Final Smash Meter, will it be tourney legal?

[grizby2]

no thanks.

I LIKE the fact that smash competitive scenes don't rely on final smashes. I want to see someone win because they put time and effort perfecting their art in whatever character they choose.
it'd be like watching 2 martial artists sparring each other until one of them pulls out a gun.

I guess for me its just too sacred of a rule to break~ I just don't feel like I deserved to win whenever a final smash was involved. even when just having fun with friends. we'd all just give eachother that "look" XD

they would have to SERIOUSLY tone down the knock back for sure. I don't know.
I just hate it when the game is treated exactly the same as other fighter games when smash is clearly a game mostly about knock back physics and stocks, not life bars.

CALL ME OLD-FASHIONED

 

[Scicky]

This isnt a valid argument. Some characters have better jabs than others. Same with smash attacks.
Character differences create a fun game. While there are outliers this inclusion in compitive play lives or dies based on the process of gaining meter and the communities feelings towards a new mechanic. conservative mindset always wins and this mechanic also is way more out there than stage morphing imo.

I also think im against fs meter because my main will be hated even more if they are legal. So no thanks.

Having a good jab, smash attack or special is a lot different than giving an already great character (Marth) what is essentially a long-ranged version of Jigglypuff's rest or Mac's KO punch. The meter doesn't even really matter in that situation because in the case of Jigglypuff, it can take a significant amount of time to find an opening for rest in the first place, while Little Mac's instant kill move already has a meter. Those characters get away with having KO moves that are hard to pull off because they're at their core, high-risk, high-reward characters, when you add those kind of moves to the kit of characters who are already safe, top-tier picks, balance goes out the window.

Whether or not the mechanic itself is broken, a good final smash on an already good character is enough to centralize the meta to a point of near-instant stagnation, and would absolutely poison the community. To your point, if you think people's opinions on Bayo can be toxic now? Well, she has an instant kill move now, have fun arguing about it for the next 6+ years until Smash 6 comes out. (Idk if her meter'd FS insta-kills, but you get the point)

 

[Deus]

I don't understand how people could think this could be remotely balanced or will be interesting to watch at all. So essentially all the kills will be from high reward, low risk super moves that have minimal counterplay. Yeah, because that's way more interesting then seeing people come up with creative combos, baiting and punishing, etc. It would become so boring so quickly.

You can give it a go all you want, but adding a bunch of constant high reward, low risk moves into the mix is simply going to take away that much more strategy, and the ones who don't have good final smashes won't be considered at all. It's nothing like not have a decent fsmash or throws, it's like not having a jump. I don't understand people's infatuation with trying to bring things that will clearly add less skill and strategy into the competitive scene, have fun with them casually in friendly matches where they work best. But by all means keep bringing up how final smashes are no different than X mechanics in Y fighting game. An argument that makes no sense because the overall mechanics of Smash are so different from every other fighting game.

I also find it funny that people talk about the "balancing" they did in Smash 4 to help the competitive scene. Now compare that to amount of work and testing the few guys behind Project M did with balancing, you know that game Nintendo just wouldn't let us Melee fans have, now that was truly trying to balance things. Even with the abrupt halt put to that game the difference between the low tier and high tier characters is so much smaller than in Smash 4.

 

[Carfax]

Positioning well and pressing the B button may be hype once but it will get annoying when players start camping all match to get final smash online and then miss it and repeat. In 2D fighters if you camp to get meter you'll end up in the corner, whereas in smash you can run around in circles and maybe end up offstage where you can slip back on and continue running. Holy balls I hope final smash meter isn't on in For Glory.

 

[Scicky]

Positioning well and pressing the B button may be hype once but it will get annoying when players start camping all match to get final smash online and then miss it and repeat. In 2D fighters if you camp to get meter you'll end up in the corner, whereas in smash you can run around in circles and maybe end up offstage where you can slip back on and continue running. Holy balls I hope final smash meter isn't on in For Glory.

Right, and you actually get most of your FS meter by getting hit, meaning if you camp for meter and your opponent succeeds in approaching, they've kind of just helped your cause unless they can REALLY capitalize off of that one hit. I don't think people will camp all match for meter, because your opponent will gain meter at the same rate, but if your opponent's damaged you enough to get your meter up significantly, instead of trying to approach or bait or whatever, you'll just run around for that extra bit of meter so that you can turn the match around.

Maybe FS' will be balanced to the point where they're not as broken as Marth's looked in the direct, but if they're even remotely over-powered (which of course they will be, that's the point of them) then I don't think they'll have a positive effect on the flow of matches.

 

[blackghost]

Having a good jab, smash attack or special is a lot different than giving an already great character (Marth) what is essentially a long-ranged version of Jigglypuff's rest or Mac's KO punch. The meter doesn't even really matter in that situation because in the case of Jigglypuff, it can take a significant amount of time to find an opening for rest in the first place, while Little Mac's instant kill move already has a meter. Those characters get away with having KO moves that are hard to pull off because they're at their core, high-risk, high-reward characters, when you add those kind of moves to the kit of characters who are already safe, top-tier picks, balance goes out the window.

Whether or not the mechanic itself is broken, a good final smash on an already good character is enough to centralize the meta to a point of near-instant stagnation, and would absolutely poison the community. To your point, if you think people's opinions on Bayo can be toxic now? Well, she has an instant kill move now, have fun arguing about it for the next 6+ years until Smash 6 comes out. (Idk if her meter'd FS insta-kills, but you get the point)

the two main differences for fs meters and other games are: meter in other games has more than one use. often for most characters using meter on a super is not correct.

the second difference is fs on would render the differences between the fs attacks too impactful on meta. thats not the case in any other game. akuma having a great super is barely factored in his tier placement. certain characters: sonic, palutena, samus, zss, and (on the negative) mario would be heavily impacted by them.
i dont want them in main events. it'll be fun once a year at smash the record tho.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

So essentially all the kills will be from high reward, low risk super moves that have minimal counterplay. Yeah, because that's way more interesting then seeing people come up with creative combos, baiting and punishing, etc. It would become so boring so quickly.

Most Final Smashes in this game can be easily blocked or avoided, they're even taking the time to weaken them when in meter mode.

I don't understand people's infatuation with trying to bring things that will clearly add less skill and strategy into the competitive scene, have fun with them casually in friendly matches where they work best. But by all means keep bringing up how final smashes are no different than X mechanics in Y fighting game. An argument that makes no sense because the overall mechanics of Smash are so different from every other fighting game.

That's the thing, we won't know if they'll be good for competitive play or not. We have to actually try them first to develop counter-play.

I also find it funny that people talk about the "balancing" they did in Smash 4 to help the competitive scene. Now compare that to amount of work and testing the few guys behind Project M did with balancing, you know that game Nintendo just wouldn't let us Melee fans have, now that was truly trying to balance things. Even with the abrupt halt put to that game the difference between the low tier and high tier characters is so much smaller than in Smash 4.

Keep in mind, Smash 4's life was cut short due to the Wii U's death. But Sakurai and the team did do a decent job balancing the game in that time. Nearly every character felt viable in Smash 4, making it the most balanced game in the series. And with Ultimate, they've taken extra steps to accommodate for the competitive scene. Such as a new Training stage, pre-saved rule-sets, swapping the order of stage and character select screens, stage hazard toggle, and yes the Final Smash meter was made with the input of the competitive scene in mind.

 

[Beatrice]

It's hard for me to imagine a world where legal FS meter doesn't devolve the meta into a "who has the most oppressive FS" game. I don't think it would be satisfying at all to watch, either. In a scenario where both players are at last stock/high percent, legal FS meter basically disincentivizes any kind of aggressive play until you get a FS, which is probably going to be a lot safer an option than actually approaching normally. It would be a funny side tournament kind of thing, I think, but on its premise I'm pretty opposed to it being standard, and don't really even see a need to seriously test it outside of side events.

 

[Deleted member]

I think the competitive community should give the bar a fair chance. I don't think it's likely that we'll see it, as FS often are broad, wide, have long range, and are incredibly effective in a lot of situations. There is also the chance that it will encourage camping/sandbagging so matches become incredibly unengaged and uninteresting to watch.

But what I think, in the end, is that it's a great new feature and that we should wait and see what kind of impact it will have.
Give us a few local tournaments for evaluation's sake. Perhaps a few more official Nintendo-sponsored events. Something like it.
We'll see if it has viability, if it has audience support, or both.

 

[Scicky]

Most Final Smashes in this game can be easily blocked or avoided, they're even taking the time to weaken them when in meter mode.

That's the thing, we won't know if they'll be good for competitive play or not. We have to actually try them first to develop counter-play.

Keep in mind, Smash 4's life was cut short due to the Wii U's death. But Sakurai and the team did do a decent job balancing the game in that time. Nearly every character felt viable in Smash 4, making it the most balanced game in the series. And with Ultimate, they've taken extra steps to accommodate for the competitive scene. Such as a new Training stage, pre-saved rule-sets, swapping the order of stage and character select screens, stage hazard toggle, and yes the Final Smash meter was made with the input of the competitive scene in mind.

FS Meter is more balanced than standard Final Smashes, but that doesn't mean it's balanced, and the avoidability of Final Smashes has never been the issue at hand either. The problem with enabling Final Smashes is that when the Smash Ball appears, the game stops being about strategic play and becomes 'better get that ****ing ball'. We run a real risk of games devolving into the same thing here, only with meter instead, because regardless of whether or not it's easy to land the FS, having the option to hit your opponent with an attack that can potentially kill them at 20% is never going to be something you don't want to have.

Besides, it's not even that much harder to land most Final Smashes than it is to land most high damage attacks, and even the (extremely nerfed) Mario Finale is a far reaching, wide projectile that hits both below and above stage, making it a ridiculous, if not impossible to challenge ledge-guarding option against a good chunk of the roster. There's practically nothing you can do to balance that more than they already have, and it's still busted.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

FS Meter is more balanced than standard Final Smashes, but that doesn't mean it's balanced, and the avoidability of Final Smashes has never been the issue at hand either. The problem with enabling Final Smashes is that when the Smash Ball appears, the game stops being about strategic play and becomes 'better get that ****ing ball'. We run a real risk of games devolving into the same thing here, only with meter instead, because regardless of whether or not it's easy to land the FS, having the option to hit your opponent with an attack that can potentially kill them at 20% is never going to be something you don't want to have.

Which is why the FS Meter was created to begin with. To eliminate the randomness of the Smash Ball and to make matches more intense since now each character can have access to their Final Smash at once. The game's still being worked on, so things could be more balanced by the time the game releases, and as we develop counter-play and strategies regarding Final Smashes. They could possibly work like Cloud's new limit Break or Little Mac's new KO Punch where you have to use it within 15 seconds, or the charge is gone, and that charge is also lost upon KO just like normal FS are. The key is to give them limits and risks so that they're easier to counter and punish with skill. Plus, if a Final Smash is too broken in Meter mode, we can always recommend a balance patch to sort things out.

 

[Oddball]

Nothing interesting is ever tournament legal.

 

[Iron Maw]

no thanks.

I LIKE the fact that smash competitive scenes don't rely on final smashes. I want to see someone win because they put time and effort perfecting their art in whatever character they choose.
it'd be like watching 2 martial artists sparring each other until one of them pulls out a gun.

I guess for me its just too sacred of a rule to break~ I just don't feel like I deserved to win whenever a final smash was involved. even when just having fun with friends. we'd all just give eachother that "look" XD

they would have to SERIOUSLY tone down the knock back for sure. I don't know.
I just hate it when the game is treated exactly the same as other fighter games when smash is clearly a game mostly about knock back physics and stocks, not life bars.

CALL ME OLD-FASHIONED

I don't see why any of this would change with FS. Smash like all competitive games is about beating an opponent utilizing every and any means or method you can. An FS isn't stop you from trying to end an your oppoenet's stock through Smashes or other speical moves some which are also powerful. It's just another to do which be incorpated in wide varitey situations like any tool in a character's kit can. There likely won't be any instant kills and probably won't even start killing until 70-100% if balanced enough making them like any other similiar powerful B special (True Shoryuken, Limit Cross Slash etc)

I don't understand how people could think this could be remotely balanced or will be interesting to watch at all. So essentially all the kills will be from high reward, low risk super moves that have minimal counterplay. Yeah, because that's way more interesting then seeing people come up with creative combos, baiting and punishing, etc. It would become so boring so quickly.

You can give it a go all you want, but adding a bunch of constant high reward, low risk moves into the mix is simply going to take away that much more strategy, and the ones who don't have good final smashes won't be considered at all. It's nothing like not have a decent fsmash or throws, it's like not having a jump. I don't understand people's infatuation with trying to bring things that will clearly add less skill and strategy into the competitive scene, have fun with them casually in friendly matches where they work best. But by all means keep bringing up how final smashes are no different than X mechanics in Y fighting game. An argument that makes no sense because the overall mechanics of Smash are so different from every other fighting game.

I also find it funny that people talk about the "balancing" they did in Smash 4 to help the competitive scene. Now compare that to amount of work and testing the few guys behind Project M did with balancing, you know that game Nintendo just wouldn't let us Melee fans have, now that was truly trying to balance things. Even with the abrupt halt put to that game the difference between the low tier and high tier characters is so much smaller than in Smash 4.

It no less interesting or creative than watching people kill with Smashes, True Shoryuken, WT, Limit whatever repeatedly. You will still have the land any of those attacks so counterplay will exist by default, especially if their blockable. Mario, Samus and Ness's metered FS all seemed pretty reasonable so if the rest are along the lines of that, FS won't be sole determine factor in any match. It will be how use they're used and when like anything else. Part of fighting game is adapting to new mechanics, not doing the same over and over for 20 years. I can imagine boring SF would be if every game still played like SFII, the scene wouldn't be as big as it is now that's for sure.

 

[grizby2]

I don't see why any of this would change with FS. Smash like all competitive games is about beating an opponent utilizing every and any means or method you can. An FS isn't stop you from trying to end an your oppoenet's stock through Smashes or other speical moves some which are also powerful. It's just another to do which be incorpated in wide varitey situations like any tool in a character's kit can. There likely won't be any instant kills and probably won't even start killing until 70-100% if balanced enough making them like any other similiar powerful B special (True Shryoken, Limit Cross Slash etc)

i'll always stand by the notion that a character in smash should NEVER be balanced around items. they should always be fun and viable to play because of their own kit.

I still treat FS's to be an "item" despite each character having a unique FS, kind of like how some characters wield stick-like items differently. sure an FS wont stop me from using other moves to finish off an opponent (aside from neutral B), but it'd be odd NOT to use it seeing how that's what they were mostly put in the game to do.

its not even about how much % a FS can do. it can be as small as 1%. all it takes for an FS to be strong is if it contains the right UTILITY.

Scicky makes a good point with Mario's FS. its a long range FS that's pretty easy to land. but you don't use it for its damage, it pretty much kills you with stun lock while pushing you off screen.

like I said before, smash is not the same as other fighting games. theres no life bar or anything like that. its all based on where you are on stage.

 

[Iron Maw]

i'll always stand by the notion that a character in smash should NEVER be balanced around items. they should always be fun and viable to play because of their own kit.

I still treat FS's to be an "item" despite each character having a unique FS, kind of like how some characters wield stick-like items differently. sure an FS wont stop me from using other moves to finish off an opponent (aside from neutral B), but it'd be odd NOT to use it seeing how that's what they were mostly put in the game to do..

FS were never items to begin with tho. They are have always been moves inherit to the characters, the Smash Ball (the actual item) was just method to activate them. Sakurai could do this for any move in the game. You're not going to always have FS available and even if you do it's not guaranteed to kill, let alone hit. So there is no reason to stop using multiple methods to end a stock. Even in other Fighters people still win matches with basic attacks or specials. They simply incorporate Supers in their strategies. It's not an either or thing.

its not even about how much % a FS can do. it can be as small as 1%. all it takes for an FS to be strong is if it contains the right UTILITY.

Scicky makes a good point with Mario's FS. its a long range FS that's pretty easy to land. but you don't use it for its damage, it pretty much kills you with stun lock while pushing you off screen.

like I said before, smash is not the same as other fighting games. theres no life bar or anything like that. its all based on where you are on stage

The metered version of Mario's FS doesn't do this and even if did it still require timing. Mario has more reliable was of taking stocks. His FLUDD which can be used in the same situation can instantly end characters with bad recoveries like Fox, Cloud etc, hell Bayo's kit can do this. We still acccept as part of competitive nature of the game. I also not sure point about lifebars have to do with anything. They are just a way to show the amount of damage your taking and have existed before for supers were even a thing.

 

[grizby2]

I also not sure point about lifebars have to do with anything. They are just a way to show the amount of damage your taking and have existed before for supers were even a thing.

racking up % in smash is nowhere near the same as a life bar in , say, street fighter.

in street fighter, once your life bar hits its end. you've lost.
in smash, you could be hit so many times that you reach 300% or more and still be alive because in order to die you HAVE TO be knocked off in some way, not just beaten to death.

that's what i'm trying to say when I say that smash is not a "normal" fighting game. it plays so differently that I don't really lump it in with traditional tourney fighters like street fighter, soul caliber, mortal kombat, blaz blue ect..

to each his own I guess.
now that I think about it, the FS meter could be worthwhile in STAMINA matches , now that you can add stock to that mode.

 

[Xiammes]

A lot of people need to dial it back a bit. I hear complaints of "Marths Final Smash still instant ko's", you guys should go mess around with the smash balls again. Marths final smash is garbage, even in a environment where it would be the only instant ko, it has a long windup time and has a predictable trajectory, I don't see how Marth can combo into it even with high hitstun you can literally just jump or air dash away from it.

If there is going to be any problems with meter its going to be how its built up, can people combo into them and how effective are they for edge guarding. How meter is built up is obvious, if it fills up over time slowly then it should probably be on the chopping block, camping to fill up meter is stupid, however this could be balanced by just having underwhelming final smashes. Characters comboing into their final smash can present a problem, I talked about Marth's being garbage, but Captain Falcon getting a Down throw to u-air to FS seems extremely likely, if it only kills at around 80%-100% then its perfectly balanced. The real threat I feel is the edge guard game, characters like Mario and Samus have moves that essentially tell your opponent no if they are off stage, however judging from Mario's meter, you might not be able to get low percent kills with it.

 

[GM_3826]

I am so confused. Why is it that, after Sakurai specifically described the Final Smash Meter as a way to introduce a bit of chaos into the game, anyone thinks that it could be tournament legal?

 

[Iron Maw]

racking up % in smash is nowhere near the same as a life bar in , say, street fighter.

in street fighter, once your life bar hits its end. you've lost.
in smash, you could be hit so many times that you reach 300% or more and still be alive because in order to die you HAVE TO be knocked off in some way, not just beaten to death.

that's what i'm trying to say when I say that smash is not a "normal" fighting game. it plays so differently that I don't really lump it in with traditional tourney fighters like street fighter, soul caliber, mortal kombat, blaz blue ect..

to each his own I guess.
now that I think about it, the FS meter could be worthwhile in STAMINA matches , now that you can add stock to that mode.

I didn't say or imply Smash percent % system was the same as Lifebars in fighting game, only the had nothing to do with super meters. Even then conceptually it is similar becasue there is range where you wull KO'ed, it's just less defined in Smash. Also there Zero chance any character will live 300% even in non-competitive matches. 70-150% is the KO range most if not all characters so effecially your life ends when you reach that point which not very different KOng one last pixel is hit.

Now there are other traditional fighters that don't supers at all but recently added them like Trekken 7 and make depend on how much damage you take to activate them which isn't too different than how FS meter operates. Also Super meters are universal, and have implemented in almost every genre from RPGs to FPS. So the excuse that Smash is different than traditional fighting games doesn't not mean cannot use of them completively and strategically. The the series isn't nearly unqiue for that and elements of standard fighting mechianc norms like blocking, combos, guardbreaking, special moves etc are very much present. Whetehr FS meter cna work competivtely will come down to balancing, that's it.

If there is going to be any problems with meter its going to be how its built up, can people combo into them and how effective are they for edge guarding. How meter is built up is obvious, if it fills up over time slowly then it should probably be on the chopping block, camping to fill up meter is stupid, however this could be balanced by just having underwhelming final smashes. Characters combing into their final smash can present a problem, I talked about Marth's being garbage, but Captain Falcon getting a Down throw to u-air to FS seems extremely likely, if it only kills at around 80%-100% then its perfectly balanced. The real threat I feel is the edge guard game, characters like Mario and Samus have moves that essentially tell your opponent no if they are off stage, however judging from Mario's meter, you might not be able to get low percent kills with it.

Well in the direct the Mario Finale seems to have it's knockback severely reduced and didn't even carry any of characters outside of WFT very far and she was at 68% by the time it anyway. She would have died to a True Shoryuken in Smash 4 at that point. It doesn't seem like some thing you can't airdodge either as only the first needs to hit you to for the rest to. I think only characters with subpar recovery might suffer from it if they don't time their don't time they avoidance.

Ditto on combing into FS only being fine at 70%+ otherwise it's a no go.

I am so confused. Why is it that, after Sakurai specifically described the Final Smash Meter as a way to introduce a bit of chaos into the game, anyone thinks that it could be tournament legal?

How about you stop taking everything he says literally? He someone who thought Smash shouldn't be played completivtely in the first place and didn't design it that way. However with each iteration he's been coming around to the idea and has even throw the commuity a bone with Omega stages, hazard toggles, essentially a crew battle mode, possible Rage toggle and now super meters we can use to trigger weaker FSes. A huge chunk of the Direct was aimed with things causals wouldn't care too much about. That's the only reason these things exist and they wouldn't be there if Sakurai and co hadn't been observing the community.

 

[Nintykid]

I am so confused. Why is it that, after Sakurai specifically described the Final Smash Meter as a way to introduce a bit of chaos into the game, anyone thinks that it could be tournament legal?

Cause it might not be THAT chaotic to use

 

[jwillenn]

With the Ruleset Favorites feature, I like the idea of several rulesets being established and allowing the players involved on a set basis to compete the way they'd like within the very same 1 vs 1 or multi-player tournaments! The "extra" here is that both players/teams must agree to the rules by means of a very quick and simple process. I strongly believe we can allow players some liberty to actually decide on some modifications in rules that include Stamina, FS Meter, and Stage Morph. Depending on how easy it is to set up, perhaps even stage hazards could come into play also. It would make for a very interesting tournament.

Examples (just examples... don't shoot me! )
[Evo 2019 Normal Rules]
[Evo 2019 Stage Morph]
[Evo 2019 FS Meter]
[Evo 2019 Stamina]
[Evo 2019 The Works]

Players take their seats. Go into Smash Mode. According to Direct, players must first choose their Ruleset! See, I think the team kind of had this in mind. CAN WE USE IT?

*Highlight Stage Morph Set*
IF P1 = Thumb Up, P2 = Thumb Down, THEN
*Highlight FS Meter Set*
IF P1 = Thumb Down, P2 = Thumb Up, THEN
*Highlight Stamina Set*
IF P1 = Thumb Up, P2 = Thumb Up, THEN
*Select Stamina Set*
IF P1 = Thumb Down, P2 = Thumb Down, THEN
*Select Normal Rules*

Took less than 15 seconds!

Sure, there are going to be traditionalists who go with Normal Rules. Heck, they might just verbally communicate immediately "let's go Normal, okay?" *thumbs up from both*. But can you imagine these tournaments having TONS of competitors who actually would prefer to compete using the other gameplay features? Imagine that they can within the same tournament, not some side thing! Yes, many players might be matched up against players who don't agree with their choice of ruleset, but what if we have tournaments in which many pairs DO agree on sets different from the Normal?

As I've expressed in other threads, this is a system I'd love to see tested. Again, it would be nice if Nintendo actually implemented this into its own tournaments leading up to release to set the example.

 

[Xiammes]

Well in the direct the Mario Finale seems to have it's knockback severely reduced and didn't even carry any of characters outside of WFT very far and she was at 68% by the time it anyway. She would have died to a True Shoryuken in Smash 4 at that point. It doesn't seem like some thing you can't airdodge either as only the first needs to hit you to for the rest to. I think only characters with subpar recovery might suffer from it if they don't time their don't time they avoidance.

Ditto on combing into FS only being fine at 70%+ otherwise it's a no go.

The extinct of the nerfs need to be seen, Marths finals smash is garbage no matter what percent it kills. A lot of characters have really slow and easily dodged final smashes, Jigglypuffs is unironically probably one of the more competitive ones. There are no more transformations, no more landmasters, no more super controllable final smashes, everything more or less functions like a super attack.

I understand there is a group of people who simple don't like the idea of this change and that is fair, smash is played how you want. If there is a split in the community, the one that is more popular will be the default. Rules are crafted so the most amount of people can have fun and if more people enjoy competitive smash with the meter then it that will be the meta. Of course none of us know if it will be fun, we haven't gotten our hands on it, I just don't like seeing the kneejerk reaction for people justifying why it should be banned when we haven't even played with it.

Meter will be banned for certain when the game drops for the first few tournaments, it will take awhile to fully dissect the game, going back to brawl its hilarious how the metagame evolved, remembering when everyone thought Ike was broken.

 

[GUIGUI]

Even if it is for Smash 4, this video is relevant:

Something some sometimes forget is that being able to do a Final smash is in no way a sure way to win. It still require skill and knowledge of the attack for it to be actually effective.

 

[GM_3826]

OK, I get what you're saying, but the way Sakurai said it... it seems like it was his way of saying "this isn't balanced." Hence why I was incredulous about the fact that there are 5 pages to this thread at this point.

...We probably can't say for certain whether or not such a new thing should actually be tournament legal until the game comes out and we've all had a chance to play it.

 

[Flowen231]

Remember, normally a player looses their Final Smash upon KO, when they get the Smash Ball. So if Charged Final Smashes work the same way when the meter is full, then it makes pulling off a Final Smash a risky move since you know have to worry about loosing it upon KO, especially if your at dangerously high percents, which will force your opponent to get more aggressive and try to end your stock as fast as possible. And if the opponent can counter or perfect shield any of them, then that just makes executing a Final Smash even riskier since your opponent could punish with ease. Again, this will require a lot of experimentation and test runs by the community.

Sorry for the late reply, been super busy and stuffs. But lets follow your scenario to it's logical conclusion: You're at high percents, your opponent is really aggressive, there are 4 things you can do in this situation. You decide to never use the final smash, which would get you nothing. You use the final smash and miss, but you were on your way out of that stock anyway so it doesn't matter. You use the final smash once your opponent overextends or messes up, which is a matter of time when you're playing nothing but aggressive (This happens in tekken alot with it's rage arts. And tekken like smash is extremely movement based as far as it's neutral goes so it makes for a pretty good comparison on this point). Or you use the final smash as a reversal from a bad situation.

There's also a 5th situation where you don't use the final smash, outplay your opponent, and save it for next stock, but that's more so a case of being way better than your opponent. Although the point is that having a final smash in a disadvantageous situation is never bad for the person who has said final smash, at worst it doesn't do anything and you die like you would have anyway, and at the same time it opens the door for shenanigans like last second extra credit damage, a reversal that would have otherwise resulted in your stock, or you just flatout kill your opponent off of something stupid. I mean, marth killed lucas at 20 in that trailer, and lucas is a midweight character (unless they grossly nerfed his weight). And again we find ourselves at the situation where we have a viable autopilot option that can only be used or not used. And there's next to no downside for using it.

EDIT: I will offer this olive branch since we're having civil discussion though, I would not be opposed to testing this. I just fear that it will be a waste of time and it will disappoint people on both sides of the argument in one way or another. If you wanted it, it's gonna be a heartbreaker to hear the results, and if you didn't you're gonna have to put up with it during testing unless it's 100% isolated to side events.

 

[Xiammes]

I mean, marth killed lucas at 20 in that trailer, and lucas is a midweight character (unless they grossly nerfed his weight). And again we find ourselves at the situation where we have a viable autopilot option that can only be used or not used. And there's next to no downside for using it.

There is actually is a downside for a lot of them, if you miss with your final smash there is usually a lot of ending lag or you are put in a helpless state. In the case of Marth there is a lot of ending lag, which will lead to a punish, Marths final smash is also super easy to dodge. Some characters have safer final smashes, but all can be dodged and punished to some degree.

 

[Flowen231]

There is actually is a downside for a lot of them, if you miss with your final smash there is usually a lot of ending lag or you are put in a helpless state. In the case of Marth there is a lot of ending lag, which will lead to a punish, Marths final smash is also super easy to dodge. Some characters have safer final smashes, but all can be dodged and punished to some degree.

To directly answer your example, shield breaker is also very easy to dodge and laggy, but it won't kill you at 20 from almost center stage and it doesn't have whole stage range. I was highlighting a different circumstance in my post, but your example is a bit different. If the match is even, the character with the active final smash can camp, play safely and uncommitted, and use it once the chance presents itself. And yes, lots of final smashes are easy to dodge raw, but it's also very easy to mixup into them, or in some cases just combo into them with no drawback like damage or launch scaling.

But really, this conversation has been pretty one sided so far. The start was basically "They would be cool to use", people list reasons as to why it's a very bad idea, and then there are those that reply with essentially "It isn't a big deal". It is a big deal, but lets put that aside for now and let me ask; How would we as a competitive community benefit from incorporating a mechanic as unbalanced as this into standard play? What form of enrichment would we get from doing it in a competitive environment? And would that even be worth all of the stupid situations that final smashes would undeniably make possible?

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

Sorry for the late reply, been super busy and stuffs. But lets follow your scenario to it's logical conclusion: You're at high percents, your opponent is really aggressive, there are 4 things you can do in this situation. You decide to never use the final smash, which would get you nothing. You use the final smash and miss, but you were on your way out of that stock anyway so it doesn't matter. You use the final smash once your opponent overextends or messes up, which is a matter of time when you're playing nothing but aggressive (This happens in tekken alot with it's rage arts. And tekken like smash is extremely movement based as far as it's neutral goes so it makes for a pretty good comparison on this point). Or you use the final smash as a reversal from a bad situation.

There's also a 5th situation where you don't use the final smash, outplay your opponent, and save it for next stock, but that's more so a case of being way better than your opponent. Although the point is that having a final smash in a disadvantageous situation is never bad for the person who has said final smash, at worst it doesn't do anything and you die like you would have anyway, and at the same time it opens the door for shenanigans like last second extra credit damage, a reversal that would have otherwise resulted in your stock, or you just flatout kill your opponent off of something stupid. I mean, marth killed lucas at 20 in that trailer, and lucas is a midweight character (unless they grossly nerfed his weight). And again we find ourselves at the situation where we have a viable autopilot option that can only be used or not used. And there's next to no downside for using it.

But how would that be any different from Cloud's Finishing Touch or Little Mac's KO Punch? If Final Smash Meters are placed on most of the same limitations as those in Ultimate, then it would provide risk for the player to use them or loose them since their one trump card could be gone within 15 seconds or upon KO. If that's the case, then it's basically giving a KO punch/limit break to everyone in the cast, and just like those, the meta will have to develop counter-play for it.

 

[Khao]

lets put that aside for now and let me ask; How would we as a competitive community benefit from incorporating a mechanic as unbalanced as this into standard play?

The problem is that the question is already loaded. We don't know that it's an unbalanced mechanic. What if Final Smashes are ridiculously easy to avoid and leave you wide open, making them highly punishable? That's likely not the case, but they might be worth testing even if the answer is clearly "lolnope" after just one game.

 

[Flowen231]

But how would that be any different from Cloud's Finishing Touch or Little Mac's KO Punch? If Final Smash Meters are placed on most of the same limitations as those in Ultimate, then it would provide risk for the player to use them or loose them since their one trump card could be gone within 15 seconds or upon KO. If that's the case, then it's basically giving a KO punch/limit break to everyone in the cast, and just like those, the meta will have to develop counter-play for it.

The counterplay is pitching a tent ;p. Also K.O punch doesn't disappear in 15 seconds, that's just cloud's limit. Still disappears from tumble at least as far as I read, didn't confirm myself though since I didn't use or play against mac when I got to try the demo. Serious response though, as far as we know they don't have that limitation. If they did, then I could see them getting popper testing, but as far as we know they don't, and we have nothing that clearly states or even alludes to the contrary.

The problem is that the question is already loaded. We don't know that it's an unbalanced mechanic. What if Final Smashes are ridiculously easy to avoid and leave you wide open, making them highly punishable? That's likely not the case, but they might be worth testing even if the answer is clearly "lolnope" after just one game.

Again, I'm not opposed to testing, I'd just rather us save ourselves the effort. Theres only 2 possible outcomes to this game mode as far as the meta goes: mFS' aren't very good (very unlikely), they're super easy to avoid, and they rarely ever hit to the point where using them is meaningless and just adds unpleasantness when the game inevitably slows down once someone gets that meter full. Or the very likely scenario; mFS' are way too good, the meta shrinks to nothing but characters that can best abuse their final smashes, and generally speaking, the pacing of the matches will slow to a crawl even in matches featuring rushdown characters because nobody wants their opponent to get any kind of hit that can possibly confirm into a low % kill and they don't want to blindly rush into someone who may have a press b and win mentality.

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

Serious response though, as far as we know they don't have that limitation. If they did, then I could see them getting popper testing, but as far as we know they don't, and we have nothing that clearly states or even alludes to the contrary.

Which is why we should test it. If Meter Smashes are still bound by the same limitations as Smash Ball FS, or the aforementioned Cloud Limit Break, then we already have built in counter-play. KO the opponent as fast as possible to keep their Final Smash from being used, thus forcing them to build that meter up all over again.

 

[Flowen231]

Which is why we should test it. If Meter Smashes are still bound by the same limitations as Smash Ball FS, or the aforementioned Cloud Limit Break, then we already have built in counter-play. KO the opponent as fast as possible to keep their Final Smash from being used, thus forcing them to build that meter up all over again.

That isn't legitimate counterplay though, going all out trying to KO someone who's packing an invincible and powerful option bound off of 1 input is only going to make it easier for them to land it. It's why people don't start rushing cloud in smash 4 when he gets his limit. The only chance mFS' have is if they run on a short timer and at the moment that's a pretty big what if.

 

[Xiammes]

To much to reply to for a single post, but counter play is around dodging and punishing final smashes. Final Smashes can offer tools to the player, improper use will lead to the player being punished, high risk high reward. There is a few types of final smashes, so lets look at them.

Final Smashes like Mario's, Samus's and Jiggly puffs final smashes are probably better as edge guarding tools then trying to kill anyone outright with them, as long as they don't allow for super early low percent kills they should be more or less fine. Bowsers final smash is slow and has no conventional use besides some edge guarding, it probably won't matter except for really high percents, zero suit samus's seems to be in the same boat.

Then there are final smashes that should only work if they are combo'd into. In one of the trailers we saw Link u-smash then jump and hit them with his final smash, things like di or just air dashing would have blocked it. Some of these final smashes have really low ranges but come out quickly, I'll revisit Captain Falcon, D-throw to U-air to Final Smash seems like a basic enough combo, if it only kills in the higher percents then it is fine. Wind up is another big problem with a lot of these,

Another use is to either hold onto or try to regain stage control, someone like Ganon's, Olimars, Palutina, Pacman or Ness final smash can keep someone running around. No body seems to have free movement during their final smash anymore, even Ice Climbers shows that he is flying around, probably invincible but they can't move around freely.

If you know what your opponents final smash, the more you can develop counter plays. What they can add to the game is depth and complexity, while also speeding the pace of the games up, characters can only be positively effected based on how strong their final smash is. How they can detract is if they encourage camping, super low percent kills, the final smash meter charges to fast, basically anything that would change the dynamic of competitive smash to solely focus on the final smashes. A good game to compare smash to is quake, quake has banned items and stages, however Quake still has items in its competitive scenes, that is because every item has a set place where they can be picked up and have specific respawn timers so players can literally count seconds so they know the exact moment the item is available again. It adds depth and complexity, controlling the map so you can have a monopoly on power ups, still items like 4x damage are banned because then the game solely focuses on it.

 

[C-G]

Don't forget the changes to defensive options like dodging and rolling. With rolls/sidesteps losing invincibility with repeated use (a likely scenario when one is trying to bait/dodge a Final Smash) and air dodging having that window of vulnerability, the tools needed to avoid most final smashes are worse

 

[Izanagi97]

It will probably depend on how each one is nerfed since there are too many unknown variables. Then again, someone is going to eventually come out with Ultimate's "How to avoid final smashes" videos for Smash Ball and Meter versions.

 

[J0eyboi]

Every time I see someone say "final smashes are easy to avoid" I suffer brain damage.

First of all, they aren't. Some are, but others are literally impossible to avoid like Bayo and Peach.

But we all know when people say that, they're referring to things like Marth's final smash. And sure, Marth's final smash is spotdodgeable on reaction (not that that'll save you if they do it right, but let's pretend), but you have to be able to spotdodge. Marth's final smash may not be unreactable, but it's fast enough to punish you for pressing basically any button from across the stage. If a Marth has his final smash, he can kill you for doing just about anything from just about anywhere. Attacking at all is a death sentence. Oh, and it true combos from landing fair. And it can be done OoS. Did I mention it gives Marth a free ticket back onstage? Because it does that, too.

This is what Zapp and Thinkaman meant when they said final smash meter promotes camping and boring play. If you're against a Marth with his final smash up, you don't have the luxury of pressing buttons. Either you play as safe as possible or you die at 20 because you threw a projectile from fullscreen.

Marth's not the only one, either. There are a lot of stupid fullscreen final smashes, and I could go through every one and explain how terrible they are for the game. At the end of the day, though, Smash just isn't designed to handle moves this insane. You can make it 4-stock, 5-stock, 7-stock, 11-stock, or 99-stock, but no number of stocks will make playing against Marth with his final smash fun.

 

[Flowen231]

To much to reply to for a single post, but counter play is around dodging and punishing final smashes. Final Smashes can offer tools to the player, improper use will lead to the player being punished, high risk high reward. There is a few types of final smashes, so lets look at them.

Final Smashes like Mario's, Samus's and Jiggly puffs final smashes are probably better as edge guarding tools then trying to kill anyone outright with them, as long as they don't allow for super early low percent kills they should be more or less fine. Bowsers final smash is slow and has no conventional use besides some edge guarding, it probably won't matter except for really high percents, zero suit samus's seems to be in the same boat.

Then there are final smashes that should only work if they are combo'd into. In one of the trailers we saw Link u-smash then jump and hit them with his final smash, things like di or just air dashing would have blocked it. Some of these final smashes have really low ranges but come out quickly, I'll revisit Captain Falcon, D-throw to U-air to Final Smash seems like a basic enough combo, if it only kills in the higher percents then it is fine. Wind up is another big problem with a lot of these,

Another use is to either hold onto or try to regain stage control, someone like Ganon's, Olimars, Palutina, Pacman or Ness final smash can keep someone running around. No body seems to have free movement during their final smash anymore, even Ice Climbers shows that he is flying around, probably invincible but they can't move around freely.

If you know what your opponents final smash, the more you can develop counter plays. What they can add to the game is depth and complexity, while also speeding the pace of the games up, characters can only be positively effected based on how strong their final smash is. How they can detract is if they encourage camping, super low percent kills, the final smash meter charges to fast, basically anything that would change the dynamic of competitive smash to solely focus on the final smashes. A good game to compare smash to is quake, quake has banned items and stages, however Quake still has items in its competitive scenes, that is because every item has a set place where they can be picked up and have specific respawn timers so players can literally count seconds so they know the exact moment the item is available again. It adds depth and complexity, controlling the map so you can have a monopoly on power ups, still items like 4x damage are banned because then the game solely focuses on it.

Lord that wall. But I did already issue a point that addresses your first 3 paragraphs; The meta would consist of a small list of characters that could best abuse their final smashes and characters with weak or inferior final smashes wouldn't see the light of day. Situation doesn't matter as much as the ability to abuse it as often as possible.

Also I hear counter play alot. But I'm starting to think you guys don't understand how counter play works. Counter play is great, but only if you and your opponent are on equal footing. Matchups are a good example of this, in an even matching it's really anyone's game, but the worse a matchup is for someone, the less counter play options they have. That same rule will apply to final smashes. When the meta devolves to only use characters with amazing final smashes, how do you plan to consistently outplay somebody that has an overwhelming advantage over you once they get their smash on? You'd have to be a far better player than literally everyone you ever play against, and as arrogant as that sounds, it's what would you would need to form counter play for that kind of thing.

And I'll be straight with you, I've never heard of quake, and I'm not really interested, so you've lost me there lol. But I don't see how items compare to a chargeable meter when it comes to smash.

 

[Iron Maw]

The counterplay is pitching a tent ;p. Also K.O punch doesn't disappear in 15 seconds, that's just cloud's limit. Still disappears from tumble at least as far as I read, didn't confirm myself though since I didn't use or play against mac when I got to try the demo. Serious response though, as far as we know they don't have that limitation. If they did, then I could see them getting popper testing, but as far as we know they don't, and we have nothing that clearly states or even alludes to the contrary.



Again, I'm not opposed to testing, I'd just rather us save ourselves the effort. Theres only 2 possible outcomes to this game mode as far as the meta goes: mFS' aren't very good (very unlikely), they're super easy to avoid, and they rarely ever hit to the point where using them is meaningless and just adds unpleasantness when the game inevitably slows down once someone gets that meter full. Or the very likely scenario; mFS' are way too good, the meta shrinks to nothing but characters that can best abuse their final smashes, and generally speaking, the pacing of the matches will slow to a crawl even in matches featuring rushdown characters because nobody wants their opponent to get any kind of hit that can possibly confirm into a low % kill and they don't want to blindly rush into someone who may have a press b and win mentality.

This argument is disgeouoius. Even some of most unbalanced games don't this kind of extremes. Does the fact WT, True Sho, KO punch, LCS, other killmoves are easily avoidable sudden make them useless? If say no then just proved your hyporiscy here because FS wouldn't be any different and they would be hard to get exploit because unlike stuff mentioned above your gated from the ability, the most effective means get a FS is take huge amount of damage and they aren't even spasmable. Even if you hit but fail to KO congrats, you just powered up oppoents meter and now they use an FS. Also some people here disregarding the justification they use for existences of other sure kill moves while denying FS for exactly same reasons despite them being more restrictive are just arging in bad faith now. The only reason those moves were accepted is becasue Sakurai forced those mechanics on players and we don't alienate parts of commuity by banning characters even if their kit is not fair.

He probably should just done this so we wouldn't even be having this discussion and people would just have learn adapt as they did with Bayo, Cloud, Rage and whatever new thing their will end up complaining about. The Smash community has proved that giving players too many options is bad thing becasue they will come up with whatever mental gymnastics to avoid change and not look at fairly. So Sakurai simply wasting the effort. If the people are not accept more balance FS now, they never are because the will always be some nebulous and unreasonable standard shifting. Smash is not a balanced series of games and it will never be one FS or not. No one should ever want perfectly balanced game becasue it would be boring anyway you would have rob the cast of all unique traits to do so. Other Fighting games have learned the truth of this and embraced making use of new mechanics to give each character a chance even if they aren't perfectly balanced case by case We here just run from it and that's part of the reason later Smash games don't last as long.

This is what Zapp and Thinkaman meant when they said final smash meter promotes camping and boring play. If you're against a Marth with his final smash up, you don't have the luxury of pressing buttons. Either you play as safe as possible or you die at 20 because you threw a projectile from fullscreen.

Marth's not the only one, either. There are a lot of stupid fullscreen final smashes, and I could go through every one and explain how terrible they are for the game. At the end of the day, though, Smash just isn't designed to handle moves this insane. You can make it 4-stock, 5-stock, 7-stock, 11-stock, or 99-stock, but no number of stocks will make playing against Marth with his final smash fun.

Oh please this isn't some impassable task. I've played games with more limited defensive options than Smash with full screen supers and I've dealt just by using the basic blocking or dodging. Marth's FS slow and telegraph as hell and you will even know he use it when starts glowing. You are more likely to die from Bayo or new Ryu in Ultimate when you get to 70% than somebody with an FS If properly balanced. Furthermore smash was not seriously designed to handle moves like this than we wouldn't have things like KO Punch (which kill you at 35%) in the first place. Besides no matter what anyone says here the game is undergoing balance adjusts every single day which involve real competitive players so there is no way to know the final balance of everything will be let alone how it will affect the metagame which doesn't take shape until at least year.

Also not like players in other fighting games don't get defensive when one gets metered super ready anyway. They similar options to wait powerful attacks too. Frankly they just gonna get regulated to side event without same kind serious testing that custom moves got then I have little hope in the community in the games future or the culture it could foster.

 

[Flowen231]

This argument is disgeouoius. Even some of most unbalanced games don't this kind of extremes. Does the fact WT, True Sho, KO punch, LCS, other killmoves are easily avoidable sudden make them useless? If say no then just proved your hyporiscy here because FS wouldn't be any different and they would be hard to get exploit because unlike stuff mentioned above your gated from the ability, the most effective means get a FS is take huge amount of damage and they aren't even spasmable. Even if you hit but fail to KO congrats, you just powered up oppoents meter and now they use an FS. Also some people here disregarding the justification they use for existences of other sure kill moves while denying FS for exactly same reasons despite them being more restrictive are just arging in bad faith now. The only reason those moves were accepted is becasue Sakurai forced those mechanics on players and we don't alienate parts of commuity by banning characters even if their kit is not fair.

He probably should just done this so we wouldn't even be having this discussion and people would just have learn adapt as they did with Bayo, Cloud, Rage and whatever new thing their will end up complaining about. The Smash community has proved that giving players too many options is bad thing becasue they will come up with whatever mental gymnastics to avoid change and not look at fairly. So Sakurai simply wasting the effort. If the people are not accept more balance FS now, they never are because the will always be some nebulous and unreasonable standard shifting. Smash is not a balanced series of games and it will never be one FS or not. No one should ever want perfectly balanced game becasue it would be boring anyway you would have rob the cast of all unique traits to do so. Other Fighting games have learned the truth of this and embraced making use of new mechanics to give each character a chance even if they aren't perfectly balanced case by case We here just run from it and that's part of the reason later Smash games don't last as long.

You're forgetting some key points though. You can play around WT like a counter, true sho is only terribly dangerous if ryu is within kill percent, KO punch is held back by mac's extremely polarizing weaknesses and the fact that he could lose it at a moment's notice if he messes up, and LCS now disappears in 15 seconds if you don't let it rip. You can't play around final smashes like a counter because a counter only works when you trigger it, whereas a final smash is completely controlled by your opponent. Final smashes don't require you to be at death's door to be amazing, and as far as we know it can't be knocked out of you via tumble or timeout.

While meter final smashes are gated, they don't share any of said weaknesses (as far as we know). The only thing holding them back is if a final smash is either bad, situational, or worse than exploitable, but that would just make players go to a character with a final smash that can be more easily exploited.

Also using your wish for having them as default but in reverse; Because they aren't default we shouldn't even be talking about this . But I'm not that kind of guy, discussion is fine, testing is fine, and If by some chance they do become the norm I'll happily eat my words and adjust to the meta like I always have since 64, but will you be able to do the same when they get banned like customs?

 

[ChillySundance]

I mean, items are also on by default. Does that mean we shouldn't play without items because it's not default?

Doing things just for tradition's sake is a little stubborn. Final Smashes are a part of each character's moveset, which is a little different from just being universal items. By themselves they can be played around and the main reason the smash community has avoided them in the past is because smash balls are random on principle and will grant advantages to a 'lucky' player.

Smash meter grants that advantage ina predictable and unified way across all characters. Like all super meters in other fighting games, it rewards you either for LANDING A HIT or TAKING A HIT, both of which are conditions that happen for reasons well within the control of both players. You are rewarded a lot more for landing hits than you are for taking them, therefore smash meter build is typically going to be a reward for proactive and aggressive play. Every serious Lucario player knows that trying to do poorly just for the purpose of building rage is a bad strategy, and this isn't much different.

Whether or not this mode will be accepted should really boil down to how balanced it actually is, not just because it's new on principle. We are given options, let's at least try them.

With Stamina mode becoming a standard mode, I personally would love to see some alternate meta evolve for stamina + smash meter matches.