If Sm4sh did not have combos, would it still be competitive?

[J0A0B]

This is not a bashing against combos as I know they are completely necessary for damage building. But I want to know upon peoples' opinions that if combos were not as easy to perform, would competitive players still be able to perform strategies that would I guess "hype" the audience?

Say that setups such as down throws no longer locked enemies into complete stun and they can DI better or dodge in different directions after thrown. By then it would be up the player to choose his next move to bait the opponent into a trap. I guess the equivalent of this would be meaty attacks. In any case, if combos were more done through prediction or insight rather than simple sequence, would the metagame still be acceptable in the competitive eye?

I don't want a patch to nerf combos. I'm just curious if there were different games in the future similar to Smash Brothers' format, under Nintendo or other IP, would they only draw in a crowd because of easy combos like MvC or could they impress with character reading strikes like in a classic 3d fighter arcade?

Curious to hear opinions and I hope this is the right section to ask this.

Please reply with some detail as to why they are or are not necessary.

 

[DarkDeity15]

No, I really don't think so.

 

[Yong Dekonk]

Yes it can still be competetive without combos. It was called "Brawl."

 

[J0A0B]

Yes it can still be competetive without combos. It was called "Brawl."

Didn't Brawl also have infinites and tripping? Let's try applying the combo removal to Sm4sh without infinites and tripping, less floaty mechanics, and the current balance of Sm4sh's characters (with a few tweaks to prevent/punish camping). Would it still be okay?

Hope I'm not comparing this to Project M. I never played it, but I'm sure it still had its set of easy combos.

 

[Nabbitnator]

I think some characters need to be able to combos to do his or her job.

 

[Yong Dekonk]

Didn't Brawl also have infinites and tripping? Let's try applying the combo removal to Sm4sh without infinites and tripping, less floaty mechanics, and the current balance of Sm4sh's characters (with a few tweaks to prevent/punish camping). Would it still be okay?

Hope I'm not comparing this to Project M. I never played it, but I'm sure it still had its set of easy combos.

Brawl had tripping of course, although I don't know how that's relevant. It also had some chain grabs but I wouldn't call those combos. There were much fewer combo options in brawl than Smash 4 and although you can't say it had no combos at all, it was mostly without combos. The combos it did have were not true combos and were the result of reads. Brawl's gameplay was the target of much criticism for its lack of combos. (I actually loved brawl although I have fully embraced smash 4) Without combos, the gameplay was slower. Some argued that it was less fun to watch because of the defensive options.

The problem with removing combos altogether is that it removes the satisfaction you get from landing a combo. If your opponent can always escape a string of attacks then the gameplay almost becomes inherently frustrating because it takes so long to get your opponents damage up. It becomes a game of poke and retreat.

The problem with having too many combos is that as the defender if you make a mistake you're toast. You watch helplessly as your character gets pummeled. It is less about skill and more about luck of hitting your opponent first.

I like how Smash 4 has combos at low percents but at high percents combos require much more prediction. However, more effort needs to be put forth to ensure characters have equal combo potential.

 

[popsofctown]

Brawl had tripping of course, although I don't know how that's relevant. It also had some chain grabs but I wouldn't call those combos. There were much fewer combo options in brawl than Smash 4 and although you can't say it had no combos at all, it was mostly without combos. The combos it did have were not true combos and were the result of reads. Brawl's gameplay was the target of much criticism for its lack of combos. (I actually loved brawl although I have fully embraced smash 4) Without combos, the gameplay was slower. Some argued that it was less fun to watch because of the defensive options.

The problem with removing combos altogether is that it removes the satisfaction you get from landing a combo. If your opponent can always escape a string of attacks then the gameplay almost becomes inherently frustrating because it takes so long to get your opponents damage up. It becomes a game of poke and retreat.

The problem with having too many combos is that as the defender if you make a mistake you're toast. You watch helplessly as your character gets pummeled. It is less about skill and more about luck of hitting your opponent first.

I like how Smash 4 has combos at low percents but at high percents combos require much more prediction. However, more effort needs to be put forth to ensure characters have equal combo potential.

Sheik ftiltftiltftiltftiltftilt may not be what you enjoy watching, but it's a combo. So is a chaingrab, I don't know why you want to reclassify that, it's a string of moves guaranteed off an initial hit.

 

[J0A0B]

Brawl had tripping of course, although I don't know how that's relevant. It also had some chain grabs but I wouldn't call those combos. There were much fewer combo options in brawl than Smash 4 and although you can't say it had no combos at all, it was mostly without combos. The combos it did have were not true combos and were the result of reads. Brawl's gameplay was the target of much criticism for its lack of combos. (I actually loved brawl although I have fully embraced smash 4) Without combos, the gameplay was slower. Some argued that it was less fun to watch because of the defensive options.

The problem with removing combos altogether is that it removes the satisfaction you get from landing a combo. If your opponent can always escape a string of attacks then the gameplay almost becomes inherently frustrating because it takes so long to get your opponents damage up. It becomes a game of poke and retreat.

The problem with having too many combos is that as the defender if you make a mistake you're toast. You watch helplessly as your character gets pummeled. It is less about skill and more about luck of hitting your opponent first.

I like how Smash 4 has combos at low percents but at high percents combos require much more prediction. However, more effort needs to be put forth to ensure characters have equal combo potential.

It seems you bring some good points for the pros and cons of combos. I guess combos will always be necessary, but I don't think they should be the primary option of dealing damage. Maybe if there was a type of proration in the event of a combo, like in Guilty Gear, the situation would not be so easily dominating. This way combos are still there to help the offensive but at the same time require more effort to build up more attempts to rack up damage.

 

[Yong Dekonk]

Sheik ftiltftiltftiltftiltftilt may not be what you enjoy watching, but it's a combo. So is a chaingrab, I don't know why you want to reclassify that, it's a string of moves guaranteed off an initial hit.

If you ask, does brawl have combos? The answer is yes. But combos are the exception in brawl, not the rule. Brawl is a game that isn't designed around combos. The overall gameplay is not combo based at all. Compared to melee or Smash 4 there are very few true combos. I'm not putting Brawl down at all, but it is one of the few fighting games with very few combos.

 

[popsofctown]

If you ask, does brawl have combos? The answer is yes. But combos are the exception in brawl, not the rule. Brawl is a game that isn't designed around combos. The overall gameplay is not combo based at all. Compared to melee or Smash 4 there are very few true combos. I'm not putting Brawl down at all, but it is one of the few fighting games with very few combos.

But if you select a combo character to main, then combos will become a large part of your experience, it's up to you. I agree that in random dittos there's not much comboing, but that's not how your character is selected. That's a little different than if they were so scarce there was no way they could be a part of your experience at all.

Smash 4 does do a better job of making sure each character at least gets a two or three hit string.

 

[Gawain]

The primary jobs of combos in any fighting game are really just to raise the skill ceiling, speed games up, and make it more fun and creative. That's really the whole reason. The stronger the combo game is in any given fighter, the more you can get out of any given punish or confirmed hit. If you take out all the combos in a game (for example just making everything have high knockback), all you're doing is reducing the speed of the game (as well as the fun of it for pretty much all regular fighting game fans).

So to answer your question, no, it doesn't make it less "competitive'. Anything can be competitive. What it does is make it less interesting to play/watch.

EDIT: Should also mention that strong combo game is often what separates high-level players from others in most fighting games. Anyone can play footsies and space their attacks. All that requires is knowledge of your character's hitboxes/speed and what your enemy can do. It's just basic knowledge. Having a strong combo game, and knowing what you can follow up from any given hit is often what makes good players so good. They can convert many of their various options in a circumstance into something important, and this reduces the amount of times they have to choose the right option which makes it easier to win.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I'm pretty sure most people don't even know what "competitive" means.
OF COURSE it will be competitive, because it means ipeople can COMPETE with it.
If you want to say it will be better or worse, "competitive" is not the right term. It's a semantics issue.

 

[HeroMystic]

The problem with this question is it's misproperly worded.

You're not asking if Smash 4 will be competitive without combos. You're asking if Smash 4 will still be popular. That's a large difference.

 

[J0A0B]

The primary jobs of combos in any fighting game are really just to raise the skill ceiling, speed games up, and make it more fun and creative. That's really the whole reason. The stronger the combo game is in any given fighter, the more you can get out of any given punish or confirmed hit. If you take out all the combos in a game (for example just making everything have high knockback), all you're doing is reducing the speed of the game (as well as the fun of it for pretty much all regular fighting game fans).

So to answer your question, no, it doesn't make it less "competitive'. Anything can be competitive. What it does is make it less interesting to play/watch.

EDIT: Should also mention that strong combo game is often what separates high-level players from others in most fighting games. Anyone can play footsies and space their attacks. All that requires is knowledge of your character's hitboxes/speed and what your enemy can do. It's just basic knowledge. Having a strong combo game, and knowing what you can follow up from any given hit is often what makes good players so good. They can convert many of their various options in a circumstance into something important, and this reduces the amount of times they have to choose the right option which makes it easier to win.

Yes, a high combo game can make it easier to win, but I doubt easy winning is always gonna be considered interesting. Not all characters in smash rely on combos and sadly its what seems to push most of them in the bottom ranks. Combos should be good for building up damage and ending variously for mix-ups, that's all I think are necessary. But combos in sm4sh are also used to engage in a lot of stock kills, particularly down throw setups and that can really set a wide bar between combo users and spacing characters in ranks. So I do wonder if combos were set up to be a little weaker in future smash games or games with similar mechanics, thereby setting up spacing to be the primary finishers more often, would they still draw interest in the crowds?

In regards to my topic title, I guess I've been driven to believe competitive equals popular based on the constant uprising of melee fanboys bashing later smash games for not being good enough for their interests. My apologies if the topic has been worded wrong.

 

[Gawain]

Yes, a high combo game can make it easier to win, but I doubt easy winning is always gonna be considered interesting. Not all characters in smash rely on combos and sadly its what seems to push most of them in the bottom ranks. Combos should be good for building up damage and ending variously for mix-ups, that's all I think are necessary. But combos in sm4sh are also used to engage in a lot of stock kills, particularly down throw setups and that can really set a wide bar between combo users and spacing characters in ranks. So I do wonder if combos were set up to be a little weaker in future smash games or games with similar mechanics, thereby setting up spacing to be the primary finishers more often, would they still draw interest in the crowds?

I didn't say that the easy winning is what makes the game more interesting. What makes the game more interesting is if you can get creative when you score a hit and when scoring a hit matters more. What I meant when I said it makes it "easier" to win is that they're required to get a successful punish (a read, an opponents mistake or whatever) less times. It's not easy to maximize your combos in most games. Being able to take 75 percent of a life bar in BB or MvC without a ton of meter isn't easy. It requires creativity and input precision. Same thing with Melee/whatever.

In an ideal world there isn't such a thing as a "spacing" character. Everyone should be able to do interesting things off of a hit, whether it's done from a distance or right in the face. Marth in Melee is an example of a spacing character in Smash done right. There are quite a lot in Smash 4 that are examples of them being done wrong.

Again, combos make the game more interesting to competitive crowds because it allows the players to get creative and potentially do tons of damage (fun to do in the game, hype for the spectators). But if you're not good then they don't do you any good, which is why people tend to say they raise the skill ceiling: you can't make many mistakes against a good player because it only takes a few for them to win (hence my easiness comment), although you can still make many vs a poorly skilled player because they won't get as much out of it..

 

[J0A0B]

I didn't say that the easy winning is what makes the game more interesting. What makes the game more interesting is if you can get creative when you score a hit and when scoring a hit matters more. What I meant when I said it makes it "easier" to win is that they're required to get a successful punish (a read, an opponents mistake or whatever) less times. It's not easy to maximize your combos in most games. Being able to take 75 percent of a life bar in BB or MvC without a ton of meter isn't easy. It requires creativity and input precision. Same thing with Melee/whatever.

In an ideal world there isn't such a thing as a "spacing" character. Everyone should be able to do interesting things off of a hit, whether it's done from a distance or right in the face. Marth in Melee is an example of a spacing character in Smash done right. There are quite a lot in Smash 4 that are examples of them being done wrong.

Again, combos make the game more interesting to competitive crowds because it allows the players to get creative and potentially do tons of damage (fun to do in the game, hype for the spectators). But if you're not good then they don't do you any good, which is why people tend to say they raise the skill ceiling: you can't make many mistakes against a good player because it only takes a few for them to win (hence my easiness comment), although you can still make many vs a poorly skilled player because they won't get as much out of it..

Yes, a high combo game can make it easier to win, but I doubt easy winning is always gonna be considered interesting. Not all characters in smash rely on combos and sadly its what seems to push most of them in the bottom ranks. Combos should be good for building up damage and ending variously for mix-ups, that's all I think are necessary. But combos in sm4sh are also used to engage in a lot of stock kills, particularly down throw setups and that can really set a wide bar between combo users and spacing characters in ranks. So I do wonder if combos were set up to be a little weaker in future smash games or games with similar mechanics, thereby setting up spacing to be the primary finishers more often, would they still draw interest in the crowds?

In regards to my topic title, I guess I've been driven to believe competitive equals popular based on the constant uprising of melee fanboys bashing later smash games for not being good enough for their interests. My apologies if the topic has been worded wrong.

I've come to agree that combos are important to make the game appealing. But I still don't believe it will apply to all. Getting 75% in something like MvC should never be easy and it should stay that way. Sometimes though, character like Sheik and Luigi can make easy setups that rack up way more damage then most other characters are capable of performing within seconds. While games like Melee can bring the most hype and draw in a huge crowd, I still believe that games that don't focus so much on combos can still draw in a huge number of their own demographic. Blazblue for instance can show fights with characters scoring over 40 hits to deal big damage, yet I prefer the shorter combos in GGXrd that still deal decent damage yet setup for the opponent to breathe and make the next move that's either a counter or a mistake in a great speed. Either way, I believe a game like smash with a toned down combo motif, but also toned down on camping can still draw in its own crowd and be respected for its mechanics. Can anyone agree?

 

[GhostUrsa]

I've come to agree that combos are important to make the game appealing. But I still don't believe it will apply to all. Getting 75% in something like MvC should never be easy and it should stay that way. Sometimes though, character like Sheik and Luigi can make easy setups that rack up way more damage then most other characters are capable of performing within seconds. While games like Melee can bring the most hype and draw in a huge crowd, I still believe that games that don't focus so much on combos can still draw in a huge number of their own demographic. Blazblue for instance can show fights with characters scoring over 40 hits to deal big damage, yet I prefer the shorter combos in GGXrd that still deal decent damage yet setup for the opponent to breathe and make the next move that's either a counter or a mistake in a great speed. Either way, I believe a game like smash with a toned down combo motif, but also toned down on camping can still draw in its own crowd and be respected for its mechanics. Can anyone agree?

You comparision here has a fallacy, unfortunately. % in Smash has nothing to due with % in MvC or other fighting games. This means that although Sheik and Luigi can combo greater (using your example) they have a harder time going for the KO unless their target is in the higher % since % is only how easy it is to knockout someone out of the ring. (I'm simplifying, of course) As an Ike player, I have very little combo game but can kill most targets sub 100% while Sheik needs me at about 200% to really synch a win.

I agree that combos aren't everything in a game, and it's why I've left playing some of Smash's competition. It felt that the other games I was playing was more about who could get the first hit in on the combo string then letting a player adapt and grow during the match. I wasn't fond of having only one hit determining whether I'd get to play a match, and wanted a fighting game that was more similar to physical martial sports (Where rarely a single hit determines the match.). The combo game available in Smash's competitors may look cooler from a spectator standpoint, but it can make it boring to play. (Mind you, there are now more ways to get out of these combo's of death in modern fighters than there were in the editions I used to play. The emphasis on pure offense still remains.)

I feel that one of Smash's greatest strengths is how the different characters with different fighting mechanics can jive in one environment. It give it a MMA feel, and I think long term it's is what keeps them viable. It's why I think people are still enjoying watching Melee even though other aged fighters aren't getting as much exposure, like SSF2Turbo or GG2nd.

I apologize for going on a tangent mid-thought. The need to rant came over me with the number of threads I've been reading lately on how Smash 4 needs XYZ improvements when all that will do is take away the unique feel it has.

On topic with my original comment, the combo system currently in place could use some extra balance but I feel it's already very well balanced to allow light-hitters to be able to take out their heavy hitting counter parts in fair combat. Tightening up the balance will take time, as the devs need to know how all the MUs will develop to do this just as we need time to develop the strategies to counter the different characters.

 

[Raijinken]

Combos don't make a game competitive. It'd still be competitive, though unfortunately there are many who would disregard it wholly.

I like Smash4 where it is, functionally. Wouldn't mind some small balance tweaks here and there.

 

[J0A0B]

You comparision here has a fallacy, unfortunately. % in Smash has nothing to due with % in MvC or other fighting games. This means that although Sheik and Luigi can combo greater (using your example) they have a harder time going for the KO unless their target is in the higher % since % is only how easy it is to knockout someone out of the ring. (I'm simplifying, of course) As an Ike player, I have very little combo game but can kill most targets sub 100% while Sheik needs me at about 200% to really synch a win.

I feel that one of Smash's greatest strengths is how the different characters with different fighting mechanics can jive in one environment. It give it a MMA feel, and I think long term it's is what keeps them viable. It's why I think people are still enjoying watching Melee even though other aged fighters aren't getting as much exposure, like SSF2Turbo or GG2nd.

The different mechanics of each character are great in diversity, but it still does not open itself to that diversity when one type of fighting mechanic dominates the majority. While it's true that Sheik and Luigi are not able to KO as easily, once their big damage from their combos are done, they can pretty much take over the stage with their simpler options. Sheik is so fast that she can poke her foes to the edge at higher percents and then trap them with hard to avoid edge guarding techniques. And Luigi has his safe fireball zoning which unfortunately other projectile users like Mario and Greninja can't compete with; not to mention his very powerful super jump attack. A simple tweak as I've stated before would be to lessen damage of each hit when a player is caught in a combo, like until a second has passed from the last hit, it would also probably help those in free-for-alls who get ganged up and juggled unfairly. I know it sounds unnecessary in comparison against heavy-hitters, but current results of most tournaments or online matches show that these speedy or combo-savvy characters brought the better advantage.

Indeed, the uniqueness should not be fiddled with, but we should at least make sure that certain unique traits don't completely block away the other characters from expressing their own unique traits. But yeah, I'm sure future games out there will continue to improve to create both uniqueness and balance, we're at least having some working progress with Sm4sh.

 

[Octagon]

Indeed, the uniqueness should not be fiddled with, but we should at least make sure that certain unique traits don't completely block away the other characters from expressing their own unique traits. But yeah, I'm sure future games out there will continue to improve to create both uniqueness and balance, we're at least having some working progress with Sm4sh.

Yeah i feel like the variety in the smash roster helps make smash what it is. The further we go along in this series i feel the more balanced it will become. I mean Smash 4 isn't perfect but it did a dang good job to make sure the characters are as balanced as possible.

 

[Alhobbies440]

I really don't think any fighting game can stand a chance at being popular without having an engaging combo game. Unless the game is truly unique and innovative I don't seeing anything surviving a lack of combos. Brawl was extremely lackluster when it came to combos(minus chaingrabs and other shenanigans) and we all know where that train went.

 

[Boigahs]

More or less combos don't make a game better or worse except at the very very extreme ends of the spectrum. It's pretty much entirely just player preference. Some people like games with strong footsies. Some people like games with big, flashy combos. Both of those people are probably going to argue that the other guy's game sucks.
Brawl had quite a few issues, and having very few options for combos can be considered part of the problem, but definitely not the problem itself.
The topic of what "no combos" means is rather stupid, to be frank. There is a lot more to fighting game than the combo system.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I really don't think any fighting game can stand a chance at being popular without having an engaging combo game. Unless the game is truly unique and innovative I don't seeing anything surviving a lack of combos. Brawl was extremely lackluster when it came to combos(minus chaingrabs and other shenanigans) and we all know where that train went.

Popularity =/= Competitiveness.