Heavy Gravity Might Be Good For Competitive Play

[Code Bread]

that's exactly it though, final destination is very biased towards certain characters. If they had a battlefield type omega thing then maybe id see your point, but they don't even let you turn off stage hazards on some of the levels. How was it advertised as competitive? the E3 thing? the one where items were on for the vast majority of the matches? if you think the game had competitive play as the priority you're living in a dream world (as the king, apparently)

No one has ever said ever that Nintendo prioritizes competitive play. What are you reading.
The E3 event has nothing to do with For Glory 1v1 mode. What are you reading.

It's more geared for competitive play by default simply by having For Glory and the inclusion of even FD stages for everything.

Now how EFFICIENTLY it's geared for it is questionable, but it is by design aiming to be competitive moreso than previous entries in the series simply through this.

^

 

[chipz]

No one has ever said ever that Nintendo prioritizes competitive play. What are you reading.
The E3 event has nothing to do with For Glory 1v1 mode. What are you reading.


^

oh so you meant "more competitively geared than Brawl"?
right....talk about setting the bar low

 

[Code Bread]

oh so you meant "more competitively geared than Brawl"?
right....

lol I never said anything. Seriously, what are you reading.

 

[Gatoray]

that's exactly it though, final destination is very biased towards certain characters. If they had a battlefield type omega thing then maybe id see your point, but they don't even let you turn off stage hazards on some of the levels. How was it advertised as competitive? the E3 thing? the one where items were on for the vast majority of the matches? if you think the game had competitive play as the priority you're living in a dream world (as the king, apparently)

Smash Bros ever since the beginning has always rode along a fine line between party game and competitive fighter. You might even call it a sandbox fighter, because there's no "wrong" way to play and the options for customizing your experience are vast. The option for Nintendo to include an official 1v1 mode is acknowledging this competitive subset, but by no means will they force people into a competitive setting like other fighting games. Nintendo simply knows what they're doing. You can't please everyone all the time, the most you can do is compromise, and if look at the amount of content that is included in Smash 4 you'll see why not every development and design resource wasn't able to be dedicated to competitive options. The most they could do was make a game that was balanced; they had no incentive to make a game that was as fast as Melee, because whether you like it or not, more casuals are playing games now that 10 years ago and by slowing the game down they'll have an easier time controlling their character. That was the same design goal with Brawl, but they probably realized they went a little too far with the ez-mode and made a game with better offensive options which is now Smash 4. This is just my speculation.

 

[chipz]

lol I never said anything. Seriously, what are you reading.

apparently a different thread since you're being deliberately vague with your quantification for what defines a competitive game.

 

[Team Plasma N]

Honestly, I'd like to give something like this a shot. The idea sounds pretty cool to me and could potential bring back some exciting true combos. However, I would prefer that characters can still recover fine considering some characters already have terrible recoveries. Don't get me wrong, I love Smash 4, I love how the ground game was sped up from Brawl and how a lot of characters seem viable to use this time around, but I just feel that the aerial game is still too floaty for my liking.

Am I asking for a Melee 2.0, no I'm not. I'm not asking for something like wavedashing to come back, I would just like to try out Smash 4 with heavier gravity. True combos are something that appeal to me, and I feel more gravity would make matchups seem more interesting. I've spent many hours playing Smash 4 and I love it, but I wouldn't mind adapting to a new playstyle due to a mechanic being altered as long as there's still a wide variety of viable characters. I felt Melee's problem was that the competitive scene was flooded with the same 4 characters because those 4 characters made the most of its heavier mechanics, while the rest were only viable if you spend MUCH more time playing that character instead of one of the few top tier characters. I feel Smash 4 has the widest range of viable characters and I love that. However, I would love to see those characters have more of a combo game in Smash while still being viable for competitive play, not just a select few.

I also feel the floatiness of the aerial game not only slows matches down, it makes recovering TOO easy for me. While I'm fine with the edge trumping mechanics, I feel ledges are a bit too.... magnetic. There were instances where my character really shouldn't have grabbed the ledge, but did anyways. It just felt too generous. It seems harder to kill in this game than it should.

As I said, I love Smash 4, I really do. I would just like to see a meta where majority of the cast is viable, more combos being accessable, and recovering is still good, but not overly generous. Just my two cents, but seems like a cool idea.

 

[Code Bread]

apparently a different thread since you're being deliberately vague with your quantification for what defines a competitive game.

I never defined what makes a competitive game, captain illiterate. I said that Nintendo does not prioritize competitive play and the E3 event has nothing to do with For Glory 1v1.

 

[chipz]

I never defined what makes a competitive game, captain illiterate. I said that Nintendo does not prioritize competitive play and the E3 event has nothing to do with For Glory 1v1.

take your juvenile insults to youtube comments pls.
Gatoray claimed smash 4 as being advertised as competitive, im saying nope.

for glory is not any kind of fertile ground for competitive play, especially with the worldwide lag, the lack of any real ranking/matchmaking, being only 1 map, and the game itself being on brawls level of beginner friendly.

 

[TTTTTsd]

Difficulty of a game is not conductive to competitive viability. You're talking about viewership. Would you like to know what else was incredibly beginner friendly for its time and got a lot of competitive play? Street Fighter 2. Even the "complex" special moves were pretty easy once they were figured out, and fundamentals alone could win matches (throws for instance were incredibly powerful)

Whenever I see that kind of argument one of my eyeballs melts and a new one with less vision forms.

 

[chipz]

Difficulty of a game is not conductive to competitive viability. You're talking about viewership. Would you like to know what else was incredibly beginner friendly for its time and got a lot of competitive play? Street Fighter 2. Even the "complex" special moves were pretty easy once they were figured out, and fundamentals alone could win matches (throws for instance were incredibly powerful)

Whenever I see that kind of argument one of my eyeballs melts and a new one with less vision forms.

sure, if sf2 characters floated around, rolled around like crackheads, did not get stunned by attacks long enough to combo, didn't get punished for blocking, and dealt more damage to opponents as their life metre got lower... (why the **** are you comparing smash to street fighter)

 

[TTTTTsd]

Really? Sounds like SF4 if you're talking about being floaty and damaging people more when their life got lower with ultras. Or hell, even SF2 the World Warrior. Wanna know how slow that game was? Go play it. There's a reason they added turbo revisions later AFTER championship edition (Championship Edition had a very healthy tournament scene before that too, might I add)

As for the other things, ON AVERAGE a combo in ST or SF2 lasted about 2-3 moves. On average, a combo in Smash 4 lasts...2-3 moves.

Keep those "knowledge bombs" coming, I'm sure you have a lot to contribute to a relatively young game!

 

[Code Bread]

take your juvenile insults to youtube comments pls.
Gatoray claimed smash 4 as being advertised as competitive, im saying nope.

for glory is not any kind of fertile ground for competitive play, especially with the worldwide lag, the lack of any real ranking/matchmaking, being only 1 map, and the game itself being on brawls level of beginner friendly.

Take your lack of reading comprehension skills to Youtube comments, please.
Gatoray is not me, thus I didn't say that Smash 4 is being advertised as competitive (which is also not the same thing as defining what a competitive game is).
For Glory was Sakurai's attempt to cator to the fanbase that doesn't enjoy hectic stages and the random factor of items. Anyone who uses the excuse of "For Glory is a terrible competitive environment" is just looking for ways to kick the Smash 4 community's shins.

 

[chipz]

Really? Sounds like SF4 if you're talking about being floaty and damaging people more when their life got lower with ultras. Or hell, even SF2 the World Warrior. Wanna know how slow that game was? Go play it. There's a reason they added turbo revisions later AFTER championship edition (Championship Edition had a very healthy tournament scene before that too, might I add)

As for the other things, ON AVERAGE a combo in ST or SF2 lasted about 2-3 moves. On average, a combo in Smash 4 lasts...2-3 moves.

Keep those "knowledge bombs" coming, I'm sure you have a lot to contribute to a relatively young game!

Streetfighter 2 combos conisting of 2-3 moves can be followed up with more combos almost straight away. There is a huge difference when the other person flys away for 5 seconds. Ultras and parrys in sf4 are situational and avoidable, rage mechanic in sm4sh is a passive buff to your character. Why are you trying to compare two fundamentally different games?

 

[TTTTTsd]

"Parrys in SF4." Do you know anything about SF4? At all? Apparently not because parrying was not a mechanic in that game. Figures though.

You're right, I shouldn't compare Smash and Street Fighter. In fact, the fact that the game can be played against another individual in the interests of winning alone makes it by base definition a game that can be played competitively. I shouldn't have even HAD to cite Street Fighter 2, my apologies.

There are no "prerequisites" needed to make a game competitive besides the ones set by its community and those that strive to take it seriously.

Any game could have any sort of random unalterable or stupid element added for casual's sake and be made into competition. It's really not hard, Smash 64 had Hyrule Temple legal for Apex 2014 even with the jank tornado.

 

[chipz]

Take your lack of reading comprehension skills to Youtube comments, please.
Gatoray is not me, thus I didn't say that Smash 4 is being advertised as competitive (which is also not the same thing as defining what a competitive game is).
For Glory was Sakurai's attempt to cator to the fanbase that doesn't enjoy hectic stages and the random factor of items. Anyone who uses the excuse of "For Glory is a terrible competitive environment" is just looking for ways to kick the Smash 4 community's shins.

you should probably spell check your posts if you're going to poke fun at someones comprehension...
lets be immature on the internet together! isnt this fun!

why define it as an excuse? what is it excusing?

 

[OnettGirl]

Why does Sm4sh have to be like Melee? Why does anything have to be like Melee. Why can't Melee just be Melee and Sm4sh just be Sm4sh? Seriously OP you shouldn't have even mentioned Melee in your posts, that just made the argument loose any sort of credibility it had going for it. To be honest I really don't think anyone wants this game to be like Melee. The only people who really feel that way are the true Melee elitists. [And by really feel that way I mean feel so much as to want to change the game itself and not just being able to accept that they might not like it or are trying to adapt] Sm4sh can do just fine in the competitive scene the way it is so long as people actually give it a chance [unlike Brawl]. There's no need to completely alter the games mechanics to make it feel more like a game that the series is clearly moving away from. Sm4sh was never trying to be Melee or Brawl or any other fighting game out there. It's trying to be itself, let it be itself and flourish as itself. Seriously this talk is just giving me PTSD on the **** storm that happened with Brawl.

If you want Melee play Melee, or to a lesser extent PM. That's totally fine and no one can tell you you're wrong for it.

Also:
"Character balance isn't needed to make a competitive fighting game. Just look at Melee"
Yeah, all of us totally want to watch "Super Spacie Bros with special guest Marth" again. I love that sitcom

 

[Pyr]

Tested. I'd rather not have 25% of the cast's matchups become "Back Throw him off the stage until you win."

Further, if this much *****ing and childish arguing happens with a suggestion that I am still sure is satire or trolling, how do you think implementation will go, ignoring all the other huge, glaring issues implementation would create?

 

[chipz]

"Parrys in SF4." Do you know anything about SF4? At all? Apparently not because parrying was not a mechanic in that game. Figures though.

You're right, I shouldn't compare Smash and Street Fighter. In fact, the fact that the game can be played against another individual in the interests of winning alone makes it by base definition a game that can be played competitively. I shouldn't have even HAD to cite Street Fighter 2, my apologies.

There are no "prerequisites" needed to make a game competitive besides the ones set by its community and those that strive to take it seriously.

Any game could have any sort of random unalterable or stupid element added for casual's sake and be made into competition. It's really not hard, Smash 64 had Hyrule Temple legal for Apex 2014 even with the jank tornado.

focus attack is essentially a parry
semantic nitpicking doesn't help your argument but it does lower my opinion of you I suppose.

smash64 had jank but it had things like hitstun and throws that kill that make up for it (as well as being a fun side tourney for nostalgias sake)

 

[shapular]

Come on, Steve. This is silly. Please tell me you're trolling. Especially asking people to abandon their mains just so you can play your special mode? This game's balance is one of the best things about it, and it'll keep the game interesting for longer than Melee or Brawl (assuming people get over their current Diddy obsession, anyway). You say that low-height combos will turn into techchases, but how good are techchases going to be when rolls are so fast? This will probably end up skewing the game yet again in favor of the fast, low-lag characters just like Melee.

I also feel the floatiness of the aerial game not only slows matches down, it makes recovering TOO easy for me.

A Link main is complaining about recovering being too easy? This has got to be the first time that's ever happened.

 

[Team Plasma N]

A Link main is complaining about recovering being too easy? This has got to be the first time that's ever happened.

Link isn't the only character I use anyways. I'm grateful his recovery's been buffed, but I feel that sometimes this game is too generous to me in terms of recovering with characters.

 

[TTTTTsd]

Tested. I'd rather not have 25% of the cast's matchups become "Back Throw him off the stage until you win."

Further, if this much *****ing and childish arguing happens with a suggestion that I am still sure is satire or trolling, how do you think implementation will go, ignoring all the other huge, glaring issues implementation would create?

Good point at the latter. I'm inclined to agree.

Also focus attack is far from essentially a parry but w/e I'm done with this discussion because it's pointless to talk about how a game can't be "competitive" even if it falls under the very very basic definition of the word.

 

[chipz]

Link isn't the only character I use anyways. I'm grateful his recovery's been buffed, but I feel that sometimes this game is too generous to me in terms of recovering with characters.

its the combination of edge magnets, airdodge and no edge hogging, as well as more distance covered in general by most of the cast, some of which cannot be followed out because they have teleporting or high priority recoveries.

Good point at the latter. I'm inclined to agree.

Also focus attack is far from essentially a parry but w/e I'm done with this discussion because it's pointless to talk about how a game can't be "competitive" even if it falls under the very very basic definition of the word.

anything under the sun can be called competitive, but id assume that doesnt have the same connotation when it comes to videogames

 

[shapular]

anything under the sun can be called competitive, but id assume that doesnt have the same connotation when it comes to videogames

Good thing this is the most competitive Smash Bros. yet, then.

 

[TTTTTsd]

anything under the sun can be called competitive, but id assume that doesnt have the same connotation when it comes to videogames

You pick two characters and fight each other. You play to win, there are prize pools, this game has a tournament scene.
I fail to see how this does not qualify. This falls under the base definition and the video game definition. You can make literally any video game competitive, but this game qualifies under its base ruleset, even with items on. What you value in a game others may not, and this applies both ways. Alas, I'm done with this.

 

[Diabolical]

It's more geared for competitive play by default simply by having For Glory and the inclusion of even FD stages for everything.

Now how EFFICIENTLY it's geared for it is questionable, but it is by design aiming to be competitive moreso than previous entries in the series simply through this.

Well it's done a pretty poor job then

 

[JmacAttack]

I recommend making Smash 4 into a better competitive game like Melee since Melee's such a good game

Some of us like variety, enjoy Smash 4 just the way it is, and don't need 3 games to be just like Melee to achieve happiness. You see Smash 4 = Not Melee as a problem to fix. We see Smash 4 as a new meta that should be allowed to grow on its own merits, and not be forced to live in the shadow of Melee, because in the end, people will still go back to Melee because it has more going for it than falling speed and **** recovery.

Then pick a better character. It's the same thing as picking a tournament viable character instead of a useless one

How about I tell you where to shove it. The game balance is one of Melee's greatest failings and one of Vanilla Smash 4's greatest strengths. The excitement of developing the meta for an underused character is far more satisfying than being forced to bandwagon just to compete. I have to say, if you're trying to win hearts and minds to convince people to adopt a new style of meta, telling people the solution to any balance problems that may arise is to stop having fun is not the way to do it.

 

[Thinkaman]

I like how this notion is openly advocating the removal of essentially all SH auto-cancels, dramatically increasing the landing lag in the game in an attempt to make it more like Melee.

Never thought I'd see the day.