How to balance skill difference in players?

[shuall]

"I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai

You can kind of see this same approach in a lot of Nintendo 'party' games. Cart racing is a response to 'serious' simulation racing, MOTHER is an alternative to 'serious' RPG's, pikmin is an alternative to 'serious' RTS's, and smash was an alternative to 'serious' fighting games. All seem to be made with the intent to have a fun game, with a shallow learning curve that you could play by simply mashing buttons, but that you could see yourself getting better at with practice.

There's still a chance someone with no skill can beat you, but Sakurai's problem is that he has to make that chance small enough so that the outcome doesn't seem completely random, but big enough so that everyone can win enough times to still be fun. Yes, not everyone loses a match in smash and thinks to themselves, "I must devote weeks (years) of my life to become good enough at this game so I can beat everyone." Some people just want to have fun, and losing isn't fun.

[collapse="Old stuff"]I'm just going to list a couple ways that this problem has been addressed.
Items - you are playing super well and then the scrub gets the hammer
Pros:

random​

manually adjustable​

stills takes some skill​

Cons:

can't adjust exploding container (pill, box, barrel) appearance​

Melee's handicap system - what?
Pros:

adaptable to each players skill level​

auto and manual control​

Cons:

nobody used it​

9 settings may be too little​

if controllers switch hands, auto handicap doesn't know that​

Brawl mechanics - tripping, floatiness, everything melee players hate.
Pros:

random​

slows down play for beginners​

less technical​

Cons:

perhaps too slow​

So, for smash 4, how would you equalize play for different skill levels? I know, you wouldn't, but if you had to, like you were the developers or something. Would it be possible to keep it a fun party game, while still allowing it to be competitive?
I've thought of this and had a couple of ideas from different things people have suggested.

• Pretty sure items are staying in, they're iconic to the game, but allow more adjustments (will the community ever accept items again?)
• Handicap system; it would have to be on by default so it would be used, and it would have to be good enough that it wouldn't get turned off (except for competitive play)
• Have tripping and floaty characters, but have that be an option, again, on by default
• Have the game be more easily moddable, so Nintendo can make a party game, and the competitive community can make another P:M or SDRemix.
• Have more Rock-Paper-Scissors character matchups; so if someone is beasting with Rock everyone else chooses Paper just to destroy him; would also add another level of strategy to competitive play
• Have two modes, Elite (only 1on1 or 2on2, legal maps, and no equalizing mechanics), and FFA (party game);
• KOs via super like PlayStation All-Stars; please, no
• Online mode like tekken to match players to others of similar skill
• Players should balance the game themselves (skilled players should not be jerks, but rather help the casuals)

I'd be interested to see what your thoughts are on this. Which would you prefer? What could I add, and what should I take out because it's ridiculous?[/collapse]

EDIT: I am trying to add your ideas. The main thing I've gotten from the comments is:

The game should have a shallow, but high learning curve. So it should maintain depth, and leave a lot of room to improve, but make it easy to learn.
How would you (the commenters) make the learning curve shallow?
Things that facilitate competitive and casual play:

• Tutorials/how-tos builtin
• simplify mechanics/inputs (nintendo is known for this)
• shallow learning curve in general
• rely on players to teach each other

Things that facilitate competitive play only:

• High ceiling for improvement
• Training modes
• Highly technical, advanced techniques

Things that facilitate casual play only:

• Items (at least in smash they're not used competitively)
• Loser's buffs (final smash in brawl given to player losing repeatedly)

Tell me in the comments whether this is correct.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Man, after playing online on Tekken Tag 2, I couldn't go back to any other fighter. The game only groups you with people of a similar skill level / rank that raises or lowers as you fight people, after a few matches you'll be fighting people who are on your level.

I usually hate playing fighting games online just to get my a#@ beat down, then I go and blame my loss on the lag, or fighting some idiot who didn't even practice the game before jumping online. Tekken Tag 2's online ranked match mode was revolutionary.

It would be amazing if they could implement a similar ranking system into smash bros' online mode, I have high hopes seeing as how the team who worked on it are working with Sakurai on the next smash bros.

 

[[Corn]]

Play with a Wiimote

 

[BaPr]

Man, after playing online on Tekken Tag 2, I couldn't go back to any other fighter. The game only groups you with people of a similar skill level / rank that raises or lowers as you fight people, after a few matches you'll be fighting people who are on your level.

I usually hate playing fighting games online just to get my a#@ beat down, then I go and blame my loss on the lag, or fighting some idiot who didn't even practice the game before jumping online. Tekken Tag 2's online ranked match mode was revolutionary.

It would be amazing if they could implement a similar ranking system into smash bros' online mode, I have high hopes seeing as how the team who worked on it are working with Sakurai on the next smash bros.

Now, the Tekken thing would be the most amazing thing to do, but I would still like an option to fight random people on a different mode. Also, if they et team battles back on, that would be awesome.

 

[Big-Cat]

OK, time to dissect this.

You can kind of see this same approach in a lot of Nintendo 'party' games. Cart racing is a response to 'serious' simulation racing, MOTHER is an alternative to 'serious' RPG's, pikmin is an alternative to 'serious' RTS's, and smash was an alternative to 'serious' fighting games. All seem to be made with the intent to have a fun game, with a shallow learning curve that you could play by simply mashing buttons, but that you could see yourself getting better at with practice.

This couldn't be any further from the truth. What Nintendo games have generally specialized in is the simplification of controls, but not necessarily sacrificing the depth. This has, more or less, been one of the goals of Smash Bros. We were at this with Melee's easy to learn, hard to master design which streamlined some fighting game aspects, put some new spins on them, and even added new dimensions altogether, like DI being an extension of okizeme. The only one this really applies to, if at all, is Mario Kart.

There's still a chance someone with no skill can beat you, but Sakurai's problem is that he has to make that chance small enough so that the outcome doesn't seem completely random, but big enough so that everyone can win enough times to still be fun. Yes, not everyone loses a match in smash and thinks to themselves, "I must devote weeks (years) of my life to become good enough at this game so I can beat everyone." Some people just want to have fun, and losing isn't fun.

Even without some kind of "internal" factor like an RNG, people outclassed in skill will win the occasional match by sheer luck. Otherwise, it should always be where the much better player will consistently win.

lol at the bold. Welcome to life.

I'm just going to list a couple ways that this problem has been addressed.
Items - you are playing super well and then the scrub gets the hammer
Pros:

random​

manually adjustable​

stills takes some skill​

Cons:

can't adjust exploding container (pill, box, barrel) appearance​

​

Items are really only for chuckles. To call them balancing factors is incredibly naive. You have no means of predicting what the next item is. In fact, people are only going to get mad if they lost because the item decided to explode out of nowhere. If I'm playing for lulz, I'll turn on items. If I want a true test of skill, I play without items and hazards.

​

Melee's handicap system - what?
Pros:

adaptable to each players skill level​

auto and manual control​

Cons:

nobody used it​

9 settings may be too little​

if controllers switch hands, auto handicap doesn't know that​

​

Handicap systems are barely used to begin with. They're a nice concept, but things just don't work out that way.

​

Brawl mechanics - tripping, floatiness, everything melee players hate.
Pros:

random​

slows down play for beginners​

less technical​

Cons:

perhaps too slow​

​

You're forgetting that to a lot of people, it reduced the tactics of the game and made it where the RNG was too powerful. Seriously, random is hardly a positive aspect in a fighting game. The players themselves will provide the randomness. Random aspects should be kept to a minimum or be done in a way where the player can adapt to them without cutting away from gameplay.

​

So, for smash 4, how would you equalize play for different skill levels? I know, you wouldn't, but if you had to, like you were the developers or something. Would it be possible to keep it a fun party game, while still allowing it to be competitive?

The chief thing is to make the learning curve a lot less steeper than in other fighting games while still retaining the height of the curve. Things like reducing some executional barriers and explaining strategical aspects of the game go a long, long way. A lot of people don't know that fighting games (and fights in general) are all about strategy.

I've thought of this and had a couple of ideas from different things people have suggested.

• Pretty sure items are staying in, they're iconic to the game, but allow more adjustments (will the community ever accept items again?)
• Handicap system; it would have to be on by default so it would be used, and it would have to be good enough that it wouldn't get turned off (except for competitive play)
• Have tripping and floaty characters, but have that be an option, again, on by default
• Have the game be more easily moddable, so Nintendo can make a party game, and the competitive community can make another P:M or SDRemix.
• Have more Rock-Paper-Scissors character matchups; so if someone is beasting with Rock everyone else chooses Paper just to destroy him; would also add another level of strategy to competitive play
• Have two modes, Elite (only 1on1 or 2on2, legal maps, and no equalizing mechanics), and FFA (party game);
• KOs via super like PlayStation All-Stars; please, no

1. Just don't make them broken like in Brawl. That was just stupid and not fun.
2. Nobody would use this.
3. Random tripping is not coming back. Floatiness is a character design aspect.
4. That won't be up to Nintendo. That'll be up to the modding community.
5. NO! NO! NO! This is not how matchups work. There are meant to be advantages and disadvantages in matchups. Simplifying it to such levels is an insult to players and just makes people learn more characters than what they want.
6. Ranked matches with parameter settings, player matches with parameter settings, and Random. Problem solved.
7. I'm pretty sure no one here wants this.

Man, after playing online on Tekken Tag 2, I couldn't go back to any other fighter. The game only groups you with people of a similar skill level / rank that raises or lowers as you fight people, after a few matches you'll be fighting people who are on your level.

I usually hate playing fighting games online just to get my a#@ beat down, then I go and blame my loss on the lag, or fighting some idiot who didn't even practice the game before jumping online. Tekken Tag 2's online ranked match mode was revolutionary.

It would be amazing if they could implement a similar ranking system into smash bros' online mode, I have high hopes seeing as how the team who worked on it are working with Sakurai on the next smash bros.

Tekken's online system is definitely among the best I've seen for matchmaking. It's a wonderful concept that pretty much ditches the traditional numeric ranking in favor of an RPG-like title system.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Rank with gliko-2, it helps

 

[FlamingForce]

Why exactly should people putting many more hours into skill and practice not be wiping the floor with people that don't?

 

[IhaveSonar]

I don't see why people get all up in arms over losing; people lose all the time in games like chess and basketball, yet no one clamors to change them to make them easier.

If you're battling in any form against someone who is more skilled at the battling medium, you are likely going to lose. This is applicable to all aspects of life. I don't see why Smash should try to remedy this.

Furthermore, if people want to just have fun and not care about who wins, then they can turn on items and play on competitively absurd stages.

There's no need to alter the core mechanics of the game to make the more competitive modes easier; doing so angers the competitive players, since the whole point of their playing is to see who is better, and has no effect on casuals, since many are only playing with items and on crazy stages and truly don't care about winning or losing.

 

[[Corn]]

Once again, just increase the factors of randomness. Items/Party Stages ect...

 

[Renji64]

It is pretty hard to balance a game that is controlled by the casual demographic. In b4 all online modes are coin matches.

 

[Big-Cat]

Why exactly should people putting many more hours into skill and practice not be wiping the floor with people that don't?

Welcome to the real world.

 

[Blue Warrior]

I don't get how anyone thinks RNG is a good idea.

Sure, it will work in the scrub's advantage sometimes. What happens when it steers even further in the opposite direction? Does it lead to an even harder steamroll? What happens when RNG occurs in a match of equal skill? Does either player feel like they got anything out of the win or loss? Furthermore, why must we resort to this? RNG doesn't inherently favor the new player; it inherently favors a random player. Videogames are about interaction; you should never punish players for things that are not their fault or they cannot anticipate. Even if you argue "if you don't want to trip, don't run", then you run into the problem of people explicitly avoiding running just so that they don't ever get punished randomly for it, which is not fun. RNG is an extremely artificial control to a problem that could be resolved with proper game design.

I'll tell you how we bring the new players in.

* Make the controls easy to understand, easy to get used to, and flexible for different playstyles. Brawl did a great job of this by supporting multiple controllers as well as controller customization.
* Make every element in the game clear to the player. If there is wave dashing in this game, let the player know that they can do it. Try to steer away from techniques that are hard to input on a controller, but still steer toward techniques that are hard to master.
* Create multiplayer game options that bias toward losing players. Handicaps, loser picks, and pity final smashes are good examples of this, especially when they can be toggled on and off. (handicaps unfortunately have a low appeal for some reason, could be fixed with greater publicity?)
* Balance the game elements. Everyone has a different preferred playstyle; they're never going to be on equal footing with someone else if their main is inherently worse than someone else. Limit the disparity between characters so people aren't forced to switch mains once they become more interested in winning.
* Teach new players yourself. If you're playing with someone who doesn't play Smash Bros. much, get them up to speed. Teach them new tricks, turn on the handicap and items, play a character you're not used to. When you're the elite of the group, ultimately you're going to have to make sure that everyone else is having fun.

Making a fun casual environment is all about ease of use. You do not need to leave things to RNG in order to create this environment.

 

[Renji64]

I don't see why people get all up in arms over losing; people lose all the time in games like chess and basketball, yet no one clamors to change them to make them easier.

If you're battling in any form against someone who is more skilled at the battling medium, you are likely going to lose. This is applicable to all aspects of life. I don't see why Smash should try to remedy this.

Furthermore, if people want to just have fun and not care about who wins, then they can turn on items and play on competitively absurd stages.

There's no need to alter the core mechanics of the game to make the more competitive modes easier; doing so angers the competitive players, since the whole point of their playing is to see who is better, and has no effect on casuals, since many are only playing with items and on crazy stages and truly don't care about winning or losing.

If only sakurai knew this.

 

[shuall]

This couldn't be any further from the truth. What Nintendo games have generally specialized in is the simplification of controls, but not necessarily sacrificing the depth. This has, more or less, been one of the goals of Smash Bros. We were at this with Melee's easy to learn, hard to master design which streamlined some fighting game aspects, put some new spins on them, and even added new dimensions altogether, like DI being an extension of okizeme. The only one this really applies to, if at all, is Mario Kart.

That's fair. I guess my point was that Nintendo (and, I guess, a lot of other publishers, but Nintendo especially) try to take fun games and genres, and make them easily accessible to everyone. Whether they succeed or fail, or whether it's a good idea (like maybe some people want a highly technical game with a steep learning curve), I don't know.

Items are really only for chuckles. To call them balancing factors is incredibly naive. You have no means of predicting what the next item is. In fact, people are only going to get mad if they lost because the item decided to explode out of nowhere. If I'm playing for lulz, I'll turn on items. If I want a true test of skill, I play without items and hazards.

I guess 'balancing' is the wrong word, maybe 'equalizing' is what I'm thinking of? It severely decreases the skill gap. If it's too strong (like a tactical nuke), you lose the satisfaction of winning, because it wasn't anything to do with your skill. Even the hammer wasn't unbeatable. Nintendo did an interesting thing in that when you do get seemingly random insta-deaths, it was silly and funny (lulzy), which made it easier to swallow.

Handicap systems are barely used to begin with. They're a nice concept, but things just don't work out that way.

Yup, I think the problem is that it lessens the satisfaction of winning when the other person can just say, "Oh, it was because of the handicap". You can't really argue with that like you can with random events like tripping or item drops. Again, we have another case where the handicap would have to be enough that poor players won't get frustrated and quit, but not too much to make good players get frustrated and quit.

You're forgetting that to a lot of people, it reduced the tactics of the game and made it where the RNG was too powerful. Seriously, random is hardly a positive aspect in a fighting game. The players themselves will provide the randomness. Random aspects should be kept to a minimum or be done in a way where the player can adapt to them without cutting away from gameplay.

I totally agree with this. Complete randomness cuts into enjoyment on high-level play, because most skill that you build up in the game is meant to combat randomness, or increase your chances of winning. You still need a little bit, because if you've increased your chance of winning to 100%, why would anyway play you? It's why no one plays tic-tac-toe on a 2x2 board. In summary, "yes, that is the crux of the problem".
I think I put randomness in as a 'pro' because it's easy to implement in code, instead of an if/then/else tree figuring out whether you get a 9 hammer or a 1, you just put in one random(1,9) function call. It's the lazy man's way to mitigate the skill gap.

The chief thing is to make the learning curve a lot less steeper than in other fighting games while still retaining the height of the curve. Things like reducing some executional barriers and explaining strategical aspects of the game go a long, long way. ...

I like the learning curve idea.
I think watching the how-to videos in melee would have made me learn the basic mechanics a lot faster. Then again, there's something enjoyable about figuring it out yourself, even if you look like an idiot for the first couple of times you play. "What's dis button do?"

1. Just don't make them broken like in Brawl. That was just stupid and not fun.
2. Nobody would use this.
3. Random tripping is not coming back. Floatiness is a character design aspect.
4. That won't be up to Nintendo. That'll be up to the modding community.
5. NO! NO! NO! This is not how matchups work. There are meant to be advantages and disadvantages in matchups. Simplifying it to such levels is an insult to players and just makes people learn more characters than what they want.
6. Ranked matches with parameter settings, player matches with parameter settings, and Random. Problem solved.
7. I'm pretty sure no one here wants this.

2. I don't know how, but if people did use it, would it actually fix anything, or is handicapping itself broken?
3. Thank Sakurai. It seemed like it was an aspect of every character in Brawl.
4. Nintendo could be a little more helpful.
5. Rock would still have a chance...it's just paper, but I see what you mean. I like learning to play a whole bunch of different characters but I have a friend who plays exclusively falco. I think learning a specific character's strengths and weaknesses is not too unlike learning the cast's strengths and weaknesses. We already have the pre-match planning when we do stage picks and counterpicks, why not have the same with character selection. Again, ways to increase your chances of winning, but not too high (100%), are what make skill and strategy worthwhile and give wins their satisfaction (and hype).
6. I don't understand, but I'm interested.

Tekken's online system is definitely among the best I've seen for matchmaking. It's a wonderful concept that pretty much ditches the traditional numeric ranking in favor of an RPG-like title system.

After reading through the comments, this seems most viable for online play. I'm 100% in favor of this. It requires enough people of every skill level, but I'm guessing it ranks like the handicapping system, where if you win matches, your rank goes up, and losses make you go down, and you get paired with people of similar rank.
But what about local play? Is it even an issue, or are most people going to be playing online? I don't know.

I think I made this thread thinking about smash 4, but it seems to be more about general game design. Online play and matchmaking based off of skill takes a lot of work off the programmers and designers hands because they don't have to equalize the playing field with randomness, or handicaps that no one uses, they can equalize the playing field by pitching you against equal players.

 

[Big-Cat]

I guess 'balancing' is the wrong word, maybe 'equalizing' is what I'm thinking of? It severely decreases the skill gap. If it's too strong (like a tactical nuke), you lose the satisfaction of winning, because it wasn't anything to do with your skill. Even the hammer wasn't unbeatable. Nintendo did an interesting thing in that when you do get seemingly random insta-deaths, it was silly and funny (lulzy), which made it easier to swallow.

It may have decreased the skill gap, but it's really no different than the handicap concept. Oh, I lost because he got Ho-Oh, not because I was outplayed.

I think I put randomness in as a 'pro' because it's easy to implement in code, instead of an if/then/else tree figuring out whether you get a 9 hammer or a 1, you just put in one random(1,9) function call. It's the lazy man's way to mitigate the skill gap.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call a lazy way a pro unless it was actually efficient.

I think watching the how-to videos in melee would have made me learn the basic mechanics a lot faster. Then again, there's something enjoyable about figuring it out yourself, even if you look like an idiot for the first couple of times you play. "What's dis button do?"

Well, you're looking at what the actions are. What you should be really looking at is, what can I do with this? That being said, certain techniques and properties of attacks should be addressed in some way possible. Things like turning the target tests into mini character tutorials would be a fun way of introducing a character.

2. I don't know how, but if people did use it, would it actually fix anything, or is handicapping itself broken?
3. Thank Sakurai. It seemed like it was an aspect of every character in Brawl.
4. Nintendo could be a little more helpful.
5. Rock would still have a chance...it's just paper, but I see what you mean. I like learning to play a whole bunch of different characters but I have a friend who plays exclusively falco. I think learning a specific character's strengths and weaknesses is not too unlike learning the cast's strengths and weaknesses. We already have the pre-match planning when we do stage picks and counterpicks, why not have the same with character selection. Again, ways to increase your chances of winning, but not too high (100%), are what make skill and strategy worthwhile and give wins their satisfaction (and hype).
6. I don't understand, but I'm interested.

2. I think it's more like no one really cares. I'd rather be beaten at full strength than at half strength.
3. It more or less was, but I was referring to how the falling speed is a character design aspect and not necessarily the physics engine itself.
4. Well, they really can't. It would set up way too many legal precedents that would be waiting to be exploited.
5. Well, pro players typically play only one or two characters in a game. They learn the other characters' strengths and weaknesses by playing against them and going into training mode to analyze the properties. It's more about what to do against them than as to play as them.
6. Ranked would be the Tekken system we referred to. You'd be able to play against people within a certain skill range or just say any skill while also having your region and minimum connection settings. Player Matches are where you can play against people in lobbies or quick one on one matches without the risk of losing your ranking/title. These are perfect for collaborating with other players for strategies. You could set up team matches and other settings like items or not.

But what about local play? Is it even an issue, or are most people going to be playing online? I don't know.

"Equalizing" in offline play is not something a whole lot can be done other than for the players to work together to get better at the game. It's been that way for years, even with tutorials.

 

[salaboB]

Relating to the list of balancers, none of my friends can beat me at any of the smash games 1 on 1 unless handicap gets seriously involved. There are no equalizers that effectively give you a chance if you're just playing the game casually and your opponent is someone who takes them seriously (Learning spacings, DI, etc). I'm not even that good, just all my friends are really casual.

If we're talking handicap, there's a number of systems that will work. Ones that simply give me more damage rather than making my opponents not fly as far are much preferred for me though, since then the mechanics still function like I'm used to (Rather than wrecking everything I've learned so far). Just let it be set to automatically adjust for a player (Possibly storing based on your name so in the future you can resume from your previous handicap versus your opponents?) and away you go.

If we're talking online play, skip the handicaps and match people against others of close to their skill. Unless the online community is tiny or you're at the very top or very bottom, there should be plenty of different people to go against and have a good match -- and if you're very top, you can be good practice for whichever poor opponent you get to steamroll.

The rest is ineffective and/or just clutters up the game (Even the casual players hate tripping).

All that being said: The key to avoiding the hardcore-exclusive fighter issues was in removal of arcane button combinations for special moves, and complex combos/parries/supers/etc. And that's what opened Smash up to be playable by those friends of mine -- and I think what Sakurai was going for, not an equalization between skilled and not-skilled players. So I guess my tl;dr is that I think this thread is based on a faulty (Though interesting enough to discuss) premise.

 

[shuall]

That's a good point. If you get the bat, you still have to hit the person, and it's not uncommon to jv 5-stock some casual players (so they never hit you) if you're that good.
I think the most effective handicap would be damage multipliers or like you said, knockback adjustments (though those are partly based off damage, so damage multipliers would work for that, too).

 

[Mr.C]

For people even to consider lesser skilled players being on par with individuals who dedicate more time to practice through means of gimmick game play mechanics as a viable or even logical end point, is frankly disgusting. I absolutely hate the new gaming generation. If you want to not get dominated, get better.

 

[Ulevo]

Why exactly should people putting many more hours into skill and practice not be wiping the floor with people that don't?

 

[FlamingForce]

For people even to consider lesser skilled players being on par with individuals who dedicate more time to practice through means of gimmick game play mechanics as a viable or even logical end point, is frankly disgusting. I absolutely hate the new gaming generation. If you want to not get dominated, get better.

Exactly, if you care about winning then you should ****ing work for it.

 

[grizby2]

honestly, even when smash 64 came out, the ONLY party aspect of the game that I saw was the fact that you're fighting with Nintendo characters that are either realistic or totally non-realistic, and that in itself, was pretty hilarious.

smash is a fighting game, pure and simple.
its not like casual players completely dodge the main goal of the game of course. the word SMASH is in the title, so you inherently feel the need to clobber the other person (I KNOW I DID! XD). the game gives so many hints telling you to knock the other player off the stage.
casual players in general just aren't as efficient at doing that than experienced players are.
and that's just IT. they need to practice a bit is all. we were all casuals at one point as well.
thankfully though, smash bros has move inputs that are universal for all characters, so its fairly easy to do everything a character can do without even playing that character (all characters do SOMETHING when you press UP +B for example). a game like street fighter or soul calibur doesn't necessarily have the same inputs for all the characters in their rosters.
because of this, its a lot easier to master the execution of moves, and gives the new player confidence, because when he/she needs to do a certain move, they'll know how to do it without getting flustered and messing up which is what happens in most traditional fighting games.

OK, time to dissect this.

..... What Nintendo games have generally specialized in is the simplification of controls, but not necessarily sacrificing the depth. This has, more or less, been one of the goals of Smash Bros. ...

BINGO d--(^-^)z



now, making those moves COUNT, and knowing WHEN to use them... that's taking practice to the next level.

 

[shuall]

For people even to consider lesser skilled players being on par with individuals who dedicate more time to practice through means of gimmick game play mechanics as a viable or even logical end point, is frankly disgusting. I absolutely hate the new gaming generation. If you want to not get dominated, get better.

When you play with your little cousins or something, or if you're trying to get someone interested in the game do you tell them, "hey this is a really fun game, you should try it, you'll like it." and then proceed to 0-death combo them to a jv5stock every match? That would be dumb, I know some people's response would be, "Oh, I have to get better at this game so I won't get mine handed to me next time." This response, in my experience, is not common, usually it's something like, "Why practice? It's a stupid video game, and it doesn't seem like practice will do any good, as I have 0% chance of winning no matter what I do. I have better, more enjoyable things to do with my time."

Lesser skilled players should not be on par with people who practice. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm asking for ideas for the game so that when casual players play with players of much more skill, where should they fall on the ownage scale? I feel like it needs to be somewhere between, "I'm just as good as this guy, I don't need to play to get better" and "I will never have a chance of touching this guy, I refuse to waste time playing this impossible game". Both are not good if you're the developer. You can call quitting childish, but you've done it before when something looked impossible, and you didn't have any vested interest in it to begin with. It's a fact of life.

Think like the players are little kids and the developer is a parent trying to keep everyone happy. If you're playing a game and some kid is dominating to the degree that all the other children are getting demoralized, you try to help the losers out. It's not fair to the winner because, hey, he has more skill at this and he should be wiping the floor with these guys, but everyone knows he's good at this. The parent wants everyone to play the game and have fun. You can play tug-of-war with professional athletes and with kindergartners. You just turn off handicaps or equalizers with the athletes because they are doing it competitively. Same thing with video games. Does that make sense? I hope this makes as much sense in text as it does in my head.

EDIT: I guess this opens up another discussion that's been had before as to whether developers should even cater toward casual players who don't put in a lot of practice time with their game.

 

[[Corn]]

When you play with your little cousins or something, or if you're trying to get someone interested in the game do you tell them, "hey this is a really fun game, you should try it, you'll like it." and then proceed to 0-death combo them to a jv5stock every match? That would be dumb, I know some people's response would be, "Oh, I have to get better at this game so I won't get mine handed to me next time." This response, in my experience, is not common, usually it's something like, "Why practice? It's a stupid video game, and it doesn't seem like practice will do any good, as I have 0% chance of winning no matter what I do. I have better, more enjoyable things to do with my time."

Lesser skilled players should not be on par with people who practice. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm asking for ideas for the game so that when casual players play with players of much more skill, where should they fall on the ownage scale? I feel like it needs to be somewhere between, "I'm just as good as this guy, I don't need to play to get better" and "I will never have a chance of touching this guy, I refuse to waste time playing this impossible game". Both are not good if you're the developer. You can call quitting childish, but you've done it before when something looked impossible, and you didn't have any vested interest in it to begin with. It's a fact of life.

Think like the players are little kids and the developer is a parent trying to keep everyone happy. If you're playing a game and some kid is dominating to the degree that all the other children are getting demoralized, you try to help the losers out. It's not fair to the winner because, hey, he has more skill at this and he should be wiping the floor with these guys, but everyone knows he's good at this. The parent wants everyone to play the game and have fun. You can play tug-of-war with professional athletes and with kindergartners. You just turn off handicaps or equalizers with the athletes because they are doing it competitively. Same thing with video games. Does that make sense? I hope this makes as much sense in text as it does in my head.

EDIT: I guess this opens up another discussion that's been had before as to whether developers should even cater toward casual players who don't put in a lot of practice time with their game.

Then dont be a **** when playing with friends and push them slowly. Especially when trying to introduce new players to the game

I could be the best Tennis player in the world, but I would never play the way I could play in a competition when playing with my little sister.

 

[Ulevo]

Then dont be a **** when playing with friends and push them slowly. Especially when trying to introduce new players to the game

I could be the best Tennis player in the world, but I would never play the way I could play in a competition when playing with my little sister.

 

[Ulevo]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm quoting people as opposed to posting. That's because the answer to this problem is so obvious that this thread serves no real purpose. I'm sorry, but its the truth.

 

[FlamingForce]

Lesser skilled players should not be on par with people who practice. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm asking for ideas for the game so that when casual players play with players of much more skill, where should they fall on the ownage scale? I feel like it needs to be somewhere between, "I'm just as good as this guy, I don't need to play to get better" and "I will never have a chance of touching this guy, I refuse to waste time playing this impossible game". Both are not good if you're the developer. You can call quitting childish, but you've done it before when something looked impossible, and you didn't have any vested interest in it to begin with. It's a fact of life.

Maybe to you it is, this is a video game we're talking about. And if you consider quitting a video game because someone beats you a usual "Fact of life" then you're either uninterested in the game to begin with or you need to stop complaining and practice just like the guy that beat you did.

I'll spell this out one more time: If winning is important to you then you should put in the hours to get to a level of skill where you can reliably win. THAT is a fact of life.
I really don't get why you're comparing this to athletes playing Tug-of-war with kindergartners, that's got nothing to do with skill level, that would just be the athletes being assholes, they win because they're older and more physically developed.

On an even ground in terms of physical capability and age (Meaning 2 people with functioning limbs and senses) There is absolutely no reason as to why the better player should not win, if the lesser player takes this so hard that he drops the game entirely, that's his loss. If you want to win but aren't prepared to put in the effort then you have no right of speech.

As for playing against players that are new to a game or clearly at a disadvantage for reasons such as the ones you named, there's a handicap mode that's been in the game since the very first, a game developer can't stop the more experienced player from being an asshole who feels good about beating up his little cousin, it's impossible to please and cater to everyone and every possible scenario.

 

[grizby2]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm quoting people as opposed to posting. That's because the answer to this problem is so obvious that this thread serves no real purpose. I'm sorry, but its the truth.

 

[S_B]

The SSB series has built-in mechanisms for adding RNG to the games, mainly in the way of items and stage hazards.

Remove those and it comes down to the skill of the individual player.

Really, it CAN be done both ways and frequently is. All we truly need is for Sakurai to ensure that the roster is generally balanced for 1v1 and (god willing) release some balance patches afterward and SSB4 can be the best of both worlds.

 

[shuall]

The player who destroys casuals would be a jerk, but unfortunately, there are jerks out there. A game developer should try to make it so that one jerk is not going to ruin play for everyone else. The casual dropping the game is his (and the publisher's) loss, so the developer would try to stop this from happening.

I know I don't have any ideas or 'arguments' other than, "I think there should be some kind of built-in game mechanic to mitigate skill difference between players in a multiplayer game."

I'm not seeing any new ideas than the ones I had (and added) at the top, and the argument is more turning towards whether we should even have anything in a game to lessen the skill gap. I guess we could talk about that, but that becomes even more nebulous, and opinionated, than just listing ways that other games have or could balance gameplay. However, I think the thread is at the end of its productivity (may have happened a couple comments ago).

 

[FlamingForce]

The player who destroys casuals would be a jerk, but unfortunately, there are jerks out there. A game developer should try to make it so that one jerk is not going to ruin play for everyone else. The casual dropping the game is his (and the publisher's) loss, so the developer would try to stop this from happening.

You can either wallow in defeat or feel the need to get better to beat said jerk.
This is simply the difference in the way people handle defeat, a game developer can't be expected to help a defeatist mindset from putting his chances down.

The problem with your suggestions is that none of them really offer a way of actually improving, only crutches to aid lesser skilled players with.
On the surface the SSB gameplay is honestly about as simple as it gets, every move of every character is easily accessed because of the game's control scheme.
This leaves room for improvement in knowledge of a characters weaknesses and options, certain advanced techniques, mindgames, strategy and overall familiarity with the game and the character(s) you play, none of these things are fostered or practiced through items, the handicap mode or brawl's random shenanigans, atleast not to a better or lesser degree then normal gameplay does. (Items are arguably even a detriment.)

People are supposed to learn through defeat, not let a loss keep them from ever trying again, not if the end goal is to beat a certain player. The handicap mode is already there to keep the one-off kinda players from getting their asses completely handed to them, so that part of the demographic is already covered.

There's simply no way around this, if 2 people on even ground are to duke it out, the better player should win. If the loser then decides that he shouldn't even bother anymore there's very little a game developer can do about this without handing him some sort of crutch that basically invalidates any victories he achieves with it, these crutches are fine for the less serious players, but a player that wants victory on an even field should be expected to put in the effort and practice to achieve this or be content knowing that he can't beat someone without a handicap.

A "Jerk" player can only ruin it for you if you allow him to, his goal is basically achieved the moment you give up because of him, this is purely and only a mindset problem, not a fault of the game itself or the developer.

 

[Blue Warrior]

The player who destroys casuals would be a jerk, but unfortunately, there are jerks out there.

A game developer should try to make it so that one jerk is not going to ruin play for everyone else. The casual dropping the game is his (and the publisher's) loss, so the developer would try to stop this from happening.

I don't agree this mentality at all. First off, there are already variables in Smash Bros. that level out the playing field, they're simply tied to a switch. The only way in which you could possibly use the game to solve your problem is to take a step further by forcing these variables on players. Mario Kart Wii does this with items, and it turns many matches into a frustrating luck-based mess.

It is the responsibility of the better player to teach the new player how to get better. It always has been this way throughout the history of games (electronic or otherwise), and it always will be. If you want to have a fun multiplayer time and your butt-faced friend is keeping you from having a shred of a chance, you need to pick better friends, not better games. I think to structure the game around jerks would at best be useful when the game first comes out, until said jerks find ways around your system. Chances are it will just dumb down the competitive atmosphere, even for players like me who don't participate in Smash at a high level.

I know I don't have any ideas or 'arguments' other than, "I think there should be some kind of built-in game mechanic to mitigate skill difference between players in a multiplayer game."

I'm not seeing any new ideas than the ones I had (and added) at the top, and the argument is more turning towards whether we should even have anything in a game to lessen the skill gap. I guess we could talk about that, but that becomes even more nebulous, and opinionated, than just listing ways that other games have or could balance gameplay. However, I think the thread is at the end of its productivity (may have happened a couple comments ago).

I gave you ideas. Some of them were agreeing with your point and some of them were new. I'm sorry the thread didn't go out your way, but your idea on closing the skill gap is a pipe dream with an ass-backward concept. Party games have proven it's possible to make it so the better player doesn't always win, but they've never done so in a way that maintains the game's strategic depth. The appropriate solution is not to make skill matter less, but to make it easier to become skilled. A player can only get better by learning the game inside and out; if you present better learning tools to the player, you'll maintain their interest far more easily.

 

[Ulevo]

I think the thread is at the end of its productivity (may have happened a couple comments ago).

It never served a purpose. The idea that game design experience should cater to those who are unwilling to have the perseverance to succeed at the expense of those who do is asinine, especially within competitive context.

 

[S_B]

It never served a purpose. The idea that game design experience should cater to those who are unwilling to have the perseverance to succeed at the expense of those who do is asinine, especially within competitive context.

Pretty much this.

Also, when it comes to getting casuals to pick up and play SSB, the responsibility lies in the hands of the player introducing them to it (or the initial "Story Mode" or its equivalent) to ease them in gradually and not go full MK on their sorry arses.

If you go online the first time you ever play a SSB game, yeah, you're gonna lose, just like you're gonna lose if you step onto the court with a tennis pro the very first time you play tennis.

Seriously, no software can solve the problem of a dude who invites three friends over who have never played before and then proceeds to pummel them senseless at SSB. That's a defect in the consumer, not the product, and it's not something Sakurai should be trying to fix unless he's found a cure for jerks IRL.

 

[shuall]

Editted OP to try to reflect the prevailing ideas of these comments.

I gave you ideas. Some of them were agreeing with your point and some of them were new.

My bad, when I said the ideas that I added, I meant the ones I added from other comments like yours. I did add the tekken online and players helping each other options to the list earlier.

 

[MargnetMan23]

As I stand it would definitely be a great idea to add an optional tutorial for new players. Because as I see it any ass can figure out that A=regular moves and B=specials but stuff like smash attacks and grabs are a bit harder to figure out due to having inputs that are less obvious or wouldn't come to mind

 

[Blue Warrior]

The basics are already well covered, particularly the overarching controls and concepts of Smash Bros. I don't know if Brawl does this, but the trophies in Melee usually had hints on how to use or play against a certain character/item ("If you face off against a counter-happy Marth, grab him!"). It would be kind of cool if this was expanded on a bit into full-fledged character tutorials, or at least brought back through trophy descriptions.

 

[shuall]

Pondering over my eggs and guac this morning as to whether I wanted to bring this up again but here goes:
I was talking this over with some friends, and we came to the conclusion that it really depends on whether you're playing the game casually or competitively. If you're playing competitively, anything that gets between the more skilled player and winning is annoying and should be cut. If you're just playing for lulz (casually), then items, trips and the like are actually really hilarious, and make matches memorable for being so janky and random. Anything that gets in between the players and a good time, including skill, should be mitigated for casual play. Why? because enjoyment is the end goal; winning or losing doesn't really matter if everyone is laughing about it.

When you say,

Why exactly should people putting many more hours into skill and practice not be wiping the floor with people that don't?

It's because it's boring. We already agreed that people who do that are jerks and that it's a crappy way to spark interest in the game.

Nintendo (and other publishers) obviously spent plenty of money playtesting these gameplay elements and found that players enjoyed the game more with them in, so saying that this answer is simple and the thread is useless is wrong. You're only saying that from a competitive player's point of view. I won't find a lot of help in this audience because how many accounts on smashboards do you think belong to people who don't play competitively? But even KumaOso said, "If I'm playing for lulz, I'll turn items on."

The only factor I mentioned that doesn't make the game more hilarious for casuals or more fair for competitions is handicaps. I think that is why they're never used. This is interesting, because games like golf use handicaps to do exactly what I'm talking about: make it so that the more skilled player doesn't steamroll the lesser.

 

[FlamingForce]

It's because it's boring. We already agreed that people who do that are jerks and that it's a crappy way to spark interest in the game.

You did not just blissfully ignore the way I carefully tried to explain exactly why that is NOT the case for the sake of trying to push your own silly ideas down our throats.
I'm just going to put you on my ignore list and pretend this thread never happened.

 

[Big-Cat]

It's because it's boring. We already agreed that people who do that are jerks and that it's a crappy way to spark interest in the game.

When the heck did we agree on that? I can easily say that those who want a handout for skill instead of putting in the time to get better are a bunch of self entitled jerks.

Have you even played in a tournament or any kind of competitive environment?

 

[nat pagle]

64 and Melee did this with the Handicap system. Brawl just started you at a higher %.

Beyond an optional handicap system, items, and certain stages, it'd be counterproductive to give too much aid to the new player that also hurts the more experienced player's experience. And I find it surprising that some people want to throw skill out the door when it comes to casual play.

But hold on, how would this apply to 1p or online? If the gameplay is now based off random and lulzy happenings and not skill, is 1p just a faceroll for everyone and online just a bunch of random happenings, so the lowest skilled player is now on equal footing and no one really has competition anymore?