Escape from chain grabs.

[Biz_R_0]

And I suppose there is for recovering off stage which is something I know a lot of beginning players from my experience, for whatever reason, can't do.

That's stuff that beginners can't do. Grab techs would be something that intermediate players can't do. Beginners are still learning the basics. Intermediate players should already know the basics.

Yeah, about that. Throws are still highly valuable. Typically, they put the opponent in a knocked down state which leads to oodles of okizeme which means more damage if you read right.

There are moves that do that and can be comboed into.

Part of the thing with Smash throws is that they behave like launchers in comparison to the normal throws in most other games (command throws are another story). If I recall correctly, the ones that let you combo off of throws in other games actually scale the following attacks in the combos down to prevent the game from becoming overly defensive.

But that's not your proposed solution, nor would that actually solve anything.

Except true chain grabs are escable. You aren't stuck in them if you read right. Ask the Kings, Nina, etc.

What? You get grabbed, you get thrown, you get grabbed again because you can't DI out of throw. Unless you're talking about Melee.

 

[Arcansi]

Why make something worse when you don't need to?

Because it adds overall game depth?

It would remove infinite chain grabs. And if you want a solution to remove all chain grabs; after you grab once, all other grab attempts will automatically whiff until the hitstun completely wears off. Simple and accessible fix that changes nothing else.

This is also an option, but it adds less game depth.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Because it adds overall game depth?

It's not worth it, the game is deep enough already and you'd be sacrificing a lot (balance, accessibility, etc.) to gain a little.

This is also an option, but it adds less game depth.

But it's more accessible and changes less. In mine, there is only improvement, as opposed to your's where you're nerfing a mechanic. And, really, "depth" is a buzzword. You can just attach "depth" to anything that lets you make any choices whatsoever, and any response against something that adds "depth" will automatically sound bad, regardless of how much "depth" there actually is and what you're removing to get it, because "depth" is generally regarded as a positive thing and not wanting a "positive" thing makes you and your point look bad. It's the same with calling something "competitive", which can be attached to pretty much anything, and anyone who doesn't like the "competitive" thing is a dirty casual and hates skill.

 

[Big-Cat]

It's not worth it, the game is deep enough already and you'd be sacrificing a lot (balance, accessibility, etc.) to gain a little.

You do realize that if they are to add and/or take away mechanics, they'll rebalance the cast with that in mind, right?

And for this supposed loss of depth, why not go and add new things to "compensate" like a smaller, non-shrinking shield as an alternate take on high-low blocking of other fighting games?

 

[Biz_R_0]

You do realize that if they are to add and/or take away mechanics, they'll rebalance the cast with that in mind, right?

You keep just saying "oh, they'll fix it" without explaining how. I could end every discussion here by just saying "oh, they'll do something" but that's not good for conversation.

And for this supposed loss of depth, why not go and add new things to "compensate" like a smaller, non-shrinking shield as an alternate take on high-low blocking of other fighting games?

I'm getting sick of this. Seriously, every single one of your opinions can be condensed to "make Smash like Street Fighter". There's no point in discussing anything with you if you do that because I know exactly what side you're going to be on with everything. So unless you want to treat Smash like Smash and not like Street Fighter, I'm done.

 

[Big-Cat]

Let's make the combo system like Bayonetta's two button system (three if you count changing sets). That was a fun game and could be cool to see in Smash if done right.

There, that better. And I still don't see how taking things from other games is a bad thing. Smash is not this sacred lamb that shouldn't be blemished. People take ideas from other things as they see fit. I'm just looking for a good game and if that means taking mechanics from games you want nothing with, that's fine. It's your thing if you don't like them, not mine.

 

[Biz_R_0]

It's not that you're taking from other games, it's that you very clearly only want to replace unique elements in Smash Bros. with traditional fighting game stuff. You want grab techs like in Street Fighter, and then to solve the problems that would arise from it; "just make blocking exactly like Street Fighter". And you only want true combos, like in Street Fighter. Why not make the entire game like Street Fighter? All of your problems are "it's not enough like Street Fighter", which is evidenced by your solution to everything being "make it more like Street Fighter". Why even play Smash if you just want traditional fighter elements?

Also I've never played Bayonetta.

 

[Big-Cat]

I like how you only refer to Street Fighter when the things I've mentioned are genre staples and those staples behave differently in different games. This whole crap about uniqueness in Smash Bros. has infested the fanbase like a plague, treating anything with the slightest similarity to something else as unoriginal - just look at how some people treat clones. I have said several times that these mechanics can be taken from other games and be given a brand new twist to them. Throw breaking could be where you do a grab input in the opposite direction as you predict your opponent (something Virtua Fighter does and to a lesser extent Tekken). The shielding example could be where you actually block the attack itself so it can hit anywhere on the character's body; just picture Link actually using his shield and it's easier to see. And don't go twisting my preferences on "true combos". I want DI still in, just not on every single move with every direction available for you to choose from. You could use the DI moves in a combo to make a Smash version of an aerial reset.

Naturally, you make any changes to a game, you have to adjust the entire game to accomodate for that change. They did the from 64 to Melee, Melee to Brawl, and they're most certainly going to do that with Brawl to Smash 4.

And lastly, just because something is unique doesn't make it good.

 

[knuckles213]

That's pretty much the general consensus, now we're trying to figure out how to do it.

Also, I notice that you main Fox in 64 and Brawl but not Melee where he's the best. Why is that?

bit late again,

I do main fox in melee, but I just like young link in the game as well as roy and mewtwo.

plus maybe "parrying" or having "command buttons/actions" like in naruto or dbz fighting games where you would either(having to be faster than your opponent): rotating the control stick, input button command, alternate button mashing(between two buttons), or single button mashing as addition to getting out of the grab.

 

[YOSHIDO]

I'm fairly against chain grabs. I like alot of the ideas discussed earlier. The ones I like the most are teching grabs, or give grabs more knock back so they cant chain. Some one else mentioned a 4 grab system that was more of a mode for smash. Overall I feel the game was intended to allow grabs to be broken. But at this level the throw comes to quick many times to allow for breaking.

My idea would just be to make the breaking methods stronger and faster in real time. Say if p1 grabs p2, If player two is able to hit A a couple of times he breaks the grab. As the match goes on.it will require more mashing for the player to break the grab when he has more damage. Also when grabs are broken both characters will be set back to a neutural posistion and state with a 6 frame pause similar to grab breaks in melee.

 

[Biz_R_0]

@Kuma; I don't mean to be like "I am done with you and your idiocy, I am so super mature and superior to you by ending the conversation", but this is going off topic and nowhere so there's no point in continuing it.

@Yoshido; that would make grabs useless for anything but shield breaking and killing

 

[YOSHIDO]

@ Biz what else would you want grabs to be used for? You can still posistion.

 

[-LzR-]

People already buffer their throws most of the time. They can already mash out almost instantly at 100%. If they did what you suggested, grabs would have to be buffered and nothing would really change except pummeling would become useless.
I actually like the grabbreaking idea. But it should be implemented so that you can't just press Z when you see the other person grab, you have to input a grab as well, like a 4 frame window or something. Meaning you cannot react to even crappy grabs, but have to predict them. With this system, I would no longer see a reason to keep spotdodging in the game and it should be removed as it's overpowered atm.

 

[Biz_R_0]

@-LZR- How is it OP? It has start-up and cooldown, you can't do it infinitely and bad spot dodges can be easily punished. Also, why are we trying to solve other problems than infinite chain grabs in this thread? This is turning into "chaing grabs and your agenda".

@Yoshido combos, positioning, out of shield options.

 

[YOSHIDO]

@biz You can still posistion, All i'm sayin is that there should be a consistant and easy way to break grabs. This way grabs aren't being abused. As with respect to out of sheild options. Its still viable for those characters with good grabs.

Maybe this game should differ grabs, from counter grabs. This way a sheild grab would count as a counter because the person was doing an attack, there by giving the defensive guy a guranteed throw, the next grab however cant be consididered a counter grab unless the person has recoved in the air and trys to attack. This way people are still getting punished for bad spacing, and grabs aren't being abused. Also if someone is sleeping and doesn't mash cuz they were trying to do something else. The throw combo would still get off. This is why jigss stil gets up throw rest.

 

[Big-Cat]

@biz You can still posistion, All i'm sayin is that there should be a consistant and easy way to break grabs. This way grabs aren't being abused. As with respect to out of sheild options. Its still viable for those characters with good grabs.

Maybe this game should differ grabs, from counter grabs. This way a sheild grab would count as a counter because the person was doing an attack, there by giving the defensive guy a guranteed throw, the next grab however cant be consididered a counter grab unless the person has recoved in the air and trys to attack. This way people are still getting punished for bad spacing, and grabs aren't being abused. Also if someone is sleeping and doesn't mash cuz they were trying to do something else. The throw combo would still get off. This is why jigss stil gets up throw rest.

So you're saying that if Player B grabs Player A during an attack's startup, B has a guaranteed throw, and that you can't grab an opponent in hitstun? Pretty reasonable to me.

Still, this reminds me about air throws. Should they be brought in, but behave differently from normal throws, like heavily decreased hitstun?

 

[Arcansi]

It's not worth it, the game is deep enough already and you'd be sacrificing a lot (balance, accessibility, etc.) to gain a little.

Would in NO way be sacrificing balance. The game will of course be balanced based on what mechanics are in it, not the other way around.

But it's more accessible and changes less. In mine, there is only improvement, as opposed to your's where you're nerfing a mechanic. And, really, "depth" is a buzzword. You can just attach "depth" to anything that lets you make any choices whatsoever, and any response against something that adds "depth" will automatically sound bad, regardless of how much "depth" there actually is and what you're removing to get it, because "depth" is generally regarded as a positive thing and not wanting a "positive" thing makes you and your point look bad. It's the same with calling something "competitive", which can be attached to pretty much anything, and anyone who doesn't like the "competitive" thing is a dirty casual and hates skill.

This is a legitimate argument, but I'm not doing this.

The second half, that is. The first half is trying to tell me that 0 + 5 - 2 is greater than 0 + 2. (Adding more, taking away something is still greater than just adding in some cases.)

And yeah, maybe depth is a buzzword. Does that make it inherently bad or wrong that I use it? No.

Is it my fault you may fall for the stigma's attached to it? No. I certainly don't.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Would in NO way be sacrificing balance. The game will of course be balanced based on what mechanics are in it, not the other way around.

But YOU have to explain how, because otherwise I could just say some ******** thing like "they should add a mechanic where character's limbs fall off if they get hit in that area a lot", and then say "oh they'll fix it" whenever you or someone else points out the many horrible things that would bring. Really anyone can say that about anything, but that doesn't make for good discussion. And since this is all speculation about stuff that most likely will never happen, no, they won't build around it.

This is a legitimate argument, but I'm not doing this.

The second half, that is. The first half is trying to tell me that 0 + 5 - 2 is greater than 0 + 2. (Adding more, taking away something is still greater than just adding in some cases.)

With mine, though, there's no variables. They can literally change nothing else, throw that in, and the problem's gone. Your solution is much riskier and may work out horribly. Normally that would be zero risk bias, but it's not really bias if one of the options is actually zero risk.

Speaking of my solution, how come you were all throwing fits about it getting rid of chain grabs and then readily embraced this, which would also do exactly that?

And yeah, maybe depth is a buzzword. Does that make it inherently bad or wrong that I use it? No.

Yes, because there's no actual measure of the "depth" you're referring to, and there's nothing to differentiate between actual depth and buzzword depth at that point.

 

[Arcansi]

But YOU have to explain how, because otherwise I could just say some ******** thing like "they should add a mechanic where character's limbs fall off if they get hit in that area a lot", and then say "oh they'll fix it" whenever you or someone else points out the many horrible things that would bring. Really anyone can say that about anything, but that doesn't make for good discussion. And since this is all speculation about stuff that most likely will never happen, no, they won't build around it.

Speculation and such forums just show how much a given community likes an idea, not how good it is for the game.

That's because we don't know the game yet. You could build an argument for the mechanic, and it would be legitimate, although not liked or supported all that much.

If they choose it, they will build around it.

With mine, though, there's no variables. They can literally change nothing else, throw that in, and the problem's gone. Your solution is much riskier and may work out horribly. Normally that would be zero risk bias, but it's not really bias if one of the options is actually zero risk.

They won't change nothing else, though. And because of these unknown variables, multiple solutions could be optimal, depending on the context. Perhaps grab teching adds a needed amount of interaction to grabs in Smash 4.

Also, I suggest making grab techs give the person who teched the grab a frame advantage when they do tech it. This actually makes it add SIGNIFICANT depth, especially if it's tied to a button movement like back + grab.

Speaking of my solution, how come you were all throwing fits about it getting rid of chain grabs and then readily embraced this, which would also do exactly that?

So it seems you like to read peoples past posts in order to get 'dirt' on them, to use against them? This is the only way I can see you knowing what you know here, or else someone telling you, but in both cases it's extremely irrelevant.

There are multiple fallacies here. Strawman, a little bit. The fact that my past opinion has no meaning to my future one, a lot.

But, the worst part is, I never 'threw fits about getting rid of chaingrabs'. I wanted chaingrabs gone, and this would do exactly that.

Yes, because there's no actual measure of the "depth" you're referring to, and there's nothing to differentiate between actual depth and buzzword depth at that point.

Yes, there is a way to differentiate.

Actual depth adds meaningful choices to the game, fake depth doesn't.

 

[Biz_R_0]

They won't change nothing else, though. And because of these unknown variables, multiple solutions could be optimal, depending on the context. Perhaps grab teching adds a needed amount of interaction to grabs in Smash 4.

But your's might solve the problem and might add problems, mine will definitely solve the problem and won't add more problems. That is guaranteed to happen, it is the safer and simpler option. Are you not seeing why this is a good thing?

Also, I suggest making grab techs give the person who teched the grab a frame advantage when they do tech it. This actually makes it add SIGNIFICANT depth, especially if it's tied to a button movement like back + grab.

But that would make grabbing incredibly unsafe unless there's no way they'd predict that you'd do it.

So it seems you like to read peoples past posts in order to get 'dirt' on them, to use against them? This is the only way I can see you knowing what you know here, or else someone telling you, but in both cases it's extremely irrelevant.

There are multiple fallacies here. Strawman, a little bit. The fact that my past opinion has no meaning to my future one, a lot.

But, the worst part is, I never 'threw fits about getting rid of chaingrabs'. I wanted chaingrabs gone, and this would do exactly that.

So it's a fallacy to ask a question? I wasn't "digging up dirt" on anyone, I just wanted to know what's so different about this solution than mine, which was hated for doing what this will also definitely accomplish.

Yes, there is a way to differentiate.

Actual depth adds meaningful choices to the game, fake depth doesn't.

Define meaningful in an objective manner.

 

[YOSHIDO]

@ Kuma, yes thats exactly what I'm talking about. And I agree air grabs, or more special moves that allow for grabing in air would be a great addition.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Tiers are kinda irrelevant when it comes to recovery. Just look at Puff. And of course there's Olimar and Marth who are good but are bad at recovering.
If you are talking about Melee though, I understand, Brawl recoveries should be toned down a bit. Then again I main Puff in Melee so I am not aware of all the difficulties when it comes to recovery as I can kinda skip that part.

Marth and Olimar are not bad at recovery. Ike and Link and bad at recovery.

 

[Biz_R_0]

@Yoshido I'm on board with that idea if it's just "no grabs in hitstun".

 

[Arcansi]

But your's might solve the problem and might add problems, mine will definitely solve the problem and won't add more problems. That is guaranteed to happen, it is the safer and simpler option. Are you not seeing why this is a good thing?

1. My option will definitely solve the problem (Chaingrabs won't happen as the second part of the chaingrab will be grab-tech'd by any competent player.)

2. There are like, limitless amounts of nuances that could happen. What about grab combos where you have to predict? e.g. Falco can go dthrow > grab or dthrow > dash attack Usmash in Brawl. If we add your option here, he has no choices to make and no interaction. If we add mine, there's interaction on risk vs reward, and the like.

So it's a fallacy to ask a question? I wasn't "digging up dirt" on anyone, I just wanted to know what's so different about this solution than mine, which was hated for doing what this will also definitely accomplish.

It's a fallacy to bring up something both random & irrelevant to an argument.

You'd have to go more in depth with what you're talking about, as I never hated your solution for anything.

Define meaningful in an objective manner.

Meaningful: The choice made has non-trivial impact on the game.

 

[Biz_R_0]

@Arcansi there's no point in discussing this any further since you've admitted that you're deliberately arguing instead of discussing. Arguing is pointless because it's about trying to sound smarter or more right than the other guy, as opposed to discussion which is about conveying thoughts and other people responding to them with their own. It's a waste of time and you're really only arguing so that you feel right, and since I don't have that insecurity I don't want to argue with you or anyone.

 

[Arcansi]

@Arcansi there's no point in discussing this any further since you've admitted that you're deliberately arguing instead of discussing. Arguing is pointless because it's about trying to sound smarter or more right than the other guy, as opposed to discussion which is about conveying thoughts and other people responding to them with their own. It's a waste of time and you're really only arguing so that you feel right, and since I don't have that insecurity I don't want to argue with you or anyone.

I...I have no idea where you got that from. For me, arguing and discussing are more or less synonyms. I don't argue just to sound smarter or more right than you, I argue to learn stuff.

You may stop posting if you wish, but I can't even begin to believe you without knowing what you draw such a conclusion from.

 

[Biz_R_0]

It's because arguments are solely dedicated to defending your own point at all costs instead trying to understand your opponent's, which is what discussion is about.

 

[Arcansi]

It's because arguments are solely dedicated to defending your own point at all costs instead trying to understand your opponent's, which is what discussion is about.

That is nothing like how I define(or have) arguments. You seem to be attempting to generalize, and not succeeding.

Also, I can't tell what would make you think I was arguing in the first place, as opposed to discussing.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Fallacy throwing, for starters (apparently hypocrisy is fine but calling people out on it isn't). And, really, what are you trying to accomplish if you're not trying to "win"?

 

[Arcansi]

Fallacy throwing, for starters (apparently hypocrisy is fine but calling people out on it isn't). And, really, what are you trying to accomplish if you're not trying to "win"?

1. I would use fallacies as reasoning in any discussion. I don't know what you mean about hypocrisy.

2.

I argue to learn stuff.

:fluttershy:

 

[Biz_R_0]

It didn't seem that way, most of your posts were defending your own point and calling my idea wrong. I was trying to point out the potential for flaws, such as grabs being nerfed hard (I could go on about this but basically it would render grabs useless when they would normally be a good option, making grabs not only much less useful but dangerous due to the frame advantage) or how you're just assuming that you can throw in a monkey wrench and not explain how it will be incorporated (which, as I've said, is bad for discussion), although it may have come off as "no my idea is better".

 

[Arcansi]

It didn't seem that way, most of your posts were defending your own point and calling my idea wrong. I was trying to point out the potential for flaws, such as grabs being nerfed hard (I could go on about this but basically it would render grabs useless when they would normally be a good option, making grabs not only much less useful but dangerous due to the frame advantage) or how you're just assuming that you can throw in a monkey wrench and not explain how it will be incorporated (which, as I've said, is bad for discussion), although it may have come off as "no my idea is better".

This is just how I discuss.

If I find a flaw in your logic, I point it out. That's what I've been doing.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

It's baffling how people like Kuma Oso don't realize they're trying to cut the game in half.

 

[Arcansi]

It's baffling how people like Kuma Oso don't realize they're trying to cut the game in half.

Nice opinion.

And even so, nice of you to show us the reasoning behind it, all laid out like that...

It's almost as if...you don't want discussion at all. Or atleast, not a non-drama filled one.

:fluttershy:

 

[nessokman]

Umm.Chaingrabs are awesome. I think they should stay.I love falco's where you can only hit them a few times before they fly to far. Same for olimar's grab throw down chain. Itt can only be done 2 times,3 if its a noob you'rre fighting. Infinites, such as ike against wall, dedede against wall,or ice climbers infinite should be fixed.Other chaingrabs don't do much damage to the entertainment of the game.

irrelevant:if chain grabs aren't in ssb4, then wavedashing has next to no chance.

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

Nice opinion.

And even so, nice of you to show us the reasoning behind it, all laid out like that...

It's almost as if...you don't want discussion at all. Or atleast, not a non-drama filled one.

:fluttershy:

Arguing with people like you is like giving a class in Algebra 1 to kids so disconnected from reality that they challenge the basic logic that is being taught to them.