Drew is an Oppressive Mod: The Tourney

[Hylian]

Truthfully, I'm getting tired of this argument. I highly doubt that I'm going to change anybody's mind, and I haven't encountered any arguments that have been able to change mine. So much for the long post I was writing.

All I know is that the more I play, the more I improve. I constantly find situations where I have the opportunity to outthink my opponent, I haven't encountered any strategy that I cannot defeat with smart and precise play, and I'm having a lot of fun. I have no problems beating newbish button mashers, and matches against competitive Brawlers are fun and challenging.

I honestly wish you guys could see it the way I do, because I'm enjoying myself and I believe you're missing out. No hard feelings, I hope, and if you do hold a Melee tournament that I can attend, I probably will.

I agree with you wobbles. 100%. At first, I loved brawl. But I thought that it was nothing compared to melee, and could completly understand why most people hated it.

Now though, after going to two big tournaments in a row, and talking with a lot of smashers about the game, I am starting to love brawl even more and I really feel like people are missing out on it. There is tons of skill, and placings are consistant. There are very good and practicle ways of punishing your opponent. And almost all of this is character specific.

In melee, the approach game was basically baiting your opponent into a whiff, then punishing with a combo or gimp. In brawl it is a lot different. You have to put your opponents into situations that limit their options so that you can follow up with various strings and mix-ups. You have to know WHEN each character can break out of certain strings, and what ways they can break out, so you can continue your mix-up.

Take a look at grabs. They are far from useless. Some characters have great follow ups on grabs, some have hard ones, and some characters grabs are just amazing, such as IC's and G&W.
You also have to know zones, and which attacks beat others to punish properly. I am on my wii right now, so I can't explain this well, but hopefully wobbles can elaborate if he understands what I am talking about. If you guys are willing to listen anyways.

Also, its not like I am just being biased twoards brawl because its new. I loved melee sooo much as a game, and I really love the community. I spent sooo much money on smash, but every penny was worth it. I still play melee pretty often with kal, and go to jester when I don't work. I really really love melee.

That doesn't mean I can't like brawl as well though. Also, I think its horrible to look down on people that like brawl. I can understand bashing the "MELEE SUCKS BECUS GLITCHS LOLO" people, but what about the good competitive players that like the game? We are trying to show why there IS a lot of depth in brawl, and that it IS a tournament viable game. Just saying that we are wrong because we like the game is unfair.

Also, I am not saying anyone in this topic says or thinks that, but a lot of other people on the boards don't even give us a chance just because we like the game.

Sorry the post was so messy,I am typing all this on my wii.

 

[PozerWolf]

Melee is not a competitive game, Brawl is not a competitive game. I win arguement.

Funny, because you have no idea how right you are.

Don't care if you like Melee more than Brawl (or the other way around), but this is the truth here.

And no, no game is "more competitive" than the other.
Anyone who says that is naive and don't know **** about other fighting games.


DONE DONE DONE!!

 

[Kal]

I agree with you wobbles. 100%. At first, I loved brawl. But I thought that it was nothing compared to melee, and could completly understand why most people hated it.

Now though, after going to two big tournaments in a row, and talking with a lot of smashers about the game, I am starting to love brawl even more and I really feel like people are missing out on it. There is tons of skill, and placings are consistant. There are very good and practicle ways of punishing your opponent. And almost all of this is character specific.

No one disagrees that there are consistent placings. Like there wouldn't be consistent placings at a checkers side-event to a chess tournament or something, Hylian? I honestly get tired of people like you who resort to strawman arguments. Do you recall our debate on AIM? I basically pwned you by pointing out all of the reasons the game will become less combo-oriented as the current top-level of play approaches the theoretical meta-game, and how do you respond?

Either way, I'm not going to argue with you. I have nothing to prove to you, and I don't really care if you don't like brawl. The more I play the more I like it, and the more things I am finding. At the tournament there were really good players, and no bad players placed high just because of spamming. I learn a lot every time I play with people, and its really exciting at tournaments seeing new strats and combos. The better players win, and by large margins. The placings in tournaments are consistant, and I have yet to see anyone win against a better player by camping. And I watched hundreds of matches at these tournaments and even more on tournament videos online. The game is not easy to be good at as people make it out to be and there is pleanty to learn.

In which case, I didn't say anything about inconsistent tournament placings, or that camping is yet a winning strategy. Nor did I say it was so lacking in depth that anyone could be good at it. It's like you people who like Brawl can't do anything but make strawman arguments:

Try and beat me at Def Jam Vendetta: Fight for NY. I doubt you'd be able to beat me. Holy crap, I guess that means we should play it at tournies, right?

In melee, the approach game was basically baiting your opponent into a whiff, then punishing with a combo or gimp. In brawl it is a lot different. You have to put your opponents into situations that limit their options so that you can follow up with various strings and mix-ups. You have to know WHEN each character can break out of certain strings, and what ways they can break out, so you can continue your mix-up.

The difference between good players and bad players is the way you push your opponents into situations in Melee. Notice that, at this past tournament, I was able to beat Steven and Leo, getting to the finals, only to get 4 and 3 stocked by Xelic? It has nothing to do with how I whiffed moves. Most of the time, it was because he gave me an opening that looked secure, but was actually unsafe. This resulted in my inevitable... ****. So, if Brawl is as you say, I'd doubt that the approach game is much different. You're also making this claim in spite of the consensus that Brawl will have a theoretical meta-game where camping is incredibly important, as demonstrated by Toon Link, Samus, etc.

And please don't use the stupid argument that "you lose whenever you camp." As Xelic has pointed out, campy Fox is still broken, but if you don't use it properly, you'll only deal 18% to a Peach player before losing your stock.

Take a look at grabs. They are far from useless. Some characters have great follow ups on grabs, some have hard ones, and some characters grabs are just amazing, such as IC's and G&W.
You also have to know zones, and which attacks beat others to punish properly. I am on my wii right now, so I can't explain this well, but hopefully wobbles can elaborate if he understands what I am talking about. If you guys are willing to listen anyways.

Ok, so some characters don't have useless grabs? You realize that this says nothing about the versatility of grabs, right?

Of course there are going to be some grabs with some potential. There's 4 grabs and 39 characters, meaning 156 grabs, and I doubt Sakurai has enough insight to make all of them useless.

The point is that most of them don't seem to do anything. In 64, they killed, and in Melee, they combo'd. But now, what do most of them do?

Also, its not like I am just being biased twoards brawl because its new. I loved melee sooo much as a game, and I really love the community. I spent sooo much money on smash, but every penny was worth it. I still play melee pretty often with kal, and go to jester when I don't work. I really really love melee.

You've basically proclaimed your love for Brawl before it came out. When I explained my fear about Sakurai eliminating competitive aspects to Brawl by slowing the game down, you resorted to the Gimpyfish argument: "Have you played the game yet? No. So I'll trust Gimpyfish who has played the game. He likes the game, and he's a Melee pro!"

Face it, you were completely struck through the heart by an idea of a new game in the series. The first thing you did at the New Braunfels event was play Brawl and proclaim how enamored you were of it. There wasn't even a moment of "wow, this plays so much different from Melee, I'm confused!"

Not only this, but the point of whether or not you're biased towards Brawl doesn't in any way have a standing on the validity of its value in tournaments. This point shouldn't really be addressed at all; I'm only addressing it because I'm an argumentative ***.

That doesn't mean I can't like brawl as well though. Also, I think its horrible to look down on people that like brawl. I can understand bashing the "MELEE SUCKS BECUS GLITCHS LOLO" people, but what about the good competitive players that like the game? We are trying to show why there IS a lot of depth in brawl, and that it IS a tournament viable game. Just saying that we are wrong because we like the game is unfair.

What?

I like Brawl.
You don't like Brawl.
I can't prove Brawl's value to you.
But you insult people who dislike Brawl.
Insulting people who dislike Brawl is horrible.
Therefore you are horrible.
Therefore Brawl is a tournament viable game.

Is that how the logic goes? I don't recall any of us every telling you that you're wrong because you like the game. We're pointing out that we think that the game is garbage. This in no way implies that you have to do anything akin to not playing the game. We are trying to convince people to switch to the game we find superior. It's not like we don't give Brawl a chance, either. I've taken breaks from Melee to try Brawl, and I must say, the game is frustratingly slow. Quite frankly, whether or not you

Also, I am not saying anyone in this topic says or thinks that, but a lot of other people on the boards don't even give us a chance just because we like the game..

Except that Brawl-favoring is in the majority, with only a few intelligent players disagreeing, and a huge amount of lack-luster players, most of whom were awful at Melee, thinking that Brawl is "the new way to go" and that Melee is just a thing of the past. Again, though, I don't see the relevance of this argument.

 

[forkgirl]

Take a look at grabs. They are far from useless. Some characters have great follow ups on grabs, some have hard ones, and some characters grabs are just amazing, such as IC's and G&W.

woah wait!!! :D I main G&W please tell me what amazing things G&W can do with his grabs

 

[Kal]

woah wait!!! :D I main G&W please tell me what amazing things G&W can do with his grabs

You can dthrow into fsmash or fair. It's very hard to tech G&W's dthrow. Hylian probably has other silly uses, but that's the one I've seen used the most.

 

[forkgirl]

also, i think a huge reason a lot of people got into/are getting into brawl is because everyone now thinks he or she has a chance to become pro. I hear a lot of people talk about how they started too late at melee but brawl is new and everyone is starting out with an equal chance (which seems to not be true since a lot of melee pros are winning brawl tourneys consistently). This may sound like a dumb reason, but I know of SOOOOO many people who want to be a famous smasher sooooo badly. Right now it seems like a huge race. Everyone wants to be the one to find out that huge glitch/advanced technique that will separate pros from the majority of the smash community, and separate the majority of smashers from noobs

 

[Hylian]

woah wait!!! :D I main G&W please tell me what amazing things G&W can do with his grabs

Dthrow.

If they tech you can just walk forward or backwards and dsmash.

If they don't tech you can SH dair to dtilt to fair at lower damages.

If you have the bucket full you can dthrow to oil spill and its pretty much an instant KO if they don't tech behind you.

Another use is jabbing to make them stand up after the Dthrow then grabbing again.

You can also Bthrow (Sometimes forward and up as well) into up B. They can airdodge, but if they do you can Dair and it will always hit them. Otherwise the up B hits them.

 

[Xelic]

As I expected, FS3 had an abysmal turnout for Melee. Is there really enough desire for another Melee tourney? ='(

 

[bluezaft]

Would you actually be willing to travel for one?

I was thinking of having some sort of Melee tournament in Dallas around May when everyone's out of school. I'm wondering if anybody here cares enough about what they're talking about to drive to Dallas for it.

If not I'll just have a Brawl teams tournament.

 

[forkgirl]

we had to leave early and couldnt stay for teams OR melee

I (and i'm sure some other san antonians) would be open to going to Dallas for a tournament if it was expecting a decent turnout. I do miss melee but it's not worth that drive for a 15 person tournament. especially with gas prices ;_; Jordan come with us!!! :D

 

[G@BE]

if a melee tournament is actually like... announced ill show

 

[The MC Clusky]

Melee wasn't the main event, that is true. We have yet to see what would happen if it was Melee as the first event.

 

[Wobbles]

You know, I said I wouldn't participate in this discussion but I just can't help myself.

Kal: Grabs do have a very important purpose. They let you use grab attacks, helping you quickly reduce decay on your other moves. Given how damage reduction works in Brawl, this is incredibly important. In addition, even if a grab doesn't let you combo, it often puts the opponent in a strategically weak position. The advantage is not as concrete as in Melee or SSB64, but it definitely exists. In addition to that, there are multiple chaingrabs, KO'ing grabs, and combo'ing grabs.

And most importantly, grabs still beat shields. What's to stop somebody from using and abusing the powershield and shield-drop mechanics of Brawl? Grabbing.

*

I'm going to talk about something else that people seem bent out of shape over, which is air-dodging. Yes, the new mechanics give a lot of power to air-dodges. However, they are not unpunishable. There is still lag after an air-dodge which can be punished, and if your opponent uses air-dodges predictably, then you can abuse that fact.

If your opponent knows you want to wait, he can just attack you. However, if you know that he will attack, you can usually attack first and continue the follow-up (or do an air-dodge of your own and punish lag). If your opponent knows you will attack, he will air-dodge...you get the picture.

This is the basis of mindgaming your opponent. You predict his action and tailor yours accordingly. Since moves in Brawl have very little hitstun, this means that this mindgame situation occurs time and time again. In turn, this means you have to constantly outthink your opponent in order to dominate a stock. Along with following DI, you have to guess what the opponent's next move will be.



*

Last point: people get upset about Brawl not being technical. I'd argue that trying to time your attacks to cut through the few frames of vulnerability on a landing air-dodge is technically difficult. I'd argue that punishing ROB's spot dodge before he can d-smash is technically difficult. Powershielding into short-hopped n-air in time to punish a low-lag move is technically difficult. Timing a move to use your no-flinch frames and win a trade is technically difficult. Interrupting multi hit attacks by perfectly timing your moves is technically difficult.

Melee involved a lot of precision at high speeds; Brawl involves precision at a slower pace, based on predicting your opponent's actions. It is a different type of technical play, but it undoubtedly exists.

*

What I want to hear is exactly what makes Brawl not "deep." It has the basic RPS mechanic that comprises almost every tournament fighting game. There are safe approaches, most of which are based on spacing your moves correctly. Grabs do have a purpose, which helps counter the powerful shielding mechanics. With practice, timing, and prediction, you can punish the powerful new air-dodges. There are a lot of strong strategies, and there are a lot of possible counters. Which part of this lacks depth?

 

[EoW]

You know, I said I wouldn't participate in this discussion but I just can't help myself.

Kal: Grabs do have a very important purpose. They let you use grab attacks, helping you quickly reduce decay on your other moves. Given how damage reduction works in Brawl, this is incredibly important. In addition, even if a grab doesn't let you combo, it often puts the opponent in a strategically weak position. The advantage is not as concrete as in Melee or SSB64, but it definitely exists. In addition to that, there are multiple chaingrabs, KO'ing grabs, and combo'ing grabs.

And most importantly, grabs still beat shields. What's to stop somebody from using and abusing the powershield and shield-drop mechanics of Brawl? Grabbing.

*

I'm going to talk about something else that people seem bent out of shape over, which is air-dodging. Yes, the new mechanics give a lot of power to air-dodges. However, they are not unpunishable. There is still lag after an air-dodge which can be punished, and if your opponent uses air-dodges predictably, then you can abuse that fact.

If your opponent knows you want to wait, he can just attack you. However, if you know that he will attack, you can usually attack first and continue the follow-up (or do an air-dodge of your own and punish lag). If your opponent knows you will attack, he will air-dodge...you get the picture.

This is the basis of mindgaming your opponent. You predict his action and tailor yours accordingly. Since moves in Brawl have very little hitstun, this means that this mindgame situation occurs time and time again. In turn, this means you have to constantly outthink your opponent in order to dominate a stock. Along with following DI, you have to guess what the opponent's next move will be.



*

Last point: people get upset about Brawl not being technical. I'd argue that trying to time your attacks to cut through the few frames of vulnerability on a landing air-dodge is technically difficult. I'd argue that punishing ROB's spot dodge before he can d-smash is technically difficult. Powershielding into short-hopped n-air in time to punish a low-lag move is technically difficult. Timing a move to use your no-flinch frames and win a trade is technically difficult. Interrupting multi hit attacks by perfectly timing your moves is technically difficult.

Melee involved a lot of precision at high speeds; Brawl involves precision at a slower pace, based on predicting your opponent's actions. It is a different type of technical play, but it undoubtedly exists.

*

What I want to hear is exactly what makes Brawl not "deep." It has the basic RPS mechanic that comprises almost every tournament fighting game. There are safe approaches, most of which are based on spacing your moves correctly. Grabs do have a purpose, which helps counter the powerful shielding mechanics. With practice, timing, and prediction, you can punish the powerful new air-dodges. There are a lot of strong strategies, and there are a lot of possible counters. Which part of this lacks depth?

OWNED SON.....................owned

 

[Xyro77]

As I expected, FS3 had an abysmal turnout for Melee. Is there really enough desire for another Melee tourney? ='(

no, the desire is gone. WHY, becuase brawl is the future. Just go with it. You cant stop it.

Dumb crap like wave shine is back. You tier whores should like that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNawxTzTWVY

A scene divided is bad.

 

[Kal]

You know, I said I wouldn't participate in this discussion but I just can't help myself.

Kal: Grabs do have a very important purpose. They let you use grab attacks, helping you quickly reduce decay on your other moves. Given how damage reduction works in Brawl, this is incredibly important. In addition, even if a grab doesn't let you combo, it often puts the opponent in a strategically weak position. The advantage is not as concrete as in Melee or SSB64, but it definitely exists. In addition to that, there are multiple chaingrabs, KO'ing grabs, and combo'ing grabs.

Bringing up the fact that grabs help with the damage-decay really just makes me want to address the damage-decay entirely. I feel that anyone with any amount of intelligence would be able to note that a character with a set of moves, all of which are usable, is much better suited for a competitive community than a system that punishes you for using the same good move over and over. Notice that this system is not necessary for any good characters in Melee (perhaps Sheik's grab doesn't count )? This is because those good characters had enough usable moves for such a system to not be necessary.

Now, when you tell me that there exist "multiple" chaingrabs, killing grabs, and grabs that combo, you're not telling me how many. One doesn't even need to check all of the grabs to note that there probably exist some grabs with usefulness. After all, there are 156 grabs in the game, ignoring grabs like Bowser's side-B.

And most importantly, grabs still beat shields. What's to stop somebody from using and abusing the powershield and shield-drop mechanics of Brawl? Grabbing.

Wouldn't a good shielding system do just the same?

I'm going to talk about something else that people seem bent out of shape over, which is air-dodging. Yes, the new mechanics give a lot of power to air-dodges. However, they are not unpunishable. There is still lag after an air-dodge which can be punished, and if your opponent uses air-dodges predictably, then you can abuse that fact.

You're arguing this point as if we feel that air-dodging can't be beaten. We're not idiots, Wobbles. We know that predictability can be beaten. That's not the point. Whether or not the air-dodge system is any good is independent of whether or not it can be punished, and arguing that it's a good system because you can wait for your opponent to air-dodge then punish them is fallacious.

If your opponent knows you want to wait, he can just attack you. However, if you know that he will attack, you can usually attack first and continue the follow-up (or do an air-dodge of your own and punish lag). If your opponent knows you will attack, he will air-dodge...you get the picture.

Of course, at high levels of play, there will be less predictability, and this argument loses value.

This is the basis of mindgaming your opponent. You predict his action and tailor yours accordingly. Since moves in Brawl have very little hitstun, this means that this mindgame situation occurs time and time again. In turn, this means you have to constantly outthink your opponent in order to dominate a stock. Along with following DI, you have to guess what the opponent's next move will be.

In Melee, there were plenty of mindgames. I don't lose to Xelic because of technical skill in Melee, and neither do you. Arguing that there are more mind-games in Brawl because of the lack of technical skill, in other words, lack of comboing, doesn't make any sense, because technical skill creates potential for several other mind-games.

Last point: people get upset about Brawl not being technical. I'd argue that trying to time your attacks to cut through the few frames of vulnerability on a landing air-dodge is technically difficult. I'd argue that punishing ROB's spot dodge before he can d-smash is technically difficult. Powershielding into short-hopped n-air in time to punish a low-lag move is technically difficult. Timing a move to use your no-flinch frames and win a trade is technically difficult. Interrupting multi hit attacks by perfectly timing your moves is technically difficult

Remembering when to attack is not technical skill. Spacing is technical skill, and that is definitely present in Melee. It's like calling me technical for knowing that Marth has to wait until the landing animation of Peach's fair (not float-canceled nor l-canceled) ends in order to be able to JC-grab her.

Melee involved a lot of precision at high speeds; Brawl involves precision at a slower pace, based on predicting your opponent's actions. It is a different type of technical play, but it undoubtedly exists.

Your comparison implies that Melee and Brawl require comparable levels of technical precision, but it's quite obvious that Melee requires quite a bit more technical precision than Brawl does.

What I want to hear is exactly what makes Brawl not "deep." It has the basic RPS mechanic that comprises almost every tournament fighting game. There are safe approaches, most of which are based on spacing your moves correctly. Grabs do have a purpose, which helps counter the powerful shielding mechanics. With practice, timing, and prediction, you can punish the powerful new air-dodges. There are a lot of strong strategies, and there are a lot of possible counters. Which part of this lacks depth?

As its own game, it's somewhat deep, and we're not in disagreement there, I think. But it's terrible when compared to the masterpiece that was its predecessor.

 

[Wobbles]

What's wrong with the damage decay system? Characters DO have versatile movesets: this system just encourages you to use them. It also keep characters with spammable moves (like MK or ROB's down-smashes) from being overly effective. It's a system of balance. Now you have a reason to use the moves--they're fast, have range, whatever...--but you also have a reason not to use them. The system rewards you for picking your moves carefully. It does so differently from how you may have envisioned it, but it's still effective.

They could try to make every move equal, but even with a lot of time to test, how would they effect that? It's a virtually impossible task. Instead, this makes it so you have a trade-off: keep using the good move, and it becomes worse. This decreases the level of move spam and forces mixups.

And this gives you more reason to grab; even if your character's grab game isn't that great, the ability to reduce decay makes every throw useful to a certain degree. So out of all 159 throws, they are all useful to the degree that they make your other moves better.

While we're on the subject, why are you putting the burden of proof on me to show you how many grabs have use? Do you want me to just start listing them?

MK: Up-throw KOs, D-throw sets up for follow-ups and pressuring situations, b-throw is hard to react to and can send opponents at a bad trajectory.
GaW: Down-throw leads to tech-chases, his other throws pop opponents above him where he has an advantage with u-air and n-air.
Dedede: Down-throw... well, duh. Back-throw has a good low trajectory as well.
Wario: Down-throw puts opponents right behind him where he can force a grab, or even chaingrab a few characters. His f-throw and b-throw have decent strength to set up edgeguards. Also, his bite is an air-grab, giving him a deadly shield mixup game.
Lucas: Down-throw KOs, back-throw has a lot of strength as well.
Diddy: Really fast throws make DI'ing them difficult.
Sheik: Down-throw puts enemies in a position where they have to act immediately or take a hit... leading to the air-dodge/attack situation I've described before. Her b-throw also has decent strength and gives her time to transform to Zelda, which is actually a good idea in this game.
Luigi: D-throw has good combo'ing, b-throw has good KO potential.
DK: D-throw drops opponents right in front of you letting you pressure, b-throw has good KO potential. Cargo'ing is still
IC's: Regrabs and control over Nana's throwing makes them have a ridiculously deadly grab game. It also lets them de-sync.
Marth: Still has combos off his throws. U-throw KO's sooner, apparently.

I'm sure if I knew more about the other characters I could go on.

Shielding system: It is a good system. It gives a strong defensive option to every character. But it has a counter which can also be implemented by every character; a counter which, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, has use. So... what's the problem here? It can't be abused because there are ways around it; instead, it must be used intelligently to have a strong effect. That's good, right?

Airdodging: I'm adressing the people who argued that "air-dodging is overpowered." I'm also addressing Galt's previous argument that "Wobbles' opponents are dumb if they air-dodge predictably."

And no, arguing that a counterable system is a good system is not fallacious. If something can't be beaten, then would you agree that it is unfair? If everytime I hit you, you could airdodge and suffer no penalty for it, that would be a bad system. Instead, it can be punished and can't be abused or else you suffer for it. I would argue that that makes it good.

But because it's so useful, it gives even the large, heavy characters an out against combos. ROB has a tough time escaping combos because he only has two quick aerials, neither of which stop people from combo'ing him. This means that some characters--who may have already had a disadvantage, like Bowser--don't get auto-combo'ed by a majority of the cast.

Mindgames: Who is using strawmen now? I never said Melee didn't have mindgames. I'm looking through my post, trying to find where I didn't, and I can't. I never even said that there were more mindgames in Brawl. I said that combo'ing somebody requires constantly predicting how they will try to escape. If this isn't true, argue against that. Don't detract from what I did say by arguing against something I didn't.

"At higher levels of play, there will be less predictability." Err... yeah. But that applies to both sides, doesn't it? The better player will escape combos more effectively, and will extend his combos more effectively. That will always be true regardless of how good the players get. If I'm really good at mixing up my evasion and you can't keep track of it, that doesn't mean the system is bad. It means I'm better than you. And I'm being rewarded for my skill, which is good.

The same tech-chase situations existed for good players as it did for bad ones. Did the good players escape more often? Probably. Did it mean that tech-chasing wasn't an important situation to understand and master? Not at all. It made it even more important to learn.

Technical skill: Rapid button inputs = technical skill. Timing your inputs to a two-frame window is also technical skill. They are not the same skill.

Did I say that? I think I did. I believe I said, verbatim, "It's a different type of technical play." I don't believe that implies that the two are technically comparable. Melee is clearly the faster paced game. I never once said it wasn't. If we're purely measuring inputs per second, Melee beats Brawl flat out. But that doesn't mean that Brawl's technicality doesn't exist.

"Remembering when to attack is not technical skill." What does that mean? Do you mean knowing when to input a command so that it executes properly isn't technical skill? Because, IIRC, that was everywhere in Melee. You couldn't do a shine during this time frame or it wouldn't go off. If you did it too late, you got shield grabbed. Knowing when you could shine and doing it consistently meant you were technically skilled. Isn't that "remembering when to attack?" Please explain what you mean by that.

"Spacing is part of technical skill, and it was definitely present in Melee." Yeah. Uhh... alright? I never said it wasn't. In fact...

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=94597

I said it's incredibly important.

I'm not attacking Melee at all. I love Melee. I played it for nearly four years, almost every day. I analyzed it endlessly, wrote page after page after page about it. I'll still happily attend Melee tournaments.

You answered my question as: "Brawl has depth, but it's horrible." Great. New question: why is it so horrible?

 

[bluezaft]

All of Pikachu's throws are pretty pimp.... The problem is his tiny widdle arms.


Kal, don't even respond. Just say you don't like Brawl because it's boring, that's what I do. Wobbles or anyone else can argue your points if you try and explain your hatred for Brawl with specific reasons. You don't like Brawl, and there's obviously some reason for it, so just leave it at that.

I think it's silly that someone would have to explain in depth why he doesn't like a game...and then get accused of being wrong (or someone explaining why he likes a game and being called wrong, same thing). I mean, I can understand if the reason is dumb, like losing too much, but that's not the case here. I loved Majora's Mask and didn't like Ocarina of Time, but nobody gets pissed at me for it.

With Brawl being so different from Melee, there are bound to be people who don't like Brawl and like Melee and vice-versa. Friendly debate about which is "better" is nice and all, but in the end, obviously nobody is going to be swayed, it's all nothing more than personal opinion dressed up in pretty bullet-points.

So...I'm not saying debate is bad...just futile. Um. Carry on!

 

[Espy Rose]

All of Pikachu's throws are pretty pimp.... The problem is his tiny widdle arms.


Kal, don't even respond. Just say you don't like Brawl because it's boring, that's what I do. Wobbles or anyone else can argue your points if you try and explain your hatred for Brawl with specific reasons. You don't like Brawl, and there's obviously some reason for it, so just leave it at that.

I guess this is what's really getting to me. People don't like it, and they refuse to explain why. Whatever I suppose.

I think it's silly that someone would have to explain in depth why he doesn't like a game...and then get accused of being wrong (or someone explaining why he likes a game and being called wrong, same thing). I mean, I can understand if the reason is dumb, like losing too much, but that's not the case here. I loved Majora's Mask and didn't like Ocarina of Time, but nobody gets pissed at me for it.

I may have come in late, but I don't think Wobbles (or anyone for that matter, if I read this wrong), is trying to convince anyone that they are wrong to believe the Brawl is better than Melee. I believe that all we want as an answer is exactly what makes it bad.

But, in that case, I'm sure Kal's last post sums that up quite nicely.

However this turns out though doesn't really matter to me. You guys have fun playing Melee, while people like Wobbles and I will have fun playing Brawl.

It still makes me sad that people have, how you say, a certain "hatred" for Brawl. It irks me is all.

 

[G@BE]

Yea your stupid for not liking a game that does not interest you!... >.>

thats all im getting from the arguments

 

[Espy Rose]

Yea your stupid for not liking a game that does not interest you!... >.>

thats all im getting from the arguments

That's exactly what I'm getting.

I just want a decent explanation void of hatred for whichever game. However it doesn't seem like I'll get that. Pity really.

 

[Wobbles]

Like I said earlier; I have no hard feelings towards anybody. I'm also not attacking Melee, as I'm pretty sure I've stated. I simply want people to acknowledge that this comes down to a matter of preference, and not "Brawl is a ****ty game."

There are plenty of things I don't like for reasons unrelated to their quality.

You don't like Brawl because it's slower paced? Alright. Say that, and leave it at that. If you plan to attack the game, however, and argue that it's bad, I will argue back.

 

[Kal]

What's wrong with the damage decay system? Characters DO have versatile movesets: this system just encourages you to use them. It also keep characters with spammable moves (like MK or ROB's down-smashes) from being overly effective. It's a system of balance. Now you have a reason to use the moves--they're fast, have range, whatever...--but you also have a reason not to use them. The system rewards you for picking your moves carefully. It does so differently from how you may have envisioned it, but it's still effective.

Exactly my point. I think it's a bad reason to use additional moves. If they wanted us to use more moves, they'd give us additional GOOD moves. I understand that there are versatile movesets; there's 39 characters with a jab, 3 tilts, 3 smashes, 4 throws and 4 b-moves. Of course there's going to be variety.

The point, though, is that the variety isn't good. Not to imply that it's good in Melee. I'm simply critiquing their attempt at fixing the problem with the decay system. I feel that, instead of worsening the good moves if they're spammed, they could simply give characters more good moves, and this would result in no particular move being spammed at high-levels of play.

They could try to make every move equal, but even with a lot of time to test, how would they effect that? It's a virtually impossible task. Instead, this makes it so you have a trade-off: keep using the good move, and it becomes worse. This decreases the level of move spam and forces mixups.

It's also difficult to balance a game as technically demanding as Melee, but I don't see the argument that it's difficult being used against those who feel the game would be better suited as a balanced one.

And this gives you more reason to grab; even if your character's grab game isn't that great, the ability to reduce decay makes every throw useful to a certain degree. So out of all 159 throws, they are all useful to the degree that they make your other moves better.

I addressed this in my previous post, Wobbles. You're basically telling me that grabbing is useful with the existence of the decay system, which I've already told you is a system I feel should not exist in the first place. If I felt the decay system were a good idea, I'd agree, but you're arguing the usefulness of grabs in the context of a system I feel should not exist.

While we're on the subject, why are you putting the burden of proof on me to show you how many grabs have use? Do you want me to just start listing them?

I'm simply pointing out that saying that a few grabs have uses doesn't imply the usefulness of the entire grab-game. Saying "Ice-Climbers can chain grab, so grabs are useful" is equivalent to saying "Sheik's down throw is a reason for her countering half the cast, so down-throws are broken."

MK: Up-throw KOs, D-throw sets up for follow-ups and pressuring situations, b-throw is hard to react to and can send opponents at a bad trajectory.
GaW: Down-throw leads to tech-chases, his other throws pop opponents above him where he has an advantage with u-air and n-air.
Dedede: Down-throw... well, duh. Back-throw has a good low trajectory as well.
Wario: Down-throw puts opponents right behind him where he can force a grab, or even chaingrab a few characters. His f-throw and b-throw have decent strength to set up edgeguards. Also, his bite is an air-grab, giving him a deadly shield mixup game.
Lucas: Down-throw KOs, back-throw has a lot of strength as well.
Diddy: Really fast throws make DI'ing them difficult.
Sheik: Down-throw puts enemies in a position where they have to act immediately or take a hit... leading to the air-dodge/attack situation I've described before. Her b-throw also has decent strength and gives her time to transform to Zelda, which is actually a good idea in this game.
Luigi: D-throw has good combo'ing, b-throw has good KO potential.
DK: D-throw drops opponents right in front of you letting you pressure, b-throw has good KO potential. Cargo'ing is still
IC's: Regrabs and control over Nana's throwing makes them have a ridiculously deadly grab game. It also lets them de-sync.
Marth: Still has combos off his throws. U-throw KO's sooner, apparently.

I'm sure if I knew more about the other characters I could go on.

20 out of the 156 grabs being useful does not make a good grab-game. It's obvious to me that the grab game is significantly worse in Brawl than it was in Melee, because its usefulness is significantly lower. There may be uses, but I'm merely pointing out that the uses are a lot less than that in Melee.

Shielding system: It is a good system. It gives a strong defensive option to every character. But it has a counter which can also be implemented by every character; a counter which, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, has use. So... what's the problem here? It can't be abused because there are ways around it; instead, it must be used intelligently to have a strong effect. That's good, right?

It's boring. That's the problem. The game is too defensive.

Airdodging: I'm adressing the people who argued that "air-dodging is overpowered." I'm also addressing Galt's previous argument that "Wobbles' opponents are dumb if they air-dodge predictably."

Well, you addressed the post to me, so it's fair for me to assume that the statement was also addressed to me. Regardless, arguing that predictability is punishable isn't going to help prove the existence of a high-level of play for the game, because there isn't a lot of predictability at high-level play.

And no, arguing that a counterable system is a good system is not fallacious. If something can't be beaten, then would you agree that it is unfair? If everytime I hit you, you could airdodge and suffer no penalty for it, that would be a bad system. Instead, it can be punished and can't be abused or else you suffer for it. I would argue that that makes it good.

You're implying that a fair system is always a good system. This isn't the case, and you've done nothing to support the assumption that the system being punishable somehow makes it good. Don't get me wrong, because I agree that an unfair, unpunishable system is bad, but this doesn't imply that a fair system is good.

But because it's so useful, it gives even the large, heavy characters an out against combos. ROB has a tough time escaping combos because he only has two quick aerials, neither of which stop people from combo'ing him. This means that some characters--who may have already had a disadvantage, like Bowser--don't get auto-combo'ed by a majority of the cast.

As I've said, and as others have said before, balance alone does not make a good game.

Mindgames: Who is using strawmen now? I never said Melee didn't have mindgames. I'm looking through my post, trying to find where I didn't, and I can't. I never even said that there were more mindgames in Brawl. I said that combo'ing somebody requires constantly predicting how they will try to escape. If this isn't true, argue against that. Don't detract from what I did say by arguing against something I didn't.

Recall the original point of this topic: that Melee is better than Brawl, and that Melee should be played instead of Brawl. By pointing out an aspect in Brawl that is present in Melee, you don't strengthen the point that Brawl should be played competitively.

"At higher levels of play, there will be less predictability." Err... yeah. But that applies to both sides, doesn't it? The better player will escape combos more effectively, and will extend his combos more effectively. That will always be true regardless of how good the players get. If I'm really good at mixing up my evasion and you can't keep track of it, that doesn't mean the system is bad. It means I'm better than you. And I'm being rewarded for my skill, which is good.

It seems unlikely that, at higher levels of play, there will be longer combos. It seems like, as defensive options increase, combos will decrease in length. Further, the point is that there is little predictability at high-level play, which means that your argument, that predicting opponents allows you to combo, does not hold at high levels of play.

The same tech-chase situations existed for good players as it did for bad ones. Did the good players escape more often? Probably. Did it mean that tech-chasing wasn't an important situation to understand and master? Not at all. It made it even more important to learn.

I don't understand how this is relevant. Did I call air-dodging unimportant?

Technical skill: Rapid button inputs = technical skill. Timing your inputs to a two-frame window is also technical skill. They are not the same skill.

A two-frame window is 1/30 of a second, or .0333... seconds. That, to my knowledge, is "rapid button input." What you were doing previously was stating that the short period of time for which you can punish an opponent is related to your technical skill, when that same type of "technical skill" was hardly absent from Melee.

Did I say that? I think I did. I believe I said, verbatim, "It's a different type of technical play." I don't believe that implies that the two are technically comparable. Melee is clearly the faster paced game. I never once said it wasn't. If we're purely measuring inputs per second, Melee beats Brawl flat out. But that doesn't mean that Brawl's technicality doesn't exist.

Brawl's technicality is shallow, and, from what you've said, in Brawl it is simply knowledge. That, to me and most others, is not technical skill.

"Remembering when to attack is not technical skill." What does that mean? Do you mean knowing when to input a command so that it executes properly isn't technical skill? Because, IIRC, that was everywhere in Melee. You couldn't do a shine during this time frame or it wouldn't go off. If you did it too late, you got shield grabbed. Knowing when you could shine and doing it consistently meant you were technically skilled. Isn't that "remembering when to attack?" Please explain what you mean by that.

Obviously, but those were dependent on very difficult button inputs. I wouldn't call you technical if you were able to shield grab Fox's dair-shine, but I would say you have incredible timing. Instead, I'd call you technical if you were able to consistently dair-shine without missing your L-Cancel.

Regardless, when most smashers talk about technical skill, they talk about the ability to perform the lightning-fast aspects of Melee, like waveshining. We're arguing semantics when you state "I think of technical skill as your ability to time things," I respond with "Brawl isn't technical, except that it has those aspects which you've defined as technical skill" and you conclude with "so it is technical."

"Spacing is part of technical skill, and it was definitely present in Melee." Yeah. Uhh... alright? I never said it wasn't. In fact...

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=94597

I said it's incredibly important.

I'm not attacking Melee at all. I love Melee. I played it for nearly four years, almost every day. I analyzed it endlessly, wrote page after page after page about it. I'll still happily attend Melee tournaments.

You answered my question as: "Brawl has depth, but it's horrible." Great. New question: why is it so horrible?

Because it is slow, lacks any advanced tactics (such as L-Canceling, wavedashing, etc., except for those which are character specific), and is way too reliant on defensive options. Further, we will always have Melee to compare it to.

 

[PozerWolf]

also, i think a huge reason a lot of people got into/are getting into brawl is because everyone now thinks he or she has a chance to become pro. I hear a lot of people talk about how they started too late at melee but brawl is new and everyone is starting out with an equal chance (which seems to not be true since a lot of melee pros are winning brawl tourneys consistently). This may sound like a dumb reason, but I know of SOOOOO many people who want to be a famous smasher sooooo badly. Right now it seems like a huge race. Everyone wants to be the one to find out that huge glitch/advanced technique that will separate pros from the majority of the smash community, and separate the majority of smashers from noobs

Well, there isn't anything wrong with people playing Brawl in trying to get a title for themselves.

Let them do what they want.

 

[Wobbles]

So you're arguing that Brawl is bad because it doesn't fit your personal (arbitrary) definition of what makes a good game.

It's too slow -- preferential.
It isn't technical enough -- for what? Again, preference.
The decay system balances the moves in a way I don't like -- ...preference.
Melee is a better game -- unless you can point out specific flaws, which I asked you to do several times and you haven't, this is also preference. Every "flaw" you've demonstrated is based on your personal preference for what a game should have.
No advanced tactics -- the only reason people seem to want this is so they can have a defining barrier between them and casual players.

Guess what? I like a slower paced game where the emphasis is on decision making rather than rapid inputs. I like it that a penalty exists if a player tries to win using only a single move, because it forces him to understand his character. I like a bunch of the things that you don't. I think they make Brawl fun and interesting.

You know what? I quit. You win. I play an inferior, shallow game. You are the philosopher king, and I'm the butt of your Socratic dialogue. I guess I just don't get what makes a game competitive and interesting, and you do. Host your Melee tournaments and play with all the smart people who understand, because I'm in the ****ing dark.

 

[bluezaft]

This thread is stupid. It's supposed to be about making Melee tournaments, right? But nobody's doing it. I proposed hosting one and a grand total of 2 people said they were even remotely interested. Nobody else seems to be considering hosting anything either. We're 10 pages into a "let's play Melee" thread and nobody's said anything about actually doing it. No one cares about Melee, not even the people backing this thread! If you guys are Texas' biggest Melee-lovers then Melee is screwed, making this thread a waste of space that should be closed.

Or maybe you can just sit around and talk about nothing important some more, that will probably revive Melee in no time at all.

 

[G@BE]

welll


Look forward to a Houston tournament

we are doing one that is brawl singles and melee singles as the main events.

If people want to we will do doubles after the main events.

Plan B

 

[Xyro77]

no one is into melee anymore. bam boom zing. close thread.

 

[PozerWolf]

I'm willing to host a melee tournament, however Brawl will be involved as well.

I'm trying to get a venue at the Double Tree for a fighting game tournament, and Melee/Brawl may be involved.

However, I'm wondering how alive is the Melee scene actually is?

 

[The MC Clusky]

I'm willing to host a melee tournament, however Brawl will be involved as well.

I'm trying to get a venue at the Double Tree for a fighting game tournament, and Melee/Brawl may be involved.

However, I'm wondering how alive is the Melee scene actually is?

Double tree... hotel? and I'm assuming you're refering to Austin right?

 

[Kal]

So you're arguing that Brawl is bad because it doesn't fit your personal (arbitrary) definition of what makes a good game.

How is this any different from Brawl being good because it fits your personal (arbitrary) definition of what makes a good game?

It's too slow -- preferential.

Speed leads to depth. The faster a game, the deeper it is, typically.

It isn't technical enough -- for what? Again, preference.

Technical depth adds a gap between mediocre and good players.

The decay system balances the moves in a way I don't like -- ...preference.

It balances it in a silly way. Why force us to use bad moves because the good ones worsen when they can simply give us more good moves?

Melee is a better game -- unless you can point out specific flaws, which I asked you to do several times and you haven't, this is also preference. Every "flaw" you've demonstrated is based on your personal preference for what a game should have.

Obviously, some people like Brawl more. When I state an opinion, I don't mean that it's some sort of ubiquitous truth everyone agrees with. Of course my feeling that Brawl is a worse game is an opinion, and as such, it's ridiculous for you to reply with "Melee is just your preference." The game is my preference because my opinion is that Melee is better. There is no way to demonstrate the value of a game based on anything but the preferences you have.

No advanced tactics -- the only reason people seem to want this is so they can have a defining barrier between them and casual players.

Yeah... Every competitive game has some defining gap between newbs and good players.

Guess what? I like a slower paced game where the emphasis is on decision making rather than rapid inputs. I like it that a penalty exists if a player tries to win using only a single move, because it forces him to understand his character. I like a bunch of the things that you don't. I think they make Brawl fun and interesting.

Your first point, that Brawl is slower paced, is largely the only difference between Brawl and Melee. In Melee, decision making was considerably more important than rapid inputs, as evidenced by Hylian losing to players like me, Xelic, Fear, etc. who aren't as technical as he is. Further, FastLikeTree losing to Mew2King, who acknowledges that FLT is a more technical player, further emphasizes the fact that rapid button input is not the defining factor for top-level play.

If a player tries to win using only a single move, he typically loses because he becomes predictable. I've yet to see a single player win any tournament with decent players where the winner has only spammed a good move. Even amazing moves, like Peach's downsmash, are punishable.

You know what? I quit. You win. I play an inferior, shallow game. You are the philosopher king, and I'm the butt of your Socratic dialogue. I guess I just don't get what makes a game competitive and interesting, and you do. Host your Melee tournaments and play with all the smart people who understand, because I'm in the ****ing dark.

This has the be the most childish way to conclude an argument. This sarcastic, ad-hominem attack, where you imply that I somehow think I'm better than you despite the fact that none of my posts have implied any sort of superiority because of my preference towards Melee, does nothing to support either your claim of Brawl being worthwhile nor mine of Brawl being worthless.

If you're tired of arguing, either because you can't seem to get through to me, or because you feel you've lost, you can simply stop arguing. Trying to imply that I have some sort of God-complex is pointless.

 

[Kal]

This thread is stupid. It's supposed to be about making Melee tournaments, right? But nobody's doing it. I proposed hosting one and a grand total of 2 people said they were even remotely interested. Nobody else seems to be considering hosting anything either. We're 10 pages into a "let's play Melee" thread and nobody's said anything about actually doing it. No one cares about Melee, not even the people backing this thread! If you guys are Texas' biggest Melee-lovers then Melee is screwed, making this thread a waste of space that should be closed.

Or maybe you can just sit around and talk about nothing important some more, that will probably revive Melee in no time at all.

I've already decided to host monthly tournaments in Austin once I get an apartment in the fall. Anyway, I'm definitely interested in a Dallas tourney, especially during the summer.

 

[G@BE]

why is melee the better game.. one word

tripping

gg

jk

 

[Wobbles]

I'm done because you only respond using subjective preference. I try to provide concrete aspects of game design, you talk about them being "silly." Why bother?

Yeah, you're behaving in an elitist fashion. Brawl is somehow a "terrible" game compared to Melee. Why? Have you said anything to prove it? No, you haven't. You just shoot down every argument based on what you do or do not like. You've implied your superiority to Brawl players again and again: "Brawl is inferior compared to the masterpiece that is Melee." Your analogies comparing Brawl to Checkers and Melee to Chess make it clear that you're implying Brawl players are childish.

I tried to end the argument by asking you to just leave it at preference, but you couldn't do that. You couldn't say, "I don't like Brawl." You have to keep coming back with "it's horrible, Melee is so much better." How am I supposed to be convinced of anything when you don't provide evidence for it, and you just keep attacking the game?

In fact, you're not even targeting Brawl anymore. You're targeting my rhetoric, and I'm falling behind because I just don't know how to do that. This is the dumbest internet argument I've ever been in, and I'm ashamed I let you drag me into it.

 

[Kal]

I've given reasons for Brawl being terrible compared to Melee. I can't prove that statement, because it's an opinion. And I have given reasons for which Brawl is worse than Melee, specifically, its speed, technical requirements, tripping, the decay system, and dependence on camping.

When I say Brawl is like Checkers, and Melee like Chess, it's just an analogy. I don't have anything against those who play Checkers; I'm pointing out that there is quite a bit more depth to Chess than there is to Checkers, and that I feel the same about Melee and Brawl. How does this imply the childishness of Checkers players?

I fail to see how I've targeted your rhetoric. Yes, we had a stupid debate on the definition of what technical skill is, but you began with "I feel that aspects in Brawl are 'technical.'" That is fine, but changing the definition of technical skill, then saying Brawl is technical under your new definition of technical skill, doesn't really constitute the game being technical in the way technical skill is defined for Melee players.

You don't have to like the argument, and you don't need to respond. I did not drag you into anything, as there is no requirement for you to post. Please don't insult me as if I've somehow dragged you into this argument.

 

[Xyro77]

melee is low tier

 

[bluezaft]

face it

 

[Kal]

brawl is the future

 

[PozerWolf]

Double tree... hotel? and I'm assuming you're refering to Austin right?

Of course.

I need a venue big enough in Austin to host my tournaments.

Double Tree looks like it will be able to pull off, but I'm going to talk to them sometime this week in trying to get a tournament hosted.

 

[Xelic]

This thread is stupid. It's supposed to be about making Melee tournaments, right? But nobody's doing it. I proposed hosting one and a grand total of 2 people said they were even remotely interested. Nobody else seems to be considering hosting anything either. We're 10 pages into a "let's play Melee" thread and nobody's said anything about actually doing it. No one cares about Melee, not even the people backing this thread! If you guys are Texas' biggest Melee-lovers then Melee is screwed, making this thread a waste of space that should be closed.

Or maybe you can just sit around and talk about nothing important some more, that will probably revive Melee in no time at all.

To be fair, the original topic made by DoH was about garnering support for Melee and raising interest in Melee tournaments in general, not just a big plan-fest.

If you host one, I'd be more than happy to go, assuming that it's on a date I can actually make, and that there is a guaranteed decent turnout. As Taylor stated, a lot of us don't want to drive 3 hours to play 7 other people. I may as well just stay at home and invite some friends over.

I was hoping that the war going on in my topic would at least have more people supporting Melee, but it quickly boiled down to Kal vs. Wobbles, and then my thread was lost in a sea of Brawl tourney threads. =(

Anyway, Brawl is slow and boring, and I don't enjoy it. I want a fast, combo-filled Melee tournament, and I want it soon. I'm done with school on May 9th, so it would be great fun to have a Melee tourney that weekend. AGREE OR NO?

Also, I'm banning TGM from this thread. He's cool in person, but mega-annoying online. More-so because he does it on purpose.

TGM: You're banned! Don't come back in here!