Crouch Cancelling/ASDI Discussion

[AuraMaudeGone]

Quoting this ancient thread and SSBwiki (Descriptions may be a little off)

Spoiler

Crouch Cancelling

Crouch cancelling reduces the amount of knockback dealt to the user, often stopping their movement completely at lower damage percentages. Because the control stick must be held downwards in order to crouch, crouch cancelling also effectively guarantees a lower launch angle, due to directional influence reading the downwards motion.

ASDI

Automatic Smash DI :

An Automatic Smash DI takes place there on the 1st frame after the hitlag.
It's automatic because you don't have to smash anything to do it, the game just reads the position of your control stick or C-stick on the last frame of hitlag.
The C-stick outprioritizes the control stick. You can hold 2 different directions, the game will use the C-stick for the ASDI : you can DI one way and ASDI another way.

The ASDI is exactly like Smash DI except that it goes less far, and you don't see it very well because you're sent flying at the same time.
On techable hits, it can make you tech on walls or ceiling just as well.
One very important thing is that you can tech on the floor as well if the ASDI makes you go down on that frame.
The instant ground techs on other moves than Fox's shine all come from this.

ASDI Down, the true Crouch Cancelling effect :

If you're grounded and take a move that sends you upwards but not very fast, ASDIing down'll make you go downwards on that frame. You'll then either bounce/tech if the hit is techable, or just land with no stun.

If you're grounded and take a move that sends you down, if it's untechable, Forbidden Smash DI applies and you'll stay stunned on the ground whatever you try to do (DI doesn't seem to work in those cases, too.)
If it's techable, you'll see a green flash on the ground at the beginning of the hitlag and you'll be sent up. You can try to ASDI down that and you may bounce/tech that hit.

For example, Fox's Aerial Down A sends you downwards and is never techable.
Falco's Aerial Down A sends you downwards and becomes techable at low/middle %
Falco's Phantasm sends you up if you're grounded but sends you down when you're in the air, and it's always techable.
Fox's shine sends you horizontally when you're grounded.

In the Tier List thread I asked what's the point of keeping this feature around because in my opinion it causes such a nuisance to a chunk of the cast when on the offensive.

It's not so much that. It's more of what @UFS TreK is trying to get at. By principal, why is it good that I'm getting punished for successfully hitting you? (outside of a counter move situation). I'm not denying that you should be read and punished if you become predictable during neutral, but CC/ASDI down isn't a healthy way to do that.
Yes I agree there are solid ways to get around CC, but like I said earlier some characters have a really tricky time doing that.

2) Feels like a unnecessary layer of neutral. Could you imagine using any move immediately OOS? That is what you're sort of describing here minus getting hit with damage
3) This is where we divide. I feel like it's more of a system issue than a character specific one. It's a really sloppy defense option, like @MLGF said earlier, as a system feature it's not universally fair throughout the cast.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that it should be be removed, just want some healthy discussion and I'm curious about other people's opinions.

 

[Farquaad]

In the Tier List thread I asked what's the point of keeping this feature around because in my opinion it causes such a nuisance to a chunk of the cast when on the offensive.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that it should be be removed, just want some healthy discussion and I'm curious about other people's opinions.

Not quite sure how these two statements work together

 

[ECHOnce]

Not quite sure how these two statements work together

First is what he was advocating for, second is what this thread is intended for. Wants to hear from both sides.

Functionally, Crouch Cancelling is just another RPS option to add to the mix. Some character's shields are horrible, have bad OOS options, slow grab, etc. Others have the opposite. Same goes for weights giving better/worse crouch cancels, or a moveset that's better/worse equipped to counter crouch cancelling. It's all just part of character design; it can make some MU interactions annoying, but it's still a universal mechanic that acts as a weakness/strength for character balancing. ROB is never gonna get a better shield because it's kinda small. It just happens to be one of his weaknesses, which are more than made up for with everything else he has. Same goes for Squirtle getting crouch cancelled by most things; he has plenty of other great things to offset that. It can seem somewhat polarizing by forcing characters to play in different ways than most of their MUs, but we already see that in other in MUs with lots of disjoint, projectiles, tech chases, movement, floats death weights, combo food weights, etc. We haven't dulled down the effects of those because they make some MUs tough. Why Crouch Cancelling?

That said, if there is a trend in characters where they are absurdly good/bad at abusing or invalidating Crouch Cancelling (ew Roy and others...), maybe? But I'd say that's more a problem with an individual character, not the mechanic, which works find in plenty of other MUs.

EDIT: I didn't read enough from the Tier List Spec thread and was a bit too anti-change. New stance: if crouch cancelling could be made more intuitive - what %s crouch cancelling stops working in which scenarios (character weights vs. move KB and angle) - then it should be. Don't think anyone would disagree to at least that much, but idk how that could be accomplished.

 

[4tlas]

Personally, I like having CC as a mechanic, though I think it is overtuned currently. To see where it fits in the game, let's pretend it were removed. Now what defensive options remain? Sheilding, spot dodging, rolling, airdodging, and simply being out of range. Lets look at each of these.

Shielding is countered by grabs and is ineffective against rapid shield pressure or long-distance/spaced attacks. Most characters' options out of shield are grab (can only hit in front), upsmash (usually only hits above), or any aerial (which is guaranteed to trade if the opponent can get out another move, leaving the shielder in the air and in hitstun). Any individual character has their shield options decided at character-select, and it is possible to have an unusably bad shield game in some matchups.

Spot dodging is countered by lingering moves and is ineffective against quick attacks. A character can pick any option out of a spot dodge but not only must they time the dodge correctly but they cannot adjust when the dodge stops to punish immediately. Comparing this to shield, it has the added benefits of working against grabs and not depleting a limited resource (your shield) as well as allowing any punish option, but instead you cannot punish when you want and you can get hit by lingering attacks.

Rolling is super slow and is thus counterable by most anything provided the opponent can arrive at your new destination with the punish of choice before you can act. Due to that it only really works against laggy options or laggy characters, at which point you should probably choose one of the other punish options. The only time you want to roll is to also reposition yourself away from the opponent, presumably because you have better spaced punish options that out of shield ones.

Airdodging is like rolling, but with even more risk and reward (the reward being avoiding a guaranteed hit because you're in the air).

Being out of range is the best defensive option because there is 0 risk. If you are out of range you cannot be hit. However, there are some characters whose range is smaller than their opponents (almost all of them at some point) and thus they need to pick one of the other defensive options or an offensive option occasionally.


Characters with bad out of shield options or are easily grabbed have difficulty using shield. Characters playing against characters with lingering hitboxes have difficulty using spot dodge. Characters playing against quick characters have difficulty rolling/airdodging. Characters with little range or playing against characters with a lot of range have difficulty spacing.

Let's say I'm playing a character with bad out of shield options and is easily grabbed. I'm going to go with Charizard because I think his only good option is grab (upsmash usually wont reach because he's so fat that people are probably hitting him from afar). Let's say I'm playing against Link. Link's projectiles will often catch a fat character's spotdodge, Link is fast enough to punish rolls, and Link has better range than Charizard. What defensive options can Charizard use in this matchup? Charizard is at a disadvantage with all of his defensive options, so all he can do is guess at which one Link will not counter and pick that one. With crouch cancelling, Charizard gains an option inbetween the other RPS options.

Crouch cancelling is countered by grab, just like shield, but in some cases it is not countered by speed like spotdodging/shielding nor by range since you can choose any punish out of it. The cost of using this option is some damage, and it is also rendered unusable depending on the opponent's type of attack or the damage you have suffered.

tl;dr: read ECHOnce's post. I said the same thing but tried to elaborate more and got long-winded.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Nice posts.
On Defense: @ ECHOnce It's interesting you brought up differences in shields because we haven't seen defensive options normalized until recently with Rolls and Spot dodges. I have the belief that universal features (shields,rolls, etc) should be equally beneficial across the board. I find it sloppy that it's beneficial for some, and lack luster for others. If there was a way to clean it up without changing much, I'm all for it.

@ 4tlas To use Echo's RPS analogy, the only way RPS works perfectly is because everyone's own Rocks, Paper and Scissors are equally effective against someone else's. In a fighting game scenario, this can be seen as true, but there are various levels of RPS. You post has some merit to it, but it's somewhat misleading.
The way you described Spot Dodging was correct, but the way you described its use is unwise and I wouldn't suggest that people use in that fashion at all. There are opportunities for you to dodge high commitment moves and punish it accordingly. It's not mean't to be a "free" punish opportunity for all incoming attacks

You described rolling all right. It's in a decent spot atm since the changes. I also think air dodge is pretty sloppy too, but it has its uses at clutch moments.

When you mentioned "being out of range", it reminded me of footies. This could be a seen as a totally different layer of RPS, where In terms of smash, you use your movement to bait out commitment, make whiff punishes, or use disjoint to punish movement. Having good or bad OOS options is on a Character level of balance and it really depends on what the character was design to do. You should still have another game of RPS to play with your opponent to overcome that.

Now, what layer of RPS does CC belong to? Attack/Shield/Grab? I'm gonna assume you guys put it under Paper | Shield family. Things look weird to me in that perspective because usually the Shield option follows the suit of: Don't take damage, use the proper punish allowed and/or regain position. With CC/ASDI you don't regain position, punishment is reduced, with the potential reward to use anything to counteract the Rock thrown at you OR the your aggressor and turn around and do the same thing. That interaction may loop for a few seconds before someone says "**** it I'm using Scissors (if they have the chance to)." Again, it's sloppy, and I rather have the original ASG strengthened.

My post sounds all over the place, hope it doesn't confuse you all.

 

[skellitorman]

I have posted relevant information in another thread and so I will link it here as reference:

http://smashboards.com/threads/a-change-i-feel-has-yet-to-be-made.378928/page-2#post-18192527

 

[4tlas]

Nice posts.
On Defense: @ ECHOnce It's interesting you brought up differences in shields because we haven't seen defensive options normalized until recently with Rolls and Spot dodges. I have the belief that universal features (shields,rolls, etc) should be equally beneficial across the board. I find it sloppy that it's beneficial for some, and lack luster for others. If there was a way to clean it up without changing much, I'm all for it.

@ 4tlas To use Echo's RPS analogy, the only way RPS works perfectly is because everyone's own Rocks, Paper and Scissors are equally effective against someone else's. In a fighting game scenario, this can be seen as true, but there are various levels of RPS. You post has some merit to it, but it's somewhat misleading.
The way you described Spot Dodging was correct, but the way you described its use is unwise and I wouldn't suggest that people use in that fashion at all. There are opportunities for you to dodge high commitment moves and punish it accordingly. It's not mean't to be a "free" punish opportunity for all incoming attacks

You described rolling all right. It's in a decent spot atm since the changes. I also think air dodge is pretty sloppy too, but it has its uses at clutch moments.

When you mentioned "being out of range", it reminded me of footies. This could be a seen as a totally different layer of RPS, where In terms of smash, you use your movement to bait out commitment, make whiff punishes, or use disjoint to punish movement. Having good or bad OOS options is on a Character level of balance and it really depends on what the character was design to do. You should still have another game of RPS to play with your opponent to overcome that.

Now, what layer of RPS does CC belong to? Attack/Shield/Grab? I'm gonna assume you guys put it under Paper | Shield family. Things look weird to me in that perspective because usually the Shield option follows the suit of: Don't take damage, use the proper punish allowed and/or regain position. With CC/ASDI you don't regain position, punishment is reduced, with the potential reward to use anything to counteract the Rock thrown at you OR the your aggressor and turn around and do the same thing. That interaction may loop for a few seconds before someone says "**** it I'm using Scissors (if they have the chance to)." Again, it's sloppy, and I rather have the original ASG strengthened.

My post sounds all over the place, hope it doesn't confuse you all.

RPS works fine if Rock, Paper, and Scissors are different strengths. Let's say your Scissors is weak, and beats Paper only 70% of the time with the other 30% being a loss. Are you going to pick Scissors? If we both know you don't want to pick Scissors, shouldn't I pick Paper because it gives me a better chance of winning (I win if you pick Rock, if you pick Scissors I still get a 30% chance)? Doesn't that mean you should pick Scissors after all, since you know I'm picking Paper and that's your only chance? While yes I can always choose Paper and you're stuck with the 70-30 even if you read me, that's analogous to a bad matchup, like the Charizard vs. Link scenario I described.

The whole point of having another option is that it is not Rock, Paper, or Scissors. It is Spock (look up Rock-Paper-Scissor-Lizard-Spock if you don't know what I'm talking about). In this case, grab beats CC just like shield, but spaced attacks do not (assuming you have percent and *A* move that hits them before they finish whichever one they chose, keeping in mind long-reaching moves usually have more startup or endlag to balance them). Moves that do significantly more damage than their speed would imply beat CC, but otherwise CC wins at the cost of taking damage. Moves that launch an opponent into the air counter CC, but CC beats horizontally-launching moves.

If your complaint is about CC wars, then I can't argue with that. The only reason that's a problem is that the formula is overtuned so they last forever. Otherwise, if we are both constantly CCing each other's attacks, won't one of us lose first (eventually)? Its up to that person to pick a suboptimal option and stop CCing.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with "the way [ I ] described [spotdodging's] use". I didn't say anything about how to use it, I merely said what it does. Perhaps something was misinterpreted?

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

RPS works fine if Rock, Paper, and Scissors are different strengths. Let's say your Scissors is weak, and beats Paper only 70% of the time with the other 30% being a loss. Are you going to pick Scissors? If we both know you don't want to pick Scissors, shouldn't I pick Paper because it gives me a better chance of winning (I win if you pick Rock, if you pick Scissors I still get a 30% chance)? Doesn't that mean you should pick Scissors after all, since you know I'm picking Paper and that's your only chance? While yes I can always choose Paper and you're stuck with the 70-30 even if you read me, that's analogous to a bad matchup, like the Charizard vs. Link scenario I described.

The whole point of having another option is that it is not Rock, Paper, or Scissors. It is Spock (look up Rock-Paper-Scissor-Lizard-Spock if you don't know what I'm talking about). In this case, grab beats CC just like shield, but spaced attacks do not (assuming you have percent and *A* move that hits them before they finish whichever one they chose, keeping in mind long-reaching moves usually have more startup or endlag to balance them). Moves that do significantly more damage than their speed would imply beat CC, but otherwise CC wins at the cost of taking damage. Moves that launch an opponent into the air counter CC, but CC beats horizontally-launching moves.

If your complaint is about CC wars, then I can't argue with that. The only reason that's a problem is that the formula is overtuned so they last forever. Otherwise, if we are both constantly CCing each other's attacks, won't one of us lose first (eventually)? Its up to that person to pick a suboptimal option and stop CCing.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with "the way [ I ] described [spotdodging's] use". I didn't say anything about how to use it, I merely said what it does. Perhaps something was misinterpreted?

That's an odd example in the realm of fighters/smash because there are multiple instances of RPS going on, sometimes simultaneously. So why go and try reinvent the wheel in attempt to be clever? It won't work out well. It's complicating things and causes what could be really well designed characters to not perform as well as intended to be because certain system mechanics are holding them back.
As for Spot Dodging, I thought you were implying it's an option to guarantee a punish at any time it's used.

 

[4tlas]

That's an odd example in the realm of fighters/smash because there are multiple instances of RPS going on, sometimes simultaneously. So why go and try reinvent the wheel in attempt to be clever? It won't work out well. It's complicating things and causes what could be really well designed characters to not perform as well as intended to be because certain system mechanics are holding them back.
As for Spot Dodging, I thought you were implying it's an option to guarantee a punish at any time it's used.

It is complicating things, yes. It adds another option which is another whole layer of decision-making and gameplay. As for causing it to hold back some characters, that theoretically allows other characters to keep up. And the characters are designed with CC in mind.

The game is rather simple already, so I don't think CC is the difference to make it TOO complex. As for it causing an imbalance between characters, it can be adjusted. The mechanic is not inherently bad/stupid.

What I was saying with Spot Dodging is that sometimes the attack ends before the spot dodge, returning you to neutral or worse getting you hit the second time. However the times where the attack is fast enough to hit you after the spot dodge probably means you could've been jab->grabbed if you had shielded. Thus Spot Dodging compared to shield has the added benefit of avoiding grabs with the added risk of getting hit by lingering moves. If you do dodge an attack that is punishable, you can choose any valid punish, whereas your punish options are far more limited from shield.

 

[ECHOnce]

On Defense: @ ECHOnce It's interesting you brought up differences in shields because we haven't seen defensive options normalized until recently with Rolls and Spot dodges. I have the belief that universal features (shields,rolls, etc) should be equally beneficial across the board. I find it sloppy that it's beneficial for some, and lack luster for others. If there was a way to clean it up without changing much, I'm all for it.

There's a line to be drawn for balancing universal features that would take away from character distinction. In the same way that dash acceleration/duration/length, wavedashing length/etc., initial jump acceleration/momentum are all universal mechanics, normalizing them would be out of the question. Dodges, jumpsquat times, and getup options are a bit different, since there are large chunks of the cast that share the same frame data, with only a few frames/distance differences between each. I wouldn't necessarily say it's sloppy, but I'd agree that not fixing outlier characters with absurdly good/bad frame data for a mechanic that is already fairly uniform for others is a bit...eh. Don't think that applies to many mechanics though.

Oh, and I was actually referring to how effectively shields cover hurtboxes lol, since (as you mentioned) they've been normalized in frame data.

 

[Droß]

There's a line to be drawn for balancing universal features that would take away from character distinction. In the same way that dash acceleration/duration/length, wavedashing length/etc., initial jump acceleration/momentum are all universal mechanics, normalizing them would be out of the question. Dodges, jumpsquat times, and getup options are a bit different, since there are large chunks of the cast that share the same frame data, with only a few frames/distance differences between each. I wouldn't necessarily say it's sloppy, but I'd agree that not fixing outlier characters with absurdly good/bad frame data for a mechanic that is already fairly uniform for others is a bit...eh. Don't think that applies to many mechanics though.

Oh, and I was actually referring to how effectively shields cover hurtboxes lol, since (as you mentioned) they've been normalized in frame data.

Going to agree with you here; I would avoid doing complete normalization of any attribute to a single value as well (ie: setting all character's normal landing lag to 6 frames). Removing differences in attributes only serves to dumb the game down and lessens the depth and complexity, and also prevents the PMDT from being able to solve problems in a more elegant fashion. Not to mention that the little things like frames before jumping and standard landing lag help a character feel slow and sluggish, or lightning quick and responsive. It's not just a mechanical benefit that those little stats like jumping frames give to the game; their inclusion and relative uniqueness reap design and flavor benefits as well.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

There's a line to be drawn for balancing universal features that would take away from character distinction. In the same way that dash acceleration/duration/length, wavedashing length/etc., initial jump acceleration/momentum are all universal mechanics, normalizing them would be out of the question. Dodges, jumpsquat times, and getup options are a bit different, since there are large chunks of the cast that share the same frame data, with only a few frames/distance differences between each. I wouldn't necessarily say it's sloppy, but I'd agree that not fixing outlier characters with absurdly good/bad frame data for a mechanic that is already fairly uniform for others is a bit...eh. Don't think that applies to many mechanics though.

Oh, and I was actually referring to how effectively shields cover hurtboxes lol, since (as you mentioned) they've been normalized in frame data.

You're blurring lines here, since what you mentioned are character attributes. Homogenizing them would be dull, but what I failed to say is the mechanics (HOW and WHY it should work) should be simple and crystal clear intuitively.

 

[GenNyan]

http://www.cpgaming.gg/guest-blog/esports-blog/negative-aspects-of-ssbm/

A shortish PPMD article about the negative aspects of SSBM. His bit about Crouch canceling:

Lastly, for the most uncommon argument against Melee – Crouch canceling (CC’ing). To define the mechanic quickly, CC’ing(or its partner, ASDI down), works by punishing someone for hitting you. Essentially, if you CC then your character does not get knocked back as far and is much more likely to not leave the ground or go into stun at all when attacked. The mechanic varies by percent and whether your character was in crouch animation or not, but consider the effect on gameplay this mechanic has. Hitting someone when they make a mistake suddenly becomes a guessing game instead of a free opportunity for outplaying someone at times. How can I know if someone is holding down when they mess up? This creates strategy in avoiding CC punishes, but it arguably reduces depth by having to space around CC punishes or using moves (such as small-range grabs) to punish opponents instead of combo-starters. Ultimately, CC’ing attempts to violate a fundamental fighting game principle of punishing the opponent when they are outplayed and converting that opening into an advantage.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Didn't want to participate in this thread that much, but I do want to say PP's argument about CCing violating fundamental fighting game principals is invalid, because smash violates TONS of fundamental fighting game principals. CCing making grabs strong is more of an issue with grabs already being godlike anyway.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Didn't want to participate in this thread that much, but I do want to say PP's argument about CCing violating fundamental fighting game principals is invalid, because smash violates TONS of fundamental fighting game principals. CCing making grabs strong is more of an issue with grabs already being godlike anyway.

Pretty much this. I liked the post you made in the Tier List thread too BTW. It's funny you mentioned Smash violating traditional concepts because even Sakurai himself admitted he designed Smash to be that way in an interview w/ Iwata. Basically, it's working as intended lol.

 

[skellitorman]

I do want to say PP's argument about CCing violating fundamental fighting game principals is invalid, because smash violates TONS of fundamental fighting game principals. CCing making grabs strong is more of an issue with grabs already being godlike anyway.

Smash doesn’t violate tons of fundamental fighting game principles; the way that the principles are followed just happen to be different and unique. Even if Smash did violate tons of fundamental fighting game principles, that doesn’t invalidate PP’s argument. Other principles might not be violated as harshly, or may not have the same impact on balance as this one (which is violating one of the core principles in fighting games while also having a significantly negative impact).

This creates strategy in avoiding CC punishes, but it arguably reduces depth by having to space around CC punishes or using moves (such as small-range grabs) to punish opponents instead of combo-starters. Ultimately, CC’ing attempts to violate a fundamental fighting game principle of punishing the opponent when they are outplayed and converting that opening into an advantage.

If playing optimally is to play fundamentally solid (as opposed to just guessing) and if having play being limited in such a way is considered as reducing depth (which many would agree that it is), then the first statement above from PP’s argument should be seen as fact (being particularly significant at top level). The second statement is true.

It's funny you mentioned Smash violating traditional concepts because even Sakurai himself admitted he designed Smash to be that way in an interview w/ Iwata. Basically, it's working as intended lol.

Melee and PM have different values as a competitive fighting game than the other Smash games due to how they follow fighting game principles. It is likely that the concepts Sakurai was referring to are different than the principles that fighting games follow and/or that he was referring to Smash when played in a noncompetitive setting (items on and playing random levels, etc.). If he was indeed referring to fighting game principles and Smash at a competitive level (specifically Melee and PM), then I would argue that he is incorrect.

From my understanding, Sakurai doesn’t even see Smash as a fighting game, when it should be seen as one particularly at that level.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

To cite the interview I was talking about

Iwata
Oh. Then can you explain disassembly and reassembly using as examples games that everyone knows, like Super Smash Bros., Kirby Air Ride or Meteos?

Sakurai
It applies to so many things that if I were to explain what lies behind Super Smash Bros., it would fill one or two whole books!

Iwata
Yes, I suppose so. (laughs)

Sakurai
But I do think I could offer a simple explanation about some standout elements.

Iwata
Yes, please.

Sakurai
I've told you about how we originally made Super Smash Bros. as an antithesis to 2D fighting games, haven't I?

Sauce

 

[skellitorman]

Thanks for the article. Although it is significantly lacking in details (regarding Smash and his antithesis), the “antithesis” he is referring to, seems to be concepts that are associated with fighting games (such as combos) as opposed to the principles which are fundamental by definition. It is also important to note that he is referring to the original Smash, and everything included (such as items and random stage factors).

As already mentioned previously, fighting game principles are already followed differently in Smash. Footsies and zoning exists but exist differently. Proper RPS aspects exist but exist differently.

In a fighting game (generally speaking), the goal is to damage (or hit) the opponent (which is usually done with a wide variety of attacks). Proper movement becomes a result of this to try to hit the opponent (without being hit). If you missed your attack and got whiff punished, then you were “outplayed” (or lost that “engagement”). If you got hit right out of the startup of your own attack (known as being “counter hit”) then you were “outplayed.” Lastly, if you fail to block and got hit because your movement was not properly implemented (and you failed to shield) then you were “outplayed.”

This is the specific core principle of fighting games that PPMD is referring to that already exists in Smash. When either of these 3 situations happens and the player was “outplayed,” then he can still win by crouch canceling (holding down after being hit). There is no way to account for this other than to “create a strategy in avoiding CC punishes” which “arguably reduces depth by having to space around CC punishes or using moves (such as small-range grabs) to punish opponents instead of combo-starters.”

This is why PPMD says: “CC’ing attempts to violate a fundamental fighting game principle of punishing the opponent when they are outplayed and converting that opening into an advantage.”

Even if Sakurai’s antithesis was referring to these principles (specifically in PM or Melee), this aspect of fighting games that PPMD is referring to wouldn’t somehow be invalidated because the creator thinks otherwise. Fighting game principles are followed in PM.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Lastly, for the most uncommon argument against Melee – Crouch canceling (CC’ing). To define the mechanic quickly, CC’ing(or its partner, ASDI down), works by punishing someone for hitting you. Essentially, if you CC then your character does not get knocked back as far and is much more likely to not leave the ground or go into stun at all when attacked. The mechanic varies by percent and whether your character was in crouch animation or not, but consider the effect on gameplay this mechanic has. Hitting someone when they make a mistake suddenly becomes a guessing game instead of a free opportunity for outplaying someone at times. How can I know if someone is holding down when they mess up? This creates strategy in avoiding CC punishes, but it arguably reduces depth by having to space around CC punishes or using moves (such as small-range grabs) to punish opponents instead of combo-starters. Ultimately, CC’ing attempts to violate a fundamental fighting game principle of punishing the opponent when they are outplayed and converting that opening into an advantage.

source: http://www.cpgaming.gg/guest-blog/esports-blog/negative-aspects-of-ssbm/

Thought this might be worth bringing up since I do agree with this at parts.

edit: Missed it above,

I do think while smash does violate a lot of principles of fighters, I don't think that doesn't invalidate how you can be rewarded for unintentionally CCing, or gain massive rewards off it, or how it can single handedly invalidate characters or options.

Not sure how much better or worse it is in PM, but I do see problems with it in Melee a lot more than I do when I watch sets of PM.

Also how Risk Reward is heavily skewed for the person who is crouching, unless the person they are trying to CC is Peach.