Final Smash Meter, will it be tourney legal?

[Peachach]

Allowing final smash in competitive play is like introducing player-controlled stage hazards. And the community agrees on hazards already. Seriously, competitive play should be about the fighter abilities and skills, with the extent of randomness having to do only with what's built into the characters themselves (I wish there was less of that as well, btw)... not items, hazards, etc.

 

[Bakasama]

It's inherently fair by the standard of being non-random and 'earned', but most likely its a wrench thrown into a system that competitive organizers try to reign in. People desperately complained about Bayonetta being unfair because she and Cloud were the only two decent characters in the game, and they complained about Bowser and DK being able to actually secure a kill because the other characters where genuinely just terrible at it - I'm sure you could see the pre-emptive complaints from a mile away if a character has some sort of kill confirm at zero, a way to camp for meter, or an easy gimp setup with their final smash.

Arguably you could say that Smash games revolve around which character gets away with the most crap and needs the least amount of effort to do anything - that's really any fighting game - and even though the metered Final Smashes are weaker, I'm sure enough people will find the concept polarizing enough to just avoid it altogether. People still avoid even small walls and slopes in stages like the plague even though the current systems account for that and don't tend to have infinites like waveshining indefinitely. If something is grandfathered in like that, when it is losing its place more and more, I doubt that a completely new facet will be introduced to the game when it isn't even set to "On" by default.

 

[QrowinSP]

Bruh, did you not see what Diddy's FS does?

"Press B to kill your opponent anywhere on the screen" is never going to be allowed in tournaments. There's no discussion to be had.

It seems you and I have different definitions of balance. For me, balance is in regards to the relative strength of characters. I don't care how strong the final smash is, if it doesn't make Diddy kong near unbeatably strong then it does not break the game. And that's something you need to prove with results.

What you CAN say is that this is unhealthy and uninteresting gameplay, which would be an actual point against final smash meter. But that's not a balancing concern. Saying "Diddy Kong is too strong" is a very different claim from "Diddy Kong is strong in ways that makes for an unhealthy competitive scene".

 

[S_B]

It seems you and I have different definitions of balance. For me, balance is in regards to the relative strength of characters. I don't care how strong the final smash is, if it doesn't make Diddy kong near unbeatably strong then it does not break the game. And that's something you need to prove with results.

What you CAN say is that this is unhealthy and uninteresting gameplay, which would be an actual point against final smash meter. But that's not a balancing concern. Saying "Diddy Kong is too strong" is a very different claim from "Diddy Kong is strong in ways that makes for an unhealthy competitive scene".

Fair enough. I figured the second one was implied but that might've been my fault for not clarifying.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I've played in tournaments in the past (and did somewhat well) and I would hate to have dealt the necessary damage to my opponent that they're in KO range, only to suddenly have them get their FS while camping and win the game as a result.

It would feel hollow to win or lose that way and it would sure as hell feel hollow to WATCH. It would be along the same lines as when a grand finals ends with an SD.

 

[ZephyrZ]

Balance and character balance are different things. "Character balance" refers to tier lists and how "good" each character is to one another while balance itself has to do with the entire game's design.

Ever character has the option to roll. Some rolls are better then others, but every one has an inherent reward (avoiding damage and getting better positioning) and risk (getting punished) involved. This keeps rolls, an an option, balanced. Even then they were still a bit too good in Smash 4 which is why they're being nerfed again in Ultimate, so their risk is slightly larger.

Final Smashes are all reward with the only risk being that you might miss and will have to refill the meter from scratch, but certain characters don't even have to worry about that. That's not balanced.

 

[Swaggy-G]

Well, people have pointed out the fact that characters who have a difficult time killing for balance purposes would lose that very important weakness were FSMs to be legal and no one seems to be listening.

However, none of the people who aren't listening are TOs so it doesn't matter.

Also, I suggested to my local TO who regularly runs 40+ person tournaments that we should have FSMs turned on for our first tournament on Dec 8th and he laughed.

Sorry folks, but it ain't gonna happen...

It doesn’t work only one way. Sure, characters that have trouble killing normally might have an easier time now, but characters that are already good at killing will have an even easier time.

Alright guys, I'm not going to disagree with every point people are bringing up or actively advocate for final smashes, but one thing that I absolutely hate about what I'm seeing is the same thing we saw in the custom moves debate, and that's that "Certain final smashes are better than others". I mean...... yeah? Of course they are? We don't ban characters from using aerials just because Bayonetta's aerials are busted to hell and back. People use the comparison of Daisy's final smash being better than Rosa's, but you could make the argument that just bridges the gap between them. The person later switched to ZELDA and had an easier time.

That’s a bad comparison because there’s a lot more imbalance in final smashes. Some seem to do **** all, like Ness, while others like Zelda outright delete the opponent at a certain percent.

 

[QrowinSP]

Fair enough. I figured the second one was implied but that might've been my fault for not clarifying.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I've played in tournaments in the past (and did somewhat well) and I would hate to have dealt the necessary damage to my opponent that they're in KO range, only to suddenly have them get their FS while camping and win the game as a result.

It would feel hollow to win or lose that way and it would sure as hell feel hollow to WATCH. It would be along the same lines as when a grand finals ends with an SD.

I see that argument. However, I also think that the final smash meter added a layer of depth that left me, as an audience member, thinking much more strategically about the match, which pulled me in. There are pros and cons, I think.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Watching the Spanish invitational, it was clear to me that the moment players got their final smash (except Ness lol because his sucks) the game immediately shifted to "fish for opportunities to land the final smash" for the person with it and "desperately try to avoid pressing buttons that would make it impossible to avoid the final smash" for the opponent. It was unfun to watch and I imagine even less fun to play.

This isn't even considering how they all make the user invincible for the duration so you can't even really punish them for it if they whiff, or how some are almost literally unavoidable like Daisy's. The risk/reward balance is completely out of whack.

 

[Rakurai]

In the best-of-three between Zelda and Daisy, their final smashes both proved they could be game changers if the character were paired against someone without as good of a FS.

Zelda's seems to pop a character out of existence if their damage is high enough. It doesn't launch you off stage; it just poofs you. No chance for DI, and it has a very large area of effect. Daisy's takes over the entire screen and forces the camera away from the other player, making it great to use when they're offscreen. Twice the Zelda player missed his recovery because he couldn't see where he was going. And if he did make it back but still landed on the ground, he'd be asleep for Daisy to walk up, charge an Fsmash and kill him anyway.

I'm not strictly anti-final smash, but some characters definitely have much, much better FSes than others. Deciding one way or the other will heavily affect the meta for certain.

I was referring to the JP tournament.

Seeing the FS meter in the itemless environment of the Spanish tournament helped make it really obvious as to just how busted it is, though it being nearly impossible to whiff Zelda or Daisy's FS is was also a factor.

 

[Pazzo.]

The problem, as pointed out, is that some Final Smashes require a close activation while others envelop the entire screen.

Too often getting the FS means "I win this stock". It becomes less about skill and more about who can land the FS first.

 

[Untouch]

Daisy and Peach's FS is the DK Cyclone of the FS meter debate.
Yes, you can deal with most of the final smashes, most aren't even good, but as long as that one final smash exists, the system is broken.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Daisy and Peach's FS is the DK Cyclone of the FS meter debate.
Yes, you can deal with most of the final smashes, most aren't even good, but as long as that one final smash exists, the system is broken.

I'd also like to nominate Diddy, Ice Climbers, Bowser Jr., and Bayonetta, plus maybe ROB, Pac-Man, and Snake.

 

[Pyr]

Had a chance to review the footage of the matches that included Final Smash Meter and, to summarize my thoughts:

I would definitely hate making a single mistake and dying at 30% in the exact same way I hate dying because I jabbed a witch time or got laddered from a platform on Battlefield. Not only would that happen 1 or more times a game, I would potentially not have the chance to do it back just because of my character pick.

This would force me to pick a character that has a good Final Smash just so I had the chance to do the same thing to my opponent. I potentially can't play who I want and the reward is hollow. It's like if my opponent SDs. We all know the feeling of your opponent screwing up and dying at 0%. I don't want to force that feeling upon myself.

But, I want to play to win, which is what a competitive environment is all about. Via the footage, I'm pretty sure my gameplay would end up being: Poke with Peach > Stall for Final Smash > Force their Double Jump > Final Smash > Kill and get half a stock worth of damage back. That forces my opponent to waste their FS when I'm at Mid to High damage, or hold out and let me re-build mine and maybe force them to lose theirs via death. It also effectively gives me a half a stock per use every single game. All for just poking and playing footsies and taking few, to no, risks.

Final Smash Meter isn't competitively viable. Balance issues aside, it degrades the game state badly. It turns Smash Bros from a game of interactions, reads, strings, and risks into a glorified game of footsies and keep-away. The health of the game is more important then this new feature. We have other modes, such as Squad Strike, that better deserve the role of "side event" over this feature.

 

[S_B]

Had a chance to review the footage of the matches that included Final Smash Meter and, to summarize my thoughts:

I would definitely hate making a single mistake and dying at 30% in the exact same way I hate dying because I jabbed a witch time or got laddered from a platform on Battlefield. Not only would that happen 1 or more times a game, I would potentially not have the chance to do it back just because of my character pick.

This would force me to pick a character that has a good Final Smash just so I had the chance to do the same thing to my opponent. I potentially can't play who I want and the reward is hollow. It's like if my opponent SDs. We all know the feeling of your opponent screwing up and dying at 0%. I don't want to force that feeling upon myself.

But, I want to play to win, which is what a competitive environment is all about. Via the footage, I'm pretty sure my gameplay would end up being: Poke with Peach > Stall for Final Smash > Force their Double Jump > Final Smash > Kill and get half a stock worth of damage back. That forces my opponent to waste their FS when I'm at Mid to High damage, or hold out and let me re-build mine and maybe force them to lose theirs via death. It also effectively gives me a half a stock per use every single game. All for just poking and playing footsies and taking few, to no, risks.

Final Smash Meter isn't competitively viable. Balance issues aside, it degrades the game state badly. It turns Smash Bros from a game of interactions, reads, strings, and risks into a glorified game of footsies and keep-away. The health of the game is more important then this new feature. We have other modes, such as Squad Strike, that better deserve the role of "side event" over this feature.

To add to what you've said here, one time I went 2-0 against one of the best players in the New England region, a guy who I've watched beat Marss and Pugwest in doubles.

During the matches, I took one legit stock off of him (and I Bowsercided one) and he basically SDed three times.

Everyone was blown away that I did this, but I didn't pop off, didn't celebrate at all. I knew it was hollow. Had I played him 20 more times I would've likely lost all 20, but he just happened to choke and I got lucky.

With FSMs enabled, every last noteworthy victory will feel like that match, like you were handed the win against a superior opponent that you didn't deserve, when they dodge most of your attacks except the one that really counts.

This would make it so every victory or loss felt hollow. We can't have it in competitive play for that reason alone.

 

[Fell God]

I was going to say something but then I realized I have nothing to add to this conversation that hasn't been said already.

 

[L9999]

It looks like the devs didn't learn a single thing from Cloud's Limit Cross Slash, and made even more degenerate and toxic versions of it. Then again they explicitly said FS meter was for "casual play."

 

[Fell God]

It looks like the devs didn't learn a single thing from Cloud's Limit Cross Slash, and made even more degenerate and toxic versions of it. Then again they explicitly said FS meter was for "casual play."

Well I don't know if I would say toxic, but it is rather uncompetitive. Which I guess is where the last sentence of your post applies.

 

[Rakurai]

I'd also like to nominate Diddy, Ice Climbers, Bowser Jr., and Bayonetta, plus maybe ROB, Pac-Man, and Snake.

ROB's only seems dangerous if you're at a distance from him because while the homing lasers can always reach you, the final laser with the KO power can only be angled so much and it doesn't turn too quickly, either.

Pac-Man's doesn't track that well, and Snake's is genuinely hard to dodge...assuming you can actually lock onto someone before the missiles auto-fire.

The first four are legitimately busted, though, since Diddy's constantly tracks from random angles at a speed that's too high to realistically avoid, ICs/Bowser Jr's basically give you complete stage control while they're active (On top of potentially killing you directly if you touch the glacier or get hit by the final paint explosion), and Bayo's being an unavoidable Witch Time on steroids that can also auto-kill if you're around 70% when the finisher goes off.

 

[Deleted member]

In the spanish treehouse presentation, Ike used his Smash Meter Final Smash, It killed his opponent at 20%. And Zelda's, as well as Peaches, cannot be airdodged or shielded, so you are basically doomed. If Smash Meter becomes legal, i will be very dissapointed.

 

[Ryu_Ken]

Oh yeah, Sakurai himself believing FSM is more "suited to casual play" than competitive play ("if you're up for a party"- August Smash Direct and the Famitsu column) really puts a hamper on it being added to the standard ruleset for tournaments. This is REALLY important to note because what we've seen so far at the Spanish Invitational and the Nintendo Live event in Japan backs up what he's saying.

Sakurai could be watching out for us, who knows...

 

[Vulgun]

I just now noticed that Final Smash meters cut by half per KO, especially when fully charged. This could potentially lead into matches where only 1 Final Smash per person could be used, often on the person's last stock no less.

It's saddening that people have made their minds up about Final Smashes when not all of the information has been presented about them. They're overpowered moves, yes, but at the same time, there's a ton of caviats that come with FSMs that it poses the question: "Are Final Smash Meters getting undeserved bans by the community too early?"

 

[Pyr]

I just now noticed that Final Smash meters cut by half per KO, especially when fully charged. This could potentially lead into matches where only 1 Final Smash per person could be used, often on the person's last stock no less.

It's saddening that people have made their minds up about Final Smashes when not all of the information has been presented about them. They're overpowered moves, yes, but at the same time, there's a ton of caviats that come with FSMs that it poses the question: "Are Final Smash Meters getting undeserved bans by the community too early?"

I'd like you to justify their inclusion. Please keep in mind that, in several 1 on 1 matches that have been uploaded over the past few weeks, it's clear and obvious that there will be more then 1 FS per character per average game. I've already pointed out that one can be charged over the course of a single stock.

 

[Vulgun]

I'd like you to justify their inclusion. Please keep in mind that, in several 1 on 1 matches that have been uploaded over the past few weeks, it's clear and obvious that there will be more then 1 FS per character per average game. I've already pointed out that one can be charged over the course of a single stock.

I'd like to start off with a counterargument that unless the opponent survives to a high enough damage, or the battle is genuinely one-sided, they will not charge over the course of a single stock that often. We've seen the details of Final Smash meters and how they work, from their slow charge rate when taking damage (it's approximately 200% without any other factors), their even slower charge rate when attacking somebody, and the fact that you lose charge if KO'd with full meter on. We know how the meters essentially work now, all we would need to do is create a proper theoretical counterplay to the usage of Final Smashes and the meters themselves.

Now, as for my justification of the inclusion of FSM, I would like to start by pointing out that I'm not desiring them to be in combination with our current competitive Singles. I'm only fighting for its inclusion as a third main event rather than an addition to an already pre-existing event. But I digress.

With this in mind, I think that FSM Singles would be appealing to a far broader audience than regular Singles would ever hope to achieve. Final Smashes may have this hefty amount of power to them, but as we have well seen, audiences and spectators absolutely love Final Smashes being used (more often than not, you hear them cheering it instead of any other reaction). It's not often that I've seen a Smash tournament usually have this level of excitement unless some sort of combo string happens, or a major upset occurs. I think it would just grab the attention of a broader range of people due to how exciting they are, thus resulting in a potential playerbase growth and viewership growth.

Now regarding the fact that I would want them to be included as a third main event, I mean it for a rather interesting reason. If run as a third main event, there would be no need of talks of the competitive viability of FSM, since I believe the community wouldn't mind it staying as its own event, just so long as they can run Singles and Doubles without FSM in the meantime. While it would create a scenario where tournaments could run for a little longer than before, I think that this addition, rather than a change, could be well-accepted by the community rather than shunned. The community wouldn't need to bother arguing on its inclusion, so it won't hurt anybody to just make it its own thing.

(Addendum: Since we have something known as "Custom Balance", if Final Smashes prove to be too powerful, we could simply tone down the damage of the characters (and subsequently, Final Smashes) to ensure that Final Smashes don't come too often and don't kill as early, if they were to be their own main event.)

Wouldn't you agree that just simply making it a third main event would justify its "inclusion", alone? Or should I elaborate on some of my statements?

 

[Pyr]

I'd like to start off with a counterargument that unless the opponent survives to a high enough damage, or the battle is genuinely one-sided, they will not charge over the course of a single stock that often. We've seen the details of Final Smash meters and how they work, from their slow charge rate when taking damage (it's approximately 200% without any other factors), their even slower charge rate when attacking somebody, and the fact that you lose charge if KO'd with full meter on. We know how the meters essentially work now, all we would need to do is create a proper theoretical counterplay to the usage of Final Smashes and the meters themselves.

Sorry, but this is provably incorrect. In many, many videos featuring FSM, a full charge normally occurs at around 120%-140% for the "losing" player, with the other player's FSM filling soon after. Also, 99% sure that it isn't a blanket "lose half on death" as per several different videos. I'll be happy to confirm when I'm at home.

As for Counterplay, I look forward to hearing of the counterplay available to the FS of Daisy, Peach, and Diddy. That's far from the problematic list, but that is a strong start.

Now, as for my justification of the inclusion of FSM, I would like to start by pointing out that I'm not desiring them to be in combination with our current competitive Singles. I'm only fighting for its inclusion as a third main event rather than an addition to an already pre-existing event. But I digress.

With this in mind, I think that FSM Singles would be appealing to a far broader audience than regular Singles would ever hope to achieve. Final Smashes may have this hefty amount of power to them, but as we have well seen, audiences and spectators absolutely love Final Smashes being used (more often than not, you hear them cheering it instead of any other reaction). It's not often that I've seen a Smash tournament usually have this level of excitement unless some sort of combo string happens, or a major upset occurs. I think it would just grab the attention of a broader range of people due to how exciting they are, thus resulting in a potential playerbase growth and viewership growth.

"Viewers love it" is the worst justification you can use. It's one thing for a viewer to like something and an entirely different thing for competitors to have to deal with it. That should be the primary base for inclusion, not the viewers. The quality of gameplay should not be the cost of inclusion and, if the gameplay suffers, so will viewership once the novelty dies. (See Bayo and Evo 2018 top 8)

Now regarding the fact that I would want them to be included as a third main event, I mean it for a rather interesting reason. If run as a third main event, there would be no need of talks of the competitive viability of FSM, since I believe the community wouldn't mind it staying as its own event, just so long as they can run Singles and Doubles without FSM in the meantime. While it would create a scenario where tournaments could run for a little longer than before, I think that this addition, rather than a change, could be well-accepted by the community rather than shunned. The community wouldn't need to bother arguing on its inclusion, so it won't hurt anybody to just make it its own thing.

Why would competitive viability be out just because it's side event? Are doubles not competitive because it's a side event? And what side event do you remove to include it? Squad Strike is something that would easily be the primary side event because, unlike FSM, it's not degrative to gameplay and it's looked at positively. How about Squads? Ironmans? Pros vs Scrubs? OTHER GAMES? You only have so many setups and so much room. Removing another side event just to have it would hurt people who don't want FS jank, plain and simple.

(Addendum: Since we have something known as "Custom Balance", if Final Smashes prove to be too powerful, we could simply tone down the damage of the characters (and subsequently, Final Smashes) to ensure that Final Smashes don't come too often and don't kill as early, if they were to be their own main event.)

If you potentially need to REBALANCE THE GAME just to make it work, that should be a MASSIVE red flag for you.

Wouldn't you agree that just simply making it a third main event would justify its "inclusion", alone? Or should I elaborate on some of my statements?

Clearly I do not agree. Singles > Doubles > Region vs Region Matches > 3v3 > Ironmans > >> >> >> FSM enabled side event.

Counter points in bold.

 

[ZephyrZ]

With this in mind, I think that FSM Singles would be appealing to a far broader audience than regular Singles would ever hope to achieve. Final Smashes may have this hefty amount of power to them, but as we have well seen, audiences and spectators absolutely love Final Smashes being used (more often than not, you hear them cheering it instead of any other reaction). It's not often that I've seen a Smash tournament usually have this level of excitement unless some sort of combo string happens, or a major upset occurs. I think it would just grab the attention of a broader range of people due to how exciting they are, thus resulting in a potential playerbase growth and viewership growth.

I get a feeling that viewers will start to find them much less exciting once they get used to them. Have you ever played Pokemon Sun and Moon? Did you ever notice that, while Z-moves are extremely exciting the first few times you use them, they quickly grow tedious as you just end up watching the same short cutscene for the 5th or 10th time in one play through? Crazy combo strings and major upsets are exciting because they're major feats of skill that will are difficult to pull off, but Final Smashes are only exciting because they're flashy and look cool, which is something we'll get used to.

 

[link2702]

When these were first revealed, I felt they could at least be given a shot at side tournaments. After all we hadn’t seen all metered fs’s yet, and the game was still under development so they could have weakened the few we did see that felt a bit too strong.


However that opinion has changed now that we’ve seen peach/daisy’s. Theirs (and a couple others) completely destroys any chance of these being legal.

It’s a shame because if just a bit more time was put into the mechanics of them and making distinct nerfs to them compared to normal fs’s, they could have been a nice new mechanic that could be tested in tournaments.

But as they currently are, no, they’re just as imbalanced as normal fs’s.

 

[S_B]

I'd like to start off with a counterargument that unless the opponent survives to a high enough damage, or the battle is genuinely one-sided, they will not charge over the course of a single stock that often. We've seen the details of Final Smash meters and how they work, from their slow charge rate when taking damage (it's approximately 200% without any other factors), their even slower charge rate when attacking somebody, and the fact that you lose charge if KO'd with full meter on. We know how the meters essentially work now, all we would need to do is create a proper theoretical counterplay to the usage of Final Smashes and the meters themselves.

Now, as for my justification of the inclusion of FSM, I would like to start by pointing out that I'm not desiring them to be in combination with our current competitive Singles. I'm only fighting for its inclusion as a third main event rather than an addition to an already pre-existing event. But I digress.

With this in mind, I think that FSM Singles would be appealing to a far broader audience than regular Singles would ever hope to achieve. Final Smashes may have this hefty amount of power to them, but as we have well seen, audiences and spectators absolutely love Final Smashes being used (more often than not, you hear them cheering it instead of any other reaction). It's not often that I've seen a Smash tournament usually have this level of excitement unless some sort of combo string happens, or a major upset occurs. I think it would just grab the attention of a broader range of people due to how exciting they are, thus resulting in a potential playerbase growth and viewership growth.

Now regarding the fact that I would want them to be included as a third main event, I mean it for a rather interesting reason. If run as a third main event, there would be no need of talks of the competitive viability of FSM, since I believe the community wouldn't mind it staying as its own event, just so long as they can run Singles and Doubles without FSM in the meantime. While it would create a scenario where tournaments could run for a little longer than before, I think that this addition, rather than a change, could be well-accepted by the community rather than shunned. The community wouldn't need to bother arguing on its inclusion, so it won't hurt anybody to just make it its own thing.

(Addendum: Since we have something known as "Custom Balance", if Final Smashes prove to be too powerful, we could simply tone down the damage of the characters (and subsequently, Final Smashes) to ensure that Final Smashes don't come too often and don't kill as early, if they were to be their own main event.)

Wouldn't you agree that just simply making it a third main event would justify its "inclusion", alone? Or should I elaborate on some of my statements?

Problem is, the "3rd main event" at most tournaments is almost inevitably going to be Squad Strike (as it will be at the first tournament I'll be going to the day after launch).

Also, and this isn't directed at you specifically, but it seems like everyone saying "They should have FSMs as an extra event at tournaments" isn't a tournament organizer and doesn't seem to be a tournament player, either.

If FSMs are going to gain any traction, actual TOs will need to want to include them and actual tournament players will need to want to play with them on.

Thus far, neither of the above appear to be true so this whole discussion is moot.

 

[blackghost]

i dont vet the impression these were made for the competitive scene. these were amde so the average player gets to use thier favorite characters super move. i play a lot of causal game with friends in college and my family. the smash ball is an incredibly fustrating item to use and many characters have inherent flaws that prevent them from reaching it. a causal or even decent lil mac isnt getting it over a character like bayonetta for instance. the smaash ultimate devs addressed this with the "heavy" smash ball and casual players will enjoy that for sure.

the other reason i dont think it was for our scene is the lack of interaction between the players regarding it. in the vs games characters have red health that regenerates when tagged out, you can take away that health by snapping them in. in smash ultimate, if the devs had created a method fo rus to reduce our opponents meter (say pummel attacks before a grab) now we have a functional dynamic about the smash attacks. other things to do are
1. remove FS with insta kills.
2. make them more uniform. make everyone a cutscene or make it something you aim these full screen blanket attacks arent good for balance or serious play. especially considering they are unblockable daisy, peach, bayo, jr, ect.


if you like matches with fs meter on i suggest you watch nairo twitch i know he'll be running some, you can watch the smash the record yearly event, or one other event that used customs in smash 4 as a somewhat serious side event.

i was pro custom moves in smash 4 i dont see the comparison to final smash meter. there were two problem custom moves sapling and windkong. the rest weren't a problem and none would insta kill you. sapling couldnt place top 16 at evo. daisy won her first event ever being used PRELAUNCH. custom moves had answers there is no answer for daisy, peach, zelda, or bayonetta final smash attacks.

where is the stage morph thread? that needs proper discussion.

 

[SnackBox]

I fail to see how they are any different from any other fighting game 'super'. Sometimes within one round Ryu might have his V trigger or CA max out to use...and the round limit is set to facilitate that. in the case of smash would we not just increase the stock limit?

Just like Tekken or MvC you can avoid getting hit by a FS.

And I don't get the balance would changed in the meta argument either.

We all know of at least a character that has one move that pushes them up in their viability...FS is just another move in the arsenal.

 

[Ryu_Ken]

I fail to see how they are any different from any other fighting game 'super'. Sometimes within one round Ryu might have his V trigger or CA max out to use...and the round limit is set to facilitate that. in the case of smash would we not just increase the stock limit?

Just like Tekken or MvC you can avoid getting hit by a FS.

And I don't get the balance would changed in the meta argument either.

We all know of at least a character that has one move that pushes them up in their viability...FS is just another move in the arsenal.

One important difference from Super Meters is that all Final Smashes are unblockable. But that's just one issue amongst many others if we're seriously considering Final Smash Meter to be in a standardized competitive ruleset (AKA a rule in Singles/Doubles).

For example, Zelda's Final Smash instantly kills at over 100% damage regardless if it's a metered version or not AND has a deceptively huge range (pulls a character in from across the stage). Even if it doesn't kill, it deals a free 40% damage. No other Final Smash has this level of range except for Daisy/Peach's FS (which are just as rewarding even if they aren't used to kill).
Since you're comparing them to games like Street Fighter, imagine if Zangief used his Critical Art from SF5- except his grab range extends to the entire screen INCLUDING the air. That would cause Zangief to get banned from competitive play because he would be able to make comebacks with extremely little effort. That's the same situation with Zelda's Final Smash. R.O.B, Diddy Kong, Palutena, Snake, Bowser Jr, and many other characters also have the same/similar problems.

The balance argument IS a valid one because Final Smashes were never made with the intent to be used in serious 1on1 matches in the first place. They were made in order to give a player an edge in a general multiplayer setting. I believe the reason why FS were toned down to be more straight and to the point as well as the inclusion of the meter was so that characters would have easier access to their FS (ESPECIALLY Little Mac because he was ill-equipped to hit the Smash Ball thanks to his abysmal aerials). Because of how chaotic things could get from this, they had to remove transformations and make certain FSs shorter in length. Otherwise, there could be 4 Giga Bowsers running around or a solid minute or two wasted on letting long-lasting Final Smashes run their course. Some of these changes sound good for competitive play at first, but as I mentioned above, many FSs are not suitable for a 1on1 environment.

Super Smash Bros, unlike many other fighting games, is a platform fighter. No invisible walls stop players from moving wherever they want. Many characters have varying levels of run speed, jump height, air speed, and overall agility. Some characters can use their fast run speed and jump height to avoid fighting the other character completely, effectively camping them out. Increasing the stock limit would encourage this kind of tactic even more because once a person has a stock lead on another and if the loser or both players get a FS, the match becomes a game of tag (kinda like vanilla Street Fighter X Tekken). Fast-paced offensive play is strongly encouraged in this game, so we shouldn't be adding in elements that weaken it.

 

[Gamera]

View attachment 156297

So, There is finally a non-random way to use the Final Smash. Let's say it actually make the game more pleasurable to play, even in competition, is there a chance it will become Tourney Legal, or will force of habit impose itself and still ban it "on principle".

Unless it make the game too unbalanced, make things too unfair, I don't see no reason to turn this off.

It made the game too unbalanced
https://youtu.be/SkXAqqxqPAI