I think I know what's the real issue people are having.

[ZigZagGamer]

I agree to some degree, so many people to get in your face and be the only one landing hits, but I loved my dirt cheap stay away and Boomerang style, no one can handle being zoned properly then put into Boomerang setups and knocked off that stage because they're only used to playing people rolling around into each others faces.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I agree with the OP and I can summarize it in four words:

Play smart to win.

It's not even about being aggressive; aggression is very rewarded in smash 4 if you play the right characters. It's about being smart. Attacking at every possible moment is equally predictable to holding shield at all times and not attacking; both lose badly. Do stuff to make your opponent unsure of what you'll do next, and you can hit them more. If your opponent is doing something stupid and game losing like running away when losing, just let them lose and don't chase. It's not even that you can't win by chasing, but you're guaranteed to win if you don't since your opponent is doing nothing to win so why not take a sure thing win instead of a maybe win? Take good stage position just in case your opponent decides to stop being stupid and wait for them to either lose or to decide to try to win and then you can get back to beating them from the best possible position.

I have yet to see a fighting game in which playing smart wasn't favored over playing recklessly. Even in Super Action Anime Button Mash Rushdown Turbo Combo Fighter XIII, people stop attacking for a moment to bait stuff and then punish and in general players that win only do the crazy risky stuff against opponents who make them do it and just abuse something easy against the ones who don't. I think if you do step back and focus on good decisions, you will find smash 4 is actually a pretty sharp game; it just rewards careful offense over the careless variety.

 

[Dekar173]

I guess I could say I have sort of a love-hate relationship with this game, and I'm probably not the only one feeling this way. There's some cool stuff I like, especially the newcomers, but there's a number of issues that are so hard to look past and ultimately feel like they ruin everything else.

I like that hitstun is back. I don't like the total lack of shieldstun, and I hate how difficult it is to get in my opponent decides they don't want to engage. I do like Pac-Man and Mega Man. I don't like Diddy Kong and Lucario. I do like that meteors can no longer be canceled and can cause a floor bounce when used above the stage. I don't like how ridiculously good recoveries are, to the point where many characters can still survive meteors. I do like Town and City. I don't like Wuhu Island. I do like how jabs can be useful now. I don't like the rage mechanic. I do like that regrabbing the ledge no longer refreshes invincibility. I don't like that that ledge snap is magnetic and the removal of edgehogging means there's no way to stop it.

I just don't know, man. I want to enjoy this game, but I can't help but find it hard to do so.

What about the rage mechanic bothers you?

 

[MegaMissingno]

Comeback mechanics are bad design, rewarding players for doing poorly. Leave that crap in Mario Kart where it belongs.

And when it stacks on Lucario, that's when I get enraged.

 

[ZigZagGamer]

Comeback mechanics are bad design, rewarding players for doing poorly. Leave that crap in Mario Kart where it belongs.

And when it stacks on Lucario, that's when I get enraged.

You don't want come backs in Smash? you want a no hype fighting game? hmm.

 

[Shack]

It is interesting to hear the complaints in this thread. So many people go 100% aggro without even thinking. Then when they play a defensive player or just a better player who attempts to counter their mindless aggression, they get frustrated and begin to rage that the game is too defensive when in reality, their approach is just too predictable and they are in denial about it.

I agree with the OP. When I first played online I hated the air dodge mechanics and roll mechanics because they seemed unpunishable compared to Melee. I then realized that those moves are there in order to counter aggression (as a dodge/parry should). So I stopped pressing buttons all the time and began to realize how vulnerable these moves leave you. The problem is people try to counter other players by pressing more buttons than them, when all you need is to be more conscious with your buttons.

 

[Antonykun]

You don't want come backs in Smash? you want a no hype fighting game? hmm.

It's not that come backs and hype are not wanted, but that come back mechanics are not very healthy for most fighting games because if you are in the lead, then chances are that you earned that lead. Come back mechanics tend to punish those in the lead who made the right plays by potentially making their opponents stronger than they are.

 

[guedes the brawler]

Dat clickbait title.

So after my big rant and posting my two cents in the rolls thread, I've done some more thinking on the issues people have with the game. I played some For Glory last night and it was rather clear. People try way too hard to be aggressive. A friend of mine pointed out the other day that since I had the life/stock lead there is virtually no reason for me to approach.

I was playing some For Glory last night, and I took my friend's remark into consideration. Once I had the lead, I would either stand and wait (as the opponent was coming anyway), or I forced approaches by baiting whiffs and limiting my opponent's stage control. Doing this, most of the people I played were a bunch of jokahs. Normally, I would try to continue the offense as I was at the advantage, but this would come with mixed results sometimes. When I tried this different approach, results were more consistent and my losses were simply because I was outplayed (a "legit" loss).

So for those complaining about the lack of offense, you don't need to be offensive all the time. You gotta let it come to you sometimes. If they're rolling away and you have the lead, let them run away. Sure, it's not flashy, but you have to play too win, even if that means running the timer out.

So again, don't go rushing in if you're already winning.

which doesn't account for campers vs people who struggle vs camping. even with a lead you'd need to rush in to make sure you can ACTUALLY do something

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Comeback mechanics are bad design, rewarding players for doing poorly. Leave that crap in Mario Kart where it belongs.

And when it stacks on Lucario, that's when I get enraged.

But it's not?
Its a snowball mechanic, and it's primarily oriented for characters that are *supposed* to be at a disadvantage in % early into a stock.
EG. Heavies and Lucario
Heavies given their large frames making them juggled, and hit with greater frequency mixed with their slower attack rate. Lucario who is purposefully weakened.

You probably see it as "oh they cameback" instead of realizing that % lead you developed was *supposed* to happen presuming you weren't playing terribly and Rage is meant to account for that % lead. Not as a comeback mechanic for Bad-play, but as a means of leveling out the design difference between Heavies and lighter characters.
Rage is at its most relevant during Heavy vs Light and Heavy vs Mid.

Unless you took the stock lead, you didn't do squat. If you did now rage works in your favor and it *snowballs* in your favor presuming you keep that stock lead. For the heavies again, if they took the stock lead and maintain that damage, then Rage helps them snowball further.

 

[Prawn]

In my experience the rage mechanic really isn't even a huge deal, I land smashes when I'm at 200% and it's not like they kill stupid early. I don't even know the data on it I just know that in practice I used to psyche myself out before I realized it's nothing compared to lucarios aura and it's not something to worry about too much

Edit: unless people are concerned about damage or hitstun?

I don't know, personal experience is obviously not a great argument but I started playing a lot better when I didn't really let rage effect my thought process too much

 

[Shack]

It's not that come backs and hype are not wanted, but that come back mechanics are not very healthy for most fighting games because if you are in the lead, then chances are that you earned that lead. Come back mechanics tend to punish those in the lead who made the right plays by potentially making their opponents stronger than they are.

I get where you're coming from, but it is the current trend amongst a few big games.
SF4 has Ultras
Mvc3 has X Factor
SFxT has Pandora
MK9 has X Rays

Also like just mentioned above, the rage mechanic and Lucario's aura can be looked at as snowballing opportunities that reward players for managing to stay alive long enough and encouraging them to get aggressive. Otherwise, when you are at 200% you are more likely to run away and play extremely defensively. Having that little boost gives you incentive to use it while you have it and go all out.

 

[FoxMcClown]

It is interesting to hear the complaints in this thread. So many people go 100% aggro without even thinking. Then when they play a defensive player or just a better player who attempts to counter their mindless aggression, they get frustrated and begin to rage that the game is too defensive when in reality, their approach is just too predictable and they are in denial about it.

I agree with the OP. When I first played online I hated the air dodge mechanics and roll mechanics because they seemed unpunishable compared to Melee. I then realized that those moves are there in order to counter aggression (as a dodge/parry should). So I stopped pressing buttons all the time and began to realize how vulnerable these moves leave you. The problem is people try to counter other players by pressing more buttons than them, when all you need is to be more conscious with your buttons.

I guess you skipped my post or something? I dont go 100% aggro, infact i got 100% passive now, its how you win in smash 4. People are trying to defend this like its similar to other fighting games, but its not. Defensive plays in other fighting game is rewarding when you read something, not just by doing it. Take street fighter for exemple, you cant just hold block and roll around unchallenged until an opportunity opens. In smash 4 you can and you should. In SF have to make a read, you have to block at the right time, the right height, etc. In melee and n64, you had similar mechanics. Defense was strong, but there was move that even blocking wouldnt leave you an opportunity for a punish. Bad rolls were very punishable, now its really not. Most characters down smash that were 360 degree have been greatly nerfed and roll was buffed. Why shouldnt a bad roll be punished?

Smash 4 got that one part wrong, its not that defense can punish aggro. Its that defense can almost not be done wrong anymore. Its too fast, too fast recovery, harder to punish. There is only 2 current defensive moves that can be done wrong, one you said yourself, air dodge, which leaves you vulnerable upon landing (aka if you do it wrong you get punished). Thats a good way to make defensive options. Another is the characters with counter moves, if they wiff, it leaves them entirely defenseless. Again thats a good way to make defensive options, if you do it wrong, youll pay for it. Just like if you hit someone shield with a smash, youll get punished for it.

What doesent work is thing like shield right now, because of all the air attack nerfs, theres very little moves that can hit shield and not go unpunished. The counter to how strong shield are, used to be that you had to know what attacks were used on your shield, what was punishable and what was not (like other fighting games, blocking/parry is not punishable on all moves).

What does not work is current roll, some rolls are faster then down smash if they both start at the same time. How is that logical? They now go so far, most of the time even the speed wouldnt matter even if you start say a captain falcon smash when someones rolling under you. You predicted the roll and you started the smash before the roll. In melee youd hit him to punish that super predictable roll. In smash 4 the roll is so far he is out of range of your smash, infact the roll recovery is so fast, chance are hes gona turn around and punish you for reading his bad roll........ like really? Why dont they just make roll invincible and be done with it? The only way i can punish a roll now is if they are stupid enough to roll from behind me to infront of me, so i can dash A. Grabbing them is too slow sometimes. So only the most ******** roll imaginable can be punished constantly. Thats really not much of a window for mistakes. Do a roll that nobody would do?

Its not about being 100% aggro. Its that a balance should be set between your defensive and aggressive options. Right now one is clearly stronger then the other. While a balance should always be struck between the 2.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Its not about being 100% aggro. Its that a balance should be set between your defensive and aggressive options. Right now one is clearly stronger then the other. While a balance should always be struck between the 2.

I agree, but unfornately, most people would still rather have a Melee type smash game (Smooth Lander Heavy Gravity, even though it's very fun to play, turns the game into Melee 2.0) instead of a smash game can potentially combine both aggressive and defensive playstyles. Yes, defensive play isn't the most enjoyable thing to watch, but IMO, there's nothing wrong with having defensive options in a smash game.

 

[FoxMcClown]

I agree, but unfornately, most people would still rather have a Melee type smash game (Smooth Lander Heavy Gravity, even though it's very fun to play, turns the game into Melee 2.0) instead of a smash game can potentially combine both aggressive and defensive playstyles. Yes, defensive play isn't the most enjoyable thing to watch, but IMO, there's nothing wrong with having defensive options in a smash game.

Im not asking for melee or to go 100% aggro. It just needs some minor tweak to shields and rolls to be both more balanced, more fun to watch at the same time.

Give some air attack less landing lag. It used to be one way to use shield wrong, unless they want to come up with a new mechanic that make it possible to shield wrong. But that sounds like too complicated for a game already out, just let some move recovery fast enough so that if you dont have the knowledge and your defensive game is mindless get hit once and hit back, youll get punished yourself, because these attack dont leave them open. That means you made a poor read. Thats how you balance defense.

Roll just needs slower recovery, probably slightly less range or every smash/attack in the game that does a 360 degree under the character should punish a predictable roll. Its how it should be balanced. It means your roll was obvious, aka done wrong. Rolling in that instance is a mistake. Right now it cannot be done wrong, which is the real problem. Roll are almost fool proof now.

Once both aggressive moves and defensive moves have reward/mistakes to be done, it balances itself out. It doesent need to be melee, just emulate the balance it has, by striking its own balance. It will be more fun and in turn being more fun means its more fun to watch.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Im not asking for melee or to go 100% aggro. It just needs some minor tweak to shields and rolls to be both more balanced, more fun to watch at the same time.

Give some air attack less landing lag. It used to be one way to use shield wrong, unless they want to come up with a new mechanic that make it possible to shield wrong. But that sounds like too complicated for a game already out, just let some move recovery fast enough so that if you dont have the knowledge and your defensive game is mindless get hit once and hit back, youll get punished yourself, because these attack dont leave them open. That means you made a poor read. Thats how you balance defense.

Roll just needs slower recovery, probably slightly less range or every smash/attack in the game that does a 360 degree under the character should punish a predictable roll. Its how it should be balanced. It means your roll was obvious, aka done wrong. Rolling in that instance is a mistake. Right now it cannot be done wrong, which is the real problem. Roll are almost fool proof now.

Once both aggressive moves and defensive moves have reward/mistakes to be done, it balances itself out. It doesent need to be melee, just emulate the balance it has, by striking its own balance. It will be more fun and in turn being more fun means its more fun to watch.

100% Agreed

 

[HeavyLobster]

The reality in Smash 4 is that there are no "safe" options, and this applies both to offense and defense. Rolls are inherently unsafe, even if they're difficult to punish on reaction in Smash 4, and shielding is more punishable than in Brawl both because of increased shield stun and because the frame commitment is larger if your shield isn't hit with an attack. While it is true that there aren't all that many safe approaches, there also isn't any defensive option you can resort to freely in the way that you kind of could with Brawl shields against non-chaingrabbers. Technically the safest option is to do absolutely nothing and have godlike reaction time, but no one is really like that, so against any human opponent you should be able to get in by effectively mixing up your approach patterns and punishing their habits. I would say that defensive options on the whole are safer than offensive ones, but not overwhelmingly so, and over time players will learn how to apply pressure in this game effectively and abuse the limitations of defensive options.

 

[samoht45]

I will say, that as an Olimar main, the ability to play defensive and being evasive is an integral part of the game. Opinions may vary but I think defensive options add a lot of strategic depth to the gameplay. I love playing all characters and I believe each character has a certain optimal play style, but that's not to say that Olimar can't get into peoples faces and tear it up occasionally, it's all about strategy and that's what I love about Smash 4.

 

[~ Valkyrie ~]

Wonder what to contribute on this thread... But I could tell something.

Yesterday I met this Mac-player who constantly managed to figure completely out to win plenty matches, no matter which characters I picked. I was pretty aggressive first but then noticed that I was quite easily decimated no matter what I did. Mostly by spamming smashes with Super-armour and applying it to me trying to approach him. He usually took time to see where I come too. (D-Smashes)

With that all in mind, I picked Peach, managed to avoid most these situations (floating for whiffs and grabbing after Vegetables) and singlehandedly destroyed him. However, it still tells me to improve on getting a comeback on defensive gameplay instead of it being my major weakness. But what I noticed was that I still decided to learn in order to optimize a secured victory at last.

Smash Bros could be said to be a thinking man's game, no matter how offensive or defensive. Dunno if this applies to other fighting games as much, but indeed, whatever playstyle you might use, it can be played back against. Of course, defensive mechanics in this game are still pretty difficult to outplay, but you can outplay them. Also knowing your char to be as flexible as possible is very recommended too.

 

[Shack]

I guess you skipped my post or something? I dont go 100% aggro, infact i got 100% passive now, its how you win in smash 4. People are trying to defend this like its similar to other fighting games, but its not. Defensive plays in other fighting game is rewarding when you read something, not just by doing it. Take street fighter for exemple, you cant just hold block and roll around unchallenged until an opportunity opens. In smash 4 you can and you should. In SF have to make a read, you have to block at the right time, the right height, etc. In melee and n64, you had similar mechanics. Defense was strong, but there was move that even blocking wouldnt leave you an opportunity for a punish. Bad rolls were very punishable, now its really not. Most characters down smash that were 360 degree have been greatly nerfed and roll was buffed. Why shouldnt a bad roll be punished?

Smash 4 got that one part wrong, its not that defense can punish aggro. Its that defense can almost not be done wrong anymore. Its too fast, too fast recovery, harder to punish. There is only 2 current defensive moves that can be done wrong, one you said yourself, air dodge, which leaves you vulnerable upon landing (aka if you do it wrong you get punished). Thats a good way to make defensive options. Another is the characters with counter moves, if they wiff, it leaves them entirely defenseless. Again thats a good way to make defensive options, if you do it wrong, youll pay for it. Just like if you hit someone shield with a smash, youll get punished for it.

What doesent work is thing like shield right now, because of all the air attack nerfs, theres very little moves that can hit shield and not go unpunished. The counter to how strong shield are, used to be that you had to know what attacks were used on your shield, what was punishable and what was not (like other fighting games, blocking/parry is not punishable on all moves).

What does not work is current roll, some rolls are faster then down smash if they both start at the same time. How is that logical? They now go so far, most of the time even the speed wouldnt matter even if you start say a captain falcon smash when someones rolling under you. You predicted the roll and you started the smash before the roll. In melee youd hit him to punish that super predictable roll. In smash 4 the roll is so far he is out of range of your smash, infact the roll recovery is so fast, chance are hes gona turn around and punish you for reading his bad roll........ like really? Why dont they just make roll invincible and be done with it? The only way i can punish a roll now is if they are stupid enough to roll from behind me to infront of me, so i can dash A. Grabbing them is too slow sometimes. So only the most ******** roll imaginable can be punished constantly. Thats really not much of a window for mistakes. Do a roll that nobody would do?

Its not about being 100% aggro. Its that a balance should be set between your defensive and aggressive options. Right now one is clearly stronger then the other. While a balance should always be struck between the 2.

I would agree with you if some of the people I play with weren't able FSmash me out of the roll start up (I don't know the frame data, does anyone have it yet?). Yes if you are predicting the roll you should be able to punish it, and you can. If you are relying on a DSmash to do so, then you are living in the past or your character's DSmash is not mean to do so. Some are better at punishing rolls like Shulk and Pikachu's DSmash. Rolls go much further in this game and the timing is different. How can you expect to use the same punishes as a game from 10 years ago? If you know a roll is coming and choose to use a Smash attack, then you deserve to get punished. You have so many option available when someone tries to roll behind you, and you are saying that a Smash is your only option? The amount of times I turn around during someone's roll on reaction is hilarious. From there you can jab them or throw out a tilt to make space. Some characters like Fox have really good grab follow ups after a FTilt, others like Sheik can go straight into combos. It all comes down to timing. Also, no one says you have to hit them, just like in street fighter, sometimes the best option is to just block until the pressure is over. If the person's only approach is to roll behind you, then abuse the fact that they only know one thing. Rolls are there to counter your attack. So it makes no sense for you to throw out a telegraphic attack, whiff, and still be able to counter the roll which was meant to counter your attack in the first place.

Here is some tournament footage of a roll followed by a spot dodge being punished with a well timed FSmash.

TL:DR I agree with you that rolls and dodges are a lot stronger in this game than previous games. That however does not change the fact that this game is about spacing and timing. Smash players are considered to have good footsies when it comes to Street Fighter because Smash is so footsie based.

 

[Cpt.]

Dat clickbait title.

So after my big rant and posting my two cents in the rolls thread, I've done some more thinking on the issues people have with the game. I played some For Glory last night and it was rather clear. People try way too hard to be aggressive. A friend of mine pointed out the other day that since I had the life/stock lead there is virtually no reason for me to approach.

I was playing some For Glory last night, and I took my friend's remark into consideration. Once I had the lead, I would either stand and wait (as the opponent was coming anyway), or I forced approaches by baiting whiffs and limiting my opponent's stage control. Doing this, most of the people I played were a bunch of jokahs. Normally, I would try to continue the offense as I was at the advantage, but this would come with mixed results sometimes. When I tried this different approach, results were more consistent and my losses were simply because I was outplayed (a "legit" loss).

So for those complaining about the lack of offense, you don't need to be offensive all the time. You gotta let it come to you sometimes. If they're rolling away and you have the lead, let them run away. Sure, it's not flashy, but you have to play too win, even if that means running the timer out.

So again, don't go rushing in if you're already winning.

That's not the kind of game I want to play and I play defensively. This is a fighting game, not a standing game. If you are using an aggro character, it should be advantageous to be playing offensively. That is why a lot of people dislike the game.

That being said, I think it is a good game. I play a mix of defensively and offensively and always play to win, but what's the point of winning if you just stand there for the majority of the game?

 

[samoht45]

That's not the kind of game I want to play and I play defensively. This is a fighting game, not a standing game. If you are using an aggro character, it should be advantageous to be playing offensively. That is why a lot of people dislike the game.

That being said, I think it is a good game. I play a mix of defensively and offensively and always play to win, but what's the point of winning if you just stand there for the majority of the game?

Playing a defensive/attrition based game =/= standing there for the majority of the game. Any projectile based character will wreck someone who is being overly stationary and it's not terrible difficult to mind game people into a hard read smash or grab when they are being too defensive. I think the balance of aggro/defensive play is well done in Smash 4.

That being said I do think it is always correct to go for safe play when you have the lead. Only exception is maybe against Lucario where you really need to kill him as often and as quickly as possible.

 

[Cpt.]

Playing a defensive/attrition based game =/= standing there for the majority of the game. Any projectile based character will wreck someone who is being overly stationary and it's not terrible difficult to mind game people into a hard read smash or grab when they are being too defensive. I think the balance of aggro/defensive play is well done in Smash 4.

That being said I do think it is always correct to go for safe play when you have the lead. Only exception is maybe against Lucario where you really need to kill him as often and as quickly as possible.

I just think its dumb that characters like C Falc and Sonic should always play defensively whenever they have the lead. Those type of characters should be pressuring the opponent when they are winning.

 

[samoht45]

I just think its dumb that characters like C Falc and Sonic should always play defensively whenever they have the lead. Those type of characters should be pressuring the opponent when they are winning.

I'll agree about Sonic since he is the epitome of aggro and a defensive sonic is a gimped sonic. But falcon on the other hand I see more of an opportunist that has some sick punish options and can be played defensively pretty effectively.

 

[FlareHabanero]

I would like to point out that people complaining about defense not be complimentary for a fighting game have never actually played a fighting game. In fact agressive play is usually discouraged because you can be punished for making the wrong choice, and not every character is designed for that type of style to begin with. Normally you can only get away with being aggro if your opponent makes a mistake and you can captilize on it, even if it means fishing for it the hard way.

 

[GeZ]

I would like to point out that people complaining about defense not be complimentary for a fighting game have never actually played a fighting game. In fact agressive play is usually discouraged because you can be punished for making the wrong choice, and not every character is designed for that type of style to begin with. Normally you can only get away with being aggro if your opponent makes a mistake and you can captilize on it, even if it means fishing for it the hard way.

That's speaking a bit broadly. Honestly most fighters right now are very aggro centric. UMvC3, pretty much all anime fighters, KI, the only one that's really straying from that convention is Street Fighter 4, which is really fundamental heavy, which is awesome, but the average fighting game player isn't fond of fundamentals play because they think it's slow, so street fighter five looks like it'll be incorporating more aggressive aspects to appease the unwashed hoard.

It's a damn shame. Nobody has respect for fundamentals anymore, even though it makes for the best games. Bleh.

 

[Big-Cat]

That's not the kind of game I want to play and I play defensively. This is a fighting game, not a standing game. If you are using an aggro character, it should be advantageous to be playing offensively. That is why a lot of people dislike the game.

That being said, I think it is a good game. I play a mix of defensively and offensively and always play to win, but what's the point of winning if you just stand there for the majority of the game?

The only reason I even mentioned just standing is because some chumps will just come to you anyway. No need to force it if it's already coming.

That's speaking a bit broadly. Honestly most fighters right now are very aggro centric. UMvC3, pretty much all anime fighters, KI, the only one that's really straying from that convention is Street Fighter 4, which is really fundamental heavy, which is awesome, but the average fighting game player isn't fond of fundamentals play because they think it's slow, so street fighter five looks like it'll be incorporating more aggressive aspects to appease the unwashed hoard.

It's a damn shame. Nobody has respect for fundamentals anymore, even though it makes for the best games. Bleh.

I think you're wrong on this. ChrisG in MvC3 plays Moridoom which we all know is all projectile spamming and super boring to watch.Fundamentals are still important in fighting games. It's just that things like chains and air dashes change that perception.

You also forgot Tekken which has a pretty strong balance in offense vs. defense.

 

[KACHOW!!!]

In any of these fighting games you're generally going to do better if you can play more reactively than actively, because when you're playing on the defensive you're basically waiting for your opponent to make a mistake. To play aggressively (which is most of what I'm doing as a captain falcon main) is more so to try and read your opponent to tell what they're going to do next. Honestly all these games are about punishing mistakes, and in general its easier to punish a player who has put out an attack, rather than to punish a player who has held back. You also have to consider that an aggro strategy relies more on precision and timing, because if all you're trying to do is shield/ roll away then punish, you're starting your strategy from the ground up to withstand whatever the opponent is throwing at you. If you're starting your strategy with an attack, you're basically asking to be punished, because smash is a chess game of "read what your opponent is doing, then punish". You also have to consider, is your opponent playing to win, or for fun? All the top tier characters (shiek, roseluma, yoshi) are sort of relying on defensive tactics (needle baiting, egg baiting, luma shenanigans) so yes, sm4sh is definitely tilted towards the defensive, but I just don't enjoy playing that way, and honestly it doesn't REALLY matter if you're playing aggressive or defensive, its just whichever strategy you as a player are more practiced/ skilled in. I've always been a "Yeah, I'll go for that 4th consecutive knee" player, so I play to my strengths, and you should be playing to yours.

 

[GeZ]

The only reason I even mentioned just standing is because some chumps will just come to you anyway. No need to force it if it's already coming.


I think you're wrong on this. ChrisG in MvC3 plays Moridoom which we all know is all projectile spamming and super boring to watch.Fundamentals are still important in fighting games. It's just that things like chains and air dashes change that perception.

You also forgot Tekken which has a pretty strong balance in offense vs. defense.

That's one instance of heavy zoning, and its straight worse than just Virgil running train on a whole team. UMvC3 is really clearly not a fundamentalist game. It uses super simple mixup and has very high emphasis on perfecting inputs.

And fundamentals still exist in these games, but there isn't enough emphasis. In anime mashing crouching light is what you have to strategize around, KI has zoning but not really spacing, etc.

USF4 is the only game where having better fundamentals than your opponent will trump having better inputs. It's the only game right now where fundamentals are one of the most important aspects, and yomi has the most value, over input dexterity or team comp.

 

[Big-Cat]

I disagree. You have games like Virtua Fighter and Tekken that deeply value fundamentals.

And I don't know about most anime fighters, but starting combos with 2A in BlazBlue scales the combo greatly so it's not the most optimal of combos naturally. Fundamentals are important in every fighter, it's just that it takes an aesthetic backseat to other aspects, but they are still there. Same goes for Smash.

 

[GeZ]

I disagree. You have games like Virtua Fighter and Tekken that deeply value fundamentals.

And I don't know about most anime fighters, but starting combos with 2A in BlazBlue scales the combo greatly so it's not the most optimal of combos naturally. Fundamentals are important in every fighter, it's just that it takes an aesthetic backseat to other aspects, but they are still there. Same goes for Smash.

I think we actually agree on this topic mostly, just how much fundamentals take a back seat in which games.

 

[Yong Dekonk]

Sitting and waiting for your opponent to approach is a good strategy against some characters. But the offensive capabilities in this game are underestimated by many. Try waiting for a good toon link or yoshi to approach so you can punish. It's not that easy. Every character requires different strategy. If people want things to be more "offensive" what it sounds like they mean is they hate being forced to actually plan their approach instead of rushing in with the same strategy over and over again. Also, if you think rolls are overpowered perhaps you just haven't figured out how to punish them yet? You have to actually predict your opponent in this game which is what makes it so fun. It requires proactive strategy. Sorry to those of you who wanted more mindless true combos..

 

[chipndip]

That's speaking a bit broadly. Honestly most fighters right now are very aggro centric. UMvC3, pretty much all anime fighters, KI, the only one that's really straying from that convention is Street Fighter 4, which is really fundamental heavy, which is awesome, but the average fighting game player isn't fond of fundamentals play because they think it's slow, so street fighter five looks like it'll be incorporating more aggressive aspects to appease the unwashed hoard.

It's a damn shame. Nobody has respect for fundamentals anymore, even though it makes for the best games. Bleh.

Except SF leads the whole competitive fighting game fandom as a whole...

 

[chipndip]

Anywho, this is my two cents: It's about playing smart, offense or defense. Shields are good, yes, but blocking was always good in fighting games that aren't jam packed with hit-boxes (UMVC3 for example). We have cross-ups, but they don't open up players more than they just keep you from being opened up. Using safe options to check your opponents while attempting to land hits from different angles seems to be the best way to go about it when not using a flow chart char like Diddy or Shiek. With this mentality, I've been able to get pretty decent progress using a largely offensive style of play, rather than defensive, which is ironic since I normally aim to play defensive in other fighters.

I wouldn't say that offense doesn't work. I would say that this time around you need to mind your opponent's play style just as much as your own.

 

[Roukiske]

You can be aggressive the whole game, but you have to be aware of your spacing and any risks you are taking with every move. Some characters like can go all out aggressive since he has so many options and so many safe moves to utilize along with his speed. In melee, people go aggressive all the time because they are aware of their spacing and safe moves. If you are not safe in both games you are going to eat a shield grab or some other form of punishment.

You can space 's nair and bair all day without getting hit on a defensive opponent, but once you take that first step and go for a grab you know you are taking a risk, but you are supposedly making an educated assumption your opponent will stay put. I do admit there are a lot of characters who do not have the luxury of having safe moves to spam.

 

[Orngeblu]

You let them hit your shield, you got a free hit no matter who it is.

You put up that shield and I'm gonna come at you with a grab. Where's your shield now? That's right, it's in my hands.

On another note, when I used to play Brawl, some of my friends beat me with Ganon, and it really got on my nerves because he's not generally someone I should've been losing to. Naturally, I was an aggressive player, and back then, I was almost always the one to approach, and sometimes lead me to my doom of running into a smash attack. It was very frustrating, and I got angry at my friend for spamming Side Special with Ganon. (Which is a command grab, which means it goes through shields)

After this, I eventually improved as a player, and realized aggression is viable (if not better) if it is executed properly. It's a risky game, but you can also force your opponent to play your game by pressuring them, and executing this pressure properly. This makes it a rewarding play style.

Although in the case of the Ganon issue above, I just learned to strafe back in case he'd do a Side Special, thus baiting and capitalizing on his mistake. By faking aggression, I caused him to throw something out, and I punished it.

That's really what my playstyle revolves around, aggressive baiting. To put it simply, I play half aggressive and half bait. (The ratio's are most likely NOT exact) I can run up to you, jump back, in an attempt to make you throw out an attack, and punish it, or the other time I'll just run up and grab you. (Especially if you like turtling in shield. That just makes it easier.) I can run up and shield, and the moment that frame or your attack tacks my shield, I throw out a quick jab, grab, or some other move to interrupt you.

If anything, defense is probably the easiest to execute against an incompetent aggressive player. Aggression is probably the hardest play styles to master, considering the amount of players who complain about defense, but it's very rewarding, and defense has no advantage over it other than being easier for scrubs.

 

[smashbroskilla]

Dat clickbait title.

So after my big rant and posting my two cents in the rolls thread, I've done some more thinking on the issues people have with the game. I played some For Glory last night and it was rather clear. People try way too hard to be aggressive. A friend of mine pointed out the other day that since I had the life/stock lead there is virtually no reason for me to approach.

I was playing some For Glory last night, and I took my friend's remark into consideration. Once I had the lead, I would either stand and wait (as the opponent was coming anyway), or I forced approaches by baiting whiffs and limiting my opponent's stage control. Doing this, most of the people I played were a bunch of jokahs. Normally, I would try to continue the offense as I was at the advantage, but this would come with mixed results sometimes. When I tried this different approach, results were more consistent and my losses were simply because I was outplayed (a "legit" loss).

So for those complaining about the lack of offense, you don't need to be offensive all the time. You gotta let it come to you sometimes. If they're rolling away and you have the lead, let them run away. Sure, it's not flashy, but you have to play too win, even if that means running the timer out.

So again, don't go rushing in if you're already winning.

Captain Falcon doesn't agree with any of this. Rush down or gtfo

 

[Shadow Blitz]

I thought the issue people were having was that this isn't melee.

 

[smashbroskilla]

I think you're wrong on this. ChrisG in MvC3 plays Moridoom which we all know is all projectile spamming and super boring to watch.Fundamentals are still important in fighting games. It's just that things like chains and air dashes change that perception.

Lets be honest...if UMVC3 was still getting patches Morrigan would not gain meter when astral/mirror is activated. The only reason it's tournament viable is for this reason.

 

[Daybreak]

Well said. I was thinking about this recently and applying it to my gameplay. It will surprise a lot of people what taking a second to think will do.

 

[SuaveChaser]

I can't run away or trry to camp just cause i have the lead i'm not a coward and i enjoy fighting i rather lose playing the way i want than win with some cheesy stuff. I love playing rushdown in every game.