Does a lack of "true combos" hurt Brawl?

[Big-Cat]

My guess would be no. I would say that 90% of players that play fighting games just mash buttons until a character(s) falls dead.

I was like that for the longest time. Until I started playing Street Fighter (especially as El Fuerte), I didn't understand the whole mindgames thing I heard about. I thought it was just fancy talk for something in high level play. While this is true to a certain extent, low level players will eventually realize their opponent always does a certain thing in a certain situation and exploit it. Now that I think about it, I remember playing 64 and whenever my friend would have Samus' Charge Shot ready to fire, I always reflected as Fox on reaction, he was salty every time I did that.

What is it about fighting games that make people just mindlessly mash buttons and inputs?

Now that you mention it, why put in a combo achievement if it's so damn hard to connect even two hits most of the time?

 

[TurnOneWrath]

What is it about fighting games that makes people just mindlessly mash buttons and inputs?

I believe it to be the Japanese translation of the word "Tekken".
Well, when I started out with Street Fighter, I was pretty bad because I would just mash punch and kick while my opponent would do special moves. Once I learned the specials, either my opponent would either do them faster than me, or he would execute some sort of strategy instead of just doing them.
But at 14, it seemed fun enough at the time because I didn't have a video game system of my own and I didn't think that there was any deeper strategy to the game.

Some people will always find doing only that with a group of buddies fun enough to keep them entertained and have no desire to get anything more out of the game.

Now that you mention it, why put in a combo achievement if it's so damn hard to connect even two hits most of the time?

I think it started out with good intentions, and them somewhere the game's design made a detour and the Challenge really should be, "Can you find at least one wall-infinite?"

 

[Sliq]

...wow my grammar sucks, good think I'm not an English major.

I love you so much. Please tell me English is your second language so I don't hate being American.

I don't think this is the proper attitude to give players for playing to win. I may not like a tactic, but I don't think insulting them or trying to exclude them from the smash community is the right thing to do. .

I generally don't insult them "in person" because it's not worth it, but I won't "include" them in certain ventures, so if that counts as exclusion, them I'm a huge douchebag

I mean, what's gay to you isn't gay to someone else and if we're playing to win that shouldn't have value on who they are as a person. DMG plays gay and hell but he's one of the more community caring smashers. I think not playing to win against me or sandbagging in a tournament set is complete disrespectful. If someone is that much better than me, I want to get wrecked so I can learn how to improve rather than learning little to nothing off being sandbagged.

You'd think that, but even if something is not broken, people will hate it and hate you. Also, respect is earned.

Also, how much do you really learn watching someone infinite your character while you set your controller down and watch?

I understand learning to beat douchebaggery can be helpful, the problem is that I, for example, don't have problems with a lot of douchebag tactics. The problem is that it is super obnoxious and boring to have to deal with someone's stupid **** when they really don't have a chance of winning. They choose a stupid stage or do a stupid tactic, then I beat them anyways. Learn the basics of spacing, prediction, and traps and stop relying on lame little tricks like mashing b and projectile spamming.

People just jump into the lame head first instead of learning the basics of what they need. Then they **** up all the matches with awful, annoying ****, then lose because the lame **** is all they can do.

You can hate them if they act like a ******* IRL, being disrespectful with verbal abuse, physical abuse, etc. Playing defensive going for timeouts says nothing about them as a person. Then playing to win has nothing to do if they are an *** or not, that says something about their competitive philosophy but nothing about them as a person. I really think that kind of attitude to hate them for who they play or how they play is only going to hurt our community rather than make it better.

I'm never verbally abusive IRL unless they are a ****ing tool, which is seldom, sans a few examples I can think of.

Also, I think your playstyle speaks volumes about you as a person, and this just comes from personal experience.

The community is already ****.

 

[JOE!]

@Sliq:

well yeah, unfortunatley people never wanna stick to basics, as the natural thing to do would use the thing thats easy and (seems) to give a great advantage (at first), aka being lame.

Unfortunatley that eventually screws them once they fight someone who knows how to get around it, as then they have no substance to bakc up the "gay"

 

[OkamiBW]

I would say a combo is a set of moves strung together that do more effecient and effective damage to the opponent. This can be accomplished by having certain moves "cancel" into one another (shortening the time it takes for the next move to it to less than the time that it would take to do the move by itself), or by some other mode of cancelling a player may find. A combo may also require very easy to very difficult button combinations.

You're partly correct.

A true combo is a string of attacks (improvised or set) that are guaranteed and inescapable provided that the first hit connects.

There are several factors that can influence a combo being true, not, or pseudo. DI, execution, stage positioning among other things can be factors.

At any rate, perhaps it's been said already, I didn't bother to read more than the first and last page so far, but the thing I believe hurts Brawl greatly is the lack of options compared to Melee. Excuse me for not being 100% knowledgeable since I do not play Brawl competitively (while I host Melee tournaments). I trust though that I have a solid amount of knowledge about the game. I am in no way trying to offend anyone by saying that I think Melee is a better game for competition...I am merely stating my opinion, and you have the right to respectfully agree or disagree with it.

Here's some examples:

Getting onto a platform with Falco
In Melee:
Your short hop is too short; your full hop goes double the length (or more) of the platform. So what do you do? Air dodge into it and waveland onto the platform.
In Brawl:
Your short hop is too short; your full hop is too long. What do you do? Wait for your character to land.

Recovering with Jigglypuff who is out of jumps
In Melee:
Air dodge up
In Brawl:
Grab the magnetic edge Fall

Getting chaingrabbed
In Melee:
DI towards a platform
In Brawl:
Lie down and take it

Playing Link
In Melee:
You suck in fighting games and you're low tier
In Brawl:
You suck in fighting games and you're low tier

Spoiler

SSB 64, SSBM, SSBB, Soul Calibur II

These are very limited examples, but they demonstrate just a taste of the lack of options in Brawl.

P.S. {Tripping, Lack of Light Shielding, Lack of Power Shielding, Lack of Mewtwo, Lack of Hitstun} are all other things I personally dislike.

 

[Sliq]

@Sliq:

well yeah, unfortunatley people never wanna stick to basics, as the natural thing to do would use the thing thats easy and (seems) to give a great advantage (at first), aka being lame.

Unfortunatley that eventually screws them once they fight someone who knows how to get around it, as then they have no substance to bakc up the "gay"

This. I've beaten a lot of *******s that pick D3 just to infinite me. They don't know anything but spaminng CG, and even they they mess it up.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Getting chaingrabbed
In Melee:
DI towards a platform
In Brawl:
Lie down and take it

That pretty vague and focusing on certain CGs, there are CGs in both games that a platform isn't going to make a difference, and in Brawl there are CGs where a platform will mess it up.

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

I think combo is a word that is just as applicable when considering any string of attacks, even if the opponent was able to spotdodge/airdodge/roll. If you're able to read where your opponent will go, it doesn't matter if there wasn't enough hit stun to techinically make it un-reactionable, you're still going to hit them.

 

[Wenbobular]

ICs infinites are often banned, Dthrow infinite is escapable, ledge chaingrab is very situation specific
Everyone else's chaingrab you can either DI to a platform / DI off the side

Some reason I don't see Sheik chaingrabs nearly as much as you'd think ... but then again, maybe that's why people don't play low tiers in tournament haha

@above
I don't see how those two are comparable ... one is guaranteed hits, the other is a series of reads ~_~
Those are two completely different things.

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

I didn't say they weren't different, but they can be equally effective. A string of attacks is a string of attacks regardless of how they happened.

 

[Wenbobular]

...No...

You see, one string of attacks is, given correct DI, guaranteed.

The other string of attacks you have to predict every time you want to land your next hit.

So for one string, you get to hit them a bunch 100% of the time, barring execution flaws.
The other string you get to hit them like ... 1/3 the time even if you execute flawlessly assuming they choose their option randomly.

I mean yeah most people have bad habits / you can sometimes cover more than 1 option
But that's still worse than ... not giving them options in the first place.

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

First of all, you can't say guaranteed immediately after you say 'given correct DI.' That in itself, is not a guarantee.

Second, proper timing execution is essentially the same to melee as proper reading is to brawl. If you mess up your timing, then you mess up your combo in melee. If you mess up your read, you mess up your combo in brawl. How are you finding this huge difference?

Just because one requires muscle memory, and the other requires reading, doesn't mean that one is a combo and one is not. If you read an opponents actions properly, then you still get your 100% hits. If you're saying you only get 1/3 hits, then you're saying that the read was incorrect, in which case I have no arguement. "You read incorrectly? Your fault."

I know they operate differently, but regardless of how it is accomplished, a combo is a combo. If you have to read to acheive it, then great. If you have to memorize a series of motions, then great. It's still a combo.

 

[TurnOneWrath]

A string of attacks and a combo can be equally effective given the following vastly different cases:

String of Attacks: An incompetent opponent with no idea of the notion of using the "Block" button, moving about in a predictable manner being that you can see the savehaven that he is likely about to retreat to

Combo: A competent opponent who will occasionally use the "Block" button and usually has a viable means of avoiding one or more attacks in a given "string of attacks"

 

[Wenbobular]

They differ because in a combo, you can DI out of it with smart DI ... but if you don't you have no escape

In Brawls series of attacks system you always have a chance to get out if they cover the wrong option ~_~

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But if you can DI out, then it's not a true combo.

 

[volume]

But if you can DI out, then it's not a true combo.

then melee didnt have true combo's? wth

 

[Dark Sonic]

First of all, you can't say guaranteed immediately after you say 'given correct DI.' That in itself, is not a guarantee.

There are plenty of combos that work regardless of DI in melee. With proper positioning before hand, you can react to every form of DI and prevent their escape. The only difference DI makes is what they can possibly hit you with and how long this situation will repeat itself.

With good DI you will eventually be able to escape because you'll be hit by something that they can't follow up from.


Melee combos are actually an oddity among combos. In some situations, every single DI path can be hit ON REACTION. I'd consider these situations to be true combos. Even though they could escape from that particular set of attacks, by doing so they'd be guaranteed to be hit by something else. Other situations involve the opponent DIing into your combo, when proper DI would've let them escape without any reactionary followups. I'd consider these strings because there was an escape point that the opponent didn't take.

Second, proper timing execution is essentially the same to melee as proper reading is to brawl. If you mess up your timing, then you mess up your combo in melee. If you mess up your read, you mess up your combo in brawl. How are you finding this huge difference?

There is a very significant difference that you're not seeing, so I'll tell you.

Proper timing and execution is all independent of the other player's actions. You practice it yourself and there is absolutely nothing your opponent can do to counteract that. If you don't mess up, the combo HAPPENS.

Reads are different. Reads happen when you predict which of the available options your opponent is going to take. This however, CAN be affected by your opponent, given that they have multiple options. If your opponent simply picks options RANDOMLY, then he will get away for free some of the time, because obviously you wouldn't always be covering the option that he just happened to pick.

Most players don't pick their options truly randomly of course, but that doesn't change the fact that your "string" could be considered just as much a mistake of the other player as it could be your success.

Just because one requires muscle memory, and the other requires reading, doesn't mean that one is a combo and one is not.

Actually, it does. A combo is a successful execution leading to more damage. A read is a successful punishment of the other player's overly predictable behavior leading to more damage. Being overly predictable is a fault of the opponent, while being technically proficient is an asset of the player.

If you read an opponents actions properly, then you still get your 100% hits.

"Reading an opponent's actions properly" is not something independent of the other player. Why aren't you looking at the other side of the coin? If a person is reading the other player all of the time, then doesn't that mean the other player isn't mixing it up properly? Therefore, part of it is a mistake of the other player, and thus not something you worked for.

If you're saying you only get 1/3 hits, then you're saying that the read was incorrect, in which case I have no arguement. "You read incorrectly? Your fault."

Can you read what number a dice roll will land on? What he's saying is, sometimes a player won't have an identifiable pattern, because they specifically tried to make their decisions seem random. Here's an example in case you don't believe people can control this.


Let's say I have 4 possible options for getting out of a string (A, B, C, and D). I can preemptively decide that when the situation arises, I'm going to use this pattern.

A.A.C.D.B.B.A.D.C.D.A.B.C.B.D.D repeat, ect, ect, ect? Or, if you want something even more simple, I just decide to not use the same option more than twice in a row. Even with this knowledge, how are you going to read me 100% of the time? I have no recognizable pattern, so there's really nothing you can do to get guaranteed damage.


That is the difference between combos and strings. They are related, but not synonymous.


And you know what's kinda interesting? Strings themselves can be very deep and entertaining. Watching a player get read like a book and be countered over and over is exciting. Top level brawl matches occasionally produce something that even I can enjoy.

My problem with brawl strings is that each read is so unrewarding individually. Getting a read in brawl very often means getting one hit, then going for another read. It's impressive when you manage large strings of this, but most opponents eventually mix their game up enough that you can't reasonably predict what they're going to do, and they can get out by a stroke of luck.



Why'd I bother posting here?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Actually I would have to say Dark Sonic, that was a lot better and informative than most posts about it.

So it was worthwhile.

 

[Wenbobular]

Yeah I suck at articulating and was hoping someone would do it for me haha

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well you did fine with the L canceling stuff before.

But really I do have to agree than for some strings to work in Brawl you need a lot more harder reads to get them off, compared to Melee.

 

[OkamiBW]

Well said, Dark Sonic.

@RedRyu-You mention a lot more harder reads. So basically, in Brawl, the reward is not very high compared to Melee. Thus...it pays to be more offensive in Melee and it pays to be campy in Brawl. In conclusion, Melee is generally more entertaining to watch due to this speed.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well said, Dark Sonic.

@RedRyu-You mention a lot more harder reads. So basically, in Brawl, the reward is not very high compared to Melee. Thus...it pays to be more offensive in Melee and it pays to be campy in Brawl. In conclusion, Melee is generally more entertaining to watch due to this speed.

Pretty much.

In general Melee has better rewards for offense, but offense still exists in Brawl.

Main reason I have been posting in here is to point out stuff I think isn't correct or I don't agree with.

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

I see your point dark sonic, but I think that you are misinterpreting what I'm saying here. I'm simply pointing out that on the assumption that reads are done correctly, then you can string attacks together just as easily as you can in melee. I do realize that melee has more combo POTENTIAL in the sense that you can string more attacks at times, but even at top levels of play in brawl, you will see times where players can string numerous attacks on an opponent.

If you guys can -assume- that the person comboing in melee is not going to mess up his timing, then it should be fine to assume that you can also read appropriately given the correct circumstance.

The 'randomness' thing is obviously a strong rebuttal, and I'm not trying to dispute that it is certainly possible that players will simply act as random and give themselves a better chance to get away. What can not, and I repeat, CAN NOT, be denied, is that every player has some sort of habits. They may be more complex for top level players, and less noticeable, but it is still undeniable that with proper thought process, you can identify these habits, however small they may seem.

Lastly, I absolutely beyond all doubt agree that melee matches are more fun to watch. If anything just because it's a faster game and much more technically intricate. I was simply stating that combos are certainly possible in brawl, although, and I wouldn't blame you for faulting me on this, I probably should have stated that I wasn't using a strict definition of combo meaning 'inescapable.' I was using combo as you would in a boxing match. A string of attacks involving reads and speed, attempting to catch your opponent off guard. You can obviously avoid some punches, but if your opponent is smart, they will know how you will try.

 

[OkamiBW]

I believe, the definition of "combo" in fighting games is: a series of inescapable hits provided that the first hit connects.

 

[Signia]

SmashChu, as much as I share your stigma against the smash community, please stop making "Serlin" (SIRLIN ...) and yourself look bad. Reread the book he wrote (lol "when he made up Play to Win") and find the part where he talks about when playing to win results in degenerate play. His solution to simply play a different game, because a game where the winning move causes the game to be degenerate -- that is to say, uninteresting -- is, by his definition, a bad game.

Also, your comparisons to Starcraft don't make any sense as Starcraft is not a fighting game. Yes, it's another competitive game, and we can, as you say, learn a lot from their communities and game design. However, your claim that combos are not needed because Starcraft does not have them is the logical equivalent of saying "hitstun is not needed because Starcraft doesn't have any." Or "Smash needs resource management."

This just shows your utter misunderstanding of what combos actually do as a game mechanic. At the beginning of the combo, we have the combo starter. In theory, the combo starter is really just a very powerful attack. After it starts, the player must make a correct evaluation in order maximize damage. He must confirm the starter has hit, in some cases must determine what kind of hit, then choose the most damaging options afterward, which may change based on factors like stage position, or game specific things like distance to a wall or edge, DI, or combo-breakers like GG's burst. The interaction is mostly one-player, with the comboing player making most of the decisions.

So, without comboing, you lose some key things:

-Some powerful options. Most of the time, combos will offer more damage than single hits, so losing powerful options decreases the impact of any single choice in the game. This is easily replaced by having good single hits, but Brawl does not have them. For this reason, almost all single choices in Brawl have little to no meaning, and one gains very little ground for each correct prediction. In a smash game, where there are so many options, a correct read should mean a great deal. Since it does not, lack of true combos DOES hurt Brawl in this way.

-A valuation test. The combo tests the comboing player to see if they can maximize damage, or optimize the situation. Yes, once you go on the community site and memorize a combo in most fighting games, you don't have to vary it up. However, this situation optimization is no different than knowing not to spam charged smashes. The combo mechanic just adds another avenue for players to excel in the valuation test, the test of game knowledge and optimization. Without this layer of complexity, Brawl is less deep is therefore hurt by lack of combos. In case you're not convinced that valuation is a necessary and interesting skill test in order for a game to be good for competition, consider a single game of rock-paper-scissors, where no valuation is done. Single-round rock-paper-scissors is a terrible competitive game because it tests prediction without valuation.

-An execution test. All non-turn based games test execution to some degree. This test can infuse some of real-life's depth into the game. However, sometimes the execution test is uninteresting. When no choice is involved, the execution test is said by many to be "arbitrary," but when valuation or prediction is tied with it, execution becomes interesting. (Consider a button mashing Mario Party mini-game and professional sports. Which is more interesting?) In most fighting games, the combo mechanic involves little choice after the starter, and therefore little tie to valuation and prediction tests, but in Melee, the interaction is two-player and is moderately tested by prediction and HEAVILY tested by valuation, thanks to the added complexity of varied knockback due to percentage, different hitboxes at different times in each move, stale moves, and DI. Having to make decisions based on a complex system and executing it on the fly makes for very deep and therefore interesting play. The execution test must be high in order to allow for many decisions to be available in real time. Not having the execution test on its own does not hurt Brawl much, but its tie to the other interesting skill tests is too strong for it to be "arbitrary."

Melee's combo system is the deepest ever conceived, and Brawl could have had something similar. It does not, and it loses depth, therefore lack of it hurts Brawl.

As usual, my analysis seems pretty comprehensive to me. Let me know if I missed anything, but for the love of god please do not restate anything.

Sources - recommended to all

Kiekegaard, Alex. On Complexity, Depth, and Skill
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_complexity_depth_and_skill/

Sirlin, David. Playing to Win.
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

 

[OkamiBW]

I would recommend mentioning yomi, perhaps. I'll do so and tie it in slightly to your post. It kinda goes along with valuation, I think...

First of all, for all you casual Brawlers...you need to know what yomi means.

Yomi comes from the Japanese word yomu (読む), which means "to read". In the sense that I've seen it used (and I am no expert by any means), it refers to reading your opponent's mind (lit.), and in the sense of Melee (or Brawl, if you will), it refers to good guessing of what your opponent will do in a given situation.

Take one of Captain Falcon's standard combos for example: Captain Falcon Up Airs an arbitrary character around 60% and then is given the option to Up Air again or to Knee (F-air).

This is guaranteed provided Captain Falcon got the first hit as we have already established is a combo. In Melee, Falcon gets the opportunity to guess whether (for all intents and purposes) the opponent will expect another Up Air or the Knee. If the opponent thinks Captain Falcon will Up Air again, he will DI down and away from Falcon to avoid getting Knee'd afterwards and therefore survives (combo unsuccessful). If the opponent guesses wrong and Falcon Knee's, he goes flying to the blast line and dies at a relatively low percent (combo successful). If the opponent guesses that Falcon will Knee, he will DI up and in to avoid dying. If he guesses correctly, he'll survive the Knee (combo unsuccessful). If he guesses wrong...Up Air combos into a Knee and he dies (combo successful).

In conclusion, without combos, you lose some think-on-your-feet mindgames in exchange for campier hit-and-run mindgames.

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

This is really an unanswerable question, I think. I like both games and would have no problem playing either with their respective styles. Though, I'm sure there are some that would much prefer melee and some (though admittedly less) that would much prefer brawls style of play. To say it hurts it es unfair though, because in truth, the play styles of each game are different enough to be considered on their own.

On another note, I'm gonna crap myself in happiness when Project M comes out. I won't even clean up before playing it.

 

[MonkUnit]

The question of "Does a lack of "true combos" hurt brawl?" is a question that cannot be answered factually. It can only be answered by opinions and you can't change EVERYONE's opinion. I don't know why this thread is still open.

 

[Signia]

The question of "Does a lack of "true combos" hurt brawl?" is a question that cannot be answered factually.

lol, I just did. scroll up

 

[Sliq]

SmashChu, as much as I share your stigma against the smash community, please stop making "Serlin" (SIRLIN ...) and yourself look bad. Reread the book he wrote (lol "when he made up Play to Win") and find the part where he talks about when playing to win results in degenerate play. His solution to simply play a different game, because a game where the winning move causes the game to be degenerate -- that is to say, uninteresting -- is, by his definition, a bad game.

Also, your comparisons to Starcraft don't make any sense as Starcraft is not a fighting game. Yes, it's another competitive game, and we can, as you say, learn a lot from their communities and game design. However, your claim that combos are not needed because Starcraft does not have them is the logical equivalent of saying "hitstun is not needed because Starcraft doesn't have any." Or "Smash needs resource management."

This just shows your utter misunderstanding of what combos actually do as a game mechanic. At the beginning of the combo, we have the combo starter. In theory, the combo starter is really just a very powerful attack. After it starts, the player must make a correct evaluation in order maximize damage. He must confirm the starter has hit, in some cases must determine what kind of hit, then choose the most damaging options afterward, which may change based on factors like stage position, or game specific things like distance to a wall or edge, DI, or combo-breakers like GG's burst. The interaction is mostly one-player, with the comboing player making most of the decisions.

So, without comboing, you lose some key things:

-Some powerful options. Most of the time, combos will offer more damage than single hits, so losing powerful options decreases the impact of any single choice in the game. This is easily replaced by having good single hits, but Brawl does not have them. For this reason, almost all single choices in Brawl have little to no meaning, and one gains very little ground for each correct prediction. In a smash game, where there are so many options, a correct read should mean a great deal. Since it does not, lack of true combos DOES hurt Brawl in this way.

-A valuation test. The combo tests the comboing player to see if they can maximize damage, or optimize the situation. Yes, once you go on the community site and memorize a combo in most fighting games, you don't have to vary it up. However, this situation optimization is no different than knowing not to spam charged smashes. The combo mechanic just adds another avenue for players to excel in the valuation test, the test of game knowledge and optimization. Without this layer of complexity, Brawl is less deep is therefore hurt by lack of combos. In case you're not convinced that valuation is a necessary and interesting skill test in order for a game to be good for competition, consider a single game of rock-paper-scissors, where no valuation is done. Single-round rock-paper-scissors is a terrible competitive game because it tests prediction without valuation.

-An execution test. All non-turn based games test execution to some degree. This test can infuse some of real-life's depth into the game. However, sometimes the execution test is uninteresting. When no choice is involved, the execution test is said by many to be "arbitrary," but when valuation or prediction is tied with it, execution becomes interesting. (Consider a button mashing Mario Party mini-game and professional sports. Which is more interesting?) In most fighting games, the combo mechanic involves little choice after the starter, and therefore little tie to valuation and prediction tests, but in Melee, the interaction is two-player and is moderately tested by prediction and HEAVILY tested by valuation, thanks to the added complexity of varied knockback due to percentage, different hitboxes at different times in each move, stale moves, and DI. Having to make decisions based on a complex system and executing it on the fly makes for very deep and therefore interesting play. The execution test must be high in order to allow for many decisions to be available in real time. Not having the execution test on its own does not hurt Brawl much, but its tie to the other interesting skill tests is too strong for it to be "arbitrary."

Melee's combo system is the deepest ever conceived, and Brawl could have had something similar. It does not, and it loses depth, therefore lack of it hurts Brawl.

As usual, my analysis seems pretty comprehensive to me. Let me know if I missed anything, but for the love of god please do not restate anything.

Sources - recommended to all

Kiekegaard, Alex. On Complexity, Depth, and Skill
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_complexity_depth_and_skill/

Sirlin, David. Playing to Win.
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

Best post in this thread/on this forum/on the internet.

 

[Black Mantis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqT2y4DRoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ely7VTpG3N4&feature=related

this is how Melee should be played

but seriously having combos doesn't hurt Brawl at all. in fact, people have created their own combos lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP0SlXaxKF8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_wt9sY4MXQ&feature=related

 

[SmashChu]

I haven't posted in this thread in a while, and someone made a post about me.

SmashChu, as much as I share your stigma against the smash community, please stop making "Serlin" (SIRLIN ...) and yourself look bad. Reread the book he wrote (lol "when he made up Play to Win") and find the part where he talks about when playing to win results in degenerate play. His solution to simply play a different game, because a game where the winning move causes the game to be degenerate -- that is to say, uninteresting -- is, by his definition, a bad game.

And when does that happen in Smash Brothers.

If this is about items, they do not win the match so get that out of your head. Items are a part of the game and a tool for the player to use. If items are on, you have to play around them; it's just fact. This would be the same as playing on 75mm and watching out for Donkey Kong. The problem I see with high level players is they don't think "what should I do with this item," and instead go "HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I GOT A STARROD," and will immediately throw it. Any smart player would tell do not do that as your opponent can just dodge it for a free Star Rod full of ammo.

Also, your comparisons to Starcraft don't make any sense as Starcraft is not a fighting game. Yes, it's another competitive game, and we can, as you say, learn a lot from their communities and game design. However, your claim that combos are not needed because Starcraft does not have them is the logical equivalent of saying "hitstun is not needed because Starcraft doesn't have any." Or "Smash needs resource management."

The point is that competitive games don't need combos. I fail to see why Brawl's metagame HAS to have combos. Maybe it can have something else (that whole point was "look, Starcraft doesn't have combos and it's very competitive.")

This just shows your utter misunderstanding of what combos actually do as a game mechanic. At the beginning of the combo, we have the combo starter. In theory, the combo starter is really just a very powerful attack. After it starts, the player must make a correct evaluation in order maximize damage. He must confirm the starter has hit, in some cases must determine what kind of hit, then choose the most damaging options afterward, which may change based on factors like stage position, or game specific things like distance to a wall or edge, DI, or combo-breakers like GG's burst. The interaction is mostly one-player, with the comboing player making most of the decisions.

So, without comboing, you lose some key things:

-Some powerful options. Most of the time, combos will offer more damage than single hits, so losing powerful options decreases the impact of any single choice in the game. This is easily replaced by having good single hits, but Brawl does not have them. For this reason, almost all single choices in Brawl have little to no meaning, and one gains very little ground for each correct prediction. In a smash game, where there are so many options, a correct read should mean a great deal. Since it does not, lack of true combos DOES hurt Brawl in this way.

-A valuation test. The combo tests the comboing player to see if they can maximize damage, or optimize the situation. Yes, once you go on the community site and memorize a combo in most fighting games, you don't have to vary it up. However, this situation optimization is no different than knowing not to spam charged smashes. The combo mechanic just adds another avenue for players to excel in the valuation test, the test of game knowledge and optimization. Without this layer of complexity, Brawl is less deep is therefore hurt by lack of combos. In case you're not convinced that valuation is a necessary and interesting skill test in order for a game to be good for competition, consider a single game of rock-paper-scissors, where no valuation is done. Single-round rock-paper-scissors is a terrible competitive game because it tests prediction without valuation.

-An execution test. All non-turn based games test execution to some degree. This test can infuse some of real-life's depth into the game. However, sometimes the execution test is uninteresting. When no choice is involved, the execution test is said by many to be "arbitrary," but when valuation or prediction is tied with it, execution becomes interesting. (Consider a button mashing Mario Party mini-game and professional sports. Which is more interesting?) In most fighting games, the combo mechanic involves little choice after the starter, and therefore little tie to valuation and prediction tests, but in Melee, the interaction is two-player and is moderately tested by prediction and HEAVILY tested by valuation, thanks to the added complexity of varied knockback due to percentage, different hitboxes at different times in each move, stale moves, and DI. Having to make decisions based on a complex system and executing it on the fly makes for very deep and therefore interesting play. The execution test must be high in order to allow for many decisions to be available in real time. Not having the execution test on its own does not hurt Brawl much, but its tie to the other interesting skill tests is too strong for it to be "arbitrary."

Melee's combo system is the deepest ever conceived, and Brawl could have had something similar. It does not, and it loses depth, therefore lack of it hurts Brawl.

As usual, my analysis seems pretty comprehensive to me. Let me know if I missed anything, but for the love of god please do not restate anything.

Sources - recommended to all

Funny enough, I didn't read that. You can go on and on about why combos are good, but the simple fact is that they are not in Brawl (or at least not how they were in Melee) and that's that. Saying how they are SOOO good wont bring them back. Of course, the topic is "Does a lack of Combos hurt Brawl." My response is "does it matter?" Seeing as how Brawl still has big major tournaments, I would say no.

Competitiveness is not based around combos.

 

[OkamiBW]

This is really an unanswerable question, I think. I like both games and would have no problem playing either with their respective styles. Though, I'm sure there are some that would much prefer melee and some (though admittedly less) that would much prefer brawls style of play. To say it hurts it es unfair though, because in truth, the play styles of each game are different enough to be considered on their own.

On another note, I'm gonna crap myself in happiness when Project M comes out. I won't even clean up before playing it.

The question of "Does a lack of "true combos" hurt brawl?" is a question that cannot be answered factually. It can only be answered by opinions and you can't change EVERYONE's opinion. I don't know why this thread is still open.

Response:

And when does that happen in Smash Brothers.

If this is about items, they do not win the match so get that out of your head. Items are a part of the game and a tool for the player to use. If items are on, you have to play around them; it's just fact. This would be the same as playing on 75mm and watching out for Donkey Kong. The problem I see with high level players is they don't think "what should I do with this item," and instead go "HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I GOT A STARROD," and will immediately throw it. Any smart player would tell do not do that as your opponent can just dodge it for a free Star Rod full of ammo.

Oh no! Not another one of you people!

First of all, items are degenerate and bad for competitive play. Items spawn randomly. That means that if there is one player who is about to win and a Starman appears, ho ho ho! As luck would have it Someone may get a second chance! In addition, items give an advantage to characters like Captain Falcon who can move really quickly and gives a disadvantage to characters like Bowser who cannot cover much ground quickly. You'd be very silly to think that items are "part of the game and a tool for the player to use". For your benefit, I'm going to guess that you're not completely brain dead ignorant and that you're just trolling.

Next let me say that it is quite clear that Signia was not talking about items.

a game where the winning move causes the game to be degenerate...is...a bad game

Basically, he means that in a game like Brawl where there is no point to take risks for large rewards, camping is the "winning move" that is the problem. Characters who can sit back and set up shop and wait for characters like Captain Falcon and Jigglypuff to come to them are at a HUGE advantage. Not only that, but PLAYERS who want to play aggressively have a significantly more difficult time winning.

This problem is not as prevalent in Melee because you can afford to take a risk for a high reward of a combo in Melee.

The point is that competitive games don't need combos. I fail to see why Brawl's metagame HAS to have combos. Maybe it can have something else (that whole point was "look, Starcraft doesn't have combos and it's very competitive.")

What kind of point are you trying to make?

Couldn't you just say:
"I fail to see why Chess has to have 16 pieces. Maybe it can have something else. Poker doesn't have 16 pieces and it's very competitive."

In addition, if you actually read Signia's post, you'd find this:

This (combos) is easily replaced by having good single hits, but Brawl does not have them.

Next you say:

Funny enough, I didn't read that. You can go on and on about why combos are good, but the simple fact is that they are not in Brawl (or at least not how they were in Melee) and that's that. Saying how they are SOOO good wont bring them back. Of course, the topic is "Does a lack of Combos hurt Brawl." My response is "does it matter?" Seeing as how Brawl still has big major tournaments, I would say no.

Competitiveness is not based around combos.

Now you're simply not making any sense. If we are "going on and on about why combos are good", then isn't that to say that we're simply answering the question the OP posted?

Competitiveness is not based around combos? Competitiveness relates to valuation, options, and execution, which combos produce tests of.

However, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling and not ignorant.

 

[TurnOneWrath]

If this is about items, they do not win the match so get that out of your head. Items are a part of the game and a tool for the player to use. If items are on, you have to play around them; it's just fact.

In Melee, this statement could possibly fly under the radar, but if you are saying this about the items in Brawl, then it's a pretty foolhardy statement.
The items in Brawl, when compared to those of any other game, are simply out of control.
The soccer ball is basically "hit your opponent with a fully charged smash attack regardless of where you or they are on the screen." Fully charged smash attacks don't happen often, and the length of time that it takes to fully charge smash attacks points to the fact that the game designers didn't want them happening as often as a player jumps. From my experience playing, they hardly happen at all. This item just allows them to happen not only more often, but from any line-of-sight position on the screen.
That's nuts.
The smash ball is lopsided depending on the character. For instance, when Meta Knight gets it, he still has to approach the opponent and make sure it connects or it's wasted, and Samus' final smash is atrociously underwhelming. But if you pick Falco, and people are camping and the ball happens to drift onto the screen where you are, you just get it and push be. No timing involved, and no approaching involved unless you choose to run them over with a tank the size of the stage as opposed to just shooting them. Lucario's is stupid powerful as well, but at least you have to move the control stick to point the death-ray at your opponent. All of that is too swingy and character dependant.
And they are nuts.
The party ball thingy can drop food to save you or bombs to kill you. Completely at random. Although I'm not an advocate of items in competition, I don't see this one as all that nuts because I experienced it in Melee and got used to it, I guess.
If the items are just things like the Star Rod or Sword, and possibly even Capsules may not prove too swingy, but they aren't. Knowing you will win or lose by the Pokeball in your hand introduces more randomness to the game than there should be.


... and a Deku nut or Rocket Launcher. Oh my gosh, an opponent picking that up is the exact equivalent of you just walking off the edge of the stage.
Not to be scrubbish or anything, but again, it's like a third person watching a game of chess throwing a tennis ball onto the board, and whatever pieces he knocks off that your opponent controls are considered captured.

That's how crazy the items in this game are, and that's why they can never work in competition.

 

[Signia]

Funny enough, I didn't read that. You can go on and on about why combos are good, but the simple fact is that they are not in Brawl (or at least not how they were in Melee) and that's that. Saying how they are SOOO good wont bring them back. Of course, the topic is "Does a lack of Combos hurt Brawl." My response is "does it matter?" Seeing as how Brawl still has big major tournaments, I would say no.

OK you must be an idiot. How close-minded of you, to not to read the opposing argument. I put up with your garbage posts, the least you can do is read mine so you can at least properly respond to them.

And I don't know what to make of what you say after that... I mean it's not like I'm trying to bring back combos in Brawl, I have no way of doing that, lol. I only stated exactly how the lack of combos hurt Brawl. Sure, they aren't in Brawl, and that's that, but this is the topic. And if whether brawl suffers from lack of combos doesn't matter, why have you even taken a position in this discussion?

What a ****ing joke, carrying on an argument, and then when someone sees through your fallacies it suddenly doesn't matter? Best be trolling

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

So what if single choices don't mean more? You're essentially saying it's better for a game that one slight mishap could cost you an entire stock. I've watched numerous videos of professional players that are able to remove an entire stock, simply because their opponent managed to let themselves get grabbed. Furthermore, what's it matter if you need to read your opponent more? Saying that individual reads aren't as important in brawl doesn't actually do anything for your argument other than further display your preference towards melee.

Once again, this is not a concrete answer to such an opened ended question.

 

[Masmasher@]

In Melee, this statement could possibly fly under the radar, but if you are saying this about the items in Brawl, then it's a pretty foolhardy statement.
The items in Brawl, when compared to those of any other game, are simply out of control.
The soccer ball is basically "hit your opponent with a fully charged smash attack regardless of where you or they are on the screen." Fully charged smash attacks don't happen often, and the length of time that it takes to fully charge smash attacks points to the fact that the game designers didn't want them happening as often as a player jumps. From my experience playing, they hardly happen at all. This item just allows them to happen not only more often, but from any line-of-sight position on the screen.
That's nuts.
The smash ball is lopsided depending on the character. For instance, when Meta Knight gets it, he still has to approach the opponent and make sure it connects or it's wasted, and Samus' final smash is atrociously underwhelming. But if you pick Falco, and people are camping and the ball happens to drift onto the screen where you are, you just get it and push be. No timing involved, and no approaching involved unless you choose to run them over with a tank the size of the stage as opposed to just shooting them. Lucario's is stupid powerful as well, but at least you have to move the control stick to point the death-ray at your opponent. All of that is too swingy and character dependant.
And they are nuts.
The party ball thingy can drop food to save you or bombs to kill you. Completely at random. Although I'm not an advocate of items in competition, I don't see this one as all that nuts because I experienced it in Melee and got used to it, I guess.
If the items are just things like the Star Rod or Sword, and possibly even Capsules may not prove too swingy, but they aren't. Knowing you will win or lose by the Pokeball in your hand introduces more randomness to the game than there should be.


... and a Deku nut or Rocket Launcher. Oh my gosh, an opponent picking that up is the exact equivalent of you just walking off the edge of the stage.
Not to be scrubbish or anything, but again, it's like a third person watching a game of chess throwing a tennis ball onto the board, and whatever pieces he knocks off that your opponent controls are considered captured.

That's how crazy the items in this game are, and that's why they can never work in competition.

actually items can be regulated in brawl
one of the reasons among the fact that melee got rid of items is that you cant turn of exploding capsules and boxes/crates/barrels in item play...no matter what item you leave on. asides from the fact that one one ones are balanced pretty well without them

brawl just took the melee and 64 format and pasted it on to their game
even though the developer tried to legitmately **** on the this type of play

Signias post is the ****ing truth though

lack of combos hurt brawl bad some matchups against meta knight wouldnt be half as lopsided if you could get a hit in and not have to back off because of the laser sword/trascendant priority


the threat of further punishment is always better. in melee fox vs captain falcon is clearly in foxes favor but with combos and correct assesement of di captain falcon can kill at early percents. could you imagine if he had to do hit and run like you have to do in brawl because thats what brawls offense basically boils down to. hit and run/ hoping for a dodge

 

[OkamiBW]

So what if single choices don't mean more? You're essentially saying it's better for a game that one slight mishap could cost you an entire stock. I've watched numerous videos of professional players that are able to remove an entire stock, simply because their opponent managed to let themselves get grabbed. Furthermore, what's it matter if you need to read your opponent more? Saying that individual reads aren't as important in brawl doesn't actually do anything for your argument other than further display your preference towards melee.

Once again, this is not a concrete answer to such an opened ended question.

You don't really seem to understand. It's that if there's no large reward for taking any sort of risk, why should you take any risks? In fact, you should just not risk anything and not approach at all. Not approaching is not only boring, but it also gives a huge advantage to characters who are better at camping, like Snake for example.

Not only is a single grab leading to a death rare, but it is usually well-deserved. If you can continue to read your opponent better than they can mix-up, why shouldn't they lose their stock? You just sound like you're whining about getting punished. Perhaps you might as well just play with 10 stocks with your buddies.

What do you mean why does it matter if you need to read your opponent? What do you want? A game where you just go on auto-pilot and whoever wins is determine by no mindgames or thinking, for that matter, at all?

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

You don't really seem to understand. It's that if there's no large reward for taking any sort of risk, why should you take any risks? In fact, you should just not risk anything and not approach at all. Not approaching is not only boring, but it also gives a huge advantage to characters who are better at camping, like Snake for example.

Not only is a single grab leading to a death rare, but it is usually well-deserved. If you can continue to read your opponent better than they can mix-up, why shouldn't they lose their stock? You just sound like you're whining about getting punished. Perhaps you might as well just play with 10 stocks with your buddies.

What do you mean why does it matter if you need to read your opponent? What do you want? A game where you just go on auto-pilot and whoever wins is determine by no mindgames or thinking, for that matter, at all?

Do you even see what you're typing? You're just flat out fabricating information to suit your needs. There are certainly risks worth taking in brawl, and certainly characters that are suited to take those risks. The DK vs Snake match up, relies on DK taking the risk of approaching to minimize snakes camping abilities while still maximizing his own spacing ability. You think that running through, potentially, 2 grenades, a land mine, c4, and a nikita isn't a risk?

You're also putting words in my mouth, which is a logical fallacy if I've ever heard one. It does NOTHING for your argument other than making you look like a presumptuous jerk. As a matter of fact, I do enjoy the idea that you can lose a stock from being punished appropriately. The whole reason melee combo videos were entertaining to watch, is because it was cool seeing a player dominate his opponent. What YOU fail to understand, is that simply because you can't rob a whole stock in 10 seconds anymore, doesn't mean that the game has been injured in any way.

And what I mean by the reading opponent thing, is that your little buddy talking up the faults of brawl, is essentially saying that having to read your opponent more often is somehow hurting the game. That's ridiculous. Just because one read doesn't result in 100 friggen percent damage, doesn't mean that it's less of a game. So you have to read your opponent more often, and try to keep track of his actions on a more constant basis. Melee relied more on technical proficiency then methodical countering. My point is that there is nothing wrong with taking smaller steps towards a stock. If you have to constantly read your opponent to get those hits in, then so be it.

 

[Masmasher@]

^that post is just like brawl
defensive