variant Aura Sphere should along the road be teaching you how to fight a Samus player who fires off partially charged Charge Shot (see also: Wii Fit Trainer), how to account for the rage mechanic, how to mix up your approaches against Charizard and Bowser as their fire breath moves are at different levels of ready, how to manage your risk in approaching an Olimar based on his pikmin line, and all sorts of other things that might not instantly be obvious. In fact, a big part of the knowledge test is being able to connect various seemingly irrelevant pieces of knowledge, pieces that may not have originally even belonged to the match-up you're playing right now, and use them to put together a winning gameplan. I actually consider players who just memorize stuff low knowledge players no matter how much they know and players who can dig down to how things work and can use their knowledge flexibly as the high knowledge ones, and having as much stuff in the game so memorizing every detail is as impossible as can be rewards the kind of knowledge I'm talking about here and discourages memorizing since it's just impossible past some point (or I should say it forces you to be judicious about what you do memorize, and applying that judgment correctly is yet another interesting skill test).

And as per the depth, honestly adding more game elements is the surest way to have more of it since some simply are far deeper than others and, in a game of free options, the deepest ones do the best over time presuming there's nothing broken (and as far as we can tell, there isn't). Let me use a Rosalina example. Rosalina's default side special, Star Bits, is a pretty poor move. It doesn't control a lot of space and is pretty unsafe. It has really situational use being a disjoint from Luma, but it's an unimpressive move with the main knowledge challenge being "can I find any use for this move at all?". There's just not a lot there. Both custom options, Floaty Star Bit and Shooting Star Bit, are very good moves that can be used in a million different ways. I could spend hours discussing either one individually or the complex choice Rosalina faces between them (and further how in real match situations I have to use my knowledge I gained about my opponent in game one to decide which one to pack in games 2 and 3!). Rosalina as a character is simply a deeper, more interesting character when I am allowed to use a side special that isn't the lousy default. This is taken to the extreme when it comes to characters who are only viable with customs legal ("Don't pick Palutena" is a pretty shallow character metagame), and even more, time and natural selection will cause game elements with the most nuance to rise up as the characters with naturally more limited options (like my old Brawl friend G&W...) will fall behind. Allowing the most options will, naturally, optimally allow the deepest things in the game to exist and eventually exert themselves at the top, and so it's not just about the nerds among it, it also includes the most different elements so everyone will be able to find something that synchronizes with what they want to do to try to win.

In short, I don't agree.

 

[KuroKitt10]

I actually disagree with Ampharos on this one, or at least the way his point was presented.



I think this is the wrong way of looking at it. I think the correct way can be summed up plainly:

• Simply knowing things is a really poor skill test.
• Memorizing information is tedious to do and boring to watch.
• We could easily add tons of memorization tests to any game, and it would make them transparently worse.
• This is because simply knowing something is a binary skill test, the lowest-grade kind.
  • The only saving grace is that everyone is capable of learning knowledge somewhat easily and quickly.

• Applied knowledge is almost always a much deeper skill test.
• Figuring how how to utilize information and find dynamic solutions is exciting to both play and watch.
• Memorization has zero creativity, but application often allows immense creativity.

To be blunt, I don't think you (or I or anyone) deserve to have any sort of advantage purely because they discovered or memorized a lot of stuff.

I think we should have to work to apply that information, before we become entitled to any sort of result.

This is an amazingly worded point. I believe someone previously also brought up the concepts of depth of play versus breadth of play, and that applies here as well. While breadth can certainly increase the amount of gameplay depth, it does not guarantee to, and can often do just the opposite. When considering whether special moves make sense for creating a healthy, engaging competitive scene, we essentially must ask whether the increase in breadth (and thus required and necessary “book knowledge”) gives us a valuable increase in gameplay (or spectating) depth.

With a game that is already fairly broad from the get go, increasing that breadth farther by creating match-ups within match-ups seems unlikely to have a positive impact on the competitive depth of Smash 4 to me. Smash is already a complex, deep, and interesting game; I really don’t feel it needs more content, and I haven’t seen a game changing argument for how including custom moves creates a deeper and richer version of Smash. A more complex one, for sure, but is it a significantly better one?

 

[Thinkaman]

I will be the first to argue that all breadth comes at the cost of depth in a fixed context.

For example, the limited amount of human analysis that is possible in a small amount of time. Like all decisions during a fighting game, made in the heat of a moment. The more options you have to consider in those split-seconds, the less depth you can cognitively consider for each option.

But this is only true in that bound context. When the bound is removed, breadth and depth no longer have an inverse relationship.


For example:
If you gave every character twice as many options at any given moment of battle, the game would have far less depth.

But if you added twice as many characters to the game, the depth of the existing gameplay would not change. Adding Mega Man, Pac-Man, and Shulk to the game does not make the Sheik/Mario matchup more or less deep.

 

[dragontamer]

Knowledge isn't a boolean thing though; it's not that you either know things or don't. Everyone knows some amount of stuff and doesn't know some other amount of stuff; no player has perfect knowledge. Just looking at it as a barrier of entry is greatly simplifying, and honestly your long explanation of Pac-Man's Bonus Fruit only re-enforces what I'm trying to get at here. Do you really think any opponent of yours, excluding perhaps another Pac-Man main, is going to know half the stuff you do about that move? Of course not! I consider Pac-Man a low priority (since I think he's bad) and probably couldn't even tell you the precise order his fruits cycle, and I study a lot of stuff about the game. Other people who study less might not even realize the fruit is catchable or something else more drastic. Does what you know give you an advantage? Well, I sure hope so; it wasn't very worthwhile for you to study all of those details if you aren't being helped by knowing them. If you win over an opponent who doesn't know as much as you, is it a dirty win since they were, relative to you, ignorant? I wouldn't say so. Why would you even learn to play a complicated character if not to secure a knowledge advantage?

I guess I'm a different player than you.

This has happened... virtually against every player I've played in person. Not many people play PacMan, so I have to sit down and tell them things. A Lucario player doesn't need to learn that Mario fireballs cancel Melon in one hit. But if the Lucario is playing overly defensive against me, I will tell him that "Yo, microspheres cancel that Melon out. You should be winning the neutral game right now".

Ditto with a Mario player who didn't realize that Mario's Fireballs clashes against a number of PacMan's projectiles. I tell my opponents things after the game, and offer them rematches if I felt like this knowledge affected the game. I treat this as a common courtesy in fighting games.

Believe it or not, I don't just grab the Mario up-tilt combo and do it blindly on opponents. After I win a match, I tell them "You know you can escape the up-tilt combo with correct DI. Wanna try it out in training mode??". Honestly, it isn't fun to win with "tricks" like that. I want to make sure the opponent understands the mind games and traps I am putting him into... not the simple low-hanging fruit like correct DI to escape specific "combos".

I mean, sure, if they play me enough, they will learn the tricks eventually. But I'd rather shortcut the practice and make sure my opponent gets to the top of his game ASAP. As you note:

I do agree high knowledge opponents are my favorite ones to play

I fully agree with you. So I make my opponents a higher-knowledge player ASAP.

Otherwise, I think you're being a bit disingenuous. If you honestly like your opponents to have lots of knowledge, the easiest way to get there is to teach your opponent your tricks in a practice match. As long as money isn't on the line, I'm more than willing to tell my opponents my weakpoints and strategy.

Not everyone listens, but that's fine. Explaining things is a chore anyway (and listening to random dudes who tell you facts about games is also kinda demeaning in ways). So I try not to demean my opponents. But still, in the issue of fairness and competition, it is essential for my opponent to know the matchup as he comes into the fight. I do what I can to make the match fair.

Why not just drop Pac-Man for Diddy who has a much easier to learn neutral special and is better anyway if you don't even like winning thanks to your esoteric Pac-Man knowledge?

Cause I am confident in my choice right now, and I don't believe switching to Diddy is actually offering me an advantage. PacMan seems to go even in a lot of matchups actually, outside a couple few which seem to be covered by my secondary Robin.

It takes months to master a character. I dare say that no Smash4 masters even exist right now. The matchup knowledge of this game is too broad, I bet you that no person in the US has actually played against a tourny-level opponent of every character yet.

Master GG:AC players know what I'm talking about. Finding that rare Bridget or Johnny player and knowing what to do in that matchup really separates the good from the best.

I think the depth vs breadth thing misses the bigger picture here. Just like knowledge isn't boolean for players (it's not just ignorant players versus informed players; every player is somewhere in-between), the type of knowledge you have is variable too. You can precisely learn how one thing interacts with every other thing as a case by case memorization study. Alternatively, you can look for ways to generalize.

Generalizing is not how you become a master.

I put forth the effort to know everything on a case-by-case memorization study. Its part of my toolkit as I enter matchups. I know opponents aren't as kind as me, and they sometimes won't tell me why I win or lose a fight. So its my responsibility to rise to the challenge.

And part of that responsibility is fully understanding the full cross-section of attack clashes in every single matchup that my character (and secondary character) can do.

Knowledge is binary man. You either know that Mario's Up-B (which can be executed OOS) is frame1 invincible, or you don't. Period. Either you know to DI upward to escape Mario's up-tilt... or you don't. Either you know about Jigglypuff's "crouch to evade throws", or you don't.

I don't want to win... or lose... because of ignorance. There's no way to generalize this sort of in-depth masterful knowledge without going through every single attack in the game, and studying it's interaction against every other attack in the game. A full cross-section of knowledge is not required, but you should at least enter a tournament with all the relevant knowledge of your primary and secondary memorized.

In short, I don't agree.

You are welcome to disagree.

 

[Thinkaman]

Knowledge is binary man. You either know that Mario's Up-B (which can be executed OOS) is frame1 invincible, or you don't.

I think we concluded it's actually still frame 3.

>_>

<_<

Just throwing that out there. #OneLessKnowledgeBarrier

 

[dragontamer]

@ Thinkaman Bah, wtf. :-(

Well, good to learn now rather than later.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Oh, of course I tell people anything they want to know that I know. I'm not insecure about having a knowledge edge to the point that I feel as though out of game deception is necessary to maintain it, and I do the very most I can do to spread knowledge online which I hope I've made clear over time through how I act on these forums (I'm trying to help more studious players prevail everywhere!). A lot of what I know isn't really communicable anyway (things about spacing especially); I don't think it's possible for me to impart everything I know on other people. It doesn't mean I'm not willing to share to the extent I'm able. My bag of tricks is very deep and grows deeper every day; I am totally willing to share the secret to any of them, and I actually like doing so since opponents that force me to stop using one shenanigan are only offering me a chance to develop another (likely very similar) one and to expand my library. I also think it's way too much to actually memorize every cross-section when you can just learn some smaller set of stuff that is more fundamental and the rules that make it work together. Like... why would you memorize the multiplication table out to seven digits to multiply two seven digit numbers when you could memorize it for one digit and the rules of how it works to calculate for seven digits? That second approach is even better for fighting games than for mathematics since there are way more moves and mechanics in smash than they are one digit products so learning rules lets you quickly account for stuff you really haven't seen before, and there will always, always be stuff you haven't seen before no matter how mature the metagame is so you have to be ready to deal with seeing something new on the spot.

This is getting wildly off-topic from ruleset discussion so let's bring this point back to "why custom moves should be legal". It's not very much to learn the basics of how every move works; I knew that before the Wii U version even came out, and if anything I said was interpreted as me bragging that I know what a few hundred animations looks like (something super easy that anyone can easily learn), I'm sorry for being unclear. Let me drop an extremely approximate but mathematical way to look at this. Every character already has 18 normals you had to learn (jab, 3 tilts, 3 smashes, 3 grabs, 5 aerials, dash attack, ledge attack, get-up attack). Without custom specials you have to account for four special moves. With custom specials they have 12, 8 of which on most characters are variations with the four you had to learn no matter what so you have to learn less extra to understand them than you do for other moves; for the sake of argument, let's say it's half as hard to learn a custom variation than to learn a new move. Then you have to learn all about how that character's non-attacking movement works which let's just say for the sake of argument is about as hard as learning four moves (movement is extremely nuanced and difficult to learn). Then you have to learn several things about that character's hurtbox shape, weight, and other defensive physics (like traction can play in here a lot); that's probably about as hard as learning about two moves. Then you have to learn about their defensive moves: rolls, spotdodge, airdodge which tend to be very similar across characters but still something unique, about a move's worth of work. So the total "effort" to learn a single generic character in no customs is 29. In customs it's 33. That's asking you to learn about 14% more stuff directly to have a game with way more character balance that also has a greater average depth among good options. More viable characters and more depth among good options is what rewards the kind of knowledge I seek. Even if you just hate learning about a large breadth of things, it seems to me to be pretty overwhelmingly on the "worth it" side as you seem to agree that that sort of thing is good. The only perspective I see finding a significant downside to custom moves is the side that just wanted a smaller and easier game in the first place and would probably consider fewer viable characters and less deep dominant options a good thing, but I don't think any of us really look at it that way...

 

[dragontamer]

Then you have to learn about their defensive moves: rolls, spotdodge, airdodge which tend to be very similar across characters but still something unique, about a move's worth of work. So the total "effort" to learn a single generic character in no customs is 29. In customs it's 33. That's asking you to learn about 14% more stuff directly to have a game with way more character balance that also has a greater average depth among good options.

Your math is very fuzzy, and also grossly simplifies the game.

Learning individual moves is not the issue. The difficult part of mastering a matchup is mastering the attack interactions. I'm going to go back to an earlier post of yours to demonstrate.

Learning how to deal with Lucario's aura variant Aura Sphere should along the road be teaching you how to fight a Samus player who fires off partially charged Charge Shot (see also: Wii Fit Trainer)

You'd think Lucario, Samus, and WiiFit Trainer (and lets put Megaman's Smash in there too) would all be similar... but this is a beginner's mistake if you honestly think the game is this simple.

In the PacMan matchup vs these characters, a fully charged key cancels out and out-prioritizes their "charge shot" attacks... except for one of them. I'll leave the answer as an exercise to the reader. Furthermore, the Lucario Aura Sphere has massive B-Reversal / Wavebounce potential that Samus doesn't have. I don't believe a fully-charged Samus-blast hits you off the ledge either during the wakeup game.

Understanding the deep differences between these attacks only happens once you've explored character interactions. IIIRC, Jiggly can duck under Samus micro-shots but not Lucario micro-spheres for example.

Its not about learning 29 attacks of your own, and then 29 attacks of your opponent. Its about learning 29 attacks CROSS the 29 attacks of your opponent. That's standard game has roughly 29 x 29, or 841 situations per matchup. (I know most situations don't come up, but my point is that the difficulty grows at O(n^2)).

Take a guess how the 12 customizable moves in the affects this?

This doesn't even take into account compound B attacks, such as Pacman's freaky fruit (which is basically 8 new attacks in a single attack). Guardian Luma from Rosalina or whatever. It also doesn't take into account attacks that interact with other attacks in your toolkit, such which angle a Z-Dropped Apple will launch the Hydrant vs a Z-Dropped Melon vs Z-Dropped Key.

The amount of breadth you need to learn to be a master in this game is already huge in scope. And that's why I'm surprised that you're not satisfied and would already want to explore the new options. We barely even understand the vanilla game yet, and how the various attacks interact with each other. And you're already talking about expanding the metagame and giving everyone access to more attacks?

More viable characters and more depth among good options is what rewards the kind of knowledge I seek.

I've lived with Melee, MvC2 and other games with 5 playable top tier characters. I've played games like Blazblue which launch with like ~10 playable characters (and a smaller high / top-tier). Character viability is very low on my priority list honestly.

As long as enough characters are viable, I'll be happy.

 

[xquqx]

I've lived with Melee, MvC2 and other games with 5 playable top tier characters. I've played games like Blazblue which launch with like ~10 playable characters (and a smaller high / top-tier). Character viability is very low on my priority list honestly.

As long as enough characters are viable, I'll be happy.

How many do you consider enough? I'd rather have 45+ viable characters at the expense of needing to learn different specials than the base ones. Key word being different, rather than all. As time goes on, a single moveset (or maaaaybe two) will become optimal for any given match up. For you, it'd be less about learning how to deal with all 12 of the opponent's possible moves, and more about learning which 4 any given character is likely to bring against you, and then learning how to deal with those 4. While this is a bit more work, I don't think it's as big a deal as you're making it out to be. If someone ended up switching to a less optimal move that you didn't know, then sure, you'd be caught of guard at first, but it's not very hard to adapt to a probably less useful single move (that is in itself a variation on a move you know). Especially since the alternative is running into a low tier hero using a character you've never even seen played competitively, much less know how to deal with.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I one lost a Pokémon Tournament to a Talonflame who ran Solar Beam in a team with no Drought (I was actually the one with MegaCharizard-Y). Knowing that my opponent COULD have it would've been depth or breadth?

Anyway, dragontamer, you keep saying you're the one to learn and teach. Why can't you be the one to be taught? That's what this discussion forum is for. IMHO.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I one lost a Pokémon Tournament to a Talonflame who ran Solar Beam in a team with no Drought (I was actually the one with MegaCharizard-Y). Knowing that my opponent COULD have it would've been depth or breadth?

Anyway, dragontamer, you keep saying you're the one to learn and teach. Why can't you be the one to be taught? That's what this discussion forum is for. IMHO.

I'd say breadth because it's one thing to idly note that huh, Talonflame can learn Solarbeam but another to actually plan and prepare for it because...Solarbeam Talonflame. I'd be more worried about priority Brave Bird.

 

[dragontamer]

I one lost a Pokémon Tournament to a Talonflame who ran Solar Beam in a team with no Drought (I was actually the one with MegaCharizard-Y). Knowing that my opponent COULD have it would've been depth or breadth?

IMO, knowing that the Bulk Up / Roost +SpD Variant of Talonflame beats Scald from 252/252+ HP/Def Slowbro / Rotom-W / Heatran is the breadth thingy that makes Pokemon quite fun. Its downright scary what Talonflame can do to your team...

Again though, Pokemon's game is about metagame choices. Its entirely built around the metagame. I don't really feel like bringing that aspect to fighters, honestly.

Anyway, dragontamer, you keep saying you're the one to learn and teach. Why can't you be the one to be taught? That's what this discussion forum is for. IMHO.

If I were interested in learning the customs metagame... maybe. But currently, I'm not interested. Just being honest yo. Vanilla is more than interesting enough for me.

That said, I'm mostly sticking out to see if anyone else out there shares my opinion. I can't be the only one who's intimidated by the aspect of the significantly larger metagame that customs will bring forth.

 

[KlefkiHolder]

Well, if we really want to go down this road, Talonflame still loses poorly to Rotom Wash due to Hydro Pump being on every serious Rotom, which decimates Talon, and Slowbro just walls talon, even at +6, where brave bird isn't a huge threat actually with no attack EVs, and where scald, which actually hurts talon quite a lot, can secure a kill. Tran however can be set up on, but Roar Tran is quite popular these days, especially with how strong the SpD Tran + Def Landorus T core is, freeing up a moveslot in Stealth Rocks for Heatran.

Needless to say, I know my Mons. However, in this I am noticing that it is far, far more fun to theorymon than actually play. Maybe that is relevant to this discussion?

 

[KuroKitt10]

I one lost a Pokémon Tournament to a Talonflame who ran Solar Beam in a team with no Drought (I was actually the one with MegaCharizard-Y). Knowing that my opponent COULD have it would've been depth or breadth?

Anyway, dragontamer, you keep saying you're the one to learn and teach. Why can't you be the one to be taught? That's what this discussion forum is for. IMHO.

This is definitely breadth. The very fact that there is extra knowledge you must know in order to make optimal play decisions makes this breadth. Depth is a trickier thing to define, but generally speaking Depth is what's left when you "know all the facts" about a game. Using Smash as an example: All the moves, frame data, techniques, and etc. of each character contribute to the Breadth of the game because a player is required to have this information in order to make optimal decisions; however, there is no mastery or agency on the players part once the information is gained: You either know it or you don't, and once you do, you can't "know it more". Conversely, given a match up, analyzing the potential approaches, responses, and counter responses and when and how to use which is finally getting at depth.

There are some really good articles written by Sirlin I feel anyone having this discussion should read. Sirlin is a very strong Game Designer, with an extensive history in studying and understanding game balance, particularly in the realm of Fighting Games. He's also the designer behind Street Fighter HD Remix, as a show of his work. I know some of you may be impatient, but for those really interested in this discussion, you should read his Balancing Multiplayer articles; they tackle a lot of what's being discussed. Here is Article 1, and I suggest you read all 4; but, Article 3 directly addresses the issues at hand.

For those too lazy: The pertinent topic is how increasing complexity can often start limiting or reducing the number of viable options for players. This seems counter-intuitive to most people, but the tl;dr of it is: The more moving parts you add, the less and less likely (or even possible) it becomes to balance any one of them, and thus the far more likely you are to have a few very dominating strategies. While one could argue that there are still millions of possibilities, if you're playing competitively, only the possibilities which are dominant will be worth playing.

The last point is the primary reason to be wary of large breadth in a game. Too much complexity, and you undermine the main reason for even having the extra content: increased options.





Edit: As Thinkaman pointed out, I was previously mistaken for claiming Sirlin developed the match making system for StarCraft II. He was offered the job, but declined. Thanks for fact checking me Thinkaman =)

 

[Thinkaman]

created Blizzard's match-making system for StarCraft II.

Good post, but this part isn't quite true. He was offered the job for this, but didn't take it. (And made HDR instead)

 

[T0MMY]

I was away from this topic for a scant amount of holiday time and not quite sure how or why the topic has evolved to talking about Pokemon strategies...
Well, guess I will have to take some time to backtrack a bit. But also would like to know if the discussion could benefit from being put more on track of things?
Also, with Apex rules being posted I'd love to scrutinize them under a competitive microscope and see what I can analyze. I am particularly displeased with having Mii mishandled. Either ban the character outright or do nothing about it, but the wishywashy rules is atrocious to my competitive programming.

 

[Reaperfan]

I was away from this topic for a scant amount of holiday time and not quite sure how or why the topic has evolved to talking about Pokemon strategies...
Well, guess I will have to take some time to backtrack a bit. But also would like to know if the discussion could benefit from being put more on track of things?

It went down the path of "breadth of knowledge versus depth of knowledge" and discussion went about distinguishing between the two. Someone used Pokemon as an example to try and add perspective to the distinction between the two types of knowledge and that's how that came about. It was just an off-shoot example that would likely have circled back around to Smash in the context of the larger topic (breadth vs depth) once conclusions had been drawn from the perspective given.

 

[StripedNinja]

I'm still new-ish to the competitive Smash scene, and I'm sure someone else has suggested this, but I'd thought I'd bring it up just to see what you guys had to say about it. What if Smash 4 doesn't have a set ruleset? Like, what if we have a set of variables, 2-stock or 3-stock, doubles or 1v1s, character bans or no character bans (as in people having the ability to ban your opponents character, which I think could be really cool if implemented in Smash), custom moves being on or off, maybe even, like, messing with the damage ratio a bit. Maybe some tournaments would be 1 stock a match, or 5 stock but 1 game. If we didn't have a set ruleset, even if the game wasn't balanced, certain characters would come out under different conditions, and same goes for certain players, so we'd see a lot more of a variety even outside just the change in rules. And everyone would get hyped waiting for like the big reveal of the ruleset of the next APEX or whatever. And I know that there's probably a lot of complications that would come with like making a flexible ruleset the standard but I really think it could add a lot, and that it would be worth pushing for if at all possible. What do you guys think? Is it unrealistic or problematic?

 

[HeroMystic]

@ StripedNinja

The problem with that idea is people travel to go to tournaments. Some will even hop different states to reach to regionals/nationals and in order for that to continue we need to have a unified ruleset that every TO can agree on. There's wiggle room here and there (stage list being the most prominent), but it would ruin Smash as an esport if every tournament had completely different rules. Everyone would just stay in their region/state and the community would be splintered. This is an issue we already had with Melee vs Brawl.

 

[StripedNinja]

@ StripedNinja

The problem with that idea is people travel to go to tournaments. Some will even hop different states to reach to regionals/nationals and in order for that to continue we need to have a unified ruleset that every TO can agree on. There's wiggle room here and there (stage list being the most prominent), but it would ruin Smash as an esport if every tournament had completely different rules. Everyone would just stay in their region/state and the community would be splintered. This is an issue we already had with Melee vs Brawl.

Alright, well, thats a shame, but thanks for the info. Well, then, follow up, if we must stick to one ruleset, what do you guys think of one thats less standard from other smash games? I personally find doubles especially interesting in Smash 4, what if they become the standard versus 1v1s, or like, what if in 1v1s we tried 1 stock to encourage offensive play a bit more? Or things along those lines.
Again, I'm speaking with not much experience here but just bringing up ideas.

 

[StripedNinja]

ALSO with flexibility being limited in mind, are custom moves eventually going to have to be decided on as being legal or not officially?

 

[Pyr]

ALSO with flexibility being limited in mind, are custom moves eventually going to have to be decided on as being legal or not officially?

I think there is a lot of support for this. Unfortunately, the made, major thing I've seen hold customs back is implementation and tournament system unlocks for them.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

ALSO with flexibility being limited in mind, are custom moves eventually going to have to be decided on as being legal or not officially?

Eventually yes, and the community in general seems to lean heavily towards allowing them from what I've seen. The issue is that it's logistically difficult to unlock all customs on any given Wii U, never mind multiple setups. The custom moveset project aims to help with that by using a 3DS to create and transfer specific popular sets to each Wii U. (The 3DS is easier to unlock everything on, and powersaves to do it for you are a thing too.)

 

[Pyr]

Eventually yes, and the community in general seems to lean heavily towards allowing them from what I've seen. The issue is that it's logistically difficult to unlock all customs on any given Wii U, never mind multiple setups. The custom moveset project aims to help with that by using a 3DS to create and transfer specific popular sets to each Wii U. (The 3DS is easier to unlock everything on, and powersaves to do it for you are a thing too.)

On that note, when a Game Genie-esk product is released/the WiiU is broken how the Wii was, this should become 100x easier.

 

[M15t3R E]

There is so much support for customs among the community that there is no way the implementation won't eventually happen. It's just a matter of being patient.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

There is so much support for customs among the community that there is no way the implementation won't eventually happen. It's just a matter of being patient.

I believe you're right in the long run, but I can't help but think that Apex's rules are still a step backward. At the very least, an official statement saying "customs are only banned because we can't (be bothered to) unlock them all on every setup and we intend to allow them in the future" would go a long way to ease everyone's minds.

There's still their stage list to fight over too, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[M15t3R E]

I believe you're right in the long run, but I can't help but think that Apex's rules are still a step backward. At the very least, an official statement saying "customs are only banned because we can't (be bothered to) unlock them all on every setup and we intend to allow them in the future" would go a long way to ease everyone's minds.

There's still their stage list to fight over too, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I saw a post in another thread recommending everyone to bombard the Apex tournaments facebook page with requests to change their ruleset. I'm starting to think this may be a good idea.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I saw a post in another thread recommending everyone to bombard the Apex tournaments facebook page with requests to change their ruleset. I'm starting to think this may be a good idea.

I would, but I don't seem to be able to post on their event page, possibly because I'm not registered as attending. (Seriously it's in NJ and I'm jobless in Louisiana. No.)

 

[M15t3R E]

I would, but I don't seem to be able to post on their event page, possibly because I'm not registered as attending. (Seriously it's in NJ and I'm jobless in Louisiana. No.)

Sorry to hear that. I used to live within reasonable driving distance from Apex but not anymore.
I'm pretty sure that the Apex TO's would like customs too but as you said, it's a logistical nightmare until perhaps Amazing Ampharos's project is complete and widely used.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sorry to be off current topic (if there is one) but I have a question.

The more matches I watch the more I see the following trends with regards to "good" matches (and by good I mean exciting to watch, not too long, not too short, good swath of ATs, etc.)

1.) 8 min timer is almost not enough if the players are both evenly skilled
2a.) KO seems to be harder to achieve, even at 120-150 percent
2b.) 3 stocks seem to be too many stocks

As a result I notice many strategies dissolve into "oh snap I have 2 min left lets switch this up into who can have the best % when TIME reaches 0.00

Impressions?

 

[Judo777]

I think there is a lot of support for this. Unfortunately, the made, major thing I've seen hold customs back is implementation and tournament system unlocks for them.

Actually I have been to 2 custom legal tournaments, and the implementation of custom moves was absurdly easy. I was actually impressed. You just need 1 DS that is correctly setup with common custom move sets and you can load them on it like 30 seconds.

 

[T0MMY]

I think the main thing holding customs back is the distasteful tactics people take to try to push it into tournaments. "Bombarding" facebook pages makes any kind of organized movement look bad; TOs are going to ignore that kind of tactic or call out the "vocal minority" for what it is - a small amount of people trying to sound like a popular majority.

My opinion is that something that is good doesn't need to be pushed for so hard; if it's good people will recognize it! Host some custom events and let the people enjoying the event talk it up.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

I think the main thing holding customs back is the distasteful tactics people take to try to push it into tournaments. "Bombarding" facebook pages makes any kind of organized movement look bad; TOs are going to ignore that kind of tactic or call out the "vocal minority" for what it is - a small amount of people trying to sound like a popular majority.

My opinion is that something that is good doesn't need to be pushed for so hard; if it's good people will recognize it! Host some custom events and let the people enjoying the event talk it up.

Pretty much this. Which is why since Smash 4 was released I've been hosting tournaments with customs on, and people have enjoyed it. Although, people got pretty salty when they didn't figure out how to deal with DK's tornado up-B custom.

 

[T0MMY]

Well, at least you had one event with custom moves tried out, the players in my area are more into a strictly competitive style of play. At one tournament the general rules allowed for the use of custom moves yet nobody used them (except the TO) that I played.

Outside my state nobody in my entire region uses Customs outside of one small weekly and (maybe) some for fun side events.
With Apex setting a copy&paste standard it seems like custom moves will be DoA, unless... I do have a way to combat herd mentality and allow for optional rules to make their way into mainstream usage I used back in the Brawl days, but it would take some organization.