I don't think having defensive options is a bad thing in Smash Bros.

[JamietheAuraUser]

Uh, isn't this universally true? Yes, if you get shield grabbed, it means you messed up. Maybe or you didn't space your attack right, or you used something unsafe. How is that any different from Brawl or Smash 4?

In Smash 4, very few possible approach options (those that are direct attacks, anyway) are totally safe on shield. You can either be safe from shieldgrabs, or you can be safe from other out-of-shield punishes. For example, many characters can be safe from shieldgrabs by straight-up throwing a Forward Smash at a foe's shield; the shieldpush will be strong enough that the foe will very definitely be out of grab range by the time they can get their grab's hitbox out. However, this will obviously leave them wide open to almost any other out-of-shield punish. On the other hand, almost any move that has short enough endlag to be safe from other out-of-shield options likely has a short enough range and weak enough shieldpush and shieldstun that the attacker can easily be shieldgrabbed.

 

[Tagxy]

This isn't inconsistent at all. The biggest complaint Melee players had about Brawl was "too defensive". People like you and OP turn that to "oh Melee players want a game with zero defense" and when they respond with "no we don't, Melee had a good balance" you claim inconsistency.

And for the record, I come from competitive Brawl.

Smash 64 drives home two important points, if you watch top level 64 or play it a bit competently with a player of equal skill you can see why. The first being the importance of having an adequate shield, and why shielding and options out of shield are not inherent defensive options. The second is how high reward punishment games are at best irrelevant to the neutral games pace and at worst slow it down. Shielding (and options OOS) are an essential part of a fundamental RPS play that exists in smash (attack, shield, grab), and without an adequate shield the game reverts to players cautiously traversing the stage and tossing out spaced attacks against each other hoping to get that little nick thatll start their massive punishment game but never committing without a super high level of guaranteed.

This isnt to demonstrate that 64 is a defensive game, 64 is a defensive game and this explains that.

I am not necessarily a Brawl or Smash 64 veteran by any stretch of the imagination (nor do I have anything against either game), so I could certainly be wrong; however, based on my empirical knowledge, players would consistently attempt to camp a lead to force an approach because the defensive options were more advantageous. Of course, this rarely lasted the entire game and time-outs were rare(ish) in the case of Brawl. I would argue that the mere attempt that is seemingly present in the vast majority of sets would advocate for predominately defensive games even if the inherent nature of the game is to be aggressive. Basically, I do not find it relevant that the game-play leans offensive based on the "primary goal" when their is a feasible secondary goal. But that is just me sharing a subjective opinion.

Thats true which is why I implied there was a secondary goal in the first place which you smartly picked up on. Of course forcing the opponent to approach is a very common and valid strategy and this is true in every smash game as well. M2K is infamous for this even in melee (the famouse dashizwiz video his entire comeback strategy revolved around this). But the opponent is actually able to exchange leads as well, which was why I also said consistently

 

[shapular]

Uh, isn't this universally true? Yes, if you get shield grabbed, it means you messed up. Maybe or you didn't space your attack right, or you used something unsafe. How is that any different from Brawl or Smash 4?

The point is that shieldgrabbing is actually a viable option in Brawl and Smash 4. You can realistically use it as a way to counter your opponent's approach and rack up damage or get a kill, but there are also ways for the aggressor to pressure the defender without getting shieldgrabbed. In Melee you can't count on landing a shieldgrab ever, because so many attacks are safe on shield that unless your opponent misses an L-cancel or just whiffs entirely you'll be stuck in shieldstun too long to do anything. If shieldgrabbing was a usable option in Melee, Jigglypuff would beat Fox easily.

 

[HeroMystic]

Uh, isn't this universally true? Yes, if you get shield grabbed, it means you messed up. Maybe or you didn't space your attack right, or you used something unsafe. How is that any different from Brawl or Smash 4?

It's universally true, but it is false to say the mechanics are exactly the same.

I am unfamiliar with Melee's frame data, but I can with confidence say due to heavier fall speeds, marginally higher shield stun, high shield-push and weak OOS options as a result of this, there were a plethora of moves a character can do to pressure a shield and then eventually poke through it to place the defender into a disadvantage.

Brawl is different. So different that it is the complete opposite. Shielding in Brawl had low shield stun, shield pushing was nearly non-existent, and Power Shielding allowed you to act out of shield instantly while also regenerating your shield's HP to full. The floatiness of the game (i.e, the lack of momentum carried from dashing into short-hops) also did not allow cross-ups to be performed frequently. Hitting a shield in Brawl means you were forced to approach because your character's defense could not overcome your opponent's defense.

Smash 4 balances this by making powershield (and shield) much weaker in general, therefore utilizing Smash's trinity of Shield, Attack, Grab in equal value.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Smash 64 drives home two important points, if you watch top level 64 or play it a bit competently with a player of equal skill you can see why. The first being the importance of having an adequate shield, and why shielding and options out of shield are not inherent defensive options. The second is how high reward punishment games are at best irrelevant to the neutral games pace and at worst slow it down. Shielding is an essential part of a fundamental RPS play that exists in smash (attack, shield, grab), and without an adequate shield the game reverts to players cautiously traversing the stage and tossing out spaced attacks against each other hoping to get that little nick thatll start their massive punishment game but never committing without a super high level of guaranteed.

This isnt to demonstrate that 64 is a defensive game, 64 is a defensive game and this explains that.

This is exactly what I was trying to say in my post last page, but you said it much better than I could have.

 

[JediLink]

The point is that shieldgrabbing is actually a viable option in Brawl and Smash 4. You can realistically use it as a way to counter your opponent's approach and rack up damage or get a kill, but there are also ways for the aggressor to pressure the defender without getting shieldgrabbed.

And again, I fail to see how this doesn't also apply to Melee.

In Melee you can't count on landing a shieldgrab ever, because so many attacks are safe on shield that unless your opponent misses an L-cancel or just whiffs entirely you'll be stuck in shieldstun too long to do anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qna80MbcAAc

There are no less than five shield grabs in shield grabs in this one match, with the very last one being arguably one of the most famous moments in Smash history. But according to you can't count on landing a shieldgrab ever. Hmm.

There's still plenty of stuff that's unsafe in Melee. Sometimes you'll go for a risky hard read and find that it doesn't work out. Sometimes you'll mess up your spacing. A lot of attacks are only safe if they're spaced, especially with Marth. Even spacie pressure isn't impervious - the first aerial to shine is guaranteed, but after that, you have to mix it up. If you think Melee is anything like Marvel 2/3, you've definitely got the wrong idea.

 

[shapular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qna80MbcAAc

There are no less than five shield grabs in shield grabs in this one match, with the very last one being arguably one of the most famous moments in Smash history. But according to you can't count on landing a shieldgrab ever. Hmm.

There's still plenty of stuff that's unsafe in Melee. Sometimes you'll go for a risky hard read and find that it doesn't work out. Sometimes you'll mess up your spacing. A lot of attacks are only safe if they're spaced, especially with Marth. Even spacie pressure isn't impervious - the first aerial to shine is guaranteed, but after that, you have to mix it up. If you think Melee is anything like Marvel 2/3, you've definitely got the wrong idea.

2009, the last time shieldgrabbing was a thing in top-level Melee. And there were a whole five of them! What was that, 2 for DaShiaWia and 3 for M2K? Truly a reliable defensive option. Forgive me, I was wrong.

 

[Frostav]

This isn't inconsistent at all. The biggest complaint Melee players had about Brawl was "too defensive". People like you and OP turn that to "oh Melee players want a game with zero defense" and when they respond with "no we don't, Melee had a good balance" you claim inconsistency.

And for the record, I come from competitive Brawl.

But...Melee didn't have a good balance.

The best characters are all rushdown characters. Rolling and spot-dodging are pretty much useless. Every slow character besides Peach is useless. It's telling that the two best characters in the game (Fox and Falco) are extreme rushdown characters.

Not to mention that Melee is one of the very few fighting games where blocking is heavily punished (though all Smash games share this mechanic): even if you have frame-perfect blocking, your shield gets tiny with only a few hits (so it's extremely difficult to block a blockstring as it goes on, where in other FG's it merely depends on your ability to read and react) and will eventually break. You can't even airblock! Airdodging is useless outside of wavedashing (an offensive technique). There's no technique like Bursts to break a combo and there's no way of having more than a paper-thin piece of crap for a shield (like Faultless Defense in Guilty Gear).

Melee is a great game, but it's a hilariously imbalanced Kusoge that's Marvel VS Capcom 2-levels of stupid and amazing.

 

[shapular]

Rolling and spot-dodging are pretty much useless.

I forgot about this. These defensive options are terrible because they're easy to punish on reaction. If you can punish a dodge on reaction, then it's worthless and might as well not be in the game. People are freaking out about rolls in Smash 4 because they're actually usable for once. People don't know how to deal with usable rolls because they haven't had to do it before. So what are these great defensive options you have in Melee that somehow balance out the incredibly safe and rewarding offense?

 

[JediLink]

2009, the last time shieldgrabbing was a thing in top-level Melee. And there were a whole five of them! What was that, 2 for DaShiaWia and 3 for M2K? Truly a reliable defensive option. Forgive me, I was wrong.

You might have noticed plenty of wavedashes out of shield and dairs out of shield as well.

I get the feeling that what Melee is in your head and what Melee is in reality are two very different things, and at that point there's not much use in arguing.

But...Melee didn't have a good balance.

The best characters are all rushdown characters. Rolling and spot-dodging are pretty much useless. Every slow character besides Peach is useless. It's telling that the two best characters in the game (Fox and Falco) are extreme rushdown characters.

Not to mention that Melee is one of the very few fighting games where blocking is heavily punished (though all Smash games share this mechanic): even if you have frame-perfect blocking, your shield gets tiny with only a few hits (so it's extremely difficult to block a blockstring as it goes on, where in other FG's it merely depends on your ability to read and react) and will eventually break. You can't even airblock! Airdodging is useless outside of wavedashing (an offensive technique). There's no technique like Bursts to break a combo and there's no way of having more than a paper-thin piece of crap for a shield (like Faultless Defense in Guilty Gear).

Melee is a great game, but it's a hilariously imbalanced Kusoge that's Marvel VS Capcom 2-levels of stupid and amazing.

Same goes with you. You can't sweep an entire four stocks in Melee by doing guard break --> infinite every time they come down from the respawn platform. Marvel 2 comparisons are whack.

 

[Kimimaru]

But...Melee didn't have a good balance.

The best characters are all rushdown characters. Rolling and spot-dodging are pretty much useless. Every slow character besides Peach is useless. It's telling that the two best characters in the game (Fox and Falco) are extreme rushdown characters

This is incorrect. If Falco was a rushdown character, you wouldn't see Falco players cautiously standing across the stage shooting lasers to pressure their opponent. Not to mention, he dies so easily that Falco players can't afford to be overly aggressive. Samus and Jigglypuff are other slow characters that perform well in tournaments.

Rolling and spot dodging are not useless. They're defensive options that you can use as mix-ups to get out of pressure.

Not to mention that Melee is one of the very few fighting games where blocking is heavily punished (though all Smash games share this mechanic): even if you have frame-perfect blocking, your shield gets tiny with only a few hits (so it's extremely difficult to block a blockstring as it goes on, where in other FG's it merely depends on your ability to read and react) and will eventually break. You can't even airblock! Airdodging is useless outside of wavedashing (an offensive technique). There's no technique like Bursts to break a combo and there's no way of having more than a paper-thin piece of crap for a shield (like Faultless Defense in Guilty Gear).

Melee is a great game, but it's a hilariously imbalanced Kusoge that's Marvel VS Capcom 2-levels of stupid and amazing.

Again this is incorrect. Unlike other fighting games, you can angle your shield if it gets low to block attacks in your direction. You should be trying to get out of shield as soon as you can; the reason your shield degrades over time is so you can't abuse it. As mentioned previously in this thread, shielding is a defensive option because it has a risk associated; in this case, it is your shield breaking or getting stabbed. Shielding and other defensive options (roll/spot/air dodging) are often used as last resorts.

Wavedashing isn't only an offensive technique because it can be used defensively as well. Watch a good Samus player and you will see a lot of wavedash back D-smash.

Finally, blocking IS heavily punished in other fighting games. Upon taking a hit while blocking, you move backwards, take chip damage, and get pushed to your corner, which is a very bad spot to be in. The whole goal is to NOT get hit and hit your opponent. I see no problem with punishing a player that gets hit.

I forgot about this. These defensive options are terrible because they're easy to punish on reaction. If you can punish a dodge on reaction, then it's worthless and might as well not be in the game. People are freaking out about rolls in Smash 4 because they're actually usable for once. People don't know how to deal with usable rolls because they haven't had to do it before. So what are these great defensive options you have in Melee that somehow balance out the incredibly safe and rewarding offense?

Not all defensive options are easy to punish on reaction. As I said before, choosing a defensive option like rolling or spotdodging has a risk to it. If there's no risk, why wouldn't you ever use it?

There are lots of defensive options that differ from character to character. Some common ones include wavedash out of shield, aerial out of shield, U-smash out of shield, and movement. Defense can be as simple as waiting to react to your opponent's option. Defense doesn't always involve blocking an attack or gaining invincibility. Remember, going on the offense or the defense means committing, and commitment can be punished. The better player will punish more of his/her opponent's options.

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. I'd advise researching a game more before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Zoa]

Reading this I don't really think it's because defensive options are too good, or entirely the pacing. It's because the combination of the two are incredibly forgiving when you actively play a defensive play style. According to what Shaya has said previously in a thread, there is less shieldstun than Brawl, yet more four frames stuck in shield, but you can still act out of it regardless. General recoveries have largely been buffed across the cast, or have largely remained consistent with how much space they cover. With the removal of edgehogging, and ability to steal the ledge from others, it actually removes an edgeguard option while also opening the edgeguarder to punishment for attempting a failed edgeguard.

The problem is largely because the opponent being pressured has this large advantage available to them even when being pressured. Even when you do force the opponent into a combo, or off stage, the amount of options they still have available to them still allows them to recover from many things safely and easily. Even with hitstun cancelling removed entirely, air dodges punishable when transitioning into the ground, tripping removed, etc., why would I want to do it? After it's done the whole thing usually resets to neutral, and with how brief the offensive part was why would I want to commit?

-I can put more distance between the opponent and myself, but it only encourages more neutral play.
-When I'm able to capitalize off a hit, it's generally a couple of hits and nothing more. Hitstun is unfortunately too low still to do much of anything over low percent follow ups. This generally leads to more neutral play, and as a result forces aggressive based characters into neutral even more. This leads to more approaches on their part, which leads to more punishes on them for being unable to commit to anything safe.
-When successfully landing a blow that sends the opponent off stage one has to generally play much more aggressively to actually keep the opponent off stage. The opponent is still able to ride the angle of the knockback and use the height from the knockback to recover. This is because of the floaty physics. This also inhibits moves that send at a semi spike angle because of how low knockback is coupled with the still floaty nature of the game. Many moves that kill send at these now unfavorable angles (90 degrees or above), and you generally have to kill next to the ledge or later percents because of the further blast zones all around.
-The recovery system is much more forgiving. You still have the floaty physics, recoveries that generally cover good amounts of distance, great ledge grab features, and removal of edgehogging as a viable offensive option. The opponent has many advantages even when off the stage, and can even put the edgeguarder in an unfavorable position/punish. Ironically now the previous edgeguarder has a lot going for them to recover from. It heavily discourages offstage edgeguarding and just helps to neuter gimping. Don't forget the buffed tethers.
-The way air dodges, dodges, and shield just go into one another kinda neuter hitbox coverage. It's another reason of why should I commit with direct attacks? We have safer options on hit because no more hitstun cancel, and air dodge has a standard 22 frame landing lag, but the way they flow into one another with minimal lag still hurts hitbox coverage. Lots of things outside disjoints and projectiles are already unsafe to commit to in neutral.

All this puts much more emphasis on indirect attacks in neutral, then using guerrilla tactics with the hope of actually getting anything off of it. The culmination of forgiving options, and lack of disadvantageous options a pressured opponent has just gives no real incentive to really do anything in neutral other than to punish hard off an opponent's mistake. Even then there's not much reward off a punish.

 

[RATED]

Just make rolls not spammable and this game will be fun. Now is trash.

 

[Frostav]

This is incorrect. If Falco was a rushdown character, you wouldn't see Falco players cautiously standing across the stage shooting lasers to pressure their opponent. Not to mention, he dies so easily that Falco players can't afford to be overly aggressive. Samus and Jigglypuff are other slow characters that perform well in tournaments.

Rolling and spot dodging are not useless. They're defensive options that you can use as mix-ups to get out of pressure.

They are extremely rare in high-level play though.

Again this is incorrect. Unlike other fighting games, you can angle your shield if it gets low to block attacks in your direction. You should be trying to get out of shield as soon as you can; the reason your shield degrades over time is so you can't abuse it. As mentioned previously in this thread, shielding is a defensive option because it has a risk associated; in this case, it is your shield breaking or getting stabbed. Shielding and other defensive options (roll/spot/air dodging) are often used as last resorts.

You can block low in traditional FG's as well; the thing is, your shield doesn't get harder to use the more you use it. In Smash you literally have like three-to-four moves before you get shieldbrokenm, AND it becomes much harder to block them as it gets smaller.

And if shielding is a last resort...then defensive options are bad in Melee.

Wavedashing isn't only an offensive technique because it can be used defensively as well. Watch a good Samus player and you will see a lot of wavedash back D-smash.

Finally, blocking IS heavily punished in other fighting games. Upon taking a hit while blocking, you move backwards, take chip damage, and get pushed to your corner, which is a very bad spot to be in. The whole goal is to NOT get hit and hit your opponent. I see no problem with punishing a player that gets hit.

I never said blocking shouldn't be bad for you? I just said that it shouldn't be nigh-useless like in Melee.

If you wrongblock in other FG's, it's still on your opponent to actually combo you and do big damage to you. If you get shieldbroken in Melee, then your opponent can literally just charge a smash and kill you with zero effort while you're stunned, even if you shielded perfectly (because your shield eventually breaks no matter what). It's just due to how Smash works, and it makes shielding extremely risky.

 

[MegaMissingno]

If you wrongblock in other FG's, it's still on your opponent to actually combo you and do big damage to you. If you get shieldbroken in Melee, then your opponent can literally just charge a smash and kill you with zero effort while you're stunned, even if you shielded perfectly (because your shield eventually breaks no matter what). It's just due to how Smash works, and it makes shielding extremely risky.

You seem to be equating the two as if they happen equally often. One of the most important tools in those fighting games is ambiguous mixups designed to keep your opponent guessing which way to block, and make it easy to get them to block wrong often. You'll see it happen several times a match. Melee doesn't really have anything that's good at forcing shield breaks, you'll see it happen once every dozen matches.

 

[Kimimaru]

They are extremely rare in high-level play though.
You can block low in traditional FG's as well; the thing is, your shield doesn't get harder to use the more you use it. In Smash you literally have like three-to-four moves before you get shieldbrokenm, AND it becomes much harder to block them as it gets smaller.

And if shielding is a last resort...then defensive options are bad in Melee.

They are extremely rare in high level play because they are risky options, just like shielding. If you can outmaneuver and get around or counter your opponent's option, you should do that instead of spotdodging or shielding.

The difference is you don't take any damage at all from shielding a move in Smash, but in other fighting games you take chip damage. If anything, shielding is safer in Smash than it is in other games because you can get out without taking any damage. Once you block a move in another fighting game, you lose that health forever.

I'm not sure how you derived the conclusion that defensive options in Melee are bad because shielding is a last resort. Blocking is a last resort in other fighting games as well. As I said above, you should be countering your opponent's options and not relying on shielding or blocking for defense. Defensive mechanics like shielding are there to mitigate your opponent's options at a risk. In Smash, the risks are getting shield stabbed/broken and limiting your options. In other fighting games, you take damage and get pushed to the corner. As I and others have mentioned, there are a plethora of defensive options in Melee that don't involve shielding, spot dodging, air dodging, or rolling.

I never said blocking shouldn't be bad for you? I just said that it shouldn't be nigh-useless like in Melee.

If you wrongblock in other FG's, it's still on your opponent to actually combo you and do big damage to you. If you get shieldbroken in Melee, then your opponent can literally just charge a smash and kill you with zero effort while you're stunned, even if you shielded perfectly (because your shield eventually breaks no matter what). It's just due to how Smash works, and it makes shielding extremely risky.

Again, shielding is not useless in Melee; watch at how many times it helps players get out of bad situations. Shielding in Melee is also far better than shielding in Smash 64, where hitting an opponent's shield often leads to you getting the grab. Yet in 64, shielding is still useful in some ways, such as baiting an opponent to attack your shield while you're on the edge of a platform so you can counter it with your own aerial. So if shielding has uses in Smash 64, it definitely does in Melee as well.

Remember that only a few characters in Melee actually have frame advantage on shield (a very small frame advantage), which makes shielding far better than blocking in other fighting games where mostly every attack is positive on block.

And again, shielding is simply not a go-to option because it limits your own options and runs the risk of getting stabbed or broken. In other fighting games, if you keep blocking, you'll straight up die because you lost all your health. I don't see how getting punished for using a defensive option that has consequences for too long is a problem.

While there is no wrongblocking in Smash, Melee has lightshielding, which is a larger shield that suffers more shield stun and knockback and is used for some edgeguards, notably the Marth Killer. Furthermore, to counter shielding, there are grabs, which are easier to perform in Smash than in most other fighting games. Many characters can combo off a grab, which makes it similar to following up after a wrongblock in other fighting games.

Finally, a broken shield is extremely rare (far less common than wrongblocking) and doesn't always mean death in Melee if your opponent is at a low percent. Quoting your exact words, it's still on your opponent to combo you and do big damage to you.

Defense has always been stronger than offense in any Smash game, and that includes Melee. Hax, a high level Melee player, has an entire write-up about defense being more powerful than offense in Melee, which can be found here.

 

[chipndip]

And Marth. And Sheik. And spacies can totally camp if they want to. The very premise of this thread is flawed - Melee is not "all offense" by any stretch of the imagination. It has by far the best offense/defense balance of the entire series.

Here's the thing: If your defensive mechanics are replaced by exploits/glitches/movement/hit-boxes, your game has bad defensive mechanics. As far as defensive mechanics go (air dodge, spot dodge, roll, shield), Melee's was the worst out of the 3, period. Using offense to supplement defense is not a defensive mechanic. Just a maneuver.

As for answering the topic, based on my knowledge, I believe Smash 4 to already be in the middle of your two extremes, anyway. Yes, people say the game's defensive, but what characters have seen tournament success so far? Yoshi, Diddy, Sheik...surprisingly Charizard and Robin...Sonic, Greninja, and Fox is back at it again (off the top of my head). Many characters that are considered "good" characters are offense heavy fighters in this game (disregard Charizard and Robin on that...>_>). Yea, we have to be more careful now, but isn't that the point? For fighting games to grow, we can't just reward the guy with the fastest fingers. We need a balance of finger dexterity, muscle memory, and quick thinking, and Melee's wave dashing exploit made a GIGANTIC divide between intermediate and advanced players. Hell, you couldn't even be an advanced player without it, and a game's entire meta shouldn't be based around one singular mechanic. That's just bad design.

Good players will always be able to separate themselves from bad ones. The thing is that when you remove the huge emphasis on inputs-per-second, what defines someone as "good" isn't just their input speed, but...other parts of the match-up, like it should be.

 

[Tagxy]

@ Kimimaru
Falco is a rush down character or at least can be played that way, what lazers do is cut down your opponents options. So I shoot a lazer (or dont, even the threat is enough) now my opponent has to worry about dealing with it. In the meantime falco can move across the stage and pressure you while you deal with the lazer. Of course he can also camp with lazers too.

Too many people to tag but this is directed at discussion in general. The thing about melee as I mentioned before is its true the game overall has a defensive tilt, except for fox and falco who can play completely offensive too. This is a key point behind 20XX, its not necessarily a bad thing but you do have to accept that Fox and Falco (fox especially) dominate with tools the rest of the cast doesnt have, and get to play a different game where theyre allowed outstanding pressure tools that allows them to play in a way the rest of the cast cannot, in addition to having among the best camp games as well. Accepting that is important, but once you do you can still enjoy the game.

 

[Kimimaru]

Here's the thing: If your defensive mechanics are replaced by exploits/glitches/movement/hit-boxes, your game has bad defensive mechanics. As far as defensive mechanics go (air dodge, spot dodge, roll, shield), Melee's was the worst out of the 3, period. Using offense to supplement defense is not a defensive mechanic. Just a maneuver.

As for answering the topic, based on my knowledge, I believe Smash 4 to already be in the middle of your two extremes, anyway. Yes, people say the game's defensive, but what characters have seen tournament success so far? Yoshi, Diddy, Sheik...surprisingly Charizard and Robin...Sonic, Greninja, and Fox is back at it again (off the top of my head). Many characters that are considered "good" characters are offense heavy fighters in this game (disregard Charizard and Robin on that...>_>). Yea, we have to be more careful now, but isn't that the point? For fighting games to grow, we can't just reward the guy with the fastest fingers. We need a balance of finger dexterity, muscle memory, and quick thinking, and Melee's wave dashing exploit made a GIGANTIC divide between intermediate and advanced players. Hell, you couldn't even be an advanced player without it, and a game's entire meta shouldn't be based around one singular mechanic. That's just bad design.

Good players will always be able to separate themselves from bad ones. The thing is that when you remove the huge emphasis on inputs-per-second, what defines someone as "good" isn't just their input speed, but...other parts of the match-up, like it should be.

Melee's meta is certainly not determined just by wave dashing (look at Borp, a good player who does very few advanced techniques), and its defensive mechanics are definitely not replaced by exploits and glitches. Defense is far more broad than what most people here are saying it is and doesn't involve just shields and invincibility.

I don't know why people think Melee is just about mashing buttons because it isn't. Melee requires matchup knowledge and basic fighting game principles just like any other Smash game. The technical skill required is just much higher than any other Smash game.

There's far too much misinformation in this thread; please research the game before making untrue statements.

@ Kimimaru
Falco is a rush down character or at least can be played that way, what lazers do is cut down your opponents options. So I shoot a lazer (or dont, even the threat is enough) now my opponent has to worry about dealing with it. In the meantime falco can move across the stage and pressure you while you deal with the lazer. Of course he can also camp with lazers too.

The way "rush down" was used in this thread led me to believe that players unfamiliar with Melee think that you just constantly attack and pressure your opponent with no defense whatsoever, which is simply not true. You're right that Falco can be played this way, but he can't blindly do this as others in this thread imply.

 

[chipndip]

Melee's meta is certainly not determined just by wave dashing (look at Borp, a good player who does very few advanced techniques), and its defensive mechanics are definitely not replaced by exploits and glitches. Defense is far more broad than what most people here are saying it is and doesn't involve just shields and invincibility.

I don't know why people think Melee is just about mashing buttons because it isn't. Melee requires matchup knowledge and basic fighting game principles just like any other Smash game. The technical skill required is just much higher than any other Smash game.

1) Did I say "Melee's about mashing buttons"? No. I said "There's too much emphasis on finger dexterity in the game". Its divisive and makes it so that people that can't keep up with those maneuvers can't even make it to a higher level in the game. Sure, there needs to be SOME standard set, but there's a difference between a healthy degree of difficulty and something that isn't. Melee leans on the latter. Fighting games these days are trying to broaden their fan-base, and you don't do that by adding unnecessary complexity and difficulty-in-execution into these games.

2) One guy playing a simpler play style and doing well isn't meta defining. There's another word for that: anti-meta. That doesn't mean his play style is the next big thing. It just means that it works for him and maybe a few others specifically so long as the meta is the way it is now.

3) The defensive MECHANICS in Melee, much like Brawl and Sm4sh, are the same dang things as they've been for three games now: Roll, spot dodge, air dodge, and block. In Melee, out of these three games, they're in their weakest forms to date. You get 1 air dodge before you're downright helpless (even in multi-man scenarios), and the vulnerable windows for dodges and rolls are bigger. As for shielding, it's so much more beneficial to keep moving with dash dancing and wave dashing that you're only hurting yourself by sitting there trying to block when the opponent can feint left, make right, grab, and destroy you from there.

Replacing defensive MECHANICS with offensive MANEUVERS and saying "See? Defense!" are signs of bad or weak defensive MECHANICS. Melee's defensive mechanics were just not worth it. That's why you see a ton of dashing around, but very little rolling/dodging/shielding. I can't even remember the last time I've seen a full-on air dodge in Melee. People already know it's gonna be a bad time.

 

[Nobie]

I've been watching some of the player introduction videos for the Capcom Cup this coming weekend, where commentators Ultra David and James Chen talk about the participants, all of whom are big names in the fighting game community. While this doesn't have to do Smash Bros. specifically, I think some of the things they say about the players are quite relevant to this thread.

The first video is on Justin Wong, a player who in the past was notorious for his ultra-defensive and turtley playstyle, even in games as hyper aggressive at Marvel vs. Capcom 2. And keep in mind that he was THE undisputed best MvC2 player before moving on to Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Over the past few years he's re-invented himself into a more aggressive player, but when faced with a character who's really threatening on offense or in punishing the opponent, he'll find moments to go back to his old turtle style.

You see this in the video when he's facing Chris G and for about 20 seconds stands on the other side of the screen with a life lead doing "nothing," which is apparently poison to some Smash players, but which makes sense because why throw away your lead for nothing, especially when the opponent has full meter and can mount a comeback at any time. If Little Mac has a KO Punch ready, I think you wouldn't fault most players for hanging back and trying to stall out or remove the KO Punch, only to use a whiffed or removed KO Punch to then mount the offense again. In other words, defense and offense aren't merely mechanics and options but also states of mind, and don't necessarily have to be so rigid in division. One flows into the other, and even if a game is "more aggressive" or "more defensive," it is up to the aggressive or defensive player to find their footing and their preference within their game.

The second video is on Daigo Umehara, the most famous fighting game player in the world. While they talk about how he's such a total package in terms of his skillset, including the fact that he combines the reads and feels game with the science of advanced techniques and execution, another thing they point out is the fact that Daigo is not a crazy combo machine, and though he is capable of using them, if he relies on them too much he can sometimes flub their execution. Instead, Daigo is a master of execution and technical skill in terms of being able to pull out what he wants whenever he wants, to use the fundamentals of the game and his character to his advantage. Dexterity thus takes two different forms. Both of these (being able to do extremely complex, timing-sensitive things and being able to do what you want when you want) can exist in fighting games as skills to be tested, but it makes a difference if both options are available for players to hone their styles.

 

[Snowfin]

Lol, look at all these Melee players trying to pretend Melee is balanced between offense and defense. Melee player logic is so inconsistent. If you ask them why they love Melee they'll say it's because it's fast-paced and aggressive, but if you make a topic like this they'll say Melee is balanced.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiQp5w-9IAE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L3AVPGsgLY

Dude shut up if you have no idea what youre talking about... it was all fine, polite, and there was no flaming until you came with your "lol all these melee players..."

The best defensive options in ANY SMASH are in Melee, those are CCing, WD out of shield, shine out of shield, dash dancing, and im probably forgetting some.

Why the *** do people who dont understand the game talk about it, why... i dont go on guilty gear forums and talk about why this or that was better in this or that game, cause i have no fuking clue. So if you DONT have a fuking clue, shut up.

EDIT: Oh god im done with this thread, its so annoying when people who have no clue about Melee talk about it, make themselves look stupid, and dont realize it. Im done.

OP nothing gainst you, you did it the correct way, its the others that came to the thread who are just annoying, im out

 

[chipndip]

Dude shut up if you have no idea what youre talking about... it was all fine, polite, and there was no flaming until you came with your "lol all these melee players..."

The best defensive options in ANY SMASH are in Melee, those are CCing, WD out of shield, shine out of shield, dash dancing, and im probably forgetting some.

Why the *** do people who dont understand the game talk about it, why... i dont go on guilty gear forums and talk about why this or that was better in this or that game, cause i have no *****g clue. So if you DONT have a *****g clue, shut up.

The problem, like I said, is what you just said. Wave dashing out of shield. Shine out of shield. Dash dancing. All these things come from OFFENSIVE mechanics being used to replace lousy defensive ones. You can always play defense in a fighting game, but how that game's balance between offense and defense is perceived is based on what that defense is. In Melee, defense is the very offense you've been using. It's defense in the sense that you want to protect yourself, but it's like defending yourself with a gun. Guns aren't made to defend. They kill. They're nothing but offensive weapons, but you can possibly use that fact to defend yourself. Same thing here. You're using offensive tech to defend yourself, but the defensive mechanics in this iteration of Smash is weak, and you have no right insulting someone for calling out that hypocrisy.

 

[MegaMissingno]

There's nothing inherently offensive about any of those mechanics. Wavedashing and dashdancing are just movement, and movement can be used for anything. And given that Shine's original purpose was supposed to be as a shield, I'd say you've got things backwards as it's a defensive move that also has offensive uses. You're arbitrarily declaring that all this defense doesn't count just because it's not real defense or something, but what exactly defines what does and doesn't count?

 

[Nobie]

There's nothing inherently offensive about any of those mechanics. Wavedashing and dashdancing are just movement, and movement can be used for anything. And given that Shine's original purpose was supposed to be as a shield, I'd say you've got things backwards as it's a defensive move that also has offensive uses. You're arbitrarily declaring that all this defense doesn't count just because it's not real defense or something, but what exactly defines what does and doesn't count?

In a way the fact that Shine is used primarily as an offensive tool now supports his claim, because it means that the actual reason you were supposed to use it, to reflect projectiles, with the side bonus of being able to knock people away, was completely flipped on its head due to both the inherent properties of the move and the engine, mechanics, and characters that surround it.

 

[HeroMystic]

Side-stepping the Melee tandem, I'd like to address this post. I'll be going by each paragraph one-by-one.

Reading this I don't really think it's because defensive options are too good, or entirely the pacing. It's because the combination of the two are incredibly forgiving when you actively play a defensive play style. According to what Shaya has said previously in a thread, there is less shieldstun than Brawl, yet more four frames stuck in shield, but you can still act out of it regardless.

You seem to misrepresent the premise of Shaya's thread. What you say about the mechanics is true, but your implicit conclusion is false. Here's a quote (ironically from me) within that thread.

"To put it in simpler terms.

Hitting a shield puts the opponent in shield stun, which cancels out the shield drop lag, allowing the shielding character to retaliate faster. Not hitting a shield forces the opponent to go through the entire shield animation, which includes the shield drop lag.

So to make a prime example, people often SHFF aerials to attack. The defender shields the hit, then grabs. The optimal solution to this is to make an empty short hop, scare the defender to shield, and allow you to do whatever you want because he just committed to 18 frames minimum to shielding."

This means the best option against a fighter who is shielding is to not hit the shield. Not hitting the shield actually puts you at an advantage. This may seem like a head-scratcher at first, but this has already been used in practice, especially in TCU Tournament where offensive players (such as Will) would scare other players into shielding, and then just opt to grab, charge a smash attack, or for some characters, render shielding useless.

General recoveries have largely been buffed across the cast, or have largely remained consistent with how much space they cover. With the removal of edgehogging, and ability to steal the ledge from others, it actually removes an edgeguard option while also opening the edgeguarder to punishment for attempting a failed edgeguard.

I don't quite understand this, because that mechanic change is perhaps the most important change that has ever been done in the series.

Let me get this out of the way: Edgehogging is not an edgeguard option. It is THE edgeguard option. The ability to slightly push back an opponent and make them fall to their doom is a dominant tactic in every other game, and is largely the reason why characters that need to recover actually gained options against that in Brawl. Overall it would've been far too dominant of an option otherwise.

I can't even begin to understand the bolded. Do you want characters to suddenly get Melee Fox Fall speed whenever they're thrown off the stage and die without you having to do anything? Hyperbole, yes. But that's what I'm getting out of what you said.

Also, not all recoveries have been buffed. In fact in terms of distance, the majority of them have been nerfed. Pit/Metaknight/Charizard can no longer glide, Samus' Up-B now lacks horizontal movement, Re-grabbing the ledge no longer gives invincibility (big nerf for every character here), and you can no longer instantly re-grab the ledge with tethers. It is only the characters that had bad recoveries in Brawl are considered to be buffed, and in Link's case that is only because his bombs explode quicker.

The removal of edgehogging actually forces you to use a multitude of options per situation. And I don't see how that is a bad thing.

The problem is largely because the opponent being pressured has this large advantage available to them even when being pressured. Even when you do force the opponent into a combo, or off stage, the amount of options they still have available to them still allows them to recover from many things safely and easily. Even with hitstun cancelling removed entirely, air dodges punishable when transitioning into the ground, tripping removed, etc., why would I want to do it? After it's done the whole thing usually resets to neutral, and with how brief the offensive part was why would I want to commit?

Dear lord... this is... completely wrong. I'll explain why. First, I'd like to link this thread once again to help illustrate my point.

An opponent being pressured is the exact inverse of having a large advantage. If you have a large advantage, you are not being pressured. The aggressor is being pressured because he has to approach. The situation you are talking about is most likely to happen in Brawl. But even then, this is present in all fighting games where zoning is a strong tactic. To illustrate this point, lets not look at Smash and look at Street Fighter instead. I pick this video in particular because the commentary helps as well.

Zangief wants to beat the crap out of Ryu, but he has to get hit confirm. Ryu doesn't want Zangief to get hit confirm, so he stays back and uses Hadoken, long ranged pokes, and only goes in when he has hit confirm and can do quick damage. To be honest, you only really need to watch the first three matches. In the first match, you see Ryu is in complete control of the match through his zoning ability and reads on Zangief. In the second match, Zangief is in complete control and Ryu is in a state of disadvantage because now he has to play at Zangief's momentum and gets utterly overwhelmed. In Game 3, momentum shifts back and forth and Daigo ultimately takes the match through superior play and not getting overly aggressive so he can maintain control. To any normal viewer who hasn't studied fighting games, they will mostly just see Ryu being "cheap" with Hadoken spamming, but we all know better than this. Daigo uses Ryu's Hadoken to maintain control of the match.

And this is present in Smash. You engage in footsies, get hit confirm, and press your advantage to maintain control of the match. You press it as far as it can go until you feel the momentum start to shift and then you back off. But if you're backing off too early you're not pressing you advantage enough.

Offense is more than just combos. Offense is forcing control away from your opponent and to play at your pace. You switch to defense when you can't press this further through offense.

(1)-I can put more distance between the opponent and myself, but it only encourages more neutral play.
(2)-When I'm able to capitalize off a hit, it's generally a couple of hits and nothing more. Hitstun is unfortunately too low still to do much of anything over low percent follow ups. This generally leads to more neutral play, and as a result forces aggressive based characters into neutral even more. This leads to more approaches on their part, which leads to more punishes on them for being unable to commit to anything safe.
(3)-When successfully landing a blow that sends the opponent off stage one has to generally play much more aggressively to actually keep the opponent off stage. The opponent is still able to ride the angle of the knockback and use the height from the knockback to recover. This is because of the floaty physics. This also inhibits moves that send at a semi spike angle because of how low knockback is coupled with the still floaty nature of the game. Many moves that kill send at these now unfavorable angles (90 degrees or above), and you generally have to kill next to the ledge or later percents because of the further blast zones all around.
(4)-The recovery system is much more forgiving. You still have the floaty physics, recoveries that generally cover good amounts of distance, great ledge grab features, and removal of edgehogging as a viable offensive option. The opponent has many advantages even when off the stage, and can even put the edgeguarder in an unfavorable position/punish. Ironically now the previous edgeguarder has a lot going for them to recover from. It heavily discourages offstage edgeguarding and just helps to neuter gimping. Don't forget the buffed tethers.
(5)-The way air dodges, dodges, and shield just go into one another kinda neuter hitbox coverage. It's another reason of why should I commit with direct attacks? We have safer options on hit because no more hitstun cancel, and air dodge has a standard 22 frame landing lag, but the way they flow into one another with minimal lag still hurts hitbox coverage. Lots of things outside disjoints and projectiles are already unsafe to commit to in neutral.

(1)-I explained this above, but I'll say it again. If you're not pressing your advantage, you are doing something wrong.
(2)-Again, offense is more than just combos. You're misusing the word neutral play in this case. This is all about pressing your advantage.
(3)-Ness Disagrees. DK Disagrees. Shulk Disagrees. There are plenty of kill moves that can kill horizontally at 100% or lower at the middle of FD, which only makes them stronger at the ledge. Also, 90% angles are not unfavorable. They lead into a disadvantaged state where the player has to regain control of the momentum. You see this a lot in high level play.
(4)-This is just plain wrong. Yes, the recovery system is much more forgiving, because in previous games, the recovery system was that much of a dominant factor. Now it's balanced out. However, no character wants be in the state of recovering. No one. Not even characters with great recoveries.
(5)-You're right. Why should you needlessly commit to an attack if they're going to air dodge? If you read an air dodge, obviously you're going to punish that landing lag, then continue pressing your advantage. If you scare them into shielding, you're going to grab them. If you scare them into rolling, you're going to punish it. You've more or less answered your question in the same breath.

All this puts much more emphasis on indirect attacks in neutral, then using guerrilla tactics with the hope of actually getting anything off of it. The culmination of forgiving options, and lack of disadvantageous options a pressured opponent has just gives no real incentive to really do anything in neutral other than to punish hard off an opponent's mistake. Even then there's not much reward off a punish.

I can't phantom why people want this massive reward off a punish from one mistake their opponent makes, when one match can have hundreds of mistakes. This is why people hate MvC3 because one mistake can lead to a touch-to-death combo. Even accounting for this, this is false. Neutral is only neutral when both players have equal control of the game. If you're constantly putting the game into neutral, you are not pressing your advantage, which is true for every single fighting game.

Having a gameplan, reading your opponent, pressing your advantage, getting out of a disadvantage, and maintaining control of the match is the basis of every fighting game, and Smash 4 has that. This is an objective fact, and cannot be disproven. Therefore, I still don't understand why people believe Smash 4 is a bad fighting game at it's current meta.

 

[Hayzie]

A thought came to mind, and I'd like to express it to generally everyone here. Since Smash 4 being overly defensive has always been a topic of discussion, I've always pondered over this. This may seem antagonistic, but that isn't my agenda. I'm aiming to make my point clear and concise.

Is the problem with Smash 4 actually with it being dominantly defensive, or it being that it's not fast-paced?

Sounds strange to think about at first, but I'll explain. I've seen various complaints such as aerials being too laggy, rolling being too powerful, shield stun being too low, and so on and so forth. The conclusion to this is the game is too defensive because offense is not rewarded.

But I can point at this and say that DK won because he saw an opportunity to rush down and make an amazing play.
And I can point at this and say that Mario won because he placed a lot of offensive pressure.
Then I can point at this and say we can count this as an offensive maneuver.

Can we really say this game is dominant on defense when we've seen multiple plays like this? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here, but the evidence I see during tournament play says otherwise. Sure, on For Glory, defense wins everything, but that's the case for every fighting game ever because you can read your opponent like a book and dominate them with skill.

So is the lament of Smash 4 really because the game is too defensive, or is just a case where the pace of the game is too slow for such viewers?

Monica

 

[Nobie]

An opponent being pressured is the exact inverse of having a large advantage. If you have a large advantage, you are not being pressured. The aggressor is being pressured because he has to approach. The situation you are talking about is most likely to happen in Brawl. But even then, this is present in all fighting games where zoning is a strong tactic. To illustrate this point, lets not look at Smash and look at Street Fighter instead. I pick this video in particular because the commentary helps as well.

I think this point touches upon one of the difficult things when discussing topics like offense and defense in Smash Bros. There is this prevalent idea that "pressure" basically means hitting the opponent, or at least making contact with them, as in the case of shield pressure, and that it's an inherently up-close and offensive concept. It's not hard to see why people assume this to be the case, especially given how something like rushdown looks in most fighting games, where a player will be attacking an opponent who's relentlessly blocking.

I've seen complaints here and elsewhere about how if a game makes you wait, then it's automatically doing a bad job of being entertaining, merely because you're not in there "doing stuff." Of course, doing stuff often means, indeed, hitting the opponent over and over and over again, as opposed to putting yourself in the position to gain more opportunities to hit your opponent. Why this misconception exists is probably because combos and rushdown pressure are flashier and exciting in a way that people can easily understand and (most importantly perhaps) appreciate, either as a player or a spectator.

I mean, within the idea that the game punishes you for not being able to follow up with true combos often enough is an assumption that a combo-heavy game leans towards aggression, when in fact it's more than possible for a defensive, combo-heavy game to exist. Some even argue that Melee is this type of game, because the defending player can potentially convert their punish into just as much damage. Conversely, it's possible for an aggressive game to have few or no combos. However, because these concepts have been tied together within Smash as a series (whether they're actually true or otherwise), people tend to assume that aggressive neutral means aggressive combos as well as the opposite.

 

[Zoa]

@ HeroMystic

I seriously don't get why you think I'm coming across as offense is just combos, but whatevs. You took the time to address my post, and I shall do the same.

-The point being mentioned about shield was nothing more than it still being a forgiving option to protect one's self from. The point to actually not connect with shield is baffling. There should be risk in committing to it just as the risk to committing to an approach. Even being pressured in shield is still unsafe for the person applying the pressure. This is what I meant by large advantage, or forgiving factors. I should have worded it more accurately. The person being put in the disadvantageous position is not as disadvantageous as it should be due to the lack of risk involved on the person in the disadvantageous position's part. There should be more risk involved so that the one applying the pressure has more reward on a successful commitment.

-I ask that you not draw parallels to other fighters. I only watch them. Never play them. They almost never tend to go well in discussions either. Though may I ask how it is the edgeguard option when there are other things such gimps, wall of pains, projectiles, hard reads from meteors/spikes, etc.? I don't understand what you mean by wording it as a singular entity. Do I want Melee Fox fall speed? Certainly not. Do I want the opponent to be creative and actually be at a larger disadvantage offstage than Smash 4? Certainly. I have had many instances where the floaty nature of the game causes me to play far more aggressively just to keep the opponent offstage than I would have in other games. The bolded is from experiences I've had from a low recovering opponent. I grab ledge, opponent takes it from me, drop from ledge, DJ, bair. Now it puts me at a disadvantage, and in their previous position. I also said recoveries have largely remained consistent with the distance they cover. I wasn't complaining over buffed recoveries on a large scale.

-As I have stated, combos are most certainly not the only driving factor. Footsies are definitely important. I apologize for the inconvenience of my wording. I'll most certainly remember to word it better next time. Back to the "large advantage", what I meant was lack of disadvantageous position in this game. Even being pressured by direct attacks isn't too much of a disadvantageous position for one playing a defensive style, and with the tools to apply indirect pressure. Many options are unsafe on shield, and lots of characters lacking movement options have an incredibly difficult time punishing a roll. It makes them that much harder to play footsies, and even get a hit confirm off options they have a hard time punishing. This is especially prevalent against characters like Jiggs, Ganon, etc. I find it funny you mention Zangief though. I was in the middle of watching Snake Eye's match against Fuudo at EVO 2014 last night. Gonna resume the rest after this.

-I've already stated the problem about pressing advantage. Slow characters with poor movement options, inability to effectively provide direct pressure, lack of options to capitalize on mistakes quickly, etc. However what about someone like Captain Falcon? He's fast and has absolutely no difficulty capitalizing heavily off of a mistake/roll. What about footsies though? He still folds to them even though he's able to provide indirect pressure via movement and mindgames. He has to apply direct attacks to apply lots of his pressure otherwise which is incredibly unsafe to commit to. I stand by my statement about DI knockback riding. There are moves that can indeed kill like that, yet it's possible by characters to still use it as a means to return to the stage. Of course no one wants to be offstage recovering, but the point is it's still too forgiving for the person recovering. Yes it was dominant in other games because the person offstage was actually at a larger disadvantageous position as it should have been. By increasing the number of options available to the offstage person it helps removes options (not always or entirely mind you) to remove stocks, or even help discourage offstage edgeguarding. The point is it makes it more lenient than it should have been for what should be a rather large disadvantageous position in the first place. You completely missed the point about hitbox coverage. Reading a dodge, shield, etc. can be punished of course off a read. The point I was making was about follow ups. The way they flow into one another with minimal lag can help to neuter them or approaches.

-You mean fathom? I can see how my username can cause that mistake. What you said is indeed the objective fact about Smash, but this doesn't necessarily equate to peoples' thoughts on the matter about Smash 4.

 

[Zoa]

I think this point touches upon one of the difficult things when discussing topics like offense and defense in Smash Bros. As is clear from the person you're replying to

I ask that you change the bolded. It's a clear misinterpretation of my poor wording in my initial post.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

@ HeroMystic

I seriously don't get why you think I'm coming across as offense is just combos, but whatevs. You took the time to address my post, and I shall do the same.

-The point being mentioned about shield was nothing more than it still being a forgiving option to protect one's self from. The point to actually not connect with shield is baffling. There should be risk in committing to it just as the risk to committing to an approach. Even being pressured in shield is still unsafe for the person applying the pressure. This is what I meant by large advantage, or forgiving factors. I should have worded it more accurately. The person being put in the disadvantageous position is not as disadvantageous as it should be due to the lack of risk involved on the person in the disadvantageous position's part. There should be more risk involved so that the one applying the pressure has more reward on a successful commitment.

-I ask that you not draw parallels to other fighters. I only watch them. Never play them. They almost never tend to go well in discussions either. Though may I ask how it is the edgeguard option when there are other things such gimps, wall of pains, projectiles, hard reads from meteors/spikes, etc.? I don't understand what you mean by wording it as a singular entity. Do I want Melee Fox fall speed? Certainly not. Do I want the opponent to be creative and actually be at a larger disadvantage offstage than Smash 4? Certainly. I have had many instances where the floaty nature of the game causes me to play far more aggressively just to keep the opponent offstage than I would have in other games. The bolded is from experiences I've had from a low recovering opponent. I grab ledge, opponent takes it from me, drop from ledge, DJ, bair. Now it puts me at a disadvantage, and in their previous position. I also said recoveries have largely remained consistent with the distance they cover. I wasn't complaining over buffed recoveries on a large scale.

-As I have stated, combos are most certainly not the only driving factor. Footsies are definitely important. I apologize for the inconvenience of my wording. I'll most certainly remember to word it better next time. Back to the "large advantage", what I meant was lack of disadvantageous position in this game. Even being pressured by direct attacks isn't too much of a disadvantageous position for one playing a defensive style, and with the tools to apply indirect pressure. Many options are unsafe on shield, and lots of characters lacking movement options have an incredibly difficult time punishing a roll. It makes them that much harder to play footsies, and even get a hit confirm off options they have a hard time punishing. This is especially prevalent against characters like Jiggs, Ganon, etc. I find it funny you mention Zangief though. I was in the middle of watching Snake Eye's match against Fuudo at EVO 2014 last night. Gonna resume the rest after this.

-I've already stated the problem about pressing advantage. Slow characters with poor movement options, inability to effectively provide direct pressure, lack of options to capitalize on mistakes quickly, etc. However what about someone like Captain Falcon? He's fast and has absolutely no difficulty capitalizing heavily off of a mistake/roll. What about footsies though? He still folds to them even though he's able to provide indirect pressure via movement and mindgames. He has to apply direct attacks to apply lots of his pressure otherwise which is incredibly unsafe to commit to. I stand by my statement about DI knockback riding. There are moves that can indeed kill like that, yet it's possible by characters to still use it as a means to return to the stage. Of course no one wants to be offstage recovering, but the point is it's still too forgiving for the person recovering. Yes it was dominant in other games because the person offstage was actually at a larger disadvantageous position as it should have been. By increasing the number of options available to the offstage person it helps removes options (not always or entirely mind you) to remove stocks, or even help discourage offstage edgeguarding. The point is it makes it more lenient than it should have been for what should be a rather large disadvantageous position in the first place. You completely missed the point about hitbox coverage. Reading a dodge, shield, etc. can be punished of course off a read. The point I was making was about follow ups. The way they flow into one another with minimal lag can help to neuter them or approaches.

-You mean fathom? I can see how my username can cause that mistake. What you said is indeed the objective fact about Smash, but this doesn't necessarily equate to peoples' thoughts on the matter about Smash 4.

Um... Ganondorf does nothing but capitalize on mistakes. That's his entire playstyle. Approach carefully and force the opponent to screw up. Then use the high knockback on his moves to force a foe off the edge and KO with a launch hit. Stealing the ledge from a recovering foe and hitting them with a BAir works very well for Ganondorf. And almost any time you'd wait at the ledge to jump off and DAir the foe right before they get the ledge, don't. Diving off after them is an unnecessary risk, so just use UTilt; the psychological pressure works wonders, as does the attack's massive hitbox. It can cover both a foe who's still hanging on the ledge and a foe who rolls up from the ledge, all at once, and its surprisingly low endlag means it's near-impossible for a foe to punish it from the ledge.

 

[Zoa]

Um... Ganondorf does nothing but capitalize on mistakes. That's his entire playstyle. Approach carefully and force the opponent to screw up. Then use the high knockback on his moves to force a foe off the edge and KO with a launch hit. Stealing the ledge from a recovering foe and hitting them with a BAir works very well for Ganondorf. And almost any time you'd wait at the ledge to jump off and DAir the foe right before they get the ledge, don't. Diving off after them is an unnecessary risk, so just use UTilt; the psychological pressure works wonders, as does the attack's massive hitbox. It can cover both a foe who's still hanging on the ledge and a foe who rolls up from the ledge, all at once, and its surprisingly low endlag means it's near-impossible for a foe to punish it from the ledge.

I'm well aware on how to use Ganon. I play him a lot as a secondary in P:M and Smash 4. The point being made was different.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

I'm well aware on how to use Ganon. I play him a lot as a secondary in P:M and Smash 4. The point being made was different.

You said Ganondorf (among others) is bad at instantly capitalizing on mistakes. My point was he's actually very, very good at it. Besides, if an opponent wants to spam back roll away from Ganon, let them! They're only going to succeed in cornering themselves and making Ganondorf's job much easier. Ganondorf may not have an easy time punishing a back roll, but strictly speaking he doesn't really need to.

Besides, I've yet to find myself forced to play "extra aggressively" to get a foe to die offstage, aside from when I'm playing as Pit or when I'm playing against Rosalina. But then, many of the characters I play have a relatively hard-hitting projectile or a really, really powerful aerial that I just whack 'em with. Alternatively, I wait at the edge and charge a Smash Attack as soon as I know for certain where they're going to be. Additionally, I tend to play characters who are perfectly competent at KOing a foe without going over the edge, so I may not have the most experience in that matter. For example, the Mii Brawler has very little trouble fishing for KOs out of an aerial string thanks to Helicopter Kick. Lucario can use an offstage foe to deal more damage rather than securing a KO immediately, and then KO them from onstage later. Or he can jump off and BAir them, that works too. As does launching them off and chucking a full-charge Aura Sphere to send them the rest of the way over the blast line.

 

[HeroMystic]

@ Zoa

I have very little time, so I'm gonna have to keep this short and make a full reply to this (and what comes after this post) later. This is just for the sake of clarification.

First, about shields. What I'm getting is you completely disagree with how Smash 4 handles shields, and would prefer that more moves were safe on block rather than relying on the RPS function (Shield > Attack > Grab > Shield), mainly due to the fact that there should be inherent risk to shielding an attack, similarly to there being a risk to attacking a shield. Correct me on this if I'm wrong.

Second, your question on edgeguarding. When I call edgehogging as "The" Edgeguard option, I mean it as this is the option that every single character wants. Edgehogging does more than make a character fall to their doom, it also puts them in an extremely unfavorable disadvantage when barely making it to the stage via Up-B and players are able to punish their landing lag, therefore causing them to take more damage due to the limitations of their character. Again, this is why the floatiness in Brawl exists because characters that were knocked off-stage needed a way to fight back onto the stage and that simply did not exist very well in Melee since one good hit was often all that was needed to secure a taken stock.

Simply put, the flowchart is:
-Can I Edgehog?
--If Yes, KO.
--If No, knock them away.
-Can I Edgehog now?
--If Yes, KO.
--If No, knock them away.

And so on and so forth. Yes, there is spiking, projectiles, and WOPs, but all of that ultimately is in attempt to gimp your opponent if you can't secure a kill (Edgehogging is a direct tactic for gimping).

Lastly, yes. I meant fathom. I often get the two mixed up, apologies.

 

[Zoa]

You said Ganondorf (among others) is bad at instantly capitalizing on mistakes. My point was he's actually very, very good at it. Besides, if an opponent wants to spam back roll away from Ganon, let them! They're only going to succeed in cornering themselves and making Ganondorf's job much easier. Ganondorf may not have an easy time punishing a back roll, but strictly speaking he doesn't really need to.

Besides, I've yet to find myself forced to play "extra aggressively" to get a foe to die offstage, aside from when I'm playing as Pit or when I'm playing against Rosalina. But then, many of the characters I play have a relatively hard-hitting projectile or a really, really powerful aerial that I just whack 'em with. Alternatively, I wait at the edge and charge a Smash Attack as soon as I know for certain where they're going to be. Additionally, I tend to play characters who are perfectly competent at KOing a foe without going over the edge, so I may not have the most experience in that matter. For example, the Mii Brawler has very little trouble fishing for KOs out of an aerial string thanks to Helicopter Kick. Lucario can use an offstage foe to deal more damage rather than securing a KO immediately, and then KO them from onstage later. Or he can jump off and BAir them, that works too. As does launching them off and chucking a full-charge Aura Sphere to send them the rest of the way over the blast line.

Oh no no no.

"Many options are unsafe on shield, and lots of characters lacking movement options have an incredibly difficult time punishing a roll. It makes them that much harder to play footsies, and even get a hit confirm off options they have a hard time punishing. This is especially prevalent against characters like Jiggs, Ganon, etc."

This is what I said. I didn't say Ganon is bad at instantly capitalizing off mistakes. I said it makes them that much harder for them to play footsies and getting something done off what they have difficulty punishing. Ganon is all about his punishes of course.

 

[Zoa]

@ Zoa

I have very little time, so I'm gonna have to keep this short and make a full reply to this (and what comes after this post) later. This is just for the sake of clarification.

First, about shields. What I'm getting is you completely disagree with how Smash 4 handles shields, and would prefer that more moves were safe on block rather than relying on the RPS function (Shield > Attack > Grab > Shield), mainly due to the fact that there should be inherent risk to shielding an attack, similarly to there being a risk to attacking a shield. Correct me on this if I'm wrong.

Second, your question on edgeguarding. When I call edgehogging as "The" Edgeguard option, I mean it as this is the option that every single character wants. Edgehogging does more than make a character fall to their doom, it also puts them in an extremely unfavorable disadvantage when barely making it to the stage via Up-B and players are able to punish their landing lag, therefore causing them to take more damage due to the limitations of their character. Again, this is why the floatiness in Brawl exists because characters that were knocked off-stage needed a way to fight back onto the stage and that simply did not exist very well in Melee since one good hit was often all that was needed to secure a taken stock.

Simply put, the flowchart is:
-Can I Edgehog?
--If Yes, KO.
--If No, knock them away.
-Can I Edgehog now?
--If Yes, KO.
--If No, knock them away.

And so on and so forth. Yes, there is spiking, projectiles, and WOPs, but all of that ultimately is in attempt to gimp your opponent if you can't secure a kill (Edgehogging is a direct tactic for gimping).

Lastly, yes. I meant fathom. I often get the two mixed up, apologies.

Yes. I agree there should be more of an inherent risk when shielding as there are inherent risks to approaching. There should be more of a disadvantageous position when confining yourself to a position (shield), or giving up space (rolling). Especially when you have options OoS against poorly spaced aerials, smashes, etc. What I would like to see for Smash 4 shield isn't necessarily make more moves safe on block, but provide some inherent risk to committing to it other than making many moves unsafe on shield.

I agree somewhat with your statement about edgeguarding. If you are recovering on stage, then you should have that window of punishment because you are technically still in the process of recovering from what should be a very disadvantageous state. I am not against far reaching recoveries so long as the culmination of options still make it a disadvantageous position with their options limited. What I am against is the leniency the physics and culmination of other options available to make recovery that much more forgiving. I am mostly against the removal of edgehogging in a floaty environment with an auto ledge snap feature even when facing away from the ledge. I would like to see higher gravity values, faster fall speeds, and faster velocity to make semi spikes more viable, make gimp options more valuable, and recovery require more creativity. I am not against the auto ledge snap feature.

 

[Trifroze]

Smash 4 has a solid balance of defense and offense so far, especially because of the new ledge mechanics as well as hitstun and speed being somewhere between Brawl and Melee. With Melee's insanely long hitstun and every aerial in the game having very slight landing lag thanks to L-canceling, a single match is decided based on much fewer events than Smash 4. That alone means a complete difference in the pace of the match.

If waiting for your opponent to screw up to then punish it and follow it up with a 60-80% combo, yes, Melee has defensive play. Every fighting game where it isn't literally impossible to be unsafe has defensive play if defined like that. You don't often punish your opponent in Melee and then simply stay within a distance and repeat instead of going for follow-ups, because the game is built for offense. You're given virtually free reward with no risk for going in after the initial hit, so why would you stay out and keep playing defensively? Defensive play requires a reset to neutral game, a complete stop in the pace of the match. Melee is back and forth rushdown with lenient hitstun to make sure offense happens.

People should stop treating the game like it's perfect and realize its flaws. Drop the mindset that speed is an absolute value, technicality is an absolute value, and that a game where arguably 70% of the cast is unviable is balanced. Brawl is terrible in that regard with MK and ICs, but that doesn't make Melee good in that regard. Stopping simultaneous, contradictory claims about Melee being extremely fast (which it certainly is) and Melee being close to 50:50 in terms of defense and offense (which it isn't) would also help.

 

[MegaMissingno]

Think about it from the recovering player's perspective. Previously they had to decide whether to aim for ledge or stage and predict where their opponent will go to intercept them. Now you can just always go to the ledge because it's always safe, there's nothing that can stop a ledgegrab. And for characters with fast and/or invincible recoveries like Zelda, Palutena, Pikachu, etc, it's just too damn easy for them to safely grab the ledge every time.

Why should the ledge be guaranteed? Why is it bad to have a way of blocking the ledge?

 

[Trifroze]

On the contrary, from the ledgeguarding person's perspective having such a safe comeback to the ledge makes it much more enticing to chase the opponent deeper offstage and to keep going for it. This simply means good/unpunishable and bad/punishable recovery make more difference now.

No invincibility after the first ledge grab also means planking is impossible which is amazing from a Brawl player's perspective.

 

[shapular]

@ HeroMystic I have had many instances where the floaty nature of the game causes me to play far more aggressively just to keep the opponent offstage than I would have in other games.

Is this a bad thing? I thought you were one of the ones who wanted the game to be aggressive. I find active edgeguarding fun. It's boring if I can just hang on the ledge and abuse the ledge occupancy glitch to watch my opponent fall to their doom or jump on the ledge right when they're about to grab it like in Brawl. Edgehogging is non-interactive; active edgeguarding (offstage or onstage) is interactive.

The bolded is from experiences I've had from a low recovering opponent. I grab ledge, opponent takes it from me, drop from ledge, DJ, bair. Now it puts me at a disadvantage, and in their previous position. I also said recoveries have largely remained consistent with the distance they cover. I wasn't complaining over buffed recoveries on a large scale.

So don't do that. You're too used to hanging on the ledge while your opponent is trying to recover, but it's not a good option in Smash 4. Why not try to ledgetrump them instead of letting then ledgetrump you?

And guys, please stop assuming I have no idea what I'm talking about. I've been following Melee since 2004, and even though I don't play it a lot anymore I do play PM which borrows its mechanics. When I do try to play Melee or PM and use defensive options like shielding, it doesn't work nearly as well as in Brawl or Smash 4. Even things that should be unsafe like a DDD fsmash on shield become safe. Trying to shieldgrab Fox is useless, even Hax said so in that article someone linked (I would take that with a grain of salt anyway; I only skimmed over it but in the parts I read he seemed very salty, calling a lot of things broken). So the only defensive options in Melee/PM that really work are things like dashdancing and crouch cancelling. Dash dancing still leaves you vulnerable, so I'm not sure if you can really call that defense, and crouch cancelling requires you to actually get hit, which makes that questionable as a real defensive option too. Basically, in Melee offense is the best defense, and if that's the case I don't know how you can say the game isn't skewed towards offense.