forced design

[ItalianStallion]

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.

The moves that you gave as examples for in terms of high reward and low risk (Shines, Falco dair, Peach d-smash) all come from Melee. Then you said that there weren't that many of these moves in Melee and that there are in PM. What examples can you give of moves that compare to those examples you gave that originated in PM? I'm really curious.

 

[cmart]

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".

I have had it SDI'd numerous times. I don't know what the other guy is doing, but it's not actually guaranteed. It's also melee hitboxes, for what that's worth

 

[metroid1117]

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.

I think Vro's main contention with Charizard (similar to how concerns have been brought up with other characters) is not about playstyle, but how each move in his toolkit fills a clear niche. Charizard's entire moveset is based off juggling or killing, with some exceptions (sometimes jab, sometimes NAir, and all throws except UThrow); once a juggle is started, comboing is with Charizard is fairly intuitive just from looking at Charizard's moveset. FAir hits in front of Charizard; UAir hits right above Charizard; NAir starts in the area above and behind Charizard; and BAir hits behind Charizard. There are slight nuances that can be done like non-sweetspot FAir -> jumping Heat Wave if the opponent DI's in on the FAir or UAir -> jump -> glair if the opponent DI's the UAir too far out for up+B, but in general, Charizard combos/juggles are, again, fairly intuitive. To the extent that I understand Charizard, at the very least, it does not seem as varied and complex as the combos that Fox can do.

That said, I don't think intuitiveness and accessibility are bad things. However, I personally feel that the most intuitive and accessible options should not necessarily be the best options in each offensive scenario.

 

[The_Guide]

The moves that you gave as examples for in terms of high reward and low risk (Shines, Falco dair, Peach d-smash) all come from Melee. Then you said that there weren't that many of these moves in Melee and that there are in PM. What examples can you give of moves that compare to those examples you gave that originated in PM? I'm really curious.

Sure, I'll get around to it in 4'ish hours. I have a couple essays that I need to crank out, and I'm willing to admit that I'm procrastinating by commenting here. Once that's out of the way, I'll get to it. ^^

Before I do so, however, I want to emphasize that many of the moves I'm going to list are unsafe on block or miss. The main moves I'm concerned with are those with no hitboxes that are mediocre on hit, while offering large coverage around the character.

 

[ELI-mination]

*sigh* fine i'll make another combo video

 

[Vro]

However, I personally feel that the most intuitive and accessible options should not necessarily be the best options in each offensive scenario.

this basically describes skill ceiling. if the best option is always a 3/10 difficulty, why would you think of trying to do things that involve planning, risk, movement, and speed?

why wouldn't you... just attack.

 

[ItalianStallion]

I think Vro's main contention with Charizard (similar to how concerns have been brought up with other characters) is not about playstyle, but how each move in his toolkit fills a clear niche. Charizard's entire moveset is based off juggling or killing, with some exceptions (sometimes jab, sometimes NAir, and all throws except UThrow); once a juggle is started, comboing is with Charizard is fairly intuitive just from looking at Charizard's moveset. FAir hits in front of Charizard; UAir hits right above Charizard; NAir starts in the area above and behind Charizard; and BAir hits behind Charizard. There are slight nuances that can be done like non-sweetspot FAir -> jumping Heat Wave if the opponent DI's in on the FAir or UAir -> jump -> glair if the opponent DI's the UAir too far out for up+B, but in general, Charizard combos/juggles are, again, fairly intuitive. To the extent that I understand Charizard, at the very least, it does not seem as varied and complex as the combos that Fox can do.

That said, I don't think intuitiveness and accessibility are bad things. However, I personally feel that the most intuitive and accessible options should not necessarily be the best options in each offensive scenario.

Let's look at Fox.

Fair hits in front of Fox.
Uair hits right above Fox.
Bair hits behind Fox.
Nair is basically Fox's body as a hitbox.
Fox's bair like Zard's bair can be used for spacing or for kill power. Or for non-sweetspot bairs to set up into other kill moves.
Fox's nair is a good coverage tool, like Charizard, and is good for starting combos. Zard's is less for starting combos and more for coverage and spacing.
Fox's fair is kind of useless, so I can't go into much of a comparison there.
Fox's usmash is a kill move while Zard's is a set-up. However, Zard can also kill with U-smash just like Fox can sometimes set up with a Usmash at low percents (Usually on a fast faller just like Zard can chain u-smashes on fast-fallers).
Fox's uair is a better kill move than Zard's but they both can kill and or set up for something else.
I could go on. But I won't because I'm starting to bore myself.

The point is that we could do this for every character and we would probably discover the same thing, PM characters have moves that can be used in a variety of ways just like the Melee top tiers. I use Zard's uair as a way to pressure shields (I run off of a platform, fast fall, and uair and l-cancel). This against a non-shielding opponent will set up nicely for a combo (It catches people by surprise a lot of times cuz they don't expect it from Zard). Against a shielding opponent, I'll normally jab once or twice immediately after l-canceling to try to catch a dropped shield or a jump out of shield. Give PM time and I am sure way more strategies and uses for moves will develop.
If you really think about it, the Melee top tiers aren't all that varied either. Fox can do a bunch of crazy combos because he has one of the most potent moves in all of smash (Shine), but he is kind of the exception. If the PMBR created Falco and Peach, Vro could be bringing up the same argument about how their design feels forced because using laser as an approach to get a shine in to a down air is so bread and butter and not playing Falco that way means you're doing it wrong. Same with Peach. Using float-cancelled fair to a downsmash is so bread and butter high reward-low risk that not doing it seems wrong. Marth has fair spam to down air or f-smash. Shiek has down throw to forward tilt to forward air.

Now many will say I am oversimplifying the characters and they can be used in a variety of ways and I would agree. Then I would say that that is exactly what many are saying about the PM cast. They are over-simplifying the characters and strategies of PM. Just because we found the bread and butter things about the characters, doesn't mean that's all there is to discover. That's why I feel the point Vro is trying to make about that is essentially hasty and brash.

 

[DMG]

What's ironic, is that "attacking" being buffed has lead to positioning and spacing being relied on even heavier for the opposite player to deal with it. Captain Falcon can not dream of overpowering some of the huge range that's out there, or the super quick nasty jab/tilt/etc moves that were added, so it does lead to more of that patient waiting. As far as "special" movement goes, there's also more of that in this game than in Melee. If your character glides or flies sideways, if you get to AGT around, etc. People overall move around so much better in PM, but that movement is a bit more restrictive since stuff like Pit Glide or ROB Side B from the air loses the ability to DD/Grab/staple ground mixups.


I'm OK somewhat with the buffed attacking, because it's more interesting to see Falcon have to work on dealing with Ivy's Bair, than it is watching Falcon DD camp someone to death because their character was too crappy and slow to handle it. A lot of that happened in Melee and it happens much less frequently in PM. On the downside, since the overall range and approaching capabilities of the cast is much higher than Melee, what answer comes back up as the go to answer? DD camping/positioning for faster characters. Ivy Bair (or some other big move) dissuades Fox and Sheik from running in and trying to grab or Nair, so they resort back to positioning options and as god damn annoying as some of these characters are (Ivy and Zelda can go into a meat grinder for all I care personally), I AM VERY HAPPY that hopefully they won't be mowed down as quickly in the process. At least hopefully because of that ridiculous range, Ivy won't just get GG'd every stock by those characters and can put up a fighting chance. Maybe she can avenge the lower tiered characters in Melee that absolutely despised faster/rushdown characters.


I hate certain character designs, and certain moves, but if we are keeping in monsters of neutral game positioning, I think this is the best answer we can come up with. What do we want more of, 30 more MK/Sheik/Fox Hybrids that run everywhere fast? No thanks, I'd rather lose and scream profanities at some kid pressing A button attacks with Ivy, than painfully and crushingly lose to the overwhelming advantage characters like Sheik Fox Marth etc have and would hold over the rest of the cast uncontested.


What's more frustrating for me are the buffed defensive moves, that also function amazingly on offense. Those kind of moves/choices tend to overrule any other choice: there's very little thought on whether to Upb with Snake if someone crosses up your shield, that options like pulling a grenade or Dair OOS tend to just not be used ever. Heck, because of how soon you can cancel the move, you could run up in some character's faces with shield and resort to Upb--> aerial if it might go sour. Stuff like that I don't like, although it's fairly rare to come across.

 

[GaretHax]

Let's look at Fox.
Now many will say I am oversimplifying the characters and they can be used in a variety of ways and I would agree. Then I would say that that is exactly what many are saying about the PM cast. They are over-simplifying the characters and strategies of PM. Just because we found the bread and butter things about the characters, doesn't mean that's all there is to discover. That's why I feel the point Vro is trying to make about that is essentially hasty and brash.

I'll actually just say you missed the point, Bread and Butter is fine, but when Bread and butter tastes better than fresh baked bread with home-made preserves, why the hell would you want to make anything else. Nobody is contesting the existence of B&B conversions in Melee, just the disproportionate effectiveness and straightforward nature of them in PM. And the straightforward designs and uses (not to mention usefulness) of the contributing moves. Though I still think this renders Defense the best option and not Offense, but that is a minor matter of opinion.

ATM some characters just don't fit this quote
"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."

Also a lot of Fox's crazy strings result from his amazing mobility, ability to limit an opponent's options, and strong tech-chases.

 

[ItalianStallion]

I'll actually just say you missed the point, Bread and Butter is fine, but when Bread and butter tastes better than fresh baked bread with home-made preserves, why the hell would you want to make anything else. Nobody is contesting the existence of B&B conversions in Melee, just the disproportionate effectiveness and straightforward nature of them in PM. Though I still think this renders Defense the best option and not Offense, but that is a minor matter of opinion.

ATM some characters just don't fit this quote
"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."

Also a lot of Fox's crazy strings result from his amazing mobility, ability to limit an opponent's options, and strong tech-chases.

And I'll just say you missed my point. How can we know that Bread and Butter is the most effective? The game hasn't been out that long. There's a ton more characters to explore than Melee. And the game is still in Demo stages. Many people are jumping to conclusions without actually letting the metagame evolve. If we did the same thing for Melee, people would have been talking about why anyone use anything other than forward smash for Marth when edgeguarding or killing? We now know about his plethora of other options but that didn't happen right away. Now imagine that instead of having a couple high tiers to explore, there's a really large cast of all viable members with different movesets and match-ups. People are judging way too soon.

 

[MagnesD3]

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

Somebody is a little Salty . Anyways Im entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to yours, no need to get so angry, I appreciate informative criticism similar to what Rarik has been dealing or many others on this topic. I see what they are getting at but I dont think its a big of a problem as alot of people (including you) make it out to be but Im always for making the game better as long as its actually better and not just skewed towards a certain audience...

 

[DMG]

All I wanna know is what happened to the cheerful man who picked Ike at Big House and had fun?

 

[GaretHax]

Granted Italian, I think it may be too soon to judge as well, however I have been saying that for a few years now, but the prerequisite knowledge of PM's player base probably has alot to do with people having these types of concerns, I think they are justified, though perhaps exaggerated or even inconsequential in the long run. As I've said before IDK lol.

 

[JOE!]

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

Do have some comments I'd like to make however. I don't have a ton of pro melee experience or whatnot, but as a game designer this is what goes through my head about this:

1) When there are really 3 types of actions in smash (Attacking, Defending, & Moving to break it down to the simplest parts), why is a slight focus on attack suddenly a bad thing? In all honesty if attack is stronger, it makes the other two seemingly more important in order to combat attack no? Movement and Defense need to be used more creatively / skillfully to counter attack, and possibly reverse momentum or reset situations, if not just start your own. Each being equal would boil down to each individual move vs each other move vs each situation vs each spacing and so on and so forth which would be a pain to consider. So instead, the design philosophy of "slight lean toward offense" means that each character should have the tools necessary to push their offensive momentum given the set-up (be it opportunity, spacing, aggression, what ever). What this really means though is that in practice, attack can be self-defeating as attacking by itself will leave the player open to counter-attack by smart players and lose/swap momentum in the match. To me, that seems reasonable as defense is needed to directly combat aggression and possibly switch the flow of the match in your favor, movement is needed for both offense and defense, and offense is ultimately needed to actually win a match as you do have to KO your opponent by hitting them in some manner (unless they happen to swan dive off the stage for you, but that is their fault).

2) Why intentionally design bad moves? You mention how lower tier characters in melee had to use creative spacing and movement for their moves to "work" seeing as well, usually the moves were bad and they needed the creativity. So, how about those characters with good moves that could also space them creatively with movement options? They're called the top/high tiers. This is a delicate balance sure, as some characters may just have bad movement and moves (See melee Bowser) or great movement and great moves (See 2.5 Sonic), the trick is to design the moves to work in tandem with the character's movement option (as I said above, movement is connected to offense and defense equally). The blanket term for "good" moves are more or less moves that could be good on anybody in my opinion: most Sex Kicks could probably work on any character due to the properties and do their job just fine, some characters would use it better than others but for the most part a Sex Kick is in general a good move as it both sets things up and can even finish foes. An attack like Link's Down Air is harder to grant to other characters as while a Sex Kick can set up other moves or opportunities, the Downward Sword is one that needs some sort of set-up or punish in order to be used more often than not, which luckily Link is suited to doing. Other moves like say, Jigglypuff's Sing however barely work with the character they're on to begin with as it can hardly set-up anything her other moves can't, and has nothing that really sets up into it. So what we got are really 3* types of moves: Moves that can set up more moves or be linked from another move (Good), moves that only do one of those things (ok), and moves that don't really do either (bad). We should totally avoid the last one of course, as they usually do not serve any meaningful purpose for the character except for once in a blue moon shenanigans. So this leaves moves that set-up and can be linked to, and moves that do one or the other as the "acceptable" moves more or less.

*In terms of conventional attacks,some others like Lucas' Offense-Up and the like are a little more "odd" to categorize, but even then you could count it in the 2nd category as it sets-up his Smash Attacks.

A move like Fox's Nair could be considered "Ok" in all honesty as it's more a linking move than anything, while a move like Bair is "Good" in that it can be used to start, end, and extend a variety of moves to deal both damage, space and KO. What makes Nair a great move on Fox however is his mobility paired with a Linking move that links to so many other Good moves that can both link and finish maneuvers and restrict / create opportunities for the Fox player.

Charizard's Jab is an "Ok" move as it is a pop-up option to link to more juggles. His Bair is "Ok" in that it sends foes way behind him and generally gimps or kills. Fair is "Ok" in that it generally just kills or links generally just into itself. Nair is "Good" in that it can kill/position/link and so on. Charizard is incredibly fast for his size on the ground, which combined with his range (thanks to size again) gives him incredible coverage. Combine that with the ability to pretty much fly, Charizard could be argued to have incredible mobility.

So, why are Fox's moves better than Charizards? Charizard has maybe even better mobility than Fox in terms of raw movement (he can fly!) combined with range, but what he has is a bunch of linking moves and ending moves that are designed to go A > B > C / D, while Fox has fewer moves that strictly just "link/finish" and many more that can do both. Fox's maneuvers generally end go A/B/C > B/A/C/D > D/C/F. Fox's high mobility combined with the sheer amount of options he gets for successfully using his moves (either hitting normally or just spacing) allow him to be a dominant threat, while Charizard's options while effective, are ultimately limited through design to really only work when they go from A to B so to speak, at least when compared to a character like Fox.

This variety of options ties back to the first point again as Fox can then use these abilities both offensively and defensively to swing the momentum of a match in his favor thanks to his movement combined with the "Good"ness of his moves. This then leads to the depth you praised, however it also circles back to: not everybody can be like the top tiers with great movement and overall good moves.

Many characters are designed more on the Charizard end (don't mean to pick on him, hell I main him more or less, he's just the example, same with Fox as just an example of what Vro was saying) in that their options are more or less designed: Move A leads very well to move B, which can lead to C or D. This is because it is honestly just easier to fathom and design interactions like this while still then getting the desired result of things Fox can do, but it does not allow the sheer amount of things Fox can do in return. However for characters lacking mobility, this is a godsend more or less as they can then have really devastating options as once they do manage to get a hit in, they get to really reap rewards.

It is definitely a difficult task to balance a game of 30+ characters in the way you want, sure, but at least we have bases for how we'd like them to play as well as in general just stronger moves that work well with each character in order to offset the sheer power [Fox's] moveset provides. I agree that moves should have a little more to them to emphasize options, but I think it can wait until that becomes a priority as playstyles seem to be the focus now rather than super minute changes such as an inner hitbox of Zard's Fair sending slightly down to change his options from the move, as the move does it's purpose on top of Zard not having the entire melee metagame time of like, 12ish years to figure out all his quirks like the melee characters have? The game is subject to change for the better, and anything done can be un-done if it proves to not work out.


[thus concludes my very simplified take on the matter at 2:30 am during finals week]

 

[Darkgun]

Well heck, here I spent thirty minutes writing up a response, and JOE! summed up everything I was going to say so well that it made whatever I wrote look like dribble! So I'll just drop the closing statement that I inevitably got around to and spoiler the rest of it. Because hey, maybe someone will come along and be all "Hey, I wanna read Darkgun's dribble of an understanding when compared to JOE!."

Spoiler

The first two paragraphs, from what I can tell, are me restating what I've read or observed in a generalized manner.
Oracle's (and vicariously Vro's point) is something I can understand, and speaking from a less experienced perspective, Melee's lack of... well, in some cases, intuitively designed moves lead to the requirement for players to get creative with movement to achieve the play seen at the highest levels of play in that game. Unfortunately, as was mentioned briefly, characters that do not have these mobility tools (traction that enable the more effective linking or spacing of moves, air breaking moves, etc) failed to stand up to characters that did, such as the Melee spacies, Marth, or Peach. And the characters that did, such as Roy (from what I can remember, mind you), who seemed to have a fair bit of mobility behind him in my experience, did not have a moveset that was as reliable, interconnecting, or versatile to be effective, even with the mobility. Fox, for example, had a move for almost every situation, but it was finding the situations that made his play so technical, and thanks to how his moveset was designed as a whole, more ridiculously precise combos could be formed once an opening was discovered. The point I'm trying to get to is that, though a bit generalized, good movement options, combined with a good moveset (using the tools analogy, the bad tools weren't all that bad for the higher tier characters) make a good character.

In P:M at least, there is a TON of different character archetypes, and not all of them conform to what was powerful or common in Melee. Characters like Bowser, with his sever lack of movement options, have been a moveset to help compensate for this lacking feature, while others who seem feel more brand new than buffed, such as Charizard or Sonic, have character designs that overshadow the traditional movement entirely. And, in the cases that I can call to memory, the characters with these designs (spare maybe one or two) also lack wicked technical movement options that are diverse and useful.

The point I'm specifically trying, and seemingly failing, to get to is that because of the combination of move and movement options and functions, Melee top tiers shined (no pun intended). Thanks to development in the metagame, we've found that Fox's bair sourspot can be used as either a setup or gimping option, or that Falcon's play can revolve very heavily around DD camping an opponent as a core tactic. PMBR, if I were to attempt to assume, is designing aspects of characters based upon the knowledge of the Melee metagame and engine. Strings of moves that required a ton of complication to perform are present in Melee likely due to happenstance, but it is difficult to design serendipity. So instead, we're seeing moves fit into place based upon the movement options of a character. The question "Why get technical when you could just attack?" isn't completely fair, as when compared to Melee's heavy offense focus (in a backwards sort of way if one gets gritty with it; even defensive characters that fared well had to be wicked aggressive.), P:M features characters that are more capable of safe, viable options, though in many cases the more aggressive and technical option will still reward much more liberally.

There are two recurring elements that we're seeing more of [though], that I am a little concerned about. First is making moves too situation specific, and then broadening that situation to bloated proportions, alternatively read as "I should use this move here because it will always be the best move for this time and any time similar to it, against any opponent.", which was seen a bit in the 2.6 update. The other is making a follow-up design from landing hits that is one dimensional or really close, or "uthrow always into fair, regardless of DI. Forever.", and while we don't see this spare a few special cases, the more precise the use of moves become, I suspect the more likely this phenomenon will occur.


Dribbledribbledribbledribbleokimdone.

 

[Hylian]

I would like to preface this by saying that I understand where you are coming from Vro and I understand the frustrations a lot of people have with Project M in regards to your overall point. I think it's always good to bring up concerns like this and by doing so it will inevitably help the game. I think this because while I disagree with some points I overall don't think you are wrong, I just think this subject has some underlying tones that need to be brought to light and discussed to really flesh out the issue at hand.

Points I want to hit:

- Movement/Baiting
- Niche characters
- Brute Force
- Dynamic gameplay
- Balance

Movement/Baiting:

When you think fundamentals in smash you think movement. Most interactions in a competitive environment in melee revolve around a characters ability to bait an opponent with their movement or position themselves to take advantage of specific actions an opponent takes. This leads to beautiful things like mango making people afraid to leave their shields by simply dash dancing near them, these hyper footsies occur often in melee and are very exciting and tense for the most part. In contrast, this occurs often in Project M as well, but to a lesser extent. There are many reasons for this which I will elaborate on later but it can pretty much be summed up to the amount of viable characters and the steps taken to make them able to compete with the strongest thing in the game; movement. At some points(especially with certain characters/match-ups) you see a huge swing from movement importance to hitbox importance, this really throws the feel of the game off, yet is almost unavoidable for the sake of balance. Movement is still incredibly important in Project M, characters with good movement stand true to having a lot of options in the extremely important neutral game.

Characters like Mario can use movement to a great extent and it makes them feel very fluid and natural because movement is the fundamental base for competitive smash. Mario has a great waveland which is useful for baiting and punishing whiffs, and a good dashdance game to boot. While he has a strong combo and edgeguard game, he doesn't need absurd moves and can be a huge threat just because of how his movement options open up his moveset. You can't just jump in with Mario and rely on his hitboxes, you will be baited and punished, he doesn't have the range or priority to brute force his way in. What if Mario was suddenly as slow as say...zelda. How greatly is his game affected and how worse off is he because of it? Does his moveset work well together anymore? Does he have any options against faster characters? Stylistically what changes? Movement is probably the most important thing to keep in mind when looking at characters individual moves and understanding why some things are as dumb as they are.

Niche Characters:

You brought up a point about characters being designed with specific playstyles in mind and in turn moves being overly specific in their design. This ideal weighs heavily in character niches. Looking at melee, there aren't many viable characters but the top of the cast is very well defined in their play and fairly easy to categorize. Fox/Falco are traditional glass canon characters, they hit hard and get hit just as hard. They have extreme offensive options and pressure and some of their moves have extreme traits(invincibility on smashes/shines for example, spike hitboxes on lasting hitboxes etc etc). Peach and Puff fill in the floaty characters, they are good at controlling space and effectively zoning their opponent and relying on great stage control and edgeguarding to pace the match. Marth and Sheik are sort of the in-between all around mid-range characters. They are very ground based for the most part, have excellent grab games and zone well right outside their opponents shield. Keep in mind these characters have some of if not straight up the best neutral games in all of melee. They have such good movement options and space control that they don't need insane traits on their attacks to open up their moveset, the fact that they do have pretty crazy traits on some attacks puts them over other characters with good movement such as say..pikachu or falcon.

Looking at PM you start seeing a lot more niche, this is a direct result of the amount of viable characters with an attempt to keep variety in tact. This also plays into the fact that characters with not so great movement are suddenly viable. Designing a character to be viable with bad movement in a game where movement is fundamental is a nightmare, especially if that character doesn't have a projectile to give them leeway in the neutral game. Having a niche helps to focus the design from just throwing crazy traits on everything, but sadly also means many moves tend to be completely specialized. Having strict guidelines can be harmful to the characters depth yet not having any at all yields almost the same result. Lets look at Bowser and Wario. Bowser is extremely specialized. His movement sucks, to compensate his defensive game is absurd and on top of that he kills off very few reads. He can't choose his spots as well against faster characters but often doesn't need to because they usually have to commit to something eventually. This extremely limits the way the character can be played in an effective manner. You can try to go rambo offensive bowser but it probably isn't going to work out too well for you, the character is essentially locked in his role and the players who excel with him are those who have mastered that role and understand how to optimize it. I think a lot of your problems stem from designs like these, which forgo creative play in favor of viability, varied character types, and niche play. Now on the opposite end of the spectrum lets look at Wario. In my opinion Wario is the best character in the game(an opinion I've shared with very very few people). I think this because he has amazing movement options and space control while simultaneously having insane traits on many of his moves and overall having little commitment. It's hard to find a niche when looking at wario. Some would say "mix-ups" but mix-up characters don't generally have so much guaranteed stuff. Because so many of warios moves and options are good he is incredibly hard to predict when playing against, I attest this to the amazing options he has rather than his mix-ups(which are also strong). Wario to me is the opposite of bowser, he has no clear direction in mind and I feel characters like this also feel problematic in Project M. Some may not agree about the specific character traits I mentioned, but really they were just examples to elaborate my points so bear with me.

Summing this part up, a lot of characters are almost forced into these niches because of their lack of movement. Some aren't but please recognize the reasons a lot of characters seem so specialized and the difficulty the PMBR faces in making dynamic characters that are in line with one another.

Brute Force:

Basically, forcing your way in on an opponent without regards to spacing in relation to their character, generally trying to overshoot them or hit their shield or beat any attack option they have, or on the other end forcing a string with a projectile that is hard to punish but opens up characters for you. This exists in PM to be sure, but I feel you are giving to much credit to melee in your thoughts towards the top melee characters moves. This is a game that has 12 years of advancements to competitive play, I really think it's harder to see things like brute force because you are so used to seeing with them and know ways to deal with them. I find it interesting that you and others have brought fox's nair up as a move that is mediocre. Fox's nair is one of the best moves in melee, it is +/-0 on shield and fits into fox's moveset perfectly. It combo's into pretty much his entire moveset and gives amazing positional advantage on hit as well as being one of fox's best pressure options. You can literally brute force down opponents with this move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjeIlBAIGM

The reason this isn't really optimal is because of how strong movement and baiting are. Falcon still doesn't really have a way to deal with this(cactuar just beat hax like last weekend lol) 4 years later. Melee has evolved to the point where brute force tactics don't generally work at the highest levels because they will get baited by extremely precise movement options. Falco has almost always retained brute force approaches though and historically the best players against falcos are the ones who can shut down his approach game the best.

Brute force in PM takes form in hitboxes more often than the versatile melee counterpart moves. For example, you probably aren't going to try and beat bowsers fair. Trading with it is too scary of an option considering it's range and power, trading with fox's nair wouldn't be so bad in contrast. The problem with moves like these are the fact that they limit your options to : bait. You lose the option of beating out or trading because generally the risk just isn't worth the reward. (I know bowsers fair has been toned down in 2.6, but again bear with me for the sake of easy example haha) The problem with this whole thing again comes down to movement, how does bowser deal with other characters movement without threats like these? These design issues are something that I guarantee you the PMBR is aware of but has trouble dealing with because of factors I've already mentioned. Also keep in mind how strong crouch cancelling is in Project M and how that affects things like this as well.


Dynamic Gameplay:


Going on to a good note, I would say there are some very well designed characters in Project M that really show off dynamic gameplay. Go look at videos of Oracles lucas and then compare it to Hammertime or Calabrel. They are all VERY different. Different to the point where I could pick out which one was playing without the title having seen them before. Lucas has a great kit and noticeable weaknesses and it's awesome watching how differently players creatively work with his moveset around the characters weaknesses. Even a character like Link who seems fairly straightforward has very dynamic gameplay. Compare videos of myself, InternetExplorer, and Saniety_Theif for example and you will notice all 3 of us play completely differently. This is a very good sign for character design assuming the character doesn't just have every option available to them in every situation. There are a healthy amount of characters like this in my opinion and that alone is really impressive to me considering the difficulties the PMBR faces when designing and balancing so many characters to be viable. Keep in mind that obviously problematic design issues are constantly being discussed in the PMBR and sometimes we just need to see how the public handles certain builds over an extended period of time.

I was planning on writing about balance, but I feel I've sufficiently covered that topic throughout my post. It's really absurdly hard to balance so many characters in a way that leaves a varied cast with fluid interactive gameplay. There are going to be issues that are almost impossible to work around and I feel that is something we are just going to have to learn to deal with if we want this many viable characters. The other option is just making everyone fast and balancing around that, and I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen heh. I hope you can understand the difficulties we face and that your words certainly don't fall on deaf ears.


Edit: Great post by JOE! as well, a point I never really got across.

 

[DrinkingFood]

@Hylian
I wish the rest of PMBR would be willing to post descriptive explanatory posts, even lengthy ones, of that nature (or that of SB's post in that fox/falco change thread) because they really do help clarify things. Often times it seems like PMBR just gets overwhelmed by the amount of dissatisfaction they receive and avoid making these kinds of posts because they don't see and positive feedback on the clarifications they make. This may be because it only clears things up for some of us, but I think some is better than none. So here's your positive feedback, write moar essays plz.
Also you guys should totes give bowser a fireball in addition to his firebreath so he can rely a little less on brute force and a little more on having stage control. Maybe it's not a movement buff to match melee's general style of movement based characters, but hell, melee has decent projectile spam characters too, so it could just be a step closer in that direction. Anyways, I digress...

 

[Eisen]

I had no idea you were so articulate, Hylian. That was probably the most gathered and well-expressed post in the thread for its size, as well as an interesting read.

I feel that I understand something here: an intrinsic "problem" that all whom attempt balance smash will face; that movement/adaptability will beat out niches/amazing moves only until a certain point. The skill of the movement players who play smash is such that, to counter it with a moveset founded on the idea that the character must be unique in some way (e.g. Bowser, Ivy), the potencies of their moves must in theory be equal to the movement options presented by the opposing metagame. But then, where is the line drawn? When does baiting and good movement become "equal" if ever to its counter? Where does movement surpass power? When, if ever, will players be able to harness movement so well that utterly ridiculous moves would need to be created to counter the effects (see: full screen shine)? What is the limit of a person's adaptability? Who should set that standard, and how does the decision effect new players?

It seems to me that really what some people are asking for is a game like Divekick: pure, unadulterated spacing/movement (until more recently, but generally the game is very raw). The problem with that is, though, in Project M we're dealing with a game focused on an enormous cast. You can't just give everybody Fox's moves and assume it's for the best. Part of Project M is ensuring balance of a diverse cast, with diverse being the key word here. If you truly want a fair fight in terms of wits and knowledge of spacing, you need to make some sacrifices, because the only true equality is literally equality. That is, Fox vs Fox, Dive vs Dive, etc. But I'm assuming that's not what people are truly looking for, and I know it's not what the PMBR is hoping to accomplish.

I understand that people like Oracle have legitimate complaints about their characters. I suppose that's to be left up to the players providing feedback on their characters and the PMBR making educated decisions for the character based on that feedback, and then hopefully this will result in positive results when the players experience those changes. Basically from what I understand (which is very broad and I'm not stating anything here as fact, just opinion that hopefully fits with the minor details I don't know), because Melee had such an amazing engine for movement and what have you without adaptive power moves or armor to compensate, pro Melee players want to play the diverse new metagame but only to a certain degree. The PMBR cannot cater to both audiences, however. A player must make a decision: diverse metagame, or a game where movement and fluidity have high influence with little to counteract it?

 

[Cactuar]

Hey, so I haven't read much of this thread, but Joe's post and Hylian's followup (WHERE I WAS SUMMONED) just made me want to comment. Disclaimer: I haven't played much of the recent builds, so these problems might no longer exist, but in my experience playing the older ones, these concepts built into my primary concerns.

I've had a problem taking PM seriously for a while now because of something that Vro is trying to say. Without being a high level player in Melee, I think it is difficult to understand some of the intricacy of its play, which leads to elements that Melee players inherently love being left out of consideration during development. That leads to frustration with the intent of the game design, as a common complaint seems to be this whole forced design thing, which can really be applied to many areas of the game, but most commonly to the range of punishment options developer-favorite characters have to endlessly continue combo trees/autocombo to kill moves.

Talking about the game in its "simplest" parts (the example used was Attacking, Defending, and Movement), you have actually lumped together too many concepts and end up failing to address a wide range of issues.

Movement is a positional tool that leads to decisions on whether a player should Attack or Defend. The movement ability of the character largely determines the playstyle of the character in Melee, as the movement dictates the ability of the character to get into optimal positions for their moveset's hitboxes. The threat created by movement can be used to perform feints, baits, etc, but those actions only have meaning when the resulting action from the movement is real; the idea of the possible punishment being a real potential result in the opponent's mind.

It is important to separate Attacking from Punishing/Comboing. Attacking is putting out a move with the intention to break neutral, to succeed to first hitting, to begin the Punishment game. The move you choose determines the type of Attacking you are performing. Projectiles are generally the least threatening Attack, as they have small or no true followup windows to lead to a Punishment game, which, when Attacking, leads to them being used to open the opponent up by stuffing a Defensive action or pressing the opponent to stay in place to prevent the projectile itself from hitting, which leads into a positional advantage, which leads into an advantageous second Attack. The strength of the individual move in attacking is determined by how it performs one of several purposes, but I'll get into that later if anyone wants me to.

Punishing/Comboing is the ability of the player to maximize followup damage from successfully winning the neutral game, with the point between winning neutral and beginning punishment being known as the conversion. This is where Vro's primary problem lies, as the way development seems to have gone is towards creating super simple Punishment followups for whatever characters. There seems to be too much focus on whatever characters the developers are working on with the intent of giving them planned out options for every combo scenario.

Mitigating Punishment doesn't even seem to be a concept that is addressed by development in P:M. This is essentially the opposite side of the combo game coin. The ability to control your character while being Punished. The ability to control the path/direction of that combo. In Melee, the player being combo's actually dictates how that combo will turn out. The player performing the Punishment is reading the decisions of the victim and responding. Truly good Mitigation leads the combo path into locations where the next action of the Punishing player can only be followed up once or twice, leading to locations where that player cannot follow, or where the victim can edgeslip and regain control, etcetc. In response to any single hit, a player with solid Mitigation will have several options that force the responding player to hardfollow that option. This means that the Punishing player has to read and successfully perform the correct followup for that DI, they cannot simply cover the full range by throwing themselves towards the trajectory and deciding when they get there. There are moments in Melee like Falcon potentially being able to cover 3 out of 4 ground recovery options with raptor boost. A player with good mitigation will direct his trajectory towards a location where the Falcon will have to seriously consider that they might be selecting the 1 of 4 instead of the 3 of 4, making their decision to use raptor boost a 50/50, despite it being a 75/25 in terms of options covered.

As a player discovering the Punishment game in Melee, we have had to come up with really creative options to extend the combo trees because the moves weren't specifically designed to link together the way we make it seem. The difficult process of discovery is what has lead to there being so many stylistic differences between players playing the same character.

Eisen said that Melee players only want to play the "diverse new metagame" to a certain degree. I don't think this is true. When I play P:M, I feel like an entire chunk of the Melee metagame has been ignored or cut out because of the lack of consideration for Mitigation. It doesn't feel like a diverse new metagame, it feels like some awkward forgotten stepchild, born between 64 and Melee.

Defending, Recovery to Edge, Edge to Stage, Edgeguarding, Edge to Stage Guarding are also important factors, but I really just wanted to address Punishment/Mitigation. Again, I can get into the other stuff if anyone wants me to.

 

[CyberZixx]

Good read, Cactuar. I'd like you to expand your point even further. I love reading about Smash from people who so much about it.

 

[Rat]

I think you hit the nail on the head with Mitigation, Cactuar.

Most mitigation or anti-combo in PM comes in the form of fast or invincible special moves. These are used to break punishment with little risk. Some examples are Ivysaurs Nb, GW's UpB, ZSS downB, Bowser UpB, or Sonic's UpB.

Not to say that these are offensive design or a bad part of a characters kit - GW would be crippled without UpB reversal. But that these extreme mitigation tools become a necessity in an environment of forced, easy-bake combos.


Edit: @Cactus I'd like to read more of your thoughts on Defending, Recovery to Edge, Edge to Stage, and more.

 

[Juushichi]

This was actually the largest part of my distaste for Sonic in 2.5/b, in terms of the mitigation aspect. Vs some things now: kinda Ivy, super Ike bros offstage (hi Jc side b into screen covering fair) and sometimes Wario (alsomy initial appraisal of good Lucas), it really feels hard to mitigate options to force opportunities to turn offense to defense and etc.

I'm pretty happy that this stuff is at least being brought up and ideally looked at so there can be tweaks and stuff done.

 

[DMG]

I want Cactuar to talk about his journey as a young Cactus-Man travelling across America

 

[ph00tbag]

In response to Cactuar, I really only have one question: Is it not entirely conceivable that the punishment metagame will initially evolve substantially faster than the mitigation metagame, based on the premise that a punishing player can practice on an un-developed mitigation metagame much more effectively than vice-versa? In other words, is it not possible that we just don't know what kind of mitigation options there are, or their intricacies, so our ability to manipulate the punisher is diminished by our relative lack of knowledge?

I seem to recall many cgs and ezmode combos in Melee around 2009 or so being deemed totally absurd, which we nowadays consider relatively simple to escape as long as you can predict the combo path the punisher is gunning for. I don't deny that some combos right now feel really ridiculous, but I can't bring myself to be convinced that after three or four months, we can know with certitude that there will never be found a counter to these strategies we're losing to right now--particularly when many of the high level Melee players that lodge this complaint barely even log practice hours into the game.

I think Vro's main contention with Charizard (similar to how concerns have been brought up with other characters) is not about playstyle, but how each move in his toolkit fills a clear niche. Charizard's entire moveset is based off juggling or killing, with some exceptions (sometimes jab, sometimes NAir, and all throws except UThrow); once a juggle is started, comboing is with Charizard is fairly intuitive just from looking at Charizard's moveset. FAir hits in front of Charizard; UAir hits right above Charizard; NAir starts in the area above and behind Charizard; and BAir hits behind Charizard. There are slight nuances that can be done like non-sweetspot FAir -> jumping Heat Wave if the opponent DI's in on the FAir or UAir -> jump -> glair if the opponent DI's the UAir too far out for up+B, but in general, Charizard combos/juggles are, again, fairly intuitive. To the extent that I understand Charizard, at the very least, it does not seem as varied and complex as the combos that Fox can do.

That said, I don't think intuitiveness and accessibility are bad things. However, I personally feel that the most intuitive and accessible options should not necessarily be the best options in each offensive scenario.

Well, in response to this, I've always felt that a Charizard based on zoning and edgeguards was very viable, and it was pretty central to how I played him. Late nair, dtilt, ftilt, Heat Wave and bair are all really solid moves for zoning and pushing the opponent off the stage (honorable mention to Fsmash for it's long range and high knockback potential), as well as forcing sub-optimal recoveries.

So I don't think Charizard is a one-dimensional character by any stretch.

 

[Hylian]

Thoughtful stuff

I think mitigation is certainly a huge part of Project M. Directional influence works exactly the same as it did in melee, if I get down thrown by a Ness as Link I have to decide if I want to take a bair(strong but he can't follow up from) or DI in front and risk a longer string. There are tons of situations like this, not to mention crouch cancelling is generally a stronger tool in PM than it is in melee(something I'm not fond of) which leads to some pretty crazy mitigation. SDI also plays a huge part in mitigation, especially in PM. To that note, actual combos are fairly rare in melee, and are fairly rare in PM as well, most long strings stem from reads based on reaction to DI or tech chases. There are a few character with best option follow-ups after most hits no matter the DI but those characters aren't very common, most gameplay has varied combos that have a direct interaction with the opponents mitigation attempts. A lot of the previous builds characters that could just jump at you and always pick the same option after a hit or not have to react to DI have been toned down by a large amount. I would honestly say that mitigation is stronger in PM than it is in melee, but in a less interactive way.

 

[JOE!]

Bit of a tangent, but related to mitigation: is CC-ability variable by character or is it universal? For example, would it be possible to code two characters with the same weight and/or fall speed to be able to CC more or less effectively than the other? I feel like that could potentially dampen the overbearing power of CC in many situations unless it makes sense for the character (heavies/etc).

 

[ph00tbag]

Crouch Canceling is the combination of two engine mechanics. First is crouching knockback reduction. When crouching, knockback is reduced by a universal factor. Knockback being determined entirely by weight, damage and the move's power, the reduced knockback will thus always be the same for two characters of the same weight, all else being equal. The second mechanic is the nature of ASDI in Melee. ASDI is different from SDI in that the latter is simply translative; that is, it just repositions the character on the x-y plane based on the stick position, and imparts no change in velocity. ASDI, however, imparts velocity. I believe this velocity, too, is a factor of knockback. Essentially, ASDIing down causes you to be knocked into the ground for exactly one frame. This "groundward" velocity causes you to hard land on the ground, canceling all knockback. Since all of this is dependent on weight, then I don't believe that two characters of the same weight would be able to be differentiated in their cc percents.

 

[Cactuar]

I do think that the punishment game tends to develop prior to the mitigation game. In melee, this was because, to our knowledge, the moves were developed individually and with limited intent on how they could be used to string into one another. My concern in P:M isn't that the mitigation game is impossible.

My worry is that when a gap is being found with a character not being able to punish in a certain situation due to developing mitigation, the ability to continually change the characters is being used to fill those gaps. "Well if the opponent DI's in x direction out of this hit, I have no followup option. That is a flaw in this character and I will create a solution." This was very visible in Ike early on because of his recovery. "Well, if I dip too far below the stage, I have no ability to recover. I'll add the ability to walljump." "Well, if my opponent jumps when I'm charging my fb, they can just go up and over me. I'll add the ability to jump out of fb." "Well, if my opponent just shields the fb hit, I'm at a disadvantage. I'll add the ability to grab." (that last one might have just come about because of adding the ability to jump in the first place, but you get the point.) It's fine to be aware of character flaws, but it is an entirely different problem when you are analyzing the flaws and providing your character tools to specifically address those flaws rather than using a given tool set to thoughtfully overcome those flaws. Your character doesn't NEED to be able to autocombo into kill moves from grab. Your character doesn't NEED to be able to recover from every scenario. Your character doesn't NEED to have a followup to every move. Your character NEEDS tools that are developed primarily in the interest of how they affect his neutral game, but not to the point where they are impenetrable. Individual moves should not have 5 different developer intended purposes. Melee characters movesets do have a range of purposes, but they are ones we have developed with hard work, not with code. The full use of Fox's nair didn't become obvious for 9 years. Nairplaning didn't become really popular until that very set you linked to. The ways to use it are still changing.

That being said, I perfectly understand that many of the characters are booty buttcheeks. They truly do need to be buffed and changed to have less flaws so that they can reach that status of "viable". Finding a good place to buff a character to is definitely a challenge and I don't envy the position that the developers are in.

Edit: Booty buttcheeks.

 

[DMG]

booty butt booty butt BOOTY BUTT CHEEKS

Since we are talking about Ike, I always wondered why a character with no regular walljump, should have the ability to literally slam his body into the wall at great speed and jump from it. It's never made sense to me.

 

[SacaSuMoto]

Just patch it man. And patch it again if it doesn't work. And patch it again if the previous patch didn't patch what the patch was trying to patch.

 

[ItalianStallion]

Melee characters movesets do have a range of purposes, but they are ones we have developed with hard work, not with code. The full use of Fox's nair didn't become obvious for 9 years. Nairplaning didn't become really popular until that very set you linked to. The ways to use it are still changing.

I disagree with the point you're making with this. Since we put in all the hard work years ago to develop the strategies and metagame of these melee top tiers, you are saying that since the PM characers don't take as much hard work that they aren't designed as well? If so, I have to claim the opposite. Sure, the Melee top tiers weren't as intuitive to us as picking up a PM character is, but that's because we already have a knowledge base. If Melee didn't exist and we all went into Project M without any knowledge of tech or strategy or anything related to Melee combat, EVERY character would be a challenge to us and we would have had to work really hard to make them all work. Sure, there are some easier characters to use than others (I find Charizard and Bowser easy to pick up, although not necessarily easy to master), but that will exist in any fighting game. Some characters are easy to pick up, but hard to master like the ones I stated, while some are a little harder to get to a competitive level, but from there you can improve dramatically (Fox and Falco).

PM feels easy and intuitive because it is so much like Melee. This thread exists purely because the PMBR wanted to make the game like Melee. If it didn't feel like Melee, Melee players wouldn't find it so easy to pick up and learn characters and strategies.

 

[Cactuar]

Never said they weren't designed well or as well. Don't read into it so negatively. You based an entire argument on an "if so". Don't wanna be that guy arguing with himself over a fictional position. Someone might think you're crazy.

There's definitely a carryover element coming from 64 and melee regarding how moves in this environment/engine can be used, which leads to much faster discovery. But unlike melee, you also have moves with intended functionality making up for very specific gaps in character gameplay because of that same knowledge carryover. It's just a fine line to walk along, and I do hope for the best.

As for why this thread exists, I have no idea. I didn't really read it, just popped in because Hylian mentioned me.

 

[ItalianStallion]

Never said they weren't designed well or as well. Don't read into it so negatively. You based an entire argument on an "if so". Don't wanna be that guy arguing with himself over a fictional position. Someone might think you're crazy.

There's definitely a carryover element coming from 64 and melee regarding how moves in this environment/engine can be used, which leads to much faster discovery. But unlike melee, you also have moves with intended functionality making up for very specific gaps in character gameplay because of that same knowledge carryover.

I'm not CRAAAAZZZYYY!!!!!! Right??! AM I crazy????!!!! *Looks around frantically* No...I'm not crazy, precious, am I?

OK, so I can agree that there are moves designed with intended functionality that are for making up for specific gaps in character gameplay due to the same Melee knowledge carryover, but the same thing was in the Melee top tiers (Despite it probably being nowhere near intentional). Falcon can't force his way in like Falco, so he got an amazing run speed and dash dance so he can come in at the right time. Shiek also can't force her way in, so she got a forward tilt that is great at stuffing approaches and starting combos. If these characters were designed in PM, they would fit under your same argument. They would feel forced through design. You would have players saying, "Of course Falco's shine is supposed to lead to dair, the PMBR designed it for that specific role. It feels cheesy. And Peach's downsmash? That's just a GTFO move. Where's the inspiration?"

And continuing on the topic of the design of characters coming from the Melee knowledge base, therefore the PMBR designs moves for specific weaknesses and roles, how could they make a truly balanced game doing it any other way?

 

[MysteryRevengerson]

I can't have too much of an opinion on this since the characters I play (Lucas, Wario) are freeform characters by design. I can't believe all the good points brought up in this thread (Holy **** it feels like I read a book) and as much as I'd like to add on to them, I can't find anything to do with it. I think something that's important to realize here is that Nintendo more than likely doesn't have a sort of team or group that looks at moves and then decides what they should do in relation to the other characters in the cast whereas a team of people that play regular and have more of a focus on such tasks will on the other hand put effort into making move good or giving them a purpose. Honestly, in past Smash games, it seems as though characters are just given moves, moves that reflect the character in the game they come from. Because of this, players have to figure out what to do with them on their own.

I'm sure if Nintendo took a different approach to it and had people playtest it more with competition in mind, then you'd see something a lot different. In other fighting games, move have specific uses, and that's just how they are. I like that the PM developers have given to some characters moves for a purpose (especially the extra bit of flavor that got added, like with DK's Roll, Wario's Shoulderbash, Lucas' Offense Up) because if anything, this speeds up the process on the way to laying down the grounds of a stable Meta, which will in turn help determine what needs to get changed around IF things get changed around.

I think the biggest problem is that PM is NOT a finished game, and that things are gonna get shaky on the way there. I personally will continue to enjoy playing PM (It's a really fun thing)

 

[Cactuar]

Honestly, I don't know what the definition of "truly balanced game" is unless we are talking about heads or tails.

The argument was never against there being intended purposes to actions, but rather to try and elaborate on the concerns that Vro was raising, which are that there is too much of that intended purpose built into the characters for reasons that are undisclosed or poorly thought out, and that those intended purposes are far too complex. The ones you provided are simple compared to the Ike example I already used, compared to whatever version of sonic we saw at Zenith, compared to those ridiculous long stun Pit arrows, compared to vanilla Brawl Metaknight (lulz).

I think it is important that more of the game is defined in the way I explained in the first post, as those are really the areas that you can gauge character strength, not just ability to Attack, Defend, and Move. Without defining the areas in which a character can be strong or weak, how can you try to balance a character's overall strength? This should be something that is published, as it allows the playerbase to have insight into the developer intention regarding the character's strengths, and for that playerbase to give feedback on how they rate those strengths from personal play experience.

This also accelerates the learning process of how to punish specific options, as one player may find a certain recovery to be unstoppable, while another might have developed something to counter it.

 

[trash?]

just poppin into this thread to remind the internet that skill floors, while meaning absolutely everything to a new player, means absolutely nothing under context of high level play. by the time you reach high-level, in theory, all skill ceilings should be about the same, to ensure that, at the most skilled level, characters are balanced

ok cool? cool. I can't pretend I can refute anything else, everything a lot of you are saying is beautiful. I wanna kiss your posts

 

[Cactuar]

I wanna kiss your posts

looooooooool

**

 

[DMG]

 

[trash?]

ok fine

I'll take your posts out to a nice dinner, watch a movie at the theater with them, and THEN kiss them on the way home

THAT'S HOW MUCH I LIKE YOUR POSTING

 

[Cactuar]

Dayum. Real gentleman right there.

My posts are officially wooed.