How Can Smash 4 Improve Competitively?

[DarkDeity15]

If you're completely fine with how the game plays and would be fine with the game having no changes, that's cool. But there are some gripes about the game that I feel are understandable and need to be addressed.

Approach Options
As it stands now, lack of approach options is the biggest complaint about Sm4sh. Dash dancing like in Melee/PM would probably be the most beneficial thing to have in this game. All characters should at least be able to perform it well. It allows for less predictable play and it's difficult to tell what someone will do out of it. Dash dancing alone would solve the issue of the game lacking approach options by giving you a ton of them, and I don't believe it would have any sort of negative effect on casual play.

Better Offensive Play
This is also an issue. Many argue that the game is more defense-orientated than it is offensive and a better balance between offense and defense would be highly beneficial to Sm4sh's competitive scene, which anyone can understand and agree with since it would allow more variety in playstyles (which can mean more players and a ritcher meta, therefore a healthier scene). I feel like that's what the dev team were aiming for, but fell short in the long run. I have a few things that may help out with that.

1.) More shieldstun and slower rolls. Shieldstun is definitely a problem in this game. Even the quickest aerials can be shieldgrabbed even if spaced well in midair right after hitting someones shield. Shields being broken more easily isn't enough to balance things out. As for rolls, they're way too fast. Sure, they're punishable, but you can effectively evade offensive play by simply rolling away. While they aren't a huge deal, it's a pain to deal with sometimes if you're trying to get in.

2.) Less landing lag on aerials along with more hitstun. It would allow for longer and more damaging combos as well as some more creativity with them for more exiting gameplay and reliable kill set-ups. I am aware though that the game's balance would need extensive tweaking in order to include this, but it's definitely worth it imo. It would also be nice if you can guarantee more combos out of throws like Link's Dthrow.

3.) Momentum carried from dashes into jumps. This gives more aerial mobility to extend combos in some cases and get in on opponents more easily. It would also help with finishing off characters further off stage more quickly and without always having to waste a second jump depending on the character's dash speed and weight (correct me if I'm wrong).

Feel free to share and discuss your thoughts and opinions below. If you think I'm missing something or would like to correct something I said, let me know. And this is not about making Smash 4 more like Melee. Any posts arguing this will be ignored (and I hope a thread like this one doesn't already exist). Lastly, I might make some considerable changes in the layout once in a while so please be aware of that.

 

[byebye]

I am a firm believer that competitiveness doesn't come from the game, it comes from the competitors.

So to improve smash 4 (or any game) competitively, make the prize pot very very big. It'll draw in huge number of participants and make it more serious and very very competitive.

 

[Jaxas]

Haven't we had almost this exact thread a number of times now?

 

[Signia]

I am a firm believer that competitiveness doesn't come from the game, it comes from the competitors.

So to improve smash 4 (or any game) competitively, make the prize pot very very big. It'll draw in huge number of participants and make it more serious and very very competitive.

Not all games are equally good for competition, though. If what you were saying were true, there'd be no justification to ban stages or turn items off.

 

[DarkDeity15]

I am a firm believer that competitiveness doesn't come from the game, it comes from the competitors.

So to improve smash 4 (or any game) competitively, make the prize pot very very big. It'll draw in huge number of participants and make it more serious and very very competitive.

Compare Brawl to Melee and see why Brawl wasn't as successful in the Smash scene.

Haven't we had almost this exact thread a number of times now?

There's only been one other one which I believe was moved to a different group. I'm not giving them any reason to do that here though.

 

[Conda]

Not all games are equally good for competition, though. If what you were saying were true, there'd be no justification to ban stages or turn items off.

You are taking what he said to an extreme and rendering his point null by doing so.

My answer: Smash 4 can improve by us playing it more, which will come in time. We can't do anything now but play more. Threads like this are far too many - this 'question' is in many threads' post content, thus you can discuss this kind of thing literally everywhere else. Many people are talking about this within more specific posts - a broad topic like this is unneeded and just makes this subforum more one-note than it already is.

 

[byebye]

Not all games are equally good for competition, though. If what you were saying were true, there'd be no justification to ban stages or turn items off.

exactly, if it's good if we do not ban anything. but there's a prize, and people are being salty and full of john's when they lost to a hammer item. I say it's part of the game. repetition lessens luck and emphasizes skill. now this is a whole different discussion already but it just boils down to competitors.

now consider this scenario:
Nintendo hosts a quarterly tournament, with the winner taking home 200,000USD, 2nd place takes 75,000USD, etc. BUT all stages and all items are on.
Then Nintendo hosts a yearly grand finals tournament with the winner taking 1,000,000USD, with the 2nd place taking home 300,000USD, etc. BUT still all items and stages are on.

think this. if you're the best, you can earn 1,800,000USD a year for nintendo's tournament alone.

do you think that will be ignored? you think that's not going to be competitive?

you think on small tournaments, they will not adopt that ruleset set by nintendo? you think small tournaments will pass up the chance to be exposed to high level play using nintendo's ruleset, for a chance to be good at those ruleset and have a chance to win that amount of money.

 

[DarkDeity15]

You are taking what he said to an extreme and rendering his point null by doing so.

My answer: Smash 4 can improve by us playing it more, which will come in time. We can't do anything now but play more. Threads like this are far too many - this 'question' is in many threads' post content, thus you can discuss this kind of thing literally everywhere else. Many people are talking about this within more specific posts - a broad topic like this is unneeded and just makes this subforum more one-note than it already is.

But, almost every one of them was deleted because of arguments over making the game "more like Melee". The ones who made these threads were not careful enough to avoid situations like that. This thread is here so that people can discuss their opinions and complaints about the game from a competitive aspect all in one place. I seriously hope this thread isn't blocked. It's been quite a few times where I spend hours creating a thread only for it to be blocked and I'm awfully tired of it.

 

[Doval]

I say it's part of the game. repetition lessens luck and emphasizes skill.

Most TOs aren't going to be too thrilled to double or triple the number of matches to rule out dumb luck when simply turning off items will do the same thing.

 

[Conda]

But, almost every one of them was deleted because of arguments over making the game "more like Melee". The ones who made these threads were not careful enough to avoid situations like that. This thread here so that people can discuss their opinions and complaints about the game from a competitive aspect all in one place. I seriously hope this thread isn't blocked. It's been quite a few times where I spend hours creating a thread only for it to be blocked and I'm awfully tired of it.

What I meant was there are threads about footsies, rolling, DI, wavedashing, custom moves, pivots, dash-dancing, for glory, landing lag, counters, etc. A 'general discussion' thread for these topics is redundant. Not a 'bad idea', but redundant as this topic is already highly discussed in this subforum.

And people already don't enjoy it when people come into a thread about counters and say "it'd be better for the competitive scene if counters were weaker", as it makes actual conversation very uphill.

 

[Shaya]

Hello, I really do appreciate the structure of your post and the time you've put into it.
But what cannot really go 'places', is the suggestions for game changes. It would be awesome if this was Riot or if Nintendo gave us an indication whatsoever that balance patches were a thing (I'm sure most people could say "if they just changed this slightly, oh my god"; BETA Field variations anyone?), but until then, it's an exercise in futility and doesn't necessarily result in worthwhile responses.

Identifying problems and then perhaps suggesting what means or strategies players could implement or theorise to reduce the impacts is a more productive stance to make for a thread like this; perhaps stating how in some ways they were handled in the past as reference but not as a solution (because they cannot be a solution with our current paradigm).
While we're looking at a lot of characters not being able to be aggressive or safe on shield, this is something that happened in Brawl as well. People realised there were a separation between characters just by their base ability to hit shields. "Meta Knight, Snake, Marth, Rob" etc, are safe on shield, while Mario definitely isn't. Prior to that I'm sure our perceptions of the game were somewhat like we are now "anyone can be viable".

While I still think we may have a really balanced roster, I could be disgustingly wrong and in a short period of time over the next few months the characters which aren't so restricted by "shielding" punishes will rise to the top. From that point, the question is whether those top characters create a great competitive game/environment for us.

 

[byebye]

Most TOs aren't going to be too thrilled to double or triple the number of matches to rule out dumb luck when simply turning off items will do the same thing.

Like I said, different discussion entirely. Competitiveness all boils down to competitors. Not rules.
Even all items on and all stages allowed, then just battle it out on just 1 game. if the prize is a million bucks. it doesn't matter.

1,000USD for items off, FD / Battlefield only
vs
1,000,000SUSD for all allowed?

 

[Conda]

Hello, I really do appreciate the structure of your post and the time you've put into it.
But what cannot really go 'places', is the suggestions for game changes. It would be awesome if this was Riot or if Nintendo gave us an indication whatsoever that balance patches were a thing (I'm sure most people could say "if they just changed this slightly, oh my god"; BETA Field variations anyone?), but until then, it's an exercise in futility and doesn't necessarily result in worthwhile responses.

Identifying problems and then perhaps suggesting what means or strategies players could implement or theorise to reduce the impacts is a more productive stance to make for a thread like this; perhaps stating how in some ways they were handled in the past as reference but not as a solution (because they cannot be a solution with our current paradigm).
While we're looking at a lot of characters not being able to be aggressive or safe on shield, this is something that happened in Brawl as well. People realised there were a separation between characters just by their base ability to hit shields. "Meta Knight, Snake, Marth, Rob" etc, are safe on shield, while Mario definitely isn't. Prior to that I'm sure our perceptions of the game were somewhat like we are now "anyone can be viable".

While I still think we may have a really balanced roster, I could be disgustingly wrong and in a short period of time over the next few months the characters which aren't so restricted by "shielding" punishes will rise to the top. From that point, the question is whether those top characters create a great competitive game/environment for us.

Beautiful post, very well said. The way the meta develops will be up to the game's mechanics and how we utilize them. We cannot 'change' too much on our own, we can just continue playing and see what happens and what grows from it.

Like I said, different discussion entirely. Competitiveness all boils down to competitors. Not rules.
Even all items on and all stages allowed, then just battle it out on just 1 game. if the prize is a million bucks. it doesn't matter.

1,000USD for items off, FD / Battlefield only
vs
1,000,000SUSD for all allowed?

This is just not true. I can't really say too much more as it'd put more focus on the content in this post, and it really contains nothing worth pointing out.


Buuuut I'll do it anyway since I think it'd the right thing to do.


People run tournaments. You cannot tell people how to run tournaments, as it is something they do. No you, them. If you want to run a tournament with your own rules, then you can do that. It's not too hard, it just takes all day, a lot of planning, a lot of money, and lot of resources, and a lot of coffee and stress-relief afterwards.

But yeah, TOs should be more open to running items tournaments for larger prize pools and more randomness. Players should LOVE the randomness and they'll totally want to continue showing up for future tournaments due to randomness that makes it totally worthwhile to commute across the country, take days off work, and leave their families for a while. And while we're at it, commentators would LOVE commentating matches where all they really have to say is who got what random item and how it caused them to win the game.

That sounds like something many people will spend copious amounts of MONEY and TIME building a career in. Not this skill-based stuff that is a formula that has proven to rise E-Sports to national-sport levels internationally. The current skill-based trend in competitive videogames and how it is growing the competitive gaming market and viewerbase is crap, we shouldn't draw from it at all.

 

[Gidy]

Accept the game for what it is and what it isn't?

 

[kj22]

Why can't people just enjoy smash and not complain about it? It's not going to please everyone and if it doesn't please you, move on to a game that does or suck it up and play. Or be like the pm creators and make your own game... Whinings not gonna change anything.
Save the complaints for smash 5 please. This game barely came out and so many complaints...lol geez

 

[popsofctown]

The game has dash dancing, you just have to true pivot to do it.


I don't appreciate the bizarre buzzword use of the word "competitiveness". It's usually used as a poorly defined term and is not useful for that reason. Playing checkers/melee/brawl-/wrestling/poker/monopoly for a million dollar prize are all equally competitive activities.

If there are characteristics that make the game more fun for you, then use the word fun. If they make you personally more willing to take the game seriously, indicate what quality it is that makes you feel that way and be more specific. Some people have trouble taking slow paced games seriously, but some of us are just the opposite.

 

[Shaya]

Suggesting item play is actually "fine". It could very well be a solution.
Contrary to popular belief, tournament/competitive players do play with items, and they do so very very well. When side-events happen which are free for alls with items on timers, it's uncanny to see that the best players are still the ones achieving success in such an environment.
It's definitely competitive, RNG is not inherently damaging, unless it decides matches in a way outside of either player's control. Item spawns on "normal" are crazy low/slow from what I've seen (playing For Fun On wifi, haha [oh that irony on wifi anecdotal evidence]), to the point that some of those crazy items that can 1 shot people are only happening maybe once a match at most, take away some of those summon items and what are you left with? Who knows.

If nintendo offered a million dollars for coming first in smash tournament with items, we would all definitely be playing with items.

Why can't people just enjoy smash and not complain about it? It's not going to please everyone and if it doesn't please you, move on to a game that does or suck it up and play. Or be like the pm creators and make your own game... Whinings not gonna change anything.
Save the complaints for smash 5 please. This game barely came out and so many complaints...lol geez

I think it's fair that the OP be given slightly more respect than being referred to as a whiner.

 

[DarkDeity15]

What I meant was there are threads about footsies, rolling, DI, wavedashing, custom moves, pivots, dash-dancing, for glory, landing lag, counters, etc. A 'general discussion' thread for these topics is redundant. Not a 'bad idea', but redundant as this topic is already highly discussed in this subforum.

And people already don't enjoy it when people come into a thread about counters and say "it'd be better for the competitive scene if counters were weaker", as it makes actual conversation very uphill.

But you can't go to a dash-dancing thread and talk about custom moves without seeming out of place. One reason why this thread exists. And you can't compare people ranting about how the thread maker wants Smash 4 to be more like Melee and people simply having an opinion on counters. They're both on very different levels.

Hello, I really do appreciate the structure of your post and the time you've put into it.
But what cannot really go 'places', is the suggestions for game changes. It would be awesome if this was Riot or if Nintendo gave us an indication whatsoever that balance patches were a thing (I'm sure most people could say "if they just changed this slightly, oh my god"; BETA Field variations anyone?), but until then, it's an exercise in futility and doesn't necessarily result in worthwhile responses.

Identifying problems and then perhaps suggesting what means or strategies players could implement or theorise to reduce the impacts is a more productive stance to make for a thread like this; perhaps stating how in some ways they were handled in the past as reference but not as a solution (because they cannot be a solution with our current paradigm).
While we're looking at a lot of characters not being able to be aggressive or safe on shield, this is something that happened in Brawl as well. People realised there were a separation between characters just by their base ability to hit shields. "Meta Knight, Snake, Marth, Rob" etc, are safe on shield, while Mario definitely isn't. Prior to that I'm sure our perceptions of the game were somewhat like we are now "anyone can be viable".

While I still think we may have a really balanced roster, I could be disgustingly wrong and in a short period of time over the next few months the characters which aren't so restricted by "shielding" punishes will rise to the top. From that point, the question is whether those top characters create a great competitive game/environment for us.

Well there have been huge hints about DLC, and Nintendo not deciding to patch Smash 4 over time would be a very dumb decision imo. After all, they did patches with Mario Kart 8. I don't have a doubt in my mind that Smash 4 will receive balance patches in the future.

I think it's safe to say that Sm4sh is pretty well balanced. If we were terribly wrong we would've pointed it out a while ago and spread the news in an instant. On top of that, we have many people in the scene with a ton of experience on balance. If there's a big problem with the game, Nintendo will be given a heads up from us for sure. With patches being I thing, Nintendo will address these problems without a doubt. If they're willing to do this, they may be willing to improve balance and the game in general. Sorry for the slow typing lol.

 

[Conda]

But you can't go to a dash-dancing thread and talk about custom moves without seeming out of place. One reason why this thread exists. And you can't compare people ranting about how the thread maker wants Smash 4 to be more like Melee and people simply having an opinion on counters. They're both on very different levels.

I understand, but why would you? That's why there are threads. Making more 'general discussion' threads is clutter, as those sorts of things exist, and if you have anything to say about specific mechanics, then those threads exist. And if they don't, then you can make it. There's no need to a catch-all thread, just so we all have license to have a loose form discussion about smash 4 and our thoughts on how to improve it. That's what this subforum is already.

If anything, we need more guides and helpful threads, and less that discuss the game as if a developer is listening. Catharsis is great, but it's better to talk about how to deal with mechanics because that's actually helpful and constructive. Stating 'what could be better design-wise' isn't a discussion, it's a feedback section. It'd likely be better to email Nintendo whatever you'd post in this thread.

 

[Shaya]

Well there have been huge hints about DLC, and Nintendo not deciding to patch Smash 4 over time would be a very dumb decision imo. After all, they did patches with Mario Kart 8. I don't have a doubt in my mind that Smash 4 will receive balance patches in the future.

I think it's safe to say that Sm4sh is pretty well balanced. If we were terribly wrong we would've pointed it out a while ago and spread the news in an instant. On top of that, we have many people in the scene with a ton of experience on balance. If there's a big problem with the game, Nintendo will be given a heads up from us for sure. With patches being I thing, Nintendo will address these problems without a doubt. If they're willing to do this, they may be willing to improve balance and the game in general. Sorry for the slow typing lol.

You seem to think your interpretation or opinion on the game now will be even remotely valid in 6 months time. It could not even be relevant tomorrow. All fighting games start off as a primordial ooze, where people aren't aware of match ups or the best strategies. To even remotely think we or anyone could posit such a truth is a little concerning.

And MK8 is one thing. Something involved with Sakurai is another. He has a "complete game philosophy" that most of the older game directors still have, while most newer ones are not. This means he ships a game believing it's complete and takes nearly any suggestion otherwise in any public space as an insult (as we've seen thus far with famitsu things).
Until we actually have proof there will be patches that change gameplay, then there's no point assuming otherwise. Brawl could've been patched, in fact it was in the early days to fix online issues, just like Smash4 3DS has.

 

[DarkDeity15]

I understand, but why would you? That's why there are threads. Making more 'general discussion' threads is clutter, as those sorts of things exist, and if you have anything to say about specific mechanics, then those threads exist. And if they don't, then you can make it. There's no need to a catch-all thread, just so we all have license to have a loose form discussion about smash 4 and our thoughts on how to improve it. That's what this subforum is already.

If anything, we need more guides and helpful threads, and less that discuss the game as if a developer is listening. Catharsis is great, but it's better to talk about how to deal with mechanics because that's actually helpful and constructive. Stating 'what could be better design-wise' isn't a discussion, it's a feedback section. It'd likely be better to email Nintendo whatever you'd post in this thread.

True. This thread is about how the competitive aspect of the game can improve and how we believe it can, while guides, new AT finds and pretty much anything else is of separate discussion. An entire threads' opinions is better than simply one person's email (two heads are better than one). I guess we'll just see where the thread goes then. There's really no risk in it anyways.

 

[byebye]

That sounds like something many people will spend copious amounts of MONEY and TIME building a career in. Not this skill-based stuff that is a formula that has proven to rise E-Sports to national-sport levels internationally. The current skill-based trend in competitive videogames and how it is growing the competitive gaming market and viewerbase is crap, we shouldn't draw from it at all.

you say it like stage mastery and item management is not a skill. it's a skill too. FYI.

 

[SmashBro99]

Turn off items, ban 75% of the stages, pretend it's a real fighting game...go!

Smash is smash, melee was broken and glitchy and it worked out well for it, brawl was slower and hated because it wasn't melee v2, hopefully Smash4 will get a chance. People jut have to get their heads of their asses expecting another broken glitchy mistake, that's all there is to it, understand that, accept that.

 

[Conda]

you say it like stage mastery and item management is not a skill. it's a skill too. FYI.

So is roulette. But until you find a way to encourage 1000s of players and TOs to organize and compete in tournaments with items on, it won't happen. It's easy to say this stuff as a bystander, but when you're involved in the tournament scene you realise that the ruleset is optimised for the same reasons sports have similar rules and referees - it's people's darn careers and they take it seriously that you do as an audience member.

It'd be awesome - much more awesome - to watch soccer with random powerups enabled. But then I remember "oh, it's their career and they have to practice a reliable skillset as their job and travel and etc" and then I stop acting like I should affect their jobs.

Concerts would be more entertaining if two bands had to physically fight on stage to determine who could do the show. But it is not my place to tell other people how to do their job.

 

[byebye]

If nintendo offered a million dollars for coming first in smash tournament with items, we would all definitely be playing with items.

Finally someone answered. Thanks for that. Let's face it. We play competitively against our competitors for fun, for glory and for money.

Not because the game is fast-paced or offense oriented. Those are just part of the game.

Another example, we have a gaming rival / sparring partner. We are competitive against each other, no matter the game, no matter the rules, no mater the mechanics. I just have to beat him. Just for bragging rights.
Playing a slow or fast game doesn't affect our competitiveness at all.

 

[DarkDeity15]

Turn off items, ban 75% of the stages, pretend it's a real fighting game...go!

Smash is smash, melee was broken and glitchy and it worked out well for it, brawl was slower and hated because it wasn't melee v2, hopefully Smash4 will get a chance. People jut have to get their heads of their ***** expecting another broken glitchy mistake, that's all there is to it, understand that, accept that.

Where at all did I say I wanted it to be more like Melee? There is a difference between wanting a better competitive game and wanting a Melee 2.0, which already exists (PM). Forget Melee. It has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[byebye]

So is roulette. But until you find a way to encourage 1000s of players and TOs to organize and compete in tournaments with items on, it won't happen. It's easy to say this stuff as a bystander, but when you're involved in the tournament scene you realise that the ruleset is optimised for the same reasons sports have similar rules and referees - it's people's darn careers and they take it seriously that you do as an audience member.

It'd be awesome - much more awesome - to watch soccer with random powerups enabled. But then I remember "oh, it's their career and they have to practice a reliable skillset as their job and travel and etc" and then I stop acting like I should affect their jobs.

Concerts would be more entertaining if two bands had to physically fight on stage to determine who could do the show. But it is not my place to tell other people how to do their job.

look that's not the point at all. I get what you're saying and I am not trying to force my way for the scene to adopt with items on, all stages allowed. I am saying that it has little bearing on competitiveness.

a question I posted 1K USD for no items FD/Battlefield only.
or
1M all items, all stages.

which will be more competitive?

 

[Shaya]

Everything in Smash can be competitive. The reason (some) play competitively is to win and be challenged. Top players or the ambitious will gravitate towards things with money, but I don't know if it's purely about the money and more so that the reason to play under that competitive paradigm is most worth while + will have the most people involved with in it, and hence the most challenging.
Nintendo running a national smash circuit would have widespread smash community attendance no matter what rules they have, I guarantee it. Would it reshape how we play the game competitively or whatever? Depends on how worthwhile it is. If Nintendo guarantees they'll be maintaining and running this stuff for years to come then we'll be on that boat with them, for sure.

But most experienced smash players (as in those around for a long while) do not put any faith in Nintendo working or promoting competitive play with us. Anything they do now is taken by the community as something we cannot rely on forever, and if we have nothing to fall back once nintendo interest dries up, we'll be left with a damaged landscape/metagame.

 

[DarkDeity15]

You seem to think your interpretation or opinion on the game now will be even remotely valid in 6 months time. It could not even be relevant tomorrow. All fighting games start off as a primordial ooze, where people aren't aware of match ups or the best strategies. To even remotely think we or anyone could posit such a truth is a little concerning.

And MK8 is one thing. Something involved with Sakurai is another. He has a "complete game philosophy" that most of the older game directors still have, while most newer ones are not. This means he ships a game believing it's complete and takes nearly any suggestion otherwise in any public space as an insult (as we've seen thus far with famitsu things).
Until we actually have proof there will be patches that change gameplay, then there's no point assuming otherwise. Brawl could've been patched, in fact it was in the early days to fix online issues, just like Smash4 3DS has.

There's a difference between online patches and game patches. If Sakurai could patch Brawl, he would've done it years ago with all the problems it had. However, the Wii greatly limited this. If some sort of inescapable combo or broken exploit is found in Sm4sh, do you think they'd simply leave such a flaw in their game alone now that they can actually do something about it?

 

[Shaya]

There's a difference between online patches and game patches. If Sakurai could patch Brawl, he would've done it years ago with all the problems it had. However, the Wii greatly limited this. If some sort of inescapable combo or broken exploit is found in Sm4sh, do you think they'd simply leave such a flaw in their game alone now that they can actually do something about it?

Zero Suit Samus and Robin would like to have a word with you.
Wario and Little Mac would like a word with you too.

Until we're shown otherwise, assuming it will happen is very silly and there's no point having threads pretending it will happen. You're starting to show your perspective is one of an idealist rather than a realist, and that shouldn't be what threads are about.

 

[Funkermonster]

As much as I wished for Melee-styled gameplay (despite sucking at it) and have some disappointments with Sm4sh, I would agree with everyone here saying that the agme will improve by playing it more and that its FAR too early to suggest for game changes. Maybe some of these things we haven't yet gotten used to have counters for them, we just have to give it time and unearth it. I still have more fun with Project M and Melee overall, but I think Sm4sh can still be enjoyable competitively, and its going to be competitive in some way no matter what. Nintendo holding tournaments still counts as being competitive, even if they don't hold the same rules we do. Its kind of a lame marketing move in my eyes and I find their rules to be bogus, but its still competitive and is still a tournament, they just bring a luck factor with items on and force you to use the same character for the whole tourney. Otherwise unless they announce Balance Patches will definitely be a thing, I think we might wanna hold off on suggestions for game physic changes and instead try to discuss if we can't find solutions for them for about 7 more months (actually that's kinda still too short).

My only personal complaints about Smash 4 that are Largely Significant are the Oversized Blast Zones, addition of VI, and how fast rolls have become; but I think I just haven't adjusted to these and may get used to them by next year. While I find that this game still has room for improvement and I wouldn't mind if they just brought back Melee speed and advanced techniques like L-canceling and Wavedashing, at least its still fun for me competitively on its own and a good game in general. If they do get around to balance patches though, I hope decelerating rolls is something they'll take into consideration (I know, I'm a hypocrite).

 

[InfinityCollision]

I am a firm believer that competitiveness doesn't come from the game, it comes from the competitors.

I'm going to skip over everything this has spawned and cut to the chase: you appear to have zero understanding of game theory. Chess and Go are inherently more competitive than Tic-Tac-Toe. Sweetening the pot draws a crowd, but that's not the same thing as making the game more competitive on a fundamental level.

Regarding the OP, it's worth noting that various characters do have safe approaches or means of forcing their opponent to approach. These characters also tend to gravitate towards higher positions in the tier lists. How that will play out in the long term remains to be seen, particularly since we're still trying to play this game on a handheld instead of using proper controllers.

There's a difference between online patches and game patches. If Sakurai could patch Brawl, he would've done it years ago with all the problems it had. However, the Wii greatly limited this. If some sort of inescapable combo or broken exploit is found in Sm4sh, do you think they'd simply leave such a flaw in their game alone now that they can actually do something about it?

Bigger question: is it in our best interests for them to do so? Is it in theirs? If Nintendo starts patching things that have an appreciable impact on competitive gameplay, there's no telling what will or won't be patched. Thus far it seems like they're erring on the side of caution - the stunstool infinite on Robin still works after all, and we've known about that for a while now. It's conceivable that they'd just save it all for one big patch, perhaps when the Wii U version drops or when they follow with DLC, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just left things alone.

 

[DarkDeity15]

Zero Suit Samus and Robin would like to have a word with you.
And "broken exploit" has not been found.

Yeah I've heard about that. I'm sure Ninty will sort that out soon enough. And I'm talking about if there was a broken exploit. I know that none have been found yet.

 

[SmashBro99]

Where at all did I say I wanted it to be more like Melee? There is a difference between wanting a better competitive game and wanting a Melee 2.0, which already exists (PM). Forget Melee. It has nothing to do with this thread.

I didn't refer to you at all, that's just something I see a lot around here, it's something that can wreck this game's chances. That's all.

 

[Shaya]

Yeah I've heard about that. I'm sure Ninty will sort that out soon enough. And I'm talking about if there was a broken exploit. I know that none have been found yet.

I'm sorry, but I cannot let this thread persist. With each post you make it reveals how little difference there is in this thread to others that have been made, instead of being complaint-driven, you're an idealist with a wish list, making assumptions left, right and centre and seem to not be well versed in competitive gaming. The only way we can change the game competitively is through rules (hence the item discussion is actually worthwhile).

I'm glad you're within this section though. I rate people very highly who can put a cohesive sentence together. I hope you learn and research more and take some of the critiques stated in this thread to heart for the next time, I look forward to it.