forced design

[Vro]

This conversation suddenly lead to "this move is supposed to be good! or why shouldn't this combo?!"

The ability to perform a move to it's maximum potential is TOO EASY. There is no skill ceiling when moves are that easy to link or that obvious to combo. Do you know how many combos are frame perfect for falcon that are based on percentage windows as small as 8%? Half the time falcons don't perform extreme technical "optimal spam" that zones moves and moves you quickly. In fact, I can't think of any character or style that does that for more than 1 - 3 seconds at a time. I mean, maybe certain players' styles were spammy or campy or "optimal" but can you really think of someone who is just spamming attacks in front of other players? the openings i see in melee are stupid complex or just outright fast and surprising. it is not a build order contest. it is not RPS encounter. it is about values CONSTANTLY changing based on position and character stance.

so yes, the best part about melee is that sub optimal strategies exist at ALL levels. There are only 1 or 2 falcon's in the world who play at the maximum speed, who combo and move in such flawless manner. There are 3 charizards in my city that can combo "freestyle" better than falcon could on half the cast in melee.

so going back to character stance, it ****ing matters what stance your character is in. because A moves are so god damn good in Melee and B moves are not forms of designed approaches, you have to move yourself in creative ways. this is where it becomes like Brood War because there are dozens of ways to move certain characters. Harder or stricter movements exist per character (Marth) but even then their offensive capabilities are so varied that some marth choose to play extreme ground - grab game while others prefer aerial - followup.

honestly there is only 1 or 2 ways to play bowser. wolf seems like a perfect integration but others have so many 1 dimensional moves and then so many characters are designed 1 dimensionally. oh he has THIS EXACT TOOL to deal with that weakness you were complaining about last patch. Oh? It's not obvious how to use it? LOL Yes it is just do it here.

and i can't take away from players who play these characters well. fighting against them is just much more street fighter. and since the skill floor is reduced in PM, i encounter more and more "high" skill players who are just doing what they do at their locals. which is what you expect. until i ask myself what makes the next person even better. what makes that Wario better than his Wario? And I'm not going to get into which characters are broken or if Bowser has more than 2 optimal plays at a time. What I'm going to get at is that attacks are way too ****ing easy to use correctly and optimally every time. Approaches are designed and forced into the metagame where previously A attacks and movement dominated the game. A young game that has this kind of favor to attack will CONTINUE to favor attack because it is a compounding force. Defense DOES NOT GET STRONGER because attack appears more in a metagame. Numbers aren't Darwinian. You think that mechanics can react to a metagame?

Attacks are too fast, too strong, and too lethal. What form of defense are you saying I use? Powershield? Spotdodge? Movement? Do you know how easy it is for the next offensive string to be thrown out? The other player doesn't have to participate in an active search in opening a small hole in your defense, of choosing the correct attack and timing, and then converting on whatever sliver of chance they had - sometimes reconverting to neutral + position.

Since I'm not moving in structural patterns and since offensive strings/approaches are designed, I can just get to the zone I like, press moves, and followup accordingly. If I don't find my zone, I can just spam my build order until I get to my zone. And if I didn't get to my zone correctly, then my build order was wrong, or my character needs a buff, or he needs a nerf. Or maybe my build order was wrong...

NOPE. MOVES MOVES MOVES

 

[MagnesD3]

Ignore/del

 

[MagnesD3]

This conversation suddenly lead to "this move is supposed to be good! or why shouldn't this combo?!"

The ability to perform a move to it's maximum potential is TOO EASY. There is no skill ceiling when moves are that easy to link or that obvious to combo. Do you know how many combos are frame perfect for falcon that are based on percentage windows as small as 8%? Half the time falcons don't perform extreme technical "optimal spam" that zones moves and moves you quickly. In fact, I can't think of any character or style that does that for more than 1 - 3 seconds at a time. I mean, maybe certain players' styles were spammy or campy or "optimal" but can you really think of someone who is just spamming attacks in front of other players? the openings i see in melee are stupid complex or just outright fast and surprising. it is not a build order contest. it is not RPS encounter. it is about values CONSTANTLY changing based on position and character stance.

so yes, the best part about melee is that sub optimal strategies exist at ALL levels. There are only 1 or 2 falcon's in the world who play at the maximum speed, who combo and move in such flawless manner. There are 3 charizards in my city that can combo "freestyle" better than falcon could on half the cast in melee.

so going back to character stance, it ****ing matters what stance your character is in. because A moves are so god damn good in Melee and B moves are not forms of designed approaches, you have to move yourself in creative ways. this is where it becomes like Brood War because there are dozens of ways to move certain characters. Harder or stricter movements exist per character (Marth) but even then their offensive capabilities are so varied that some marth choose to play extreme ground - grab game while others prefer aerial - followup.

honestly there is only 1 or 2 ways to play bowser. wolf seems like a perfect integration but others have so many 1 dimensional moves and then so many characters are designed 1 dimensionally. oh he has THIS EXACT TOOL to deal with that weakness you were complaining about last patch. Oh? It's not obvious how to use it? LOL Yes it is just do it here.

and i can't take away from players who play these characters well. fighting against them is just much more street fighter. and since the skill floor is reduced in PM, i encounter more and more "high" skill players who are just doing what they do at their locals. which is what you expect. until i ask myself what makes the next person even better. what makes that Wario better than his Wario? And I'm not going to get into which characters are broken or if Bowser has more than 2 optimal plays at a time. What I'm going to get at is that attacks are way too ****ing easy to use correctly and optimally every time. Approaches are designed and forced into the metagame where previously A attacks and movement dominated the game. A young game that has this kind of favor to attack will CONTINUE to favor attack because it is a compounding force. Defense DOES NOT GET STRONGER because attack appears more in a metagame. Numbers aren't Darwinian. You think that mechanics can react to a metagame?

Attacks are too fast, too strong, and too lethal. What form of defense are you saying I use? Powershield? Spotdodge? Movement? Do you know how easy it is for the next offensive string to be thrown out? The other player doesn't have to participate in an active search in opening a small hole in your defense, of choosing the correct attack and timing, and then converting on whatever sliver of chance they had - sometimes reconverting to neutral + position.

Since I'm not moving in structural patterns and since offensive strings/approaches are designed, I can just get to the zone I like, press moves, and followup accordingly. If I don't find my zone, I can just spam my build order until I get to my zone. And if I didn't get to my zone correctly, then my build order was wrong, or my character needs a buff, or he needs a nerf. Or maybe my build order was wrong...

NOPE. MOVES MOVES MOVES

Execution complaint, I feel I've seen this before... (Sf3,mcv2,mele..) X is harder to play than Y therefore X is better. Even though in reality lowering the execution barrier allows more players who have more strategic skill than execution to be better at the game, even though execution hogs still have great tools they can use that the strategic person maybe can't pull off. A great example is Justin Wong vs. Marlin Pie, one is a master of strategy, the other a master of execution.

 

[ELI-mination]

Umm
What is "too easy"?
Its too easy to shine gimp people off-stage at 0% lol
Anyway its all relative

Idk, I get the feeling that people criticize P:M just to criticize P:M

 

[Juushichi]

Umm
What is "too easy"?
Its too easy to shine gimp people off-stage at 0% lol
Anyway its all relative

Idk, I get the feeling that people criticize P:M just to criticize P:M

but eli, avoiding shine at 0% is a testament to players movement abilities and the beauty of character movement and hitbox placement in a wondrous game engine. fox players actually work for that, tyvm

avoiding mk dive kick, ivysaur in general and many autocombos are: _____

also remember that time when marth and sheik were thought to have auto-combo bull**** that make them super good and almost unthinkable to not play because it was so simplistic and easy?

pepperidge farm remembers

finally, i dunno about all this forced design stuff. i just play GnW and hope that my obviously designed for ____ giant bacon, multi-hit fsmash, rainbow hammer bull**** helps me long enough not to get dash-dance camped long enough that i can actually do my glass-canon but still relatively poor up close game character design.

that being said, some designed plays could maybe be toned down. ike has a big ass sword and long moves in general, i am not sure that he also needs a designated approach tool, but hey maybe it's just me

 

[Orngeblu]

Hmm, I never really thought of it that way. P:M combo's were designed by force, you say? (I hope I am reading this right) Would be cool if it wasn't designed by force though, but the developers would have to put much more effort into it.

 

[MagnesD3]

Hmm, I never really thought of it that way. P:M combo's were designed by force, you say? (I hope I am reading this right) Would be cool if it wasn't designed by force though, but the developers would have to put much more effort into it.

Not to mention a noncontrolled environment leads to brokenness..

 

[Nemiak temp]

Totally see where Vro is coming from in the OP. Unfortunately I don't know how possible it is for the PMBR to take the type of approach you are suggesting, or rather wishing they had taken in the first place. The utter rawness of the early demos was AWESOME and is what sucked me (and most of us) into P:M. I still remember the leaked version of the first demo that had all the characters even the incomplete ones with tons of bugs. But anyway, if this game is to ever progress into a respectably polished game, the PMBR HAS to make the educated decisions they have been making. By now we have a pretty good idea of how metagames develop and they are simply doing their best to push it forward and give every character the tool to do so. Idk.

 

[TreK]

So... You dislike the game because it's been designed way too good, and because you feel like you are given tools instead of working to deserve them.

Go play Brawl then. I promise you, the game wasn't designed good at all, and you'll have to work for every hit. Every. Single. One.

 

[Spiffykins]

The emerging silly Dsmashes from various cast members like Bowser, Squirtle, and Pikachu's. Granted they don't do the same amount of damage if CC'd the general idea is the same

Can I just point out that I have never, not once, seen someone SDI out of Bowser's down smash. It sucks you in like a tornado and you get hit with the entire thing, then he gets a free follow up. Bowser's down smash is way better than Peach's.

 

[GP&B]

This thread seriously needs a post that just comes in and thoroughly and properly explains the premise here. All I see are a lot of posts that pick at some ideas that people agree on, but just don't articulate any solid examples or reasons behind why those examples should be designed with more ambiguous use in mind.

 

[MagnesD3]

This thread seriously needs a post that just comes in and thoroughly and properly explains the premise here. All I see are a lot of posts that pick at some ideas that people agree on, but just don't articulate any solid examples or reasons behind why those examples should be designed with more ambiguous use in mind.

I like this response.

Ok, I see what you mean now Vro. Sucks that it took Day9 explaining your concept about 999x more effectively to get it across, but I understand what you're getting at now. Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether you're right that this applies to Project M. How do we know that the skill ceiling is definitely lower? How do we know that it's actually the design and not just us failing to push the game to it's limits? You said yourself that you thought melee was solved before Project M came out, yet mango pushed it beyond the limits you thought were there. How do we know that some amazing player won't come along and push the game beyond the limits you thought existed?

In the end though, I agree. I agree that the PMBR should pay attention to the skill ceiling, that they should pay attention to whether or not offense is favored over defense, and then to decide, well is that what we want? I also agree that moves should have some bad traits, that they shouldn't be good in every way, and that they shouldn't be linear, they should have multiple uses that aren't always clear. I agree that the game should be deep enough, and complex enough that even the slightest movements matter. However please realize that this is difficult to do, and unless you actually start being productive and suggesting ways to go about improving the game, this post is essentially useless. You can go on rants all you want, but unless you're clear about your intent, and help suggest ways to achieve what you've suggested it will never get accomplished.

I also think that you could've just posted this in "Categories of ***" since this is basically an extension of it.

Also also, the minutiae you desire may be there, but the semi-frequent updates may be preventing the development of the metagame to that point, although I think you've realized that and thought about that already.

 

[Rarik]

Unless I'm not understanding gamedominator correctly, he wants a post similar to that team liquid blog that explains not only what the key differences between melee and P:M is, but why as well. Hopefully at that point the what should be done about the situation is also clear.

My post doesn't do that. My post is a rather general statement that doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of why or why not P:M is or isn't like Melee.

If I did misunderstand Gamedominator then I still would like to see a post that goes into the nitty-gritty rather than just saying it exists and not giving any concrete examples.

 

[MagnesD3]

Unless I'm not understanding gamedominator correctly, he wants a post similar to that team liquid blog that explains not only what the key differences between melee and P:M is, but why as well. Hopefully at that point the what should be done about the situation is also clear.

My post doesn't do that. My post is a rather general statement that doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of why or why not P:M is or isn't like Melee.

If I did misunderstand Gamedominator then I still would like to see a post that goes into the nitty-gritty rather than just saying it exists and not giving any concrete examples.

I just thought that post was the best response to the op so far.

 

[Ace55]

Can I just point out that I have never, not once, seen someone SDI out of Bowser's down smash. It sucks you in like a tornado and you get hit with the entire thing, then he gets a free follow up. Bowser's down smash is way better than Peach's.

No, no it isn't...

 

[Vashimus]

This thread seriously needs a post that just comes in and thoroughly and properly explains the premise here. All I see are a lot of posts that pick at some ideas that people agree on, but just don't articulate any solid examples or reasons behind why those examples should be designed with more ambiguous use in mind.

*shines Strong Bad signal*

 

[Spiffykins]

No, no it isn't...

Okay, fine, Bowser can't use it after an aerial for shield pressure like Peach. Other than that, it's better. If you're going to disagree again (you probably will), you might want to include more detail than "no".

 

[ELI-mination]

but eli, avoiding shine at 0% is a testament to players movement abilities and the beauty of character movement and hitbox placement in a wondrous game engine. fox players actually work for that, tyvm

avoiding mk dive kick, ivysaur in general and many autocombos are: _____

also remember that time when marth and sheik were thought to have auto-combo bull**** that make them super good and almost unthinkable to not play because it was so simplistic and easy?

pepperidge farm remembers

finally, i dunno about all this forced design stuff. i just play GnW and hope that my obviously designed for ____ giant bacon, multi-hit fsmash, rainbow hammer bull**** helps me long enough not to get dash-dance camped long enough that i can actually do my glass-canon but still relatively poor up close game character design.

that being said, some designed plays could maybe be toned down. ike has a big *** sword and long moves in general, i am not sure that he also needs a designated approach tool, but hey maybe it's just me

Err, honestly I don't see much difference between avoiding one thing or avoiding another thing.
Avoid shine? Good. Avoid other things now...?

To say these things are "unavoidable" is a cop-out imo. I seem to not have that much trouble avoiding lots of things in this game that are often deemed "unavoidable".

I used the shine example to illustrate how there's a double standard when it comes to some things that are "melee". Avoid these "auto" things just like you avoid everything else, is what I say. Get better at avoiding!

*avoids potential responses*

 

[Phaiyte]

I'm pretty sure most move's purposes are pretty ****ing obvious by just looking at the animation. I mean come on, really? If someone's approaching you from the air, would you use a move that pretty much only hit the ground? No, because that's stupid. Your opponent is kinda far away and you don't want to approach too hard? Motha****in Ivysaur Bair.


I don't know why this is even a debated topic because a 5th grader can tell what moves can and can't do without all these sources on the internet. God forbid we get properties of real fighting games like upper body invincibility during anti airs.

 

[Spiffykins]

The concept of an auto combo is weak as hell anyway. Almost every character is going to have a few reliable b'n'b combos, how many good characters in Melee didn't? Come up with something new to john about. Like, I dunno, the logo or something. It would probably be more productive than these rehashed debates.

 

[SpiderMad]

God forbid we get properties of real fighting games like upper body invincibility during anti airs.

? A lot of moves kinda do. I think in Melee a lot of Up-smashes and certain Up-tilts have head invincibility. Then you got Up-bs which sometimes do.
http://smashboards.com/threads/complete-peach-hitboxes-and-frame-data.287033/
http://smashboards.com/threads/falco-hitboxes-and-frame-data.300397/

 

[Phaiyte]

P sure Marth, Bowser, and DK are invincible for like 2-3 frames on UpB startup, but no one ******* about that for whatever reason. Probably because "~*It's in MELEE!!*~"

But in most actual fighting games, pretty much almost every anti air in the game provides upper body invincibility(Or a really stupid long hit box[Nu/Lambda, Axl]) and other similarly obvious traits for other moves. The major point is, "why cry about it?"

 

[Juushichi]

Err, honestly I don't see much difference between avoiding one thing or avoiding another thing.
Avoid shine? Good. Avoid other things now...?

To say these things are "unavoidable" is a cop-out imo. I seem to not have that much trouble avoiding lots of things in this game that are often deemed "unavoidable".

I used the shine example to illustrate how there's a double standard when it comes to some things that are "melee". Avoid these "auto" things just like you avoid everything else, is what I say. Get better at avoiding!

*avoids potential responses*

I am sorry, sarcasm doesn't translate well sometimes

 

[PhantasyStar]

Demo 2.1 was toooooo rawwwwww
(Basically all I got from this and something about how melee's cool)

 

[Vashimus]

I went into 2.1 raw as hell. No condom neither.

 

[Nemiak temp]

Condoms are for cowards anyways Vashimus

 

[Ace55]

Okay, fine, Bowser can't use it after an aerial for shield pressure like Peach. Other than that, it's better. If you're going to disagree again (you probably will), you might want to include more detail than "no".

Peach's does like 80% if you CC, Peach's comes out on frame 5(!). Bowser's is nice as a way to punish spotdodge or roll behind or to armor through something if used preemptively but it's nowhere on the level of Peach's, which is one the best smashes in the history of ssb... Hell, you could argue it's the best: eats shield, way too fast, highest damage potential, perfect crouch cancel option as well as the best counter to cc. You're saying Bowser's dsmash is better than that?

 

[GP&B]

Unless I'm not understanding gamedominator correctly, he wants a post similar to that team liquid blog that explains not only what the key differences between melee and P:M is, but why as well. Hopefully at that point the what should be done about the situation is also clear.

My post doesn't do that. My post is a rather general statement that doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of why or why not P:M is or isn't like Melee.

If I did misunderstand Gamedominator then I still would like to see a post that goes into the nitty-gritty rather than just saying it exists and not giving any concrete examples.

It doesn't need to be nearly as intense of an elaboration, but I think articulation is absolutely key here. Strong Bad in the Fox/Falco thread was able to precisely express in great detail his thoughts and by doing that generated a discussion that was long in the making (most notable in my mind was Eli picking at it for months).

I'd say P:M is a rather different case from the BW/SC2 comparison though. P:M contains and is continually refining the Melee foundation (sans certain details) that forms the core of the game because it is universally the most appreciated part of the game that created the dynamic we see in Melee. The fundamental difference is the extraordinary abundance of viable characters and play styles, some of which are almost foreign to the meta or were never nearly as viable. We're talking about fundamentally different ways characters are fought while still operating under the premise of a near-replica of Melee's engine. What vro is likely trying to address is these new play styles present in now viable or brand new cast members (the offense vs. movement ordeal concerns the characters' capabilities in performing well in either). The problem is that we still haven't achieved that one bit that everyone wants to talk to about but has no idea how to directly address it. The blog and video links added a lot to the conversation, but we're not getting enough direct discussion about the existent of such dynamics between Melee and Project M. Some are saying that most characters have typical and effective bnb's while others are saying that the designs of moves is generating those (when in reality, the PMBR is simply basing moves off ones that were effective for bnb's in the first place).

 

[Oracle]

i think rats post sums up what vro is saying pretty well. the moves on many characters are designed with really specific purposes, which makes the game feel really cheesy and risks limiting the characters' potential. in melee, most characters' moves are pretty bad; its how they used them combined with the movement that made them good. it wasn't 'did i use the right tool' it was 'did i use the right tool in the correct way'. Foxs nair is a decent move, but if you space it wrong or don't time your fastfall right or don't account for crouch cancelling, you're probably getting punished. Very few moves were frame safe, and moves almost always have glaring weaknesses so that using them at the wrong moment would allow your opponent to exploit those weaknesses. in PM, lots of moves are just good on their own, without may ways to use them improperly. basically, the moves are just too good.

"Sweet are the uses of adversity"- One of the big reasons i think melee's game has developed to be so ridiculously deep and complex is because the moves are not that good. When you hand somebody a ****ty set of tools and tell them to do a difficult task, then they need to find innovative ways to make the tools work. Combos and neutral games in melee are STILL being developed and optimized because characters' tools are not that good. Rat told me at evo, he watched PPU throw someone off a platform with marth and do a PC drop off so he could turn around before he landed and get better followups. Hax does pivot sh nairs to make sure that they are safe. that is INSANE and indicative of just how far you need to go to optimize stuff in melee. There are exceptsions, like your shines, your peach downsmash, your falco dair. But those moves, like some moves in pm, also take away potential complexity from the game. How many characters in pm get a significant boost from using tricky movement options or creative spacings? The reward from landing a move is already so high that it wouldn't make sense to risk something like that; the extra tiny bit of reward would never be worth the risk. So the issue isn't necessarily that the movement options arent there, its that the moves overshadow them, making it pointless to significantly change what you're doing. Is my followup off of an ivysaur fair or a metaknight down air really gonna be that much better if i do some crazy trick? probably not.

Another issue is that purposeful design can inadvertently remove complex uses for existing moves, or at least make them less viable. Take 2.5 Rob's transition to the most recent build. Two of the significant changes to the character were that his down air has less startup and doesn't stop horizontal momentum, so you can keep moving forwards or backwards while using it, and that his upair is now multi-hit. These are all purposeful changes- the speed and momentum of down air was made to make it possible to shield pressure with it and land it offstage, and the multi- hit upair was for pressuring people above you on platforms. Sounds great, right? Except I ALREADY DID BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ALL THE TIME WITH ROB. in 2.5, you can pressure with the boost down air, but you have to space it very well and usually pull back on your momentum right before it hits. You can also easily pressure people on platforms when you're under them by simply doing a boost upair underneath them and repeating very quickly. Rob's air dash added a huge amount of depth to his game because even though his moves were mostly pretty bad, you could use complicated spacings in the air to get them to link and hit. since 2.1, his optimal game relied on insane aerial spacing and tricky boost movement, but with each update its gone further and further away from that. each changes has had something specific in mind to give rob, nothing general. "I want rob to have a better throw game, so now he gets downthrow to upsmash on the whole cast" "I want rob to be able to be able to waveland from side b better, so now momentum resets when you use it" "i keep losing to falco, so my half stage shield poking reflecting tackle now starts reflecting on frame 3". The results is a stupid, goofy, cheesy character who just feels like if I'm not doing what the pmbr decided for me, i'm doing something wrong.

and that, in a nutshell, is whats wrong with project m. Characters are being assumed to be too bad or too good when nobody knows everything about them, and they're changed in a way that only creates more problems. This isn't a universal rule and there are exceptions; I really like what has been done with diddy kong, some parts of pit, and ike. We need more characters changed like this rather than just being given incredible moves and calling it a day.

 

[ph00tbag]

ITT: A player who thought Melee was figured out five years ago, seven years into its own lifespan, thinks an unreleased, beta version of a game that's only been around for a couple months, is figured out. Sycophants concur.

For the record, Guilty Gear is a "forced design" game, and it is far more interesting than MvC2, and in comparison, the only thing that Melee has going for it is DI.

 

[Oracle]

thats his exact point. pm isn't even close to solved and already people are getting these huge rewards and easy 0-death combos. maybe we're all bad and just falling for a bunch of stupid gimmicks, but it doesn't seem that way in a lot of cases

 

[MagnesD3]

What I think when I read that is why dont you go play melee? Project M doesnt need to be a copy paste melee, Id rather it be its own game then have to live up to what people want from the melee standard, the engine is what mattered most about melee and we got that back to me that is what matter most besides characters and game balance.

 

[Rarik]

What I think when I read that is why dont you go play melee? Project M doesnt need to be a copy paste melee, Id rather it be its own game then have to live up to what people want from the melee standard, the engine is what mattered most about melee and we got that back to me that is what matter most besides characters and game balance.

Fortunately (I guess unfortunately from your point of view) the goal of Project M is a bit more involved than that.

• A fast-paced game
• with flowing, natural movement
• where the player has a great degree of control over his character due to the technical skill that he's achieved.
• The balance of offense and defense changes depending on the exact matchup and playstyle, but overall tends to favor offense slightly.
• Offstage edgeguarding is risky but rewarding, while on-stage edgeguarding is safer but less rewarding.
• Recoveries generally require great skill to use, with the advantage usually being with the edgeguarding player, with some exceptions.
• The combos are challenging and spontaneous, with anything longer than 2-3 hits requiring a knowledge of both characters' options and some degree of prediction and/or a deep understanding of the mental aspect of the game.

In short, Project M aims to capture the essence of what made Melee a truly great game in our eyes.

^That's what matters most. More importantly for this conversation #3, #4, and #7. That won't come about just because of the melee engine. The main arguments being that offense is too heavily favored, movement isn't important enough, and combos are too easy.

 

[MagnesD3]

Fortunately (I guess unfortunately from your point of view) the goal of Project M is a bit more involved than that.

^That's what matters most. More importantly for this conversation #3, #4, and #7. That won't come about just because of the melee engine. The main arguments being that offense is too heavily favored, movement isn't important enough, and combos are too easy.

Spacing and movement is important in this game, extremely easy execution is not a problem as it allows weaker execution player but stronger strategic players to win. But alas most people want this game to be melee when it isn't, it's the sequel to melee project m. Maybe the sweet spots are to big on moves, if they are I agree that should change though.

 

[Rarik]

No one ever said spacing and movement wasn't important, they've said that it should be emphasized more. Part of the appeal to melee is the incredibly high skill cap, it's also what keeps the game from stagnating too much, so if a similarly high skill cap can be achieved by emphasizing movement and spacing and a mix of offense/defense without sacrificing balance or taking a ridiculous amount of time to accomplish then it should absolutely be implemented. (Yeah, that's a hell of a goal, but no one said it was easy.) Lastly, it's a lot more than just sweet spots that can cause a move to favor offense over defense, and there's also the big question of whether a lot of these moves are too linear.

I'd also like to add that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with either side of this discussion, but I do think this an incredibly important discussion to have. So, if we could focus on establishing whether or not we think Project M is headed in the right direction, whether or not moves are too linear, offense is too good, or movement is important enough, then that would be great. Also, more posts with examples, like Oracle's or Archangel's, for either side of the discussion would be just dandy.

 

[Vro]

MagnesD3 you are so stupid I have to call you out personally. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE SWEETSPOTS ARE TOO GOOD. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT. DO YOU EVEN KNOW OTHER VALUES? Trajectory, growth, base, etc.

It is not just about the sweetspot. It's that the followups are not challenging or spontaneous, but rather DELIBERATE and SPECIFIC. It is about build orders and optimization based on designer's intent. This whole thread can be captured in Oracle's post. Inherently ****ty moves FORCE players to think about how they use their tools. There are exceptions, but if you follow the design of PM, there are no exceptions. Every move is deliberate and changed to fulfill not only a specific role, but even specialize in it. There are no reasons to learn tricky followups unless you are bored with the game. There are no reasons to learn tricky approaches unless you're a master of the matchup (WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH THE CAST NUMBER AND CONSTANT, TECH-DEMANDING CHANGES). This is what forced design is. It FORCES you to fight approaches in a strict RPS way instead of a creative, movement based way.

Forced design CAN be good. There are millions of games that are competitive from the get-go. For every person who says I am a melee nostalgia ***** and ignoring any of the design aspects of this thread: STFU.

Just read this. TL;DR SPAM YOUR ****ING MOVES GOOD

 

[Juushichi]

you should apply to be a PMBR member and address these things directly, vro

imo

that's what i'm doing

 

[ItalianStallion]

i think rats post sums up what vro is saying pretty well. the moves on many characters are designed with really specific purposes, which makes the game feel really cheesy and risks limiting the characters' potential. in melee, most characters' moves are pretty bad; its how they used them combined with the movement that made them good. it wasn't 'did i use the right tool' it was 'did i use the right tool in the correct way'. Foxs nair is a decent move, but if you space it wrong or don't time your fastfall right or don't account for crouch cancelling, you're probably getting punished. Very few moves were frame safe, and moves almost always have glaring weaknesses so that using them at the wrong moment would allow your opponent to exploit those weaknesses. in PM, lots of moves are just good on their own, without may ways to use them improperly. basically, the moves are just too good.

This is what I don't understand. Because their is such a large punish game in PM, spacing becomes even more important. You can't just "throw moves out there" willy-nilly. Fox in Melee can to an extent. Sure, against most of the top tiers, he can't just throw moves around, but if he does so against Mewtwo, he will probably still win. PM gives everyone a good punish game as well as a good combo/aggro game. My style of playing Toon Link (Aggro/combo) is very different from my friend who is a Toon Link main (Capitalizing on follow-ups from projectile hitstun), and a third friend of mine who used to dabble in Young Link has a different style from both of us (Ultra campy with projectiles until damage high enough for kill). Some people play Charizard defensively, and others like myself are all about aggro with him. Nair is one of Charizard's best moves, but in no way is it safe on shield. The safest moves on shield still come from Melee characters (Fox and Falco shine). The character that isn't as worried about spacing comes from melee (Falco with laser), and the some of the most devastating kill moves that are also safe to throw out come from Melee (Fox u-smash and Falco dair).

However, I can empathize with you over R.O.B. because I really did enjoy watching you do cool new things with the character, and if the 2.5/2.6 changes took part of that away, I think that maybe that's something they should reevaluate. I can agree that characters having multiple play-styles and moves having different uses is a must. I don't agree that the PMBR is doing a bad job of doing that though. Maybe in some cases I guess (You pointed out R.O.B.), but in most cases I would argue that they are doing a pretty good job.

MagnesD3 you are so stupid I have to call you out personally. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE SWEETSPOTS ARE TOO GOOD. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT. DO YOU EVEN KNOW OTHER VALUES? Trajectory, growth, base, etc.

Calm yourself bro. You're calling out someone for not arguing well and lack of information but you sound like you are typing either drunk or high in almost every post you write. It's taken multiple posts of other people deciphering your rant to finally get to a decent discussion.

 

[The_Guide]

After thinking about it for a bit, I think I'm inclined to agree with Vro/Oracle/Rat. The key thing I took away from Oracle's post is his comparison to melee shines/falco dair/peach downsmash. With all of these moves, it doesn't matter what part of the hitbox you connect with, or when you land the hit. If the move touches your opponent, and they aren't shielding, they're gonna take some pretty heavy punishment. Add on the fact that they offer amazing coverage around your character, and they become extremely forgiving to throw out without regard for spacing.

Now this could be my inexperience talking, but I don't think melee had too many of these kinds of moves, while PM does. It feels like a bunch of characters were given these tools as a way to level the playing field away from characters that already had access to them, like Falco. Yet nowadays, it seems as if the general consensus of the community is that these veterans deserve to be toned down. If that does come to pass, I hope the PMBR will also consider toning down forgiving moves on other characters.

I do have one nagging question though, brought about by this line:

in melee, most characters' moves are pretty bad; its how they used them combined with the movement that made them good. it wasn't 'did i use the right tool' it was 'did i use the right tool in the correct way'.

Where does this leave the characters with weak mobility? The Bowsers of the world? If a character is slow, has a bad wavedash, a slow jumpstart, a short dash dance, bad aerial mobility, etc., they will be naturally limited in the ways their moves can be used.

Should such characters be held to the same standard as others? Personally, I'd say no. With their approach prospects as daunting as they are, even a slight hit should give a solid reward.

Y'all have any opinions? ^^

 

[ph00tbag]

thats his exact point. pm isn't even close to solved and already people are getting these huge rewards and easy 0-death combos. maybe we're all bad and just falling for a bunch of stupid gimmicks, but it doesn't seem that way in a lot of cases

I can't imagine it's a whole lot more than a lot of stupid gimmicks, especially if the whole problem is that every character is given at least one option for every situation they could conceivably encounter.

I mean, let's have some consistency.