How do "Advanced Techniques" or "Game Physics" affect casual players?

[SmashCentralOfficial]

By that rate, I'm actually pretty damned good. The way some people seem to talk, it seems like ATs make the player though.

You're completely right! AT's don't make the player at all, all it does is the end is make that person faster. If you have great match-up knowledge, know which moves outspace and out-prioritize others, etc., then you're advanced as they come without so-called advanced techniques.

 

[PHD]

The more complicated AT's only widen that gap, though, and they only add value to the people who want to reach those utmost heights, at the expense of the players who don't know about them that they use said techniques on.

The gap is already wide enough to where the use of these techniques doesn't really matter. Is M2K going to beat you worse in Brawl or in Melee? I'd wager it'd be pretty badly in both because he's really good at these games. ATs have nothing to do with that skill gap.

 

[smashbrolink]

The gap is already wide enough to where the use of these techniques doesn't really matter. Is M2K going to beat you worse in Brawl or in Melee? I'd wager it'd be pretty badly in both because he's really good at these games. ATs have nothing to do with that skill gap.

AT's have plenty to do with that skill gap.
They're tools that, alongside proper spacing knowledge per character, set-ups, etc etc etc, let competitive players pull themselves above and beyond players that do not know of them or cannot perform them.
I'm not saying he'd be skill-less without them or any less likely to be amongst the top players in the world, but he'd have quite a few more rivals without AT's as a tool-set.

 

[peeup]

Doesn't look that way to me from the vids of Smash 4 I've seen so far.
There's still plenty of speed left in the game; it's been fine-tuned to have decent speed even without the techs.

Can't argue for or against because we have literally zero information. The game engine will 100% definitely be changed from how it was at E3 to how it will be at release.

COMPLEXITY DOES NOT EQUAL DEPTH! Making a single action require two inputs rather than one does not make it better, it just forces people to have to waste more of their lives to get better at it! TECHNICAL BARRIERS DO NOT A GOOD GAME MAKE!

Put that signature away, man. Complexity doesn't equal depth, no. At least, not always. But sometimes, it does. What you are referencing is probably L-Cancelling, as it is the only single action that requires two inputs. Shut your ****ing faux-righteous mouth. Most people agree that L-Cancelling is poor game design. People in this thread are referencing all of the numerous other COMPLEX things that enhance the game's DEPTH. Want to know one of the dumbest things I've ever read? "It just forces people to have to waste more of their lives to get better at it!" I HAVE AN IDEA. LET'S TAKE 3-POINTERS OUT OF BASKETBALL BECAUSE IT FORCES PLAYERS TO WASTE MORE OF THEIR LIVES TO GET BETTER AT THE GAME. Do you honestly understand how immature you sound? ATs are a positive thing because it increases the skill ceiling. You SHOULD NEED to invest time in a game if you want to be successful at a competitive level. Just like EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF LIFE. If you're dead set on the idea that you should be able to be amazing at ANYTHING without putting in the appropriate TIME and EFFORT, then arguing Smash with you is pointless. You need to understand what life is, buddy.

 

[PHD]

AT's have plenty to do with that skill gap.
They're tools that let competitive players pull themselves above and beyond players that do not know of them or cannot perform them.
I'm not saying he'd be skill-less without them or any less likely to be amongst the top players in the world, but he'd have quite a few more rivals without AT's as a tool-set.

But the ATs you're railing against aren't even in Brawl, so how do they have anything to do with that skill gap? What I'm saying is that even with these ATs being specifically targeted and taken out, there's still a HUGE gap between someone like that and the average player in Brawl. That's never going to change.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

Put that signature away, man. Complexity doesn't equal depth, no. At least, not always. But sometimes, it does. What you are referencing is probably L-Cancelling, as it is the only single action that requires two inputs. Most people agree that L-Cancelling is poor game design. Want to know one of the dumbest things I've ever read? "It just forces people to have to waste more of their lives to get better at it!" I HAVE AN IDEA. LET'S TAKE 3-POINTERS OUT OF BASKETBALL BECAUSE IT FORCES PLAYERS TO WASTE MORE OF THEIR LIVES TO GET BETTER AT THE GAME. Do you honestly understand how immature you sound?

Oh my goodness. This. This right here.



Priap0s said:

Tldl: I like most AT's. In particular the ones that give the game alot of depth without being to complex. My opinion is that they have to be easy accesible to find out about so that they give no "unfair" advantage to core gamers that lurk smash boards and such to find out about them.​

I really see no "unfair advantage". It doesn't exist. Everyone plays smash in their own little vaccuum, and I'm guessing if one of your friends figures out a new technique, soon all of you will know how to do it. There is no unfair advantage. If you are aware of the techniques, learn them or don't. It doesn't matter, if you choose not to because you'll probably just continue to play your friends who are at the same skill level as you are. So how is that unfair at all?

A lot of your arguments having to do with pub-stomping in Online Play. Hopefully Smash 4's online is completely random FFA's like Brawl, and there will actually be some sort of ranking or ladder system. This would easily stop casual players from getting matched up with more advanced players and the whole "get good or gtfo" scenario like you suggest would never happen.

Priap0s said: ↑

Casual won't know that these things exist and will feel cheated loosing to somenoe that can recover 2x times faster and someone that flies out of the stage alot shorter then them. Even with the exact same characters. So just make remove the AT's that give almost no game depth but makes for alot more complexity. They will atleast not feel cheated by something "hidden" or similar. Then everything will be peachy, for both us and Casual players!​

​

You're contradicting yourself. "Casual won't know that these things exist" ...but then they'll feel cheated when someone uses something they don't know exists against them? The "casual player" won't even recognize the other player is using some technique like lcancelling. You're overexaggerating by saying someone can recover 2x faster. That doesn't happen. Characters don't get some crazy ability boost like Wario's Final Smash or something.


Eternal phoenix Fire said: ↑

I agree. I also feel like he should expand on some aspects of playing smash on a higher level. They could be short segments like "Platform attacking"​

​

It could show the potential dangers and benefits of being on a platform when an opponent is bellow you.​

Although Sakurai says he wants to bridge the gap between casual and competitive players, that will never happen. There's a difference between the two for reason. However, he CAN cater to both audiences at the same time by including advanced techniques. Like the OP said multiple times, there's no harm done to the casual player who plays with their casual friends and never explores Smash on a higher level. There is also nothing wrong with playing Smash inside of a vaccuum, everyone does it to some extent.

What would be amazing - like you said Eternal Phoenix Fire - is little instructional videos like there was in Melee, but a bit more in-depth. They could explain how to l-cancel, platform/ledge cancel, ledge tech, wall jump, etc. Even wavedashing and wavelanding could be easily demonstrated and taught, as I've done with other people before in the past.


Ogre_Deity_Link said: ↑

L-cancelling, IMO, isn't too difficult because it's a single button. L. That's it. In the spirit of Smash, a fighting/party game with VERY simplistic controls, this isn't that bad. ​

​

Suddenly it was a game less about mechanical complexity and more about knowing your character, knowing what moves to use and when to use them. Knowing spacing and distancing. Knowing hitstun and recovery options.​

​

THIS. This is why advanced techniques in Smash Bros. aren't even that big of a deal. They are extremely simple to perform, all it takes is a little practice. Being a Melee player for years, eventually you just develop the speed and muscle memory to be able to perform these techniques without even thinking about it. Jump-Cancel Grabbing is another technique that is extremely simple, however, I still to this date do not do it every single time yet simply because I haven't made it into a habit.

But Smash is also a game about knowing the characters, spacing, predicting, reading, etc. like you said. This is why many people, like myself, can get by fairly well in tournaments without Jump-Cancel Grabbing or Gentleman-ing 100% of the time.

 

[peeup]

Although Sakurai says he wants to bridge the gap between casual and competitive players, that will never happen. There's a difference between the two for reason. However, he CAN cater to both audiences at the same time by including advanced techniques.

Important distinction to make, and I'm glad you made it. Sakurai can easily cater to both competitive and casual audiences (maybe you've heard of Super Smash Bros. Melee) without directly giving players the tools to bridge the gap. That's our job as a community. We are to create a welcoming community with enough smiles and information to draw in and educate people to help them play the game that they love to play.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

Important distinction to make, and I'm glad you made it. Sakurai can easily cater to both competitive and casual audiences (maybe you've heard of Super Smash Bros. Melee) without directly giving players the tools to bridge the gap. That's our job as a community. We are to create a welcoming community with enough smiles and information to draw in and educate people to help them play the game that they love to play.

Precisely! I'm a big fan of SSBM and now Project: M. Everything I said in that post was from close to 100 posts ago, but was grossly overlooked.

I'm hoping that Smash 4's wifi will implement some sort of 1v1 system like Playstation All Star's has. From what I've read on SWF, even the casual smashers hated Brawl's FFA online matches. With a ranking/ladder system, once again the two audiences will have separate pools of opponents to play from based on their skill level, and everyone will be happy.

 

[Bread-Butterer]

Man. What's wrong with kids these days? When I was first getting into Melee (waaaay back when), and I saw a high level competitive game, I got EXCITED. I didn't complain that they were cheating, I didn't moan about having to learn how to L-Cancel. I was thrilled at the prospect of opening up entirely new avenues of gameplay in a game I thought I'd seen it all from, and practicing one little thing to do that didn't seem like a big deal. What do you know, it wasn't. So, I looked up how to pillar (Falco main), and I practiced. When I finally go it down, I felt SATISFACTION. You know, that thing you feel when your hard work pays off? The freedom of movement and creativity L-cancelling allowed me was worth every second spent practicing.

Where has this attitude gone? It's this sense of entitlement these days that permeates every facet of society. If you care enough about this game to play in tournaments, then you must have passion for it. If you have passion for it, you must have the will to learn. If you have the will to learn, you'll learn these simple techniques that expand the scope of possibilities for the game infinitely. If you refuse to learn these simple techniques that have such vast rewards, then I'll assume you don't have passion, and thus, you have no place at a tournament. You're taking up space. Learning one little technique for the sake of generations of incredible metagame.... yeah, you're right. Totally not worth it.

Go watch a game of melee from 4 years ago. It's not just faster now, it's an entirely new game. Generation of after generation have come into this game over the last 11 years, building off of the work done by the greats who have come before. Do you want to play casually? GO AHEAD. I did that for years before getting interested in the competitive scene. Do you think the fact that there were people out there L-cancelling effected my capacity to have fun goofing around with my friends IN ANY WAY? Jesus... are you people serious?

Tell me it's cheating. Tell me it's a glitch. Tell me it's unnecessary. All you're really saying is: "I'm lazy". Well, I hope you're all happy. You won. You ruined one of the greatest games of all time because you didn't want to learn how to press a button.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

Man. What's wrong with kids these days? When I was first getting into Melee (waaaay back when), and I saw a high level competitive game, I got EXCITED. I didn't complain that they were cheating, I didn't moan about having to learn how to L-Cancel. I was thrilled at the prospect of opening up entirely new avenues of gameplay in a game I thought I'd seen it all from, and practicing one little thing to do that didn't seem like a big deal. What do you know, it wasn't. So, I looked up how to pillar (Falco main), and I practiced. When I finally go it down, I felt SATISFACTION. You know, that thing you feel when your hard work pays off? The freedom of movement and creativity L-cancelling allowed me was worth every second spent practicing.

Took the words right out of my mouth. When I first discovered competitive smash I was blown away. It was the Ken vs. Bombsoldier Jack Garden Tournament Grand Finals and I had no idea the characters could move that fast. I honestly thought they were playing on Lightning Melee mode. I did the exact same thing as you, being a Falco main, and was ecstatic when I got shine-pillaring down. It took me at least another year or two to learn waveshining, but still the feeling of satisfaction was the same. I was now on a completely different level.

All you're really saying is: "I'm lazy". Well, I hope you're all happy. You won. You ruined one of the greatest games of all time because you didn't want to learn how to press a button.

 

[HeroMystic]

Important distinction to make, and I'm glad you made it. Sakurai can easily cater to both competitive and casual audiences (maybe you've heard of Super Smash Bros. Melee) without directly giving players the tools to bridge the gap. That's our job as a community. We are to create a welcoming community with enough smiles and information to draw in and educate people to help them play the game that they love to play.

I've made this point pages ago, but apparently people aren't satisfied with this.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

As did I, aha. What people are overlooking is the fact that if AT's are removed, the game is targeted at ONE audience. If they are added to the game, then both hardcore and casual gamers are satisfied. The competitive players can spend hours learning, practicing, and implementing their new strategies and techniques, and the casual players can spend hours playing the game in whatever manner pleases them as well.

I guess the major concern most people have is the two groups of players meeting in an online scenario, but that is highly unlikely. If Smash 4's online is the same as Brawl's, both Casual AND Competitive players aren't going to be too keen on it. If they DO implement a ranking system, these players will never meet.

 

[BSP]

This leads into the main purpose of ATs. If I am using ATs, and my opponent is using ATs, then it is up to WHO USES THEM BETTER, MORE EFFICIENTLY, AND SMARTER. We both have EQUAL ACCESS TO ADVANCED TECHNIQUES. So, it is bull**** that you're comparing the casual's view of ATs to the competitive's view of items. Competitives dislike items because they add a possibility of a match being won by pure luck. Casuals dislike ATs because they add a possibility of a match being won BY THE FACT THAT THEIR OPPONENT HAS PUT MORE TIME INTO LEARNING AND PRACTICING THE MORE COMPLEX NUANCES OF THE GAME. WHAT A CRAZY ****ING CONCEPT.

What I'm gathering from this and the rest of your post is that ATs tend to lead towards the dissatisfaction of the casual/average player after playing. Now, this is why I asked "do ATs enhance the average player's experience with the game?", because I think that's a big part of whether or not they should be in.

Sakurai said that he wants the game to be aimed at "a wide variety of people." Keep Sakurai's direction in mind.

With that said, he can put ATs in, or he could not.

Let's say he does. The players like us who attempt to push the game to its limits are satisfied. The casual/average players won't notice or care about these ATs until they meet someone who uses them and, most likely, stomps them. The average gamer will most likely be fed up at losing to ATs they didn't know about. This will be an unenjoyable experience for them. This is my answer to the OP on how ATs affect average gamers: they tend to lead towards a less enjoyable experience for them, and they don't improve their experience in any way.

This idea is nothing new though, and it has been discussed and argued against already in this thread. Plenty of people have already pointed out that average players will get stomped with or without ATs anyway, so their inclusion makes no difference.

However, casual/average players getting stomped is not the point. The point, in my eyes, is whether or not ATs are conducive to them having an enjoyable experience.

I think most of us can agree that casual/average players will be neutral to ATs, aka either won't know about them, or never play against someone who knows them. ATs have a zero percent chance of improving the casual/average player's experience.

On the other hand, they definitely have a chance of making a casual player have a less enjoyable experience. Edreeses mentioned infinite drillshining someone across FD vs. throwing them off and shine spiking them. They average/casual player loses in both cases, yes, and neither will be enjoyable for the most part. The ATs didn't change whether or not they lost, but they also did not aid in making the experience enjoyable for the casual player.

If ATs only have the possibility of hurting the main audience, why put them in?

But what about the competitive player? They enjoy the technique, and they matter too, right? Sakurai thinks differently.

His goal is to make the game target a wide variety of people. The competitive community is the:

very small, passionate group of sort of maniac players

in his eyes, and he specifically wants to avoid anything that might turn the game into "a situation where it becomes a game sort of like other competitive fighting games, where it's only apreciated by a very small, passionate group of sort of maniac players."

What's something that's only appreciated by a very small, passionate group? Advanced Techniques, and I've just pointed out that Sakurai has said that he doesn't want situations in which only a small group appreciates something, so the depth that competitive players gain is meaningless to him.


Also note:

Essentially, the incorporation of the Smash Balls and the Final Smash was something to accommodate, or to counter a situation where in a game you'd have a strong player and without those things, you would have a situation where clearly always the strong players would come on top. And so we wanted to add a little bit of some accidental or random elements to help sort of narrow the possibility of who would come out on top in a match."

It's really ironic that you said this peeup

Casuals dislike ATs because they add a possibility of a match being won BY THE FACT THAT THEIR OPPONENT HAS PUT MORE TIME INTO LEARNING AND PRACTICING THE MORE COMPLEX NUANCES OF THE GAME. the stronger players. WHAT A CRAZY ****ING CONCEPT.

because that's the exact element that Sakurai has explicitly attempted to counter through game mechanics. ATs only serve to promote the stronger players coming out on top, so why would ATs be in the game when one of the game's very goals is to reduce the chance that the stronger player always comes out on top? Sakurai has no reason to put them in.

Sorry for typos

 

[Morbi]

What I'm gathering from this and the rest of your post is that ATs tend to lead towards the dissatisfaction of the casual/average player after playing. Now, this is why I asked "do ATs enhance the average player's experience with the game?", because I think that's a big part of whether or not they should be in.

Sakurai said that he wants the game to be aimed at "a wide variety of people." Keep Sakurai's direction in mind.

With that said, he can put ATs in, or he could not.

Let's say he does. The players like us who attempt to push the game to its limits are satisfied. The casual/average players won't notice or care about these ATs until they meet someone who uses them and, most likely, stomps them. The average gamer will most likely be fed up at losing to ATs they didn't know about. This will be an unenjoyable experience for them. This is my answer to the OP on how ATs affect average gamers: they tend to lead towards a less enjoyable experience for them, and they don't improve their experience in any way.

This idea is nothing new though, and it has been discussed and argued against already in this thread. Plenty of people have already pointed out that average players will get stomped with or without ATs anyway, so their inclusion makes no difference.

However, casual/average players getting stomped is not the point. The point, in my eyes, is whether or not ATs are conducive to them having an enjoyable experience.

I think most of us can agree that casual/average players will be neutral to ATs, aka either won't know about them, or never play against someone who knows them. ATs have a zero percent chance of improving the casual/average player's experience.

On the other hand, they definitely have a chance of making a casual player have a less enjoyable experience. Edreeses mentioned infinite drillshining someone across FD vs. throwing them off and shine spiking them. They average/casual player loses in both cases, yes, and neither will be enjoyable for the most part. The ATs didn't change whether or not they lost, but they also did not aid in making the experience enjoyable for the casual player.

If ATs only have the possibility of hurting the main audience, why put them in?

But what about the competitive player? They enjoy the technique, and they matter too, right? Sakurai thinks differently.

His goal is to make the game target a wide variety of people. The competitive community is the:



in his eyes, and he specifically wants to avoid anything that might turn the game into "a situation where it becomes a game sort of like other competitive fighting games, where it's only apreciated by a very small, passionate group of sort of maniac players."

What's something that's only appreciated by a very small, passionate group? Advanced Techniques, and I've just pointed out that Sakurai has said that he doesn't want situations in which only a small group appreciates something, so the depth that competitive players gain is meaningless to him.


Also note:



It's really ironic that you said this peeup



because that's the exact element that Sakurai has explicitly attempted to counter through game mechanics. ATs only serve to promote the stronger players coming out on top, so why would ATs be in the game when one of the game's very goals is to reduce the chance that the stronger player always comes out on top? Sakurai has no reason to put them in.

Sorry for typos

I think this just about solves the problem of the thread. I could not have summarized it better. Congratulations. I would LOVE to see someone try and rebut that.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

I've made this point pages ago, but apparently people aren't satisfied with this.

And I have done the same before you (and also, everybody ignored it). =P

 

[otter]

If you reply to someone, there is no need to insult them or question their reading comprehension. It's really not helping.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

I think this just about solves the problem of the thread. I could not have summarized it better. Congratulations. I would LOVE to see someone try and rebut that.

Just for the future, it's really unnecessary to quote an entire long post to just agree with it in one line.

The point, in my eyes, is whether or not ATs are conducive to them having an enjoyable experience.


On the other hand, they definitely have a chance of making a casual player have a less enjoyable experience. Edreeses mentioned infinite drillshining someone across FD vs. throwing them off and shine spiking them. They average/casual player loses in both cases, yes, and neither will be enjoyable for the most part. The ATs didn't change whether or not they lost, but they also did not aid in making the experience enjoyable for the casual player.

If ATs only have the possibility of hurting the main audience, why put them in?

The problem with this argument is that it assumes Casual and Competitive players will play each other often. I see no possible scenario where this would happen. Casual Smashers who aren't fond of advanced techniques do not attend tournaments. If we're speaking about online play, Sakurai WILL be implementing some system where players can compete with others on the same still level.

This interview was just released: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/07/03/creating-super-smash-bros-for-wii-u-and-3ds?page=2

In it Sakurai says, “We don’t want to have a type of situation where you have a ranking pyramid, and only the people at the very top can enjoy it. I think there are other unique ways to be able to implement a system where people can get satisfaction out of performing at a skill level relative to their peer group.”

You also mentioned that Sakurai says, "a situation where it becomes a game sort of like other competitive fighting games, where it's only apreciated by a very small, passionate group of sort of maniac players." What he was most likely referencing was the advanced nature itself that's appreciated by a very small group of players. The game as a whole will be appreciated by millions worldwide regardless of the inclusion of AT's or not. Although only a small audience can appreciate AT's like Sakurai said, I don't see the harm in including them so that said audience can enjoy them.

 

[VA3TO]

Are you really this narrow minded? Please have an open mind, or it is no point discussing with you at all. You are just always going to be right, no matter what anyone says...

L-cancel is ALWAYS optimal to do. Other AT's give depth and options to use. You always want to L-cancel, always. Therefor having it automatic would just make sense game design wise. I don't care that you feel like it's always been there and so on. Now please tell me why it's a good thing, instead of just saying "you are wrong" and putting words in my mouth that I havent said. Claiming that I have said "people only like AT's because they like pushing alot of buttons" is just dumb and you know its not true. Or you need to read my post again. So please stop arguing like that.

Bringing up it being called Advanced technique and that it would be dumb to have it automatic because of that is just dumb.... If it was automatic it wouldn't be an AT anymore. And honestly, do you really think it is an Adcanced Technique rithgt now? The word advanced is a bit misued for AT's yes, but thats what everyone call them so lets not get into semantics.

ps: if your other post was also directed to me you should know that I do not want to remove any AT except L-cancel. And I have stated many times that a good player would beat a mediocre player every day, AT's or no AT's. If youve read my posts you know that. Tbh, I have barely seen anyone that really wants to remove every AT in here. So I dont get why so many post in here to defend AT like you did? Maybe Ive missed some post, havent followe the thread from start!

See you are wrong about the L cancelling should be automatic. Imagine if you are playing a Fox and in order to Drill Shine he has to land his D air and the Shine. That would be ridiculous. Giving every player that advantage would be ridiculous. Having to earn the lower animation lag is a far better mechanic because people would have earned the right to combo effectively from it instead of doing it for free.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

See you are wrong about the L cancelling should be automatic. Imagine if you are playing a Fox and in order to Drill Shine he has to land his D air and the Shine. That would be ridiculous. Giving every player that advantage would be ridiculous. Having to earn the lower animation lag is a far better mechanic because people would have earned the right to combo effectively from it instead of doing it for free.

This.

It also seems like the main counter-AT argument in this thread is "casual players don't want AT's in the new smash bros because getting beaten by players that use them will make them unhappy", and I really don't see how this is even relevant. You will continue to play with the same people you play with now when the new smash comes out. If you're getting beat by AT's, it's your friends that are using them and they could probably teach you what they know in a few minutes. The "online-play" argument is also irrelevant because casual players will not be facing off against hardcore players on a regular basis, if at all. (see above post with interview link)

 

[VA3TO]

I think this just about solves the problem of the thread. I could not have summarized it better. Congratulations. I would LOVE to see someone try and rebut that.

Sakurai doesn't quite understand what he was created. He himself is a casual player and doesn't understand the intricacies in his own game. I actually severely dislike him because of it. He is quite clueless.

 

[PHD]

ATs only serve to promote the stronger players coming out on top, so why would ATs be in the game when one of the game's very goals is to reduce the chance that the stronger player always comes out on top? Sakurai has no reason to put them in.

Sorry for typos

This just isn't true. The stronger player WILL always come out on top, regardless of whether or not there are ATs. Isn't that the definition of the stronger player?

 

[otter]

I think this just about solves the problem of the thread. I could not have summarized it better. Congratulations. I would LOVE to see someone try and rebut that.

If you are implying that Sakurai doesn't want ATs in the game because it only benefits a minority of players, then sure, I concede that. He is in a conflict of interests because his vision of a great game is a mixture of quality and sales, and as we all know, those two figures are almost inversely proportional these days. As players, we can judge the quality of a product without factoring in profit.

However, implying that Sakurai doesn't personally appreciate high level play, I don't buy it. Melee is way too perfect to be an accident. He was a Street Fighter 2 player, and Nintendo keeps a tight lid on their IPs. He knows about the American scene, he just doesn't want to actively enable it. Sort of like how Nintendo didn't shut down the English translation of Mother 3 despite it being made obvious to them.

I am pretty much planning on playing the new Smash for few months and then focusing on Melee. At least we'll have that for a long time. If I am pleasantly suprised, even better.

 

[Morbi]

This just isn't true. The stronger player WILL always come out on top, regardless of whether or not there are ATs. Isn't that the definition of the stronger player?

No. I have never heard of anything so fallacious. There are so many more circumstances that go into who wins. It isn't always "the better player wins" if that was the case there would be NO competitive scene. Smh.

 

[PHD]

No. I have never heard of anything so fallacious. There are so many more circumstances that go into who wins. It isn't always "the better player wins" if that was the case there would be NO competitive scene. Smh.

Outside of free for all, can you give me an example?

 

[Morbi]

Outside of free for all, can you give me an example?

If the best player always won... wouldn't they have a flawless record? Reaction times might very from competition to competition based on anxiety or energy. The audience might have an impact. The scale of the tournament or the money. The opponents play-style might be so unexpected that you haven't prepared for it. Your main could have MU problems and you don't have a good secondary to cover it. While lag isn't always a problem it might surface. Stage selection is also extremely important in the hardcore scene.

Hypothetically speaking. If the best player was just playing a good player... but a DLC character launched yesterday and the TO is allowing it. The best player wouldn't have any MU experience. So he wouldn't be able to win. The better player could be great at the game but lacking any particular MU experience would attenuate his chances.

If the better player couldn't make a read he could be down a stock and he would be forced to clutch from a deficit. If he accidentally makes an input error he might be subject to lose.

My point is that skill isn't everything. There are so many other contributing factors. Related to the game, the meta-game, the opponent, the MU, and even basic stuff like the amount of sleep you got. A strong player has weaknesses. If you exploit the weaknesses you might win. It doesn't make you a better player. It makes you a smarter player.

It is fine if you aren't part of any competitive scene. However, you don't want to go around saying that the better player will always win. That is just fallacious. It is one of the most ignorant things you can say in the hardcore scene. Like I said, if the better player always came out on top what would be the point in competing?

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

No. I have never heard of anything so fallacious. There are so many more circumstances that go into who wins. It isn't always "the better player wins" if that was the case there would be NO competitive scene. Smh.

I completely agree, which is why this doesn't make sense:

If the best player always won... wouldn't they have a flawless record?

No. That would assume that they play their best in every match ever, which no one does. The best player in each matchup should come out on top, if that is what you meant. But people are not robots, and are capable of error. It's possible for even the best of the best to make mistakes and get punished for it occasionally. Like you said, there are many circumstances that factor into each match and how each player will play it. It's not impossible for the better player to lose.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Put that signature away, man. Complexity doesn't equal depth, no. At least, not always. But sometimes, it does. What you are referencing is probably L-Cancelling, as it is the only single action that requires two inputs. Shut your ****ing faux-righteous mouth. Most people agree that L-Cancelling is poor game design. People in this thread are referencing all of the numerous other COMPLEX things that enhance the game's DEPTH. Want to know one of the dumbest things I've ever read? "It just forces people to have to waste more of their lives to get better at it!" I HAVE AN IDEA. LET'S TAKE 3-POINTERS OUT OF BASKETBALL BECAUSE IT FORCES PLAYERS TO WASTE MORE OF THEIR LIVES TO GET BETTER AT THE GAME. Do you honestly understand how immature you sound? ATs are a positive thing because it increases the skill ceiling. You SHOULD NEED to invest time in a game if you want to be successful at a competitive level. Just like EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF LIFE. If you're dead set on the idea that you should be able to be amazing at ANYTHING without putting in the appropriate TIME and EFFORT, then arguing Smash with you is pointless. You need to understand what life is, buddy.

I won't. I won't for one reason. Practicing a game is one thing. See, I don't expect people to pick up a game and automatically master things. As I've said before, there are things you still have to understand, like your character's moves, knowing when and where and what to use. I refuse to take off that signature because people want complexity to increase the length of time needed in order to achieve prowess at higher levels. Also, don't assume I'm talking about L-Cancelling either. I mentioned it once, and even then, I actually wasn't against it. So I'll appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth or insult me for voicing my opinion. I will always argue that complexity =/= depth.

It's not the time required to practice, nor the act of practicing itself. Its putting artificial barriers that can be easily eliminated.

 

[peeup]

I won't. I won't for one reason. Practicing a game is one thing. See, I don't expect people to pick up a game and automatically master things. As I've said before, there are things you still have to understand, like your character's moves, knowing when and where and what to use. I refuse to take off that signature because people want complexity to increase the length of time needed in order to achieve prowess at higher levels. Also, don't assume I'm talking about L-Cancelling either. I mentioned it once, and even then, I actually wasn't against it. So I'll appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth or insult me for voicing my opinion. I will always argue that complexity =/= depth.

It's not the time required to practice, nor the act of practicing itself. Its putting artificial barriers that can be easily eliminated.

Firstly, apologies for putting words into your mouth. Lookin over what I said, it was very much more dickish than I meant it to be.

Allow me to ask a question that I am curious of your answer: Why is knowledge of your character more important to depth than advanced techniques/technical skill?

 

[PHD]

If the best player always won... wouldn't they have a flawless record? Reaction times might very from competition to competition based on anxiety or energy. The audience might have an impact. The scale of the tournament or the money. The opponents play-style might be so unexpected that you haven't prepared for it. Your main could have MU problems and you don't have a good secondary to cover it. While lag isn't always a problem it might surface. Stage selection is also extremely important in the hardcore scene.

Hypothetically speaking. If the best player was just playing a good player... but a DLC character launched yesterday and the TO is allowing it. The best player wouldn't have any MU experience. So he wouldn't be able to win. The better player could be great at the game but lacking any particular MU experience would attenuate his chances.

If the better player couldn't make a read he could be down a stock and he would be forced to clutch from a deficit. If he accidentally makes an input error he might be subject to lose.

My point is that skill isn't everything. There are so many other contributing factors. Related to the game, the meta-game, the opponent, the MU, and even basic stuff like the amount of sleep you got. A strong player has weaknesses. If you exploit the weaknesses you might win. It doesn't make you a better player. It makes you a smarter player.

It is fine if you aren't part of any competitive scene. However, you don't want to go around saying that the better player will always win. That is just fallacious. It is one of the most ignorant things you can say in the hardcore scene. Like I said, if the better player always came out on top what would be the point in competing?

We're arguing semantics here, so I'll let this die, but if someone wins a match they are the better player that match. I wasn't talking about overall skill, one match doesn't determine someone's skill level, that's crazy. But if they lost they are by definition playing worse than the other person.

 

[Morbi]

We're arguing semantics here, so I'll let this die, but if someone wins a match they are the better player that match. I wasn't talking about overall skill, one match doesn't determine someone's skill level, that's crazy. But if they lost they are by definition playing worse than the other person.

We are not arguing semantics at all. I wasn't aware that we were talking about one match. I thought you were making an objective claim.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

If the best player always won... wouldn't they have a flawless record? Reaction times might very from competition to competition based on anxiety or energy. The audience might have an impact. The scale of the tournament or the money. The opponents play-style might be so unexpected that you haven't prepared for it. Your main could have MU problems and you don't have a good secondary to cover it. While lag isn't always a problem it might surface. Stage selection is also extremely important in the hardcore scene.

Hypothetically speaking. If the best player was just playing a good player... but a DLC character launched yesterday and the TO is allowing it. The best player wouldn't have any MU experience. So he wouldn't be able to win. The better player could be great at the game but lacking any particular MU experience would attenuate his chances.

If the better player couldn't make a read he could be down a stock and he would be forced to clutch from a deficit. If he accidentally makes an input error he might be subject to lose.

My point is that skill isn't everything. There are so many other contributing factors. Related to the game, the meta-game, the opponent, the MU, and even basic stuff like the amount of sleep you got. A strong player has weaknesses. If you exploit the weaknesses you might win. It doesn't make you a better player. It makes you a smarter player.

It is fine if you aren't part of any competitive scene. However, you don't want to go around saying that the better player will always win. That is just fallacious. It is one of the most ignorant things you can say in the hardcore scene. Like I said, if the better player always came out on top what would be the point in competing?

Your first paragraph and last sentence sounds like you are trying to say people do not improve their skill over time. A player doesn't win by chance (unless luck is a huge factor).

What you do say about contributing factors is true. There are many factors that effect a human player from playing at the top of their game. Your statements about the meta-game is also true. If someone is unaware of your play-style due to it being unique and unpredictable, you can come out on top.

There have been tournaments where I have surprisingly increased my personal skill during the match-ups and gotten further than what I had originally thought. By analyzing and watching matches, you can easily see patterns that the players make. This also gives you an advantage when you play against them. It is very difficult for a human to change its patterns. (It has been proven against a learning AI Bot for a simple game of Rock Paper Scissors). I didn't win because I memorized their patterns and strategies from watching a set (not really possible), but rather from mentally knowing how to react to these situations. Imagining several scenarios that I wouldn't have thought of before, and then thinking a solution for it. In all honesty, anything competitive can be represented as a mental sport. The whole purpose of competition is trying to predict your opponent's next move.

 

[RODO]

We are not discussing people in here. Obviously someone on smashboards is not a normal "casual" player... Casual won't know that these things exist and will feel cheated loosing to somenoe that can recover 2x times faster and someone that flies out of the stage alot shorter then them. Even with the exact same characters. So just make remove the AT's that give almost no game depth but makes for alot more complexity. And then have the remaning AT's accesible in form of tutorials or the game's manual so that the casual will know they exist. Then they can choose to use and practie them or not. They will atleast not feel cheated by something "hidden" or similar. Then everything will be peachy, for both us and Casual players!

Maybe even more players will se that the game has depth and go deeper, even join us here on smashboards! =)

The few people I was addressing were "speaking on behalf" of the casual players. That may be why it seemed like I was targeting some people in this thread. I agree that if an AT doesn't add any depth then it should go, but I feel like there will be different AT's in Smash 4 just like they changed them from Melee to Brawl, so it's hard to call what should be in the game.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

The few people I was addressing were "speaking on behalf" of the casual players. That may be why it seemed like I was targeting some people in this thread. I agree that if an AT doesn't add any depth then it should go, but I feel like there will be different AT's in Smash 4 just like they changed them from Melee to Brawl, so it's hard to call what should be in the game.

At this point I don't really care anymore and rather just be playing the game in front of me at the moment. Casual? Why does it matter? Competitive? Why does it matter? Just play the game people...once it is out of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=930H_ZRExbg

 

[Senario]

Man. What's wrong with kids these days? When I was first getting into Melee (waaaay back when), and I saw a high level competitive game, I got EXCITED. I didn't complain that they were cheating, I didn't moan about having to learn how to L-Cancel. I was thrilled at the prospect of opening up entirely new avenues of gameplay in a game I thought I'd seen it all from, and practicing one little thing to do that didn't seem like a big deal. What do you know, it wasn't. So, I looked up how to pillar (Falco main), and I practiced. When I finally go it down, I felt SATISFACTION. You know, that thing you feel when your hard work pays off? The freedom of movement and creativity L-cancelling allowed me was worth every second spent practicing.

Tell me it's cheating. Tell me it's a glitch. Tell me it's unnecessary. All you're really saying is: "I'm lazy". Well, I hope you're all happy. You won. You ruined one of the greatest games of all time because you didn't want to learn how to press a button.

I agree wholeheartedly, I am admittedly not the best player but the one character I could play in melee with a decent amount of fluency is Ganon, and once I learned how to play him it was so satisfying. How far you send people with your forward air, the tilts and jabs that sometimes get people off guard, and the up airs which mix up the air game so that the enemy doesn't really know if you are going to have a delay on your attack or it will be out immediately. And interestingly enough, I do decently against people who I know are better than me in smash in all aspects. I don't think I could come close if ganon wasn't given the options to make up for his lack of natural speed. Actually I think the divisions between the characters in a tier list would be much more severe than they actually are in melee where it is more about knowing how to use your character. I know a guy who uses dr. Mario and still does well vs your traditional tournament characters among our group of friends.

And the funny thing is? L-Canceling was meant to be in the game and was actually nerfed in melee compared to 64, wavedashing was overlooked by the developers even though they knew it existed. So actually the original ATs from 64 and melee respectively were planned or at the very least not deemed a problem. Thus they aren't glitches, referring to them as a glitch is just rhetoric used by people who don't like them or never wanted to put in the effort to learn them (L guys, L button.).

 

[smashbrolink]

But the ATs you're railing against aren't even in Brawl, so how do they have anything to do with that skill gap? What I'm saying is that even with these ATs being specifically targeted and taken out, there's still a HUGE gap between someone like that and the average player in Brawl. That's never going to change.

I never mentioned Brawl, and I disagree with the gap being anywhere near as large without AT's being present.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

And the funny thing is? L-Canceling was meant to be in the game and was actually nerfed in melee compared to 64, wavedashing was overlooked by the developers even though they knew it existed. So actually the original ATs from 64 and melee respectively were planned or at the very least not deemed a problem. Thus they aren't glitches, referring to them as a glitch is just rhetoric used by people who don't like them or never wanted to put in the effort to learn them (L guys, L button.).

Aha I love this. I always see people saying that l-cancelling was "never intended"in Melee, when it clearly was.

A lot of people also complain that l-cancelling is two inputs. Could someone explain this logic to me? You press L or R when you hit the ground - isn't that 1 input? You'd be doing an aerial move regardless of whether you l-cancel or not, so is that the extra input some people are referring too?

Another thing to note about the "Casual players losing online to AT's and getting upset" argument - Brawl also has a few "advanced techniques" of its own. Players who compete or play at a high level know and use these techniques. To the Casual Smasher: do you encounter these players online? Do you notice them using these techniques? Does it make you upset?

The answer to all those questions is most likely no, because the competitive smash player does not play Brawl Online Free For All's, and there's a good chance that neither do you.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Why can't I find the darn "How To Play" video from Melee and Brawl. The official tutorial of the game talking about each of the ATs that were intended for the game. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd hook up my GameCube and record it with a phone.

I'm pretty damn sure L-Canceling was in there.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Firstly, apologies for putting words into your mouth. Lookin over what I said, it was very much more ****ish than I meant it to be.

Allow me to ask a question that I am curious of your answer: Why is knowledge of your character more important to depth than advanced techniques/technical skill?

Well first off, I'll say right off that this is now a matter of opinion. So I'm not going to claim I'm correct, this is just how I personally feel.

It's the spirit of Smash.

That is to say, knowledge of your character does not require any mechanical skill. If you can push a direction and a button, congratulations, you've mastered all the mechanical thresholds that Smash (should) have to offer. No half circles, quarter circles, Shoryuken movements or anything like that. Smash (again, to me) is a fighting game that places more emphasis on knowing your character and your opponent's character than whether or not you can perform an incredibly complex series of maneuvers in a split second. It's a game that rewards strategy instead of split second decision making. Yes, there is speed involved, but to me, it was never to the extent of games like Street Fighter and Arc System Works games. Without the emphasis on complex controls, you can now concentrate on other things within the game. Perhaps if so called ATs were as simple to perform as the actual moves within the game, I would have less of an issue with it. Again though, this is entirely my opinion. I'm hoping that voiced my opinion well enough. So nothing against you, or anyone else in particular, but I will always argue against complexity, especially (with what I think of as) unnecessary complexity.

And as for putting words into my mouth, no harm done. I appreciate you took the time to stand back and address that.

EDIT: Also, just a side note on the whole "whether or not to auto-L cancelling" thing, everyone in the competitive crowd wants things to be faster, right? Wouldn't making L cancelling automatic make things faster naturally? I don't care either way, but I'm just saiyan'...

 

[peeup]

Well first off, I'll say right off that this is now a matter of opinion. So I'm not going to claim I'm correct, this is just how I personally feel.

It's the spirit of Smash.

That is to say, knowledge of your character does not require any mechanical skill. If you can push a direction and a button, congratulations, you've mastered all the mechanical thresholds that Smash (should) have to offer. No half circles, quarter circles, Shoryuken movements or anything like that. Smash (again, to me) is a fighting game that places more emphasis on knowing your character and your opponent's character than whether or not you can perform an incredibly complex series of maneuvers in a split second. It's a game that rewards strategy instead of split second decision making. Yes, there is speed involved, but to me, it was never to the extent of games like Street Fighter and Arc System Works games. Without the emphasis on complex controls, you can now concentrate on other things within the game. Perhaps if so called ATs were as simple to perform as the actual moves within the game, I would have less of an issue with it. Again though, this is entirely my opinion. I'm hoping that voiced my opinion well enough. So nothing against you, or anyone else in particular, but I will always argue against complexity, especially (with what I think of as) unnecessary complexity.

And as for putting words into my mouth, no harm done. I appreciate you took the time to stand back and address that.

EDIT: Also, just a side note on the whole "whether or not to auto-L cancelling" thing, everyone in the competitive crowd wants things to be faster, right? Wouldn't making L cancelling automatic make things faster naturally? I don't care either way, but I'm just saiyan'...

Gonna address this post in reverse order cause its just easier.

L-Cancelling... Yeah. I'm not at all against it as a mechanic, or its usage, or anything like that. It speeds up gameplay, which is good. But it would certainly be preferable to just shorten landing lag so that gameplay can be sped up without an extra button press. ATs should provide options. Always having to L-Cancel does not provide extra options as it is always the best option.

Next point, I can kinda be an asshole when debating stuff haha. I'm glad you called me out on it, there's no need for that kind of behavior.

Final point, I think this is the best articulated point that anyone from your camp has produced in this entire thread. While I certainly agree with you that knowledge of your character (timing, spacing, options, etc) is the heart of Smash, I think that there can also be more. Providing the player with additional options that require more skilled/quick fingers that can give variety and advantage to that player is a good thing, in my opinion. Smash will always be a game about knowing the characters, on both an aesthetic level as well as a gameplay level. That's what makes it such a fun game. But what gives the game added depth and replayability is the ability to further master skills outside of pure knowledge of the game. It gives you a tangible goal to strive towards.

 

[Priap0s]

I'd like to appologise to SUP3RCANS1R. He did rile me up at first and I felt the discussion was going into more of a competition and personal insults came in. He did write me a very well put answer now thou and I agree with most of his points. So I take back what I said about you and appologise mate!

Also, Im getting realy tired of this thread. It just repeats itself and goes alot off topic. Some one should make one thread for individual AT's where we discuss hwo that particular AT would contribute to the next game. If it should be there or not. If it should perhaps be tweaked in some way.
How it affects casuals is going nowhere in here. It probably does but in a very very minor way. And not a so negative way that it should be excluded and taken away from the more hard core players. Thats my last subject regarding the subject. I'd be delighted to join the discussion about AT's one by one in diofferent threads thou, if anyone starts one.

And @VA3TO. With making L-cancel automatic appropiet game changes would of course come with it if needed. I think having something that contributes nothing more than making stuff harder to perform is bad design for a game like smash. Where do we stop? Want to make every move in the game more complex? I'd rather see focus of skill being directed at different things like positioning, game depth, reading your opponent and being creative. Thats my point of view, you want the game to be harder for bad people (thats what it adds. It adds nothing for pros since it's easy to do and you never ahve to do descision or think about it. You should just always do it) and thats fine. I think we just have a different view of what smash is. Agree to disagree.
Peace out "How do "Advanced Techniques" or "Game Physics" affect casual players?"-Thread.