Right. I'd discussed the basic idea behind why camping was inherently worse than approaching, I want to get into specifics on Hax's most recent response to Dr. Peepee.
Peepee's post is HIGHLY Falco-oriented. someone who plays one of the 3 characters I listed as exceptions to my argument (and one of the two god-tier ones, at that) is inherently going to disagree with many of my points. Fox and Falco AKA "mistakes" don't suffer from a variety of problems other characters do.
I disagree. While he uses Falco as an example (primarily because he does indeed main Falco), he is not limited to thinking from a Falco-only perspective.
As for those three being the exceptions, in perfect play...
Unlimited projectiles / exceptionally good shield pressure are advantages while approaching, yes. However, in your theoretical "perfect" play, the defender will still win by simply standing still (i.e. powersheilding those projectiles, completely shutting down their "advantage", and the fact Fox/Falco's shield pressure will
not work if the defender's reaction is frame-perfect)...so, yeah.
is that why Taj significantly improved his game, beat you, beat me, and got 3rd at Genesis the moment he began employing this strategy?
I was under the impression that Taj had practiced tons before Genesis.
Disregarding that, yes. He slowed down his play in some games and therefore caught more of your mistakes; he played better. He reminded me of some old-school demented M2K, dancing just outside of range and then capitalizing on your mistakes. However...what if you wouldn't have made those mistakes? You would have succeeded in approaching, gotten inside, and won. Camping (or any non-approach style) places the control of the game into the aggressor's hands, to either win or lose. Since human reaction time (sorry, Taj; I heard you could react to standing grabs, but even you have a limit) simply isn't fast enough to capitalize on the frame-commitment.*
You argued that players' reaction times have improved, that players are now reacting at a level far beyond what they were in 05. Or maybe not far, but far enough that capitalization is easier. This is false. Reaction time has not changed in the slightest. Humans haven't evolved that much; we aren't "better" people, per se. What we are is more experienced as to which techniques will work, making the disparity between "good" and "bad" tactics more obvious, as we "react" to the bad ones, punishing them.
*Note: This is disregarding character/character match-ups/specific situations in which a player truly has no options with which to approach.
you play a character with a projectile, which you're failing to realize sped up** your matches vs Taj because it forced him to keep a close distance. (I call this distance "projectile distance;" it's the space you have to keep between yourself and Fox/Falco so that you can threaten to hit them if they attempt to laser.) this does not exempt Taj, nor anyone else who keeps this distance from their opponent, from playing extremely defensively. he still waited for YOU to make the first move so that he could punish; he just needed to keep the distance so that you couldn't theoretically laser him forever.
**human error is the reason keeping projectile distance speeds up matches; when you're keeping a close distance to your opponent so that you can threaten to interrupt his projectiles, you're also faced with plenty of situations where a shffl'd nair/other approach LOOKS safe but actually isn't. whereas, you would never attempt said approach if your opponent was all the way across the map.
I agree with this, leading me back to my "demented-M2K" analogy of approaching--but not all the way.
as for Taj vs opponents that either don't have a projectile (me) or have a subpar one (Armada).... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. said matches literally came down to ~1 minute left on the timer due to both players knowing that whoever made the first move would be putting himself at a huge disadvantage. whoever approached, at best, got 1 hit on their crouch-cancelling opponent and was then forced to flee because the hitstun on the CC'er would expire before the person approaching could combo into anything else.
What's wrong with one hit and then fleeing? That's a guaranteed winning trade-off. Bait the CC'er, eventually they have to move into something else.
*pays attention*
Taj fled from Armada for the entirety of games 1 and 2, poking with tilts/aerials whenever Armada would move forward with a move and space it incorrectly. Armada, the combo machine prior to his match with Taj.... did the same. nair -> run away. turnip -> run away. because both players are CC'ing whenever possible, hit and run becomes the best strategy. this is top level melee. what you saw next in GF's was not top level melee; it was Mango being a dumb*ss and throwing the set.
Hit and run becomes the best strategy
to a point. Remember what I said up above? About excluding (I typed discluding there, initially; see how dumbfounded you've made me?) the characters / situations that simply
can't approach? Mewtwo has very few approach options against Peach. Virtually none, actually; watch the game again. How often could he approach? His windows were incredibly small. Of the hits he got, how many more times
could he have hit Armada? Yes, this seemingly supports your point. "Oh, Taj couldn't approach because of Peach's defensive play." However, it's imprudent to take a low-tier character MU that is entirely based on defense and extend that to Melee as a whole.
in Game 3, Taj, realizing he couldn't out-gay Armada, thought he'd try the strategy of approaching. failing to realize that this is the worst strategy (especially with Marth) in the game, Taj got mercilessly ***** the moment he stopped camping and turned off the Gamecube ~3 minutes into the match.
Taj was so mentally defeated at that point that he actually rage-quit the match.
Please think about that before you try to blame his loss on his style of play.
my set vs Taj earlier in winner's bracket, which sadly isn't on Youtube, was virtually identical. both matches lasted 7 minutes, and were entirely hit and run other than 2 combos: in game 1, the one time Taj approached me with an aerial the entire set, he got naired into a near 0-to-death combo / in game 2, i was forced to approach Taj at the very end because the match almost timed out, and got dthrowed -> fsmashed twice by the ledge for my stock. you approach, you lose.
"you approach
incorrectly, you lose."
Any time you screw up your approach, you will get punished for it. If you do not screw up, you will be rewarded. You ran into his grab. Twice.
if you aren't Fox, Falco, and in some cases Peach, there is a strong correlation between camping and success that can be witnessed in the aforementioned sets. you're right; I didn't see most sets go to time. what I saw was all the best players' (except for Mango) sets go to time.
Against a good camper, a player with a good approach will win. However, camping is less risky against
bad approaches, and will win.
Yeah.
So, these players would rather safely tear through the lesser players by letting them kill themselves. Attacking allows you to make more mistakes. Why would Armada risk losing to Taj (going back to that example) in the MewTwo MU when Armada honestly had no idea how to approach?
i'd like to emphasize that one of the top players, Mango, has a very effective offensive style. a needle in a haystack isn't going to disprove my theory, Kevin. especially not when this needle is the same person doing TAS-esque stuff and destroying people with Mario a year ago. Mango is, honestly, too good at this game. i can't stress enough how perfectly he plays offense; compare this to the skill necessary to succeed playing defensively, and it becomes a no-brainer than defense > offense in Melee.
Ah!
Look at what you just said.
Now read what I wrote above, regarding "Against a good camper, a player with a good approach will win. However, camping is less risky against
bad approaches, and will win."
Camping is a safer, easier strategy. You make fewer mistakes, and are less likely to lose to your own mistakes.
However, against players who can approach, the camper will lose. Mango shouldn't be excluded; he should be included as a prime example. Mango took a character (Jigglypuff) with virtually no good approaching options (please, don't argue this with me) and approached. Yes, you could say that this is simply because "he's Mango; he's just that good."
You're assuming that, because players are bad at approaching, approaching is bad.
(regarding Peach)her priority and attack speed more than makes up for her lack of movement speed. Peach decimates anyone directly in front of her with fc'd nairs and dsmashes, whether they're standing, cc'ing, or shielding. as a Falco player, you have some of the best keepaway/zoning tools vs Peach so naturally you're going to disagree with me. vs non-Fox/Falco, good Peach players certainly have sufficient tools for getting in on the opponent.
even if you roll from Peach's shield pressure and she doesn't react fast enough to directly punish you with a grab/fc nair/dsmash, it is fairly easy for her to react fast enough to run to you so that she's directly in front of you, which is all that matters. as long as Peach is next to her opponent, she can continue her onslaught of fc nair/dsmash/ridiculously good jab/grab. as a Falcon player, I can assure you that Peach is one of the hardest characters to get away from when she has you trapped in shield.
Shielding is a disadvantage, with limited options with constantly increasing exposure. Some characters are better at taking advantage of disadvantages; Peach is particularly strong at attacking those shielded in front of her.
As for Peach has tools...well, duh. That doesn't mean she's un-spaceable without lasers.
another matter you don't fully comprehend as a Falco player
Being in shield against Peach doesn't equate to dying. Another matter you don't fully comprehend as a Falcon player.
the fact of the matter is that non-Fox/Falco/Peach characters don't have good shield pressure options once they're on the ground. this means that after they aerial the opponent's shield, it becomes a matter of mindgames/outplaying them, whereas Fox/Falco/Peach have braindead aerial -> shine or fc nair -> dsmash to force the opponent to roll.
Meaning it's harder. Meaning they don't have
as good of options as Peach/Fox/Falco. This is only an argument for Peach being higher-tier, not for defensive play being advantaged over offensive play.
some characters don't even have a good aerial to shield pressure with! Marth's fair does next to no shieldstun, Falcon's knee/stomp take way too long while his other options do garbage hitstun, Sheik's shorthop is way too high for her to shield pressure well, etc. offense is simply illogical with these characters; anyone playing defensively with good reaction time won't even struggle vs your shield pressure (unless, like I said before, you do phenomenal sh*t with these characters)
Shielding is an inherent disadvantage. Options are limited from it, and the shield is constantly decreasing. It's
not good to be shielding, whatever your opponents' options for shield pressure are.
That being said, you still don't refute offense with this paragraph; you simply refute
bad offense.
god i wish i played Falco
He's top-tier for a reason.
yes, there are frame holes. if there weren't, then Fox/Falco/Peach would trap their shielded opponents in an infinite shieldstun and nobody would even dispute them being the 3 best characters in the game and they would be banned from competitive play.
Then stop saying that they're the only ones who can approach in a "perfect" game. In a perfectly played game, both players pick Fox and stand still.
frame holes don't exempt Fox/Falco/Peach shield pressure from being broken.
In the words of David Sirlin, "keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will be a way to counter it."
It's an advantage, not something "broken" (i.e. something that needs "fixed" or banned). Again, you are not arguing your position; rather, you are arguing that Peach should be higher-tier.
I want you to tell me what OOS options my character (or anyone without a ridiculously fast aerial that covers the entire space in front of you a la Fox/Falco nair or Peach/nair) can do about them when the shield pressurer is spacing/timing his moves appropriately.
NOTHING
Which means...it's a guessing game. Which means...the attacker can be outplayed.
Disregarding this, yes, it's an advantage over the other characters. Again all you are arguing is that Peach should be higher tier!
yeah, when I say CC'ing it includes ASDI down. wanna see something that disgusted me? 3:38 in Taj vs Armada. Taj does his famous usmash taunt, giving Armada a CLEAN HIT on him. in any other game, Taj would have eaten a ton of damage because Armada would have landed his best punish. but since this is Melee and defense is OP, Armada's best punish was a single nair because Taj ASDI'd it. it turns out he could've followed the nair with a dash attack for some additional damage, but he would've had to react to the ASDI down. even then, that's an extremely weak punish granted Armada had a clean hit on Taj.
Peach can't punish free opportunities as easily, especially when the opponent is on the ground (look at Peach's limited options every time Puff misses a rest). That's a character disadvantage, not an overpowering flaw in ASDI.
SDI can be wonderful, but it can also be hell. the example you gave is pro SDI; I agree that being able to SDI out of Falco's combos is healthy for the game. being able to SDI the 2nd hit of Falcon's nair, the ONLY relatively fast move he has that combos into grab, however, is not. when Mango and I played Falcon ditto friendlies at Pound 4, the few good nairs we got on each other (due to how hard it is to land both hits) often didn't go into grab because we would just SDI up and away from each other. that is just dumb.
So...your favorite character is disadvantaged (slightly) because of SDI, which balances out a plethora of other issues. And you're using this as an argument against SDI? I don't follow you, Hax. Not at all.
just wanted to say that I respect your ability to acknowledge parts of my argument that you truly agree with, rather than skip them and take an entirely negative stance against my theory.
that being said, this concerns Melee's equivalent of a corner: the ledge. specifically, it concerns the risk top tier characters run in getting themselves cornered: not much. turning the tides on your opponent who has you cornered is too easy, sometimes even favorable, with characters like Sheik/Marth/Jiggs/Peach. it's bad to get cornered as Fox/Falco, but they still have stupid reversal options such as the ones you mentioned.
even the characters with poor reversal options such as C. Falcon still have access to the plethora of escape mechanisms Melee grants you: fullhopping over the opponent, running straight through the opponent (you can't do this in traditional fighters, which makes cornering MUCH stronger in them), ledgehop -> 180 degree [perfect] waveland -> roll into the stage, etc. the fact that you can just run straight through them is really what kills it. cornering yourself in this game is nowhere near as deadly as it is in traditional fighters, thus, encouraging defensive play.
Whatever your brilliant escape options are, they are halved; you can no longer go backwards. I don't feel as if Puff is advantaged when cornered. Puff plays from the centre, as does Peach...as does Marth. Stage control is critical. With Sheik, however...I agree. Sheik has a ******** ledge game.
The ledge being "less bad" than the traditional corner does not imply that Melee is a defensive game. Rather, it means that defense has more options in Melee than in a traditional fighter.
Jman vs Amsah
S2J vs M2K
the majority of characters don't have anything remotely broken enough by the ledge to make it worth running the risk of getting bthrow gimped by Sheik, who has ridiculous grab range (idk what you're talking about) and edgeguarding. it's MUCH more logical to fight Sheik in the middle of the stage.
I agree completely. If you can wait a campy Sheik out, do it! Sheik's ledge game is dumb. However, it is not broken. The ledge-stall can be taken, and if you're afraid of getting gimped...don't get grabbed.
she's not as good as Marth/Sheik/Jiggs by the ledge, but she's still very good. dsmash becomes even more bullsh*t by the ledge (instant death if you don't perfectly space around her CC even once), and her recovery is fairly good if she's able to recover high.
This is vaguely true...however, Peach plays better from the centre. Stage control is the name of Peach's game, and she doesn't like to be backed onto the ledge.
you must be forgetting Jigglypuff's pseudo-invincible ledgestall that the majority of the cast has no response to and deserves to be banned from competitive play
or her bthrow -> instant death vs most characters
or that she can't be edgeguarded; this strips the very purpose you'd want to corner your opponent in the first place
Jigglypuff can't approach. Her ledgestall isn't broken... She can't approach. She can be edge-guarded, it's just a lot harder. She can't approach.
Don't talk about Jigglypuff, please...
it was honestly Brawl that shifted our metagame so much. when Melee players tried Brawl, an undeniably campy game, in 2008, we unintentionally returned to Melee with newly acquired defensive tactics under our belts. the "hit and run" theme that dominates Brawl rubbed off on us, and has since proved to be just as effective in our game (as well as Smash 64 too, apparently).
March 9th, 2008 was a ****ing horrible day
I disagree. Brawl didn't cause Melee to be so campy. Players did, finally realizing that it's easier (albeit less effective) to camp, allowing their opponents to mess up for them.
these two quotes concern human error, which is something i've learned a lot about through this discussion. I somewhat agree with you here, Kevin, and I'm going to amend my thesis as a result. I'll explain first.
the jump you just described is a bait. when 2 theoretically perfect machines play, baiting is entirely useless because they are both playing entirely on reaction and, in this case, your jump will be reacted to on the same frame by an appropriate anti-air move. something I've been trying to establish throughout this thread is that when one person is on the ground, and his opponent is in the air next to them, the person on the ground wins the tradeoff at theoretically perfect play. I have not changed my mind about this.
when 2 humans play, however, baiting is necessary in order to force your opponent into a punishable situation, i.e. L-cancel lag. when 2 pros play, why would one of them ever recklessly whiff an aerial, knowing that he will be punished for it?
because of this dilemma, a more accurate way to describe the way I envision optimal human play would be "fake offense." meaning, generally defensive play with occasional baits that attempt to trick your opponent into doing something offensive and making himself punishable. the most elementary example would be dashdancing forward, then backward, then forward again to bait -> grab an aerial; of course, 10 years into the game, we see far more complex baits than this one - it was just an example.
I wouldn't call it a "healthy balance" between offense/defense (which is what Kevin calls it). I'd call it defense designed to look like a healthy balance between offense/defense in order to trick your opponent into making mistakes.
The rest of your post boils down to something that players (and Jigglypuff mains) have done for years... Look at M2K; he doesn't approach. He plays extremely aggressively, but he stops just out of range and lets his opponent do the rest of his work for him.
To me, your argument boiled down to several points, most of which argued Peach for top-tier. And none of which gave solid evidence supporting your thesis that (on a human-level) defensive play will be better. Indeed, defensive play is inherently worse, giving control to your opponent. You've yet to refute this other than using "perfect" gameplay examples.
It's "safer" in the sense that you're less likely to lose because of your own mistakes. However, the fault behind it is that your opponents will always have the opportunity to simply play better, to do those "phenomenal" things that are the only way to overcome your defense (even pseudo-offense as you're discussing it). You leave the game in their hands to win or lose, even if winning takes more effort.
This will never be the truly "optimal" way to play.
As for "fake-attacking..." Isn't that the goal of approaching already? To trick your opponent into reacting (or not reacting) to something, allowing you to hit them?
