Do We Need Combos?

[Biz_R_0]

I do think that it's too easy to keep a percent lead in Brawl, however I don't think spike combos are a good way to fix that. A whole stock is a little much for one mistake IMO.

 

[Johnknight1]

I do think that it's too easy to keep a percent lead in Brawl, however I don't think spike combos are a good way to fix that. A whole stock is a little much for one mistake IMO.

You're reading a bit too much into what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you do a random Falcon Punch in the far corner of a stage, I should be able to kill you, even if you are at only 30%, because you are on the edge of a stage, and I can combo you into a spike. Doing stupid stuff like that deserves some sort of high-level punishment beyond a equal or less than amount of damage done if a Falcon Punch landed system like we had in Brawl. Basically, the punishment (the damage done to the Captain Falcon) should top the crime (doing a stupid Falcon Punch). If you have a lead and you do something stupid like this, a significant portion of your lead should be able to be taken away.

Also, I was more referring to Brawl's lack of actual spikes. Seriously, those spikes only spike at really high percentages; they should spike like they do in Melee. Melee's spikes and the percentages they worked at were pretty much perfect (most spikes working around the 20's or 30's %).

Spikes really add another layer to offense, defense, and spacing in smash bros, and really take advantage of how unique the gameplay is. There isn't anything really like it in other fighting games. It also rewards players for good timing, proper spacing, and for staying offensive, which is also good. I felt the move by the Brawl development team to basically eliminating spike KO's took a big backwards for the series, which is another reason I'm glad Game Arts is not running the show anymore.

 

[Biz_R_0]

You're reading a bit too much into what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you do a random Falcon Punch in the far corner of a stage, I should be able to kill you, even if you are at only 30%, because you are on the edge of a stage, and I can combo you into a spike. Doing stupid stuff like that deserves some sort of high-level punishment beyond a equal or less than amount of damage done if a Falcon Punch landed system like we had in Brawl.

Like in Brawl, go behind him and do a charged smash attack or something really powerful that you normally couldn't land. And how are you going to differentiate between comboing into death from a falcon punch or comboing into death from a missed smash? It's not like the combo starter is gonna be slow and powerful like the finisher.

Also, I was more referring to Brawl's lack of actual spikes. Seriously, those spikes only spike at really high percentages; they should spike like they do in Melee. Melee's spikes and the percentages they worked at were pretty much perfect (most spikes working around the 20's or 30's %).

I do think that Brawl's vertical KO game was very lacking, but what you're suggesting is just killing you for going off-stage and getting hit once. This would all but ruin the off-stage game, and even getting comboed off-stage would be a death sentence. At this point, why not just make every kill move three times as powerful? It would at least balance the horizontal/stage game with your addition.

 

[El Duderino]

@Biz_R_0 - Please, lets get back on topic, no more derailment for nothing more than fueling an inconsequential side argument. All it does is waste both our time and bothers other posters.

I'll start with what should be a fair followup question, what about the pros of hitstun canceling outweighing the cons for you? Or maybe you feel there are no cons in the first place. I'm not really sure, you haven't fully elaborated on your opinion yet. All I know is you don't find Brawl's offensive game poor, and that it's up to players to adjust to hitstun canceling when it changes the otherwise expected outcome. Feel free to answer, I'm not going to chastise you for having a different opinion.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I'd like it if they just gave you everything back at the end but shortened the hitstun a little (would still be more full hitstun that Brawl). I don't think it needs to be that way, but it's not that bad (I find that I come to that opinion a lot).

 

[Big-Cat]

How about just making the time between hits in combos shorter?

 

[El Duderino]

I'd actually be alright with reducing the hitstun a slight amount, though preferably I'd rather just give the player some wiggle room after knockback. Something like how Soul Calibur gives you a little DI during their hitstun when airborne. Believe they call it "Air Control".

 

[Big-Cat]

Soul Calibur has DI? That's news to me.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Because then you'd be able to do a lot more combos at high percents, meaning you'd be able to easily chain from ~70% to kill% into a kill move, making the average character relatively Jigglypuff. Just having more/better hitstun would be better because it doesn't interfere with knockback, which is designed specifically so that you can't do huge combos at high percents.

tl;dr because it would defeat the entire purpose of knockback.

 

[El Duderino]

Soul Calibur has DI? That's news to me.

It's not like smash where you press a direction while being hit. It's just a faint directional influence over your position while being defenseless in the air.

 

[Big-Cat]

Because then you'd be able to do a lot more combos at high percents, meaning you'd be able to easily chain from ~70% to kill% into a kill move, making the average character relatively Jigglypuff. Just having more/better hitstun would be better because it's designed specifically so that you can't do huge combos at high percents.

tl;dr because it would defeat the entire purpose of knockback.

You know, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

 

[Biz_R_0]

That is the main thing that differentiates Smash from other fighters. You might as well take out Mario.

edit: also that knockback scaling is pretty much the only thing stopping 64 combos aside from DI.

 

[El Duderino]

Because then you'd be able to do a lot more combos at high percents, meaning you'd be able to easily chain from ~70% to kill% into a kill move, making the average character relatively Jigglypuff. Just having more/better hitstun would be better because it's designed specifically so that you can't do huge combos at high percents.

Think you might have it backwards, more hitstun = more combo opertunity. It's the amount of time you spend in the flinch animation. Ideally I just want to add a touch more maneuverability while flinching.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Sorry, I meant that it doesn't interfere with knockback.

 

[Johnknight1]

Like in Brawl, go behind him and do a charged smash attack or something really powerful that you normally couldn't land. And how are you going to differentiate between comboing into death from a falcon punch or comboing into death from a missed smash? It's not like the combo starter is gonna be slow and powerful like the finisher.

Charging a smash attack without giving Captain Falcon enough time to recover from his Falcon Punch won't do as much damage as a Falcon Punch would for 95% of the roster if you charge said smash attack as a reaction to Captain Falcon using said move.

Also, you are getting punished to death not just for this bad move, but for bad position (remember, they are on the edge of the stage), so you're doing two huge mistakes. So, in Melee, you do this at 30%, you get down air'd by Falco twice, and you lose a stock. In Brawl, you can't punish people who make stupid mistakes that easily, which really hurts the offensive development of the game.

Stuff like this (and the overall Brawl view of offense) is almost like comparing an NFL offense run by Peyton Manning (Melee) and Tim Tebow (Brawl). With one, sure there's holes, but boy oh boy is there a lot to roll with. With the other, it's so limited, it makes you feel claustrophobic.

I do think that Brawl's vertical KO game was very lacking, but what you're suggesting is just killing you for going off-stage and getting hit once.

No, it's making people have to think about the risks of going off stage, and putting more control in the hands of the offensive fighter. It also would have done well in Brawl with proper ledge grabbing frames, preventing such things as planking and edge stalling.

This would all but ruin the off-stage game, and even getting comboed off-stage would be a death sentence.

Only if you do dumb crap like a Falcon Punch on the edge of the stage at 30%. Also, with multiple air dodges, you'd be safer than ever from that. Also, Melee's off the stage (recovery) game was way more interesting and on-the-edge your seat because of that. It made surviving getting knocked off the stage huge, as well as rewarded players for timing out opponents and tracking down their opponents' tendencies.

At this point, why not just make every kill move three times as powerful? It would at least balance the horizontal/stage game with your addition.

Only if you're on the edge of the stage, doing a Falcon Punch, and at 30% (or so) or higher. That's not too crazy. You're blowing this out of proportion. I agree that we shouldn't have combos like the various shine combos on in Fox and Falco, but mostly everything else in Melee I felt was fair. Give say a Melee Captain Falcon or Dr. Mario level of offensive diversity, combos, and overall efficiency (at the most) for each character.

Also, there is a big difference between combos (that are inescapable with perfect timing) and "combos," the latter of which I got a "gut feeling" we'll see a lot of.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Pretty much all of your response is either "it's not [bad thing], it's [not mutually exclusive thing I made sound good]" or "Brawl sucks go Melee".

inb4 getting mad because you think I think you literally said that.

 

[El Duderino]

Why is it that every time someone disagrees with Bizzaro's conclusions and makes their case, it is followed by a lame attempt to discredit, sum up, and undermine the other person? If you don't agree, just explain. If the conversation is going nowhere, just say there's is a difference of opinion and be done with it. There's no need to act this way.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Yeah, I'd really like to hear Biz's reasoning for everything instead of the extremely vague responses he's been giving. No more "Brawl's offense/shield/whatever game isn't as bad as you say," or "you're just dissing Brawl," or whatever. Justify better, please.

Either way, I think removing the ability to get punished hard for making a poor decision is an awful idea. Like, the way Biz talks about Melee's recovering system. Yes, it's harder to recover in Melee. But it's not impossible, and good players overcome the difficulties. No, the game doesn't hold your hand by giving you ridiculous ledge snaps or 50 jumps and an up-B that goes across the stage. Yes, you can get gimped and die at sub-50 percentages. So, what's the problem with that? These things only happen if the player makes a mistake or puts himself in a bad position. The responsibility is still up to the player, and it is entirely in his power to avoid these situations (barring some character balance issues, but that's a different conversation).

And on the topic of L-canceling. I mean, I'm in the camp that believes it's a pretty arbitrary and purposeless mechanic. I guess in a way it gives an incentive to think and practice in order to be rewarded with the ability to approach properly without being punished, as well as combo effectively. However, seeing as how there is never a situation where you don't want to l-cancel, it doesn't add any depth. It is purely tech-skill, which is nice to have, but the genius of the game (as well as what makes a great player great) isn't tech skill. It's having options.
With all that said, I love l-canceling. I love it in a very shallow way, but I love it. It's satisfying, it's fun, it gives a sense of accomplishment and worth. At the very least it is an indicator that I have put forth the effort (the boring practice) to be technically capable at the game I love. I mean, it's fun to press a lot of buttons with a purpose.

Oops, this isn't the l-canceling topic. I'm leaving this here anyway.

 

[TreK]

Air Control in SCV is about as dull as DIing a falco dthrow in brawl. It's bad, but it's the only thing you can do so you do it anyway... even if the effects are negligible to say the least.

 

[Johnknight1]

Why is it that every time someone disagrees with Bizzaro's conclusions and makes their case, it is followed by a lame attempt to discredit, sum up, and undermine the other person?

Because he thinks Fox News is for smart people. Seriously, if you want to have a debate, debate the person's points, not their legitimacy based on things that are mere speculation.

I was wondering why he was talking to you that way, but I guess he's just another '12'er Brawl n00b who is a little boy who knows more than the old men because he's hip. Or as we call it, your average GameFAQs smash boards visitor these days!

@ Melomaniacal (finally someone not named Kink-Link, Kuma, or El Duderino who knows what he's talking about)
The off the stage and recovery game also makes for some unpredictable action, and makes every little move count, which is another way that momentum can change in Melee if you do something stupid. The off the stage offense (also known as defending the stage) also adds a whole new dimension to offense and defense in smash, especially with the ability to KO. I used the football analogy before, but landing an off the stage gimp like a deep pass; it can just change the entire complexion of a match. Comparing Melee and Brawl in this regard is like comparing the All-NFL team to a bunch of Division II NCAA players; it just isn't the same.

Similarly, surviving getting blasted off a stage, especially at high damage % in Melee feels so rewarding because of all the ways you can get killed.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Other fighting games focus on giving each character very specific combos that look awesome and take skill to execute flawlessly. Recently there has been a strong focus on making sure combos aren't an instakill by reducing the damage of each consecutive hit until the point where the attack barely deals 1%, thus making the attacker back off so that their damage can return to normal strength. Smash Bros even has a similar method, where if the same attack is used multiple times on the opponent with no other moves being executed on the opponent in between, the attack's effectiveness is reduced.

But what sets Smash Bros apart is that the opponent is never launched in the same location, which most fighting games rely on to initiate the start of combos. If an uppercut is performed in a generic fighting game, the opponent will always rise up into the same location. In Smash Bros, the higher the opponent's damage percentage is is directly proportional to how far they will be launched. The original concept of this damage percentage effecting launch distance is what sets smash bros apart from the competition.

Smash Bros' lack of combos can make it seem less flashy when compared to the high speed flying fists of the competition, but those flying fists are the same flying fists used again and again and again. There is little differentiation once the best combo is discovered. Because other fighter's have characters with set specific combinations, and each character has a different combination, it makes it difficult to pick up a new character and begin playing with them. That new character will not have the same combo string as the previous character and playing as this new character would seem pointless after investing so much time learning the previous character's combo. Fighting game developer's realize this and design their games so that ya can't switch character's between online matches, because they want ya to stick with the same character so that the high level of skill is maintained (Tekken Tag 2 for example) In smash bros, because there are no specific button combos (Besides Mashing The A Button) it allows more freedom between character selection, Although the pros would argue that it takes months to master a character, (which it does) learning their moveset takes minutes. It's this flexibility towards letting the player select character's that makes the fighting world view smash bros as a casual game. (Oh yeah and Items)

So in conclusion, do we need combos? No. Combos do not define a fighting game. The DBZ and Naruto games, Capcom VS series, SoulCalXTekken and Smash Bros are all fighting games, because they pit opponents against eachother in a battle to successfully predict eachothers movements and execute the proper counter.

 

[Zekersaurus]

People are over thinking this. Combos are Fun. Who cares if you need it? The only reason not to have combos in a fighting game is because of balance issues, which can be mitigated with the implementation of a combo breaker.

I also liked the fact that in melee you could shake the analog stick to break out of hitstun faster.

 

[BTmoney]

People are over thinking this. Combos are Fun. Who cares if you need it? The only reason not to have combos in a fighting game is because of balance

Yes

Really any Naruto fighting game (any of them) has a good concept.

Substitution, an effective combo killer​

When you are getting combo'd you can substitute out of it by pushing whatever the button is with fairly lenient timing

For those of you who haven't played any naruto games, there is a gauge that measures your chakra (energy w/e) you get more chakra by hitting your enemy and getting hit.
It takes X amount of chakra to substitute (basically take a hit then teleport behind the enemy) out of a combo and your gauge holds Y amount.
You can do things like turnaround, predicting the substitution and and continue comboing. This is a similar concept to tech-chasing in smash.

However it should not be anywhere as easy as it is to break a combo in smash as it is in naruto (since naruto has very very easy and long combos)
Chakra has other uses but that is completely irrelevant.




Smash could implement something like this if you want the game less combo heavy however I stress it should not be so easy. But really the way melee had combo's was fine.

Seriously watch some Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm gameplay. Substation is a good concept but it should be applied very differently.

 

[-LzR-]

Substitution is a pretty dumb mechanic if you ask me. It rewards you for getting hit. Try TvC Megacrash for a great combobreaker. It costs 2 whole meters and 10% of your health (a very big deal), but it gets you out of combos easily. The problem is that some characters can read it and punish with an unscaled hyper. Overall it's awesome.

 

[BTmoney]

Same concept, there is a cost to breaking out of a combo although it is in your best interest to break out of it most likely

I like that

 

[TreK]

Quoting myself from 5 pages ago to answer this, basically.

I'm from a Smash background, so of course I wanted to be pressing buttons at all time, and not have phases where my opponent is playing guitar hero and I'm hopelessly watching.

But the usual combo breakers in non-smash game don't seem to work quite well for me. It's usually a costly option, or a tech which is often a bad choice. In smash, it's always a good choice to try to break from a combo, but the rate of success is pretty low, I like that about it. You have to make the most out of an advantageous situation or lose the least out of a disadvantageous situation, and not just wait passively for it to end.

 

[rawrimamonster]

Combos are risk reward, you take the risk and applied yourself correctly thus you get the reward. This is why brawl was so horribly planky for so long (still is afaik, i dont play the game) because there was no reward for approaching. So yes, Combos are needed in that sense...otherwise the game is just kinda boring to behold and for a lotta people who dont invest themselves heavily into the deeper aspects of the game, boring to play.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Yes

Really any Naruto fighting game (any of them) has a good concept.

Substitution, an effective combo killer​

When you are getting combo'd you can substitute out of it by pushing whatever the button is with fairly lenient timing

For those of you who haven't played any naruto games, there is a gauge that measures your chakra (energy w/e) you get more chakra by hitting your enemy and getting hit.
It takes X amount of chakra to substitute (basically take a hit then teleport behind the enemy) out of a combo and your gauge holds Y amount.
You can do things like turnaround, predicting the substitution and and continue comboing. This is a similar concept to tech-chasing in smash.

Yeah dude, clash of ninja revolution 3 was really good. The combos were easy and over the top. It seemed like there was a ninja for any desire you could want. What sucked though was that they gave wiimote nunchuck users an advantage over gc controller users, being able to use hand sign powerups and double the strength of special moves.

 

[VictoryIsMudkipz]

Combo's are by far not the worst thing to happen to fighting games, they are a vintage staple for the genre and have been a point of excitement for fans.
Combo's in smash like with a combo list wouldn't be the best idea
, but if they included a combo counter for the skilled players who can chain together moves, it would be fine, but just having a combo list for a character like Yoshi which otherwise would have a hard time combo'ing other characters is not what I want..
(I know I sound a little torn, but this is how it's playing out in my mind)

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Why are people trying so hard to make drastic adjustments to Smash's staple combo system, one of the best things about the entire series, when there are so many other systems to tweak and cover?

Variable knockback by percent, variable angle by victim, high character weight variability, stage control/position management, ridiculous number of movement options (in Melee), platform mechanics, knockback/angle variability in sweetspots/sourspots like no other fighting game, and 6 options on knockdown. You have a LOT of factors and variables to manage every single hit of the combo as both the combo-er and combo-ee and if you get a 0-death combo (in Melee at least) by lining all of those up perfectly you earned that **** because it requires constant reads from players and happens to an ridiculously small percentage (almost never) of hit confirms.

As an unrelated opinion, automatic combo breakers are worse cockblocks than phantom hit Falcon Punches. Arcsys combo breakers are comeback mechanics and are bad by default, TvC style meter bursts just makes hit confirms unsafe every now and then (though some moves can bait them) and drag on matches in a game where long combos aren't really a problem, Naruto CoN substitution works fine because the game revolves heavily around it and Smash already has a combo breaker system like that, it's called teching and DI.

 

[Shorts]

I want Melee's "combos" expanded, refined, and balanced. Easy peasy

 

[El Duderino]

Why are people trying so hard to make drastic adjustments to Smash's staple combo system, one of the best things about the entire series, when there are so many other systems to tweak and cover?

Typically it seems to be a lack of understanding of how Smash's combos play out in the first place.

If you are consistently predictable, you'll pay for it with a string of persistent reads. The resulting frustration of feeling barraged is what leads less attentive players to conclude Smash, in particular Melee, has a combo problem.

 

[~Tac~]

Determined players, intelligence and innovation are what create combos for this series, imo.

 

[Kink-Link5]

That's more of a postulate than an opinion.

I've been staying away from this topic intentionally due to a combination of really not caring about the combo game of Smash and wanting to avoid discussion with Bizarro.

As long as a character is at least +1f for getting a hit and characters are dying before 160% I don't really care if that's due to 5 3-peice combos or individual hits that tack on over time.

 

[Combo Blaze]

SSB 64 combos please.

 

[Renji64]

I think we should have combos it makes the game more fun and rewarding maybe like melee or n64 either one is fine.

 

[~Tac~]

That's more of a postulate than an opinion.

I've been staying away from this topic intentionally due to a combination of really not caring about the combo game of Smash and wanting to avoid discussion with Bizarro.

As long as a character is at least +1f for getting a hit and characters are dying before 160% I don't really care if that's due to 5 3-peice combos or individual hits that tack on over time.

Forgive me, but I clicked that Touhou arrangement and completely forgot about this thread myself.

 

[Hokori]

Combos don't make a game more fun IMO. I'm fine with combos at low percents, just not ones where I already know I'm going to lose a stock the moment it starts. This may be a bad example, but I'll bring up Falco's Gatling Combo. It works low-mid percent, but it's out of the question at high percent. Perfectly fine.

 

[Hypercat-Z]

I agree!
Fox: Highest Speed
Wolf: Highest brawn
Falco: Higest combos
This is their difference and I think it should be like that for all the characters in the game:
Someones fast, someones strong and SOMEONES with high combos. But not more than Falco.

 

[Hokori]

I agree!
Fox: Highest Speed
Wolf: Highest brawn
Falco: Higest combos
This is their difference and I think it should be like that for all the characters in the game:
Someones fast, someones strong and SOMEONES with high combos. But not more than Falco.

By "brawn" do you mean survivability? Because although he can live longer compared to Fox and Falco, I feel like he has the hardest time scoring KOs.

Not sure how that spread in differences would go though..I think the best bet would just be to have more balance all around. Whatever notable flaw a character has, give them some specific tools to aid their struggle.