Is the brawl style of gameplay really that bad?

[otter]

But in your post I quoted you stated that picking metaknight was the optimal way. Just trying to point out contradictions and fallacies.

I understand, but M2K does not need to play optimally. You could at least found a video where he won, not that it would have helped. You can't possibly argue against Metaknights dominance at this point. I'm not even worried about top tiers, it's just that in alot of games the top tiers are in that position because they are the most dynamic and fun to play (melee). In brawl there is only one, and he requires you to go full ****** to use well.

 

[Gardex]

Like the ever-so-campy and gay Nairo, right?

Your point works better with ICs

 

[Black Mantis]

you really have no idea what you're talking about. this entire set is filled with interaction whether it's entertaining or not.

lol you must be in denial or something. there where moments where they literally ran away from each other and abused spacing options

Do you consider this interaction then?

 

[MuraRengan]

lol you must be in denial or something. there where moments where they literally ran away from each other and abused spacing options

Do you consider this interaction then?

Wow, love when people bring up this match. This match is a result if a poor to decision in not banning that stage. That stafe is traditionslly banned because of matches like this. Judging melee's play with this example is like judgeinf a brawl match on hyrule temple.

 

[Black Mantis]

Wow, love when people bring up this match. This match is a result if a poor to decision in not banning that stage. That stafe is traditionslly banned because of matches like this. Judging melee's play with this example is like judgeinf a brawl match on hyrule temple.

Don't Melee players do the same thing with Brawl though? Yes, there are matches of Brawl that don't consist of nothing but camping.

 

[MuraRengan]

Don't Melee players do the same thing with Brawl though? Yes, there are matches of Brawl that don't consist of nothing but camping.
]

I'm not making that argument. Tbh, i don't want to get much further inbetween you and whoever you're arguing with. I'm just clarifying the circumstances of your example. I'm more concerned with the overall majority of matches. Armada vs hbox probably represents less than .01% of melee matches.

Now for the sake of argument, if you think your example represents more than an infinitesimal fraction of the majority of brawl matches, then you're fighting an uphill battle. Ask any to who's run both a brawl and melee tournament and they will tell you that brawl takes longer. I've been at tournaments where melee finishes hours faster than brawl, with equal contestant entries. The slowness of brawl's matches is uncontestable, and if it's not from campy defensive play, i'd like to hear your explanation. Otherwise you're just being blindly contentious, and ignoring what's really important.

 

[Strong Badam]

lol you must be in denial or something. there where moments where they literally ran away from each other and abused spacing options

Do you consider this interaction then?

yes. there is no situation where neither player is able to influence what is occurring, which happens in Brawl quite frequently (ICs CGs, MK's tornado post-first-hit, Pikachu dthrow/fthrow cgs and dthrow nair, etc). you are mistaking defensive gameplay for a lack of interaction, which is by definition incorrect. if you're playing defensively you are inherently interacting with your opponent in a defensive manner.

 

[TerryJ]

Pretty much my least favorite thing about the Melee to Brawl transition other than the obvious tripping would be the change from being able to reflect projectiles with a Power Shield.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

My god, I never realized Brawl was so hated! Jesus people, it's just Smash Bros.

It's not like it's supporting war in a foreign country or something.

 

[Black Mantis]

yes. there is no situation where neither player is able to influence what is occurring, which happens in Brawl quite frequently (ICs CGs, MK's tornado post-first-hit, Pikachu dthrow/fthrow cgs and dthrow nair, etc).

grab break mechanics have been discovered

MuraRengan the reason Brawl takes longer (in most cases) is because (and as BSP once stated) it's a TO problem with keeping things in schedule.

 

[CRASHiC]

yes. there is no situation where neither player is able to influence what is occurring, which happens in Brawl quite frequently (ICs CGs, MK's tornado post-first-hit, Pikachu dthrow/fthrow cgs and dthrow nair, etc).

ICs exist in Melee and do the same thing, especially now that wobbeling is unbanned.
CGs exist in Melee. God forbid anyone ever grabs a spacie. Chain grabs are, functionally, just a combo with grabs.
MKs tornado is just a blockstring. I'm sorry if the number of moves done is an issue for you and you like arbitraty addons to your game, but there's no reason to single out a single block string.

Brawl takes longer because move decay was significantly increased, because ceilings are more often higher, because Smash DI has more influence, and because the lack of combos was not compensated for by increasing the damage dealt or knock back on moves.

 

[Black Mantis]

Melee players joke about mk being banned at one point, but then ban wobbling. Hypocrisy much?

 

[CRASHiC]

They kept it banned until Evo unbanned it.
Smash in general has always had a very odd look at how they ban things. They seem to really want to push the game towards Super Turbo

 

[Mithost]

Metaknight isn't the only character you can go full-****** with and win

Anyways, it seems like Sakurai is saying Smash 4 will be the balance between Melee and Brawl, specifically talking about how Melee was Hardcore and Brawl was Casual. Also, looking at Mario's gameplay footage during the Megaman showoff sakurai did, the ledges were not as friendly as before.

 

[TreK]

yes. there is no situation where neither player is able to influence what is occurring, which happens in Brawl quite frequently (ICs CGs, MK's tornado post-first-hit, Pikachu dthrow/fthrow cgs and dthrow nair, etc). you are mistaking defensive gameplay for a lack of interaction, which is by definition incorrect. if you're playing defensively you are inherently interacting with your opponent in a defensive manner.

ICs' CGs : it's the Brawl equivalent of wobbling. Except it looks 10 times more bad ass. Every counterargument you could oppose to banning wobbling applies to it (it doesn't work when there's no nana, you can escape it below 20%, and you can get out of it if you're an item character, to quote the most legitimate ones)
MK's tornado : it is a multihit move. If it didn't function properly, like Pikachu's dsmash in example, it would be stupid and there would be much more reasons to be bitter. That said, item characters can get out of it easily.
Pikachu's CGs : I've seen the CG to death twice in the past five years, and one of my region's top8 is a Pikachu/MK that switches to Pikachu on all Falco players. The conditions for it to happen are ridiculously unlikely. The CG, without its kill, is a much more common sighting and yes, it is lame and I hope it doesn't make it into Smash 4. That's one thing we can agree on. However, I fail to see a difference between Pikachu's dthrow-nair and Melee Fox's uthrow-uair, or Melee CF's dthrow-uair. I suppose the DI on these affects the spacing of the followup more than on Brawl Pika's dthrow.

As for this match, I found it rather entertaining. I only watched the first match of the set, though.

 

[Strong Badam]

CGs exist in Melee. God forbid anyone ever grabs a spacie. Chain grabs are, functionally, just a combo with grabs.

you seem to misunderstand. i'm not saying "chaingrabs are bad," i'm referring to the fact that specifically the Brawl CGs completely remove interaction because of the fact that trajectory DI is disabled until a player reaches a % at which they suffer tumble from getting hit, which is 80 KB/32 frames of hitstun. in melee, the chaingrabs require the chaingrabbing player to react to how their opponent is DIing. in brawl, the chaingrabbing player simply has to press their buttons correctly. literally the only thing standing between the chaingrabber and his next grab is his own technical skill, and the opponent cannot do anything, which is something most people attribute to melee when it isn't further from the truth.

MKs tornado is just a blockstring. I'm sorry if the number of moves done is an issue for you and you like arbitraty addons to your game, but there's no reason to single out a single block string.

what? i'm referring to when it actually hit someone. after the first hit, the remaining hits allow no trajectory DI or smash DI, so the victim is simply waiting for 3+ seconds receiving damage, literally unable to do anything. this is what i mean by a lack of interaction, not "ugh i hate mk tornado it's so broken"

i don't feel like responding to 3 clones of the same person, so i'll just stop this post here.

 

[Mithost]

However, I fail to see a difference between Pikachu's dthrow-nair and Melee Fox's uthrow-uair, or Melee CF's dthrow-uair.

Dthrow>Nair doesn't kill most characters at 50-70 on a large portion of the stagelist.

 

[PK-Matt]

All that really needs to be said about Brawl is Meta Knight.

 

[MuraRengan]

MuraRengan the reason Brawl takes longer (in most cases) is because (and as BSP once stated) it's a TO problem with keeping things in schedule.

This is a BS answer. There's no reason TO's can keep Melee on schedule but not Brawl. I don't think Brawl TO's are that randomly incompetent.

Brawl takes longer because move decay was significantly increased, because ceilings are more often higher, because Smash DI has more influence, and because the lack of combos was not compensated for by increasing the damage dealt or knock back on moves.

Now THIS is a good answer, but I'd like to point out that all the bolded things are what lead to campy defensive play. Decreased move decay places emphasis on only using kill moves when they're fresh, and this is because damage and knockback were not adequately compensated for. Players know that in order to get a kill they need to set up a situation where they can use their 1-2 fresh kill moves, so they maneuver, bait, and wait till they can get that opportunity, and even that's only if the moves are fresh. If a move is stale, players end up trading hits, or spamming projectiles just to unstale their kill move. This type of play takes long, and requires defensiveness and campiness. That's the type of competitive play that Brawl fosters.

 

[CRASHiC]

you seem to misunderstand. i'm not saying "chaingrabs are bad," i'm referring to the fact that specifically the Brawl CGs completely remove interaction because of the fact that trajectory DI is disabled until a player reaches a % at which they suffer tumble from getting hit, which is 80 KB/32 frames of hitstun. in melee, the chaingrabs require the chaingrabbing player to react to how their opponent is DIing. in brawl, the chaingrabbing player simply has to press their buttons correctly. literally the only thing standing between the chaingrabber and his next grab is his own technical skill, and the opponent cannot do anything, which is something most people attribute to melee when it isn't further from the truth.

what? i'm referring to when it actually hit someone. after the first hit, the remaining hits allow no trajectory DI or smash DI, so the victim is simply waiting for 3+ seconds receiving damage, literally unable to do anything. this is what i mean by a lack of interaction, not "ugh i hate mk tornado it's so broken"

i don't feel like responding to 3 clones of the same person, so i'll just stop this post here.

There shouldn't be interaction with players during a combo like this. The player has already worked hard to get to his combo, there's no reason to add another guessing game after. The player should be rewarded for doing something well, not thrown into this poor man's guessing game. Combos should be consistent and reliable, if they are in the game at all. The amount of choices added on both players parts are so minimal that they don't outweigh all the negatives that come with having combos be ifluenced by DI. The type of hitstun they introduced was good for the game, it was just poorly implemented.

 

[TreK]

^I disagree. True combos are a bad thing. And to keep it short, it's the reason I play Smash over another fighting game.

Now THIS is a good answer, but I'd like to point out that all the bolded things are what lead to campy defensive play. Decreased move decay places emphasis on only using kill moves when they're fresh, and this is because damage and knockback were not adequately compensated for. Players know that in order to get a kill they need to set up a situation where they can use their 1-2 fresh kill moves, so they maneuver, bait, and wait till they can get that opportunity, and even that's only if the moves are fresh. If a move is stale, players end up trading hits, or spamming projectiles just to unstale their kill move. This type of play takes long, and requires defensiveness and campiness. That's the type of competitive play that Brawl fosters.

Yes, survivability is high in Brawl. Some of us advocated 2 stock matches to compensate, but for some reasons (some legit, some not), it never happened.

However, thinking that Brawl players 'wait' for killmove opportunity to present themselves does not picture the competitive playstyle. Top players will not let that kind of error happen ever. You have to make your own opportunities, and that can go through camping, but most opportunities are found while juggling and it implies you have to attack at some point. If anything, it's the player that's in danger of getting killed that's more likely to be on the defensive.
There's no 'if the move is stale' at high level, either. Staling your killmoves is generally considered as an error to the same level as recovering low with snake : it is possible, but if you do it, don't even expect to win.
Brawl with smaller boundaries would be a much faster game, though.

 

[MuraRengan]

There shouldn't be interaction with players during a combo like this. The player has already worked hard to get to his combo, there's no reason to add another guessing game after. The player should be rewarded for doing something well, not thrown into this poor man's guessing game. Combos should be consistent and reliable, if they are in the game at all. The amount of choices added on both players parts are so minimal that they don't outweigh all the negatives that come with having combos be ifluenced by DI. The type of hitstun they introduced was good for the game, it was just poorly implemented.

Wow, are you serious? Like really serious? I almost don't want to respond to this because of how insane it is. DI is one of the BEST things about smash. I don't think this is even arguable. You make it seem like reading DI to continue a combo isn't a skill, like it's something out of the player's grasp. You must be really bad. Reading DI is just like any aspect of the game: you have to learn how to do it. It's not a guessing game, it's about learning your opponent and being observant during the battle. Players have habits, and it only takes a little bit of knowledge to predict where someone will DI. This is 100% where being a smart player comes into play. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go play smash 64 and see how smash changes when there's no (or minimal, in 64's case) DI.

Perhaps it's frustrating to have your moves DI'd in Brawl, but that's probably because you had to go through so much camping just to get in the situation. I'd rather keep the DI and lose the defensiveness, than vice versa.

 

[CRASHiC]

You make it seem like reading DI to continue a combo isn't a skill, like it's something out of the player's grasp. You must be really bad. Reading DI is just like any aspect of the game: you have to learn how to do it. It's not a guessing game, it's about learning your opponent and being observant during the battle. Players have habits, and it only takes a little bit of knowledge to predict where someone will DI. This is 100% where being a smart player comes into play. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go play smash 64 and see how smash changes when there's no (or minimal, in 64's case) DI.

No where did I say it didn't take skill.
But there needs to be a consistency from the players stand, and that is thrown out the window when DI comes into play.
A game is not always benefited by offering more situations where players are thrown into guessing games, especially the 50/50 that DI often becomes in many combos.
As a player, I need to know that if I go for a mixup and have it hit that I am guaranteed this much damage, and that if it misses how safe or unsafe will I be. Without damage being guaranteed I have lost something as a player.

DI during combos also punishes me for doing well in a back hand way for what should be a situation where I am rewarded, I'll say again because its true. I've earned that hit, I've earned that combo, I've earned the oppurtunity for resets and gaining a positioning advantage, I shouldn't be thrown into an additional 50/50 for the sake of a crappy physics engine.

 

[TreK]

Hmm, I wouldn't have expected this kind of point of view from someone among the Smash community, tbh.

It's a matter of tastes I guess (oh ****, I used the T-word). I find my consistency in the fact that every input I make has to be a read, else it will end up in me getting hit. You find yours wherever you want.

 

[Mithost]

No where did I say it didn't take skill.
But there needs to be a consistency from the players stand, and that is thrown out the window when DI comes into play.
A game is not always benefited by offering more situations where players are thrown into guessing games, especially the 50/50 that DI often becomes in many combos.
As a player, I need to know that if I go for a mixup and have it hit that I am guaranteed this much damage, and that if it misses how safe or unsafe will I be. Without damage being guaranteed I have lost something as a player.

DI during combos also punishes me for doing well in a back hand way for what should be a situation where I am rewarded, I'll say again because its true. I've earned that hit, I've earned that combo, I've earned the oppurtunity for resets and gaining a positioning advantage, I shouldn't be thrown into an additional 50/50 for the sake of a crappy physics engine.

Seriously, you are playing the wrong game. Marvel is here for you. One thing that you are not taking into account is the ability and feasibility of reading DI. It's the same as reading a grab or anything else in a traditional fighter. After the first few trades, good players will start to learn where their opponents DI to get out of potential combos. This player then gets rewarded for the read. If the opponent is also a good player, he will know when to switch up his DI. Now both players are presented with options in a RPS format. What was it called again when equal options are presented to both players?

Depth.

 

[FirestormNeos]

This should be in Brawl General or Competitive Discussion.

Seriously, why is it in SSB4 talk when it has nothing to do with SSB4.

 

[CRASHiC]

Seriously, you are playing the wrong game. Marvel is here for you. One thing that you are not taking into account is the ability and feasibility of reading DI. It's the same as reading a grab or anything else in a traditional fighter. After the first few trades, good players will start to learn where their opponents DI to get out of potential combos. This player then gets rewarded for the read. If the opponent is also a good player, he will know when to switch up his DI. Now both players are presented with options in a RPS format. What was it called again when equal options are presented to both players?

Depth.

What depth it provides is only an initial illusion. When you look at what it causes in match, it devalues other decisions the players have made up to that point. It provides the one who made a mistake a constant chance for survival (bad) and takes away the chance for reward from someone who has made a successful guess. An excess of Rock, Paper, Scizor's damages the integrity of play and this particular instance lowers the importance that the initial prediction is suppose to have. When you add choices to one person you are taking away something from another person. DI during combos is anti-design and really alters the state of play in a very bad way by devaluing other decisions and punishing someone for doing well.

 

[Mithost]

It's true that the ability to leave combos makes them have less value than if you can't leave them, but it doesn't take away from anything.This isn't a traditional fighter. The game always had DI. The game was built in the environment where combos were dynamic. Combos are different here. Combos, in this game, are a phase in the fight where one person is at a large disadvantage, while another is at an extreme advantage. It's a step above the normal advantage<neutral>disadvantage mindset. It still plays the role of combos in traditional fighters (The peak and reward of the advantage state), it just doesn't become mindless once the character starts the animation for their best combo.

Sorry about going off topic. I believe this thread should be talking about how if Brawl's engine and quirks were fixed, it would be a good game or not.

 

[CRASHiC]

None of what you says tells me why isn't doesn't devalue the first call. This has nothing to do with other fighters I've yet to bring up a single one. Simply because this was a part of Melee (the only game where this makes a true difference since it is non-existent in 64 and little impact in Brawl) does not mean this should be a part of future titles and there's no way you can defend this simply beyond "I enjoy this part of the game."

It doesn't play a stepabove either because it lowers the impact of moments prior, the moments when players are actually fighting. There are other ways to prevent 0 to deaths without that horrible system.

 

[MuraRengan]

Crashic, you keep "defending" yourself by saying the exact same thing with different words. I want you to read what is actually said here:

What you consider a "punishment" for a player doing well, I consider just another challenge added to the game. Do you consider it a punishment that characters are allowed to recover, instead of falling helplessly off the ledge when they are knocked off? Is it a punishment when players sheild, since you were so good to be able to hit them? Are you punished when players airdodge or spot dodge, since they're denying you your rightful hit that you so carefully planned out? This is how crazy you sound. The gameplay is made up of challenges imposed on players that give each player different options.

You need to change the way you look at the game. Not every situation is about mistakes and rewards. If you feel entitled to every hit you land, you're rejecting the challenge that the game presents. Someone WILL get hit or grabbed at some point, there's too much going on in the game to expect even the best player to never make a "mistake". Oftentimes these so-called "mistakes" occur when a player had no knowledge that the situation was about to happen. When I play my friends who are just learning Melee, I hit them with all kinds of setups that they could never have seen coming. You cannot call their situation a "mistake" because they were completely ignorant of the entire situation. No player should be punished so harshly for something that was largely out of their control, I. E. ignorance, or in this case, an inability to accurately assess and predict every event in a fast paced environment (and this is why Marvel's so bad). DI is good because it gives some forgiveness for natural human error. I don't care how good you are, you are not going to always avoid getting grabbed when you're already dealing with Fox nair-shining on your sheild.

I get the feeling that you've never played Melee or Smash 64. Because if you were any good at Melee, you'd know how important DI is. DI is what negates tier dominance. If there was no DI in Melee, Sheik would be banworthy simply because of the sheer number of people she can chaingrab without DI. Fox's uthrow->uair would wreck pretty much EVERYBODY. If you were any good at Smash 64, you'd see first hand what a lack of DI can do to a game. Falcon can guarantee at least 90% and an edgeguard opportunity on most chars if he gets a grab at zero. Kirby can KILL every char if he lands a single downair. Ness's dair has a full 3 secs of hitstun during which time the player can do NOTHING while Ness casually jumps up and dairs them again. Lack of DI ruins Smash 64, and is a godsend to Melee. If you're speaking only from your experience in Brawl, then I must reiterate: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

 

[Amida64]

wow youre a total ******. buhuhuhu i cant press buttons fast ;( kill yourself

Wow, this is a legitimate debate, you brought nothing to the argument besides insults. I enjoy all techs, I could care less how many inputs it takes, that is not the problem, the problem is this doesn't work for the WHOLE community, the movement gives more options, but you get less time to think. There is other changes that come with these new movements/techs, and finding an alternative would be the best way to make everyone happy. So instead of insulting, why don't you put some intelligence into the debate and see if we could all agree on the best compromise? Of course, it will not help much, unless we all made a big hack like Project M or something.

 

[TreK]

There are other ways to prevent 0 to deaths without that horrible system.

And what would you advise ?
I'm legitimately interested in the answer, btw, no cynism here.

 

[CRASHiC]

Crashic, you keep "defending" yourself by saying the exact same thing with different words.

Because they have yet to be responded to, yet the fundamental problems with the system remain.

What you consider a "punishment" for a player doing well, I consider just another challenge added to the game.

Adding more challenges and decisions isn't going to improve the game. These decisions have to add meaning without detracting away from another.

Do you consider it a punishment that characters are allowed to recover, instead of falling helplessly off the ledge when they are knocked off?

No, because not every hit should be a win. Having measurable variance in reward is a very important thing in a competitive game. Getting hit with Ganon's downair is a very very different situation than getting hit with his downtilt, and the game should reward differently for the two situations.

and is the basis Is it a punishment when players sheild, since you were so good to be able to hit them?

This is punishment, yes, but punishment for making a mistake (assuming you aren't safe). There's a difference for being punished for doing well and being punished for getting outplayed.
Also this is an active state. A very different state of play.

Are you punished when players airdodge or spot dodge, since they're denying you your rightful hit that you so carefully planned out?

See above.

This is how crazy you sound.

You should hear yourself.

If there was no DI in Melee, Sheik would be banworthy simply because of the sheer number of people she can chaingrab without DI.

That can be fixed without DI. The fact is these games were made very poorly that allows these flaws. It would be better to simply remove situations such as this rather than devalue player interaction for the sake of hiding how lazy the games were made.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I can articulate my opinion.
you can yell.
You sir, are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about and is simply blindly defending a series he likes.

 

[kackamee]

Lots of good points.

I do see where you are coming from, and I think you have a very interesting point of view, but I don't think DI is a bad thing.
In my opinion, there should be some sort of counterplay when you're being attacked/comboed/pressured in a game like SSB so that you aren't just sitting there being bored while being comboed. If there wasn't any counterplay the game would get boring pretty quickly I think. I think DI is a pretty good system when used correctly.

But I'm pretty curious, if you don't use DI, what system would you suggest?

 

[CRASHiC]

And why would you advise ?
I'm legitimately interested in the answer, btw, no cynism here.

To both you and kacamee, I don't think DI during combos was intended to prevent infinties and chain grabs, I believe that was an unintended benefit.
I'm not sure Smash needs a system integrel to infinitie prevent, I believe that's already built in the game with increasing knock back and move decay.
Grabs should not be able to grab someone in a hitstun animation. (Grabs are probably the worst designed part of Smash and I hope they tone them down next game)

Pretty much every infinite or unjustified 0-death in the game can be removed by adjusting numbers. We live in the ages of Updates and Patches. There's no reason Smash shouldn't get the same treatment this time around.

 

[Cassio]

Reposting here cause its just as relevant

Spoiler

The only people that need to face reality are the melee heads who bash on brawl and now continue to bash on smash 4 before its release, because the collective knowledge of such users on brawl or smash 4 amounts to posts that sound very ignorant. Not even trying to be rude here, but what credibility do they have to comment on metagames that are not melee or Project: M?

The short of the matter is no one wants to hear from the same melee players that bashed on brawl bash on smash 4 as well, because they were wrong about brawl. I dont mean wrong in the 'lets hold hands and get along' sort of way, i mean their analysis and predictions about brawls metagame and its competitive value didnt even land on the board or anywhere close to it. Brawl is a fun, competitive, worthy sequal to the smash series that a strong community of players enjoys, and as smash 4 draws closer will probably enjoy more success. Brawl is a legitimate alternative to melee.

As overswarm said no ones asking you to enjoy the game or play it. No ones asking you to stop promoting competitive games you do enjoy either. But commenting or bashing on games you have low understanding of is entirely ignorant, which many older players from the smash community are guilty of.

In this context, all Ampharos and Overswarm are asking is for parts of the community to stop being ignorant and either support the smash series or to stop commenting on games they dont understand.


Also Crispy no one is saying people cant voice their opinions, but its really not exaggerating to say that some players have gone as far as to advocate against the success of another game they do not play but that many other people enjoy.

Listening to melee players who criticize brawl's metagame with misconceptions and ignorance is really sad. The worst of which is Brawl hasnt revolved around 'hit the opponent and run away for 8 minutes' in years and was born from players who touched the game during its development then dogmatically held onto their views as the metagame progressed, god forbid a game take time to develop.

If you havent participated and spent significant time following Brawl's metagame progress past 2012 you probably have no insightful comments to make on the game beyond its not your cup of tea. Again not trying to be mean its just true.

yes. there is no situation where neither player is able to influence what is occurring, which happens in Brawl quite frequently (ICs CGs, MK's tornado post-first-hit, Pikachu dthrow/fthrow cgs and dthrow nair, etc). you are mistaking defensive gameplay for a lack of interaction, which is by definition incorrect. if you're playing defensively you are inherently interacting with your opponent in a defensive manner.

Wobbling?!? Everything beyond ICs chaingrab is an exaggeration of non-interaction. Under that criteria 64 and every other fighting game not smash is worse than brawl.

 

[MuraRengan]

Ok, so it looks like again, you didn't read the whole post, seeing as how you didn't respond to the whole post. It's ok, I'll play it your way. Lets take this statement you made:

Adding more challenges and decisions isn't going to improve the game. These decisions have to add meaning without detracting away from another.

Ok so you're saying that DI would be good if it added meaning without detracting from another. Perhaps if you read my previous post, you'd have noticed that I addressed this point already. You couldn't have missed it, because I bolded the most important part of the post read so that you'd have to see it.

No player should be punished so harshly for something that was largely out of their control, I. E. ignorance, or in this case, an inability to accurately assess and predict every event in a fast paced environment (and this is why Marvel's so bad). DI is good because it gives some forgiveness for natural human error. I don't care how good you are, you are not going to always avoid getting grabbed when you're already dealing with Fox nair-shining on your sheild.

Don't pretend like I didn't address this already, I made it clear for you to see ahead of time.

Every player has a natural inability to play perfectly because nobody can have absolute certainty of what will happen next in a match. That's why these things you call "mistakes" aren't really mistakes. You cannot anticipate my actions if you have no knowledge of what I'm going to do and when I'm going to do it. Let me give you a very simple example. If I make my char run directly at you, do you know 100% what I'm going to do? Hell no. I could jump and attack, i could dash attack, I could grab, I could rollaway or behind you, I could stop and sheild, I could stop and spot dodge, I could stop and airdodge away, I could jump and try to airdodge behind you, I could jump away, or i could run up and taunt in your face. You are not in control of what your opponent does because you do not know what your opponent will do. Consequently, you are only in control of your opponent insofar as you know what your opponent will do. Therefore, if it just so happens that you expect me to attack, and you react with a sheild, but I grab instead, that is not a mistake on your part, because you literally had no control over the situation. That is the true guessing game in smash (and remember, you said you don't like guessing games, so you should have a big problem with this.) My point, as I have stated already, is that no player should be "punished" so harshly for something that is so largely out of their control. Lemme rephrase that statement, because I said it in your language, the one that reads smash as a game of errors and rewards. Here's how that statment reads out in how I understand smash: No player should be punished by disadvantages that are brought about by chance. That's why DI is meaningful, because being overly punished for chance occurrences devalues the gameplay experience (E.G. Smash 64 and Marvel.) Furthermore, addind DI does not detract from the meaning of landing a hit, because, as I have just demonstrated, landing a hit is very often not a result of an outplay, but a result of guesswork and ignorance.

Thanks for making me say the same thing all over again.

 

[CRASHiC]

That's fine, you can just read my post again.

 

[MuraRengan]

Well, I feel like I've done my best to make my position as clear and logical as possible,and am talking to someone who is both inexperienced in smash and in argument. Until you can show me what exactly I haven't already addressed, I'll leave it to others to entertain you.

 

[Chiroz]

What depth it provides is only an initial illusion. When you look at what it causes in match, it devalues other decisions the players have made up to that point. It provides the one who made a mistake a constant chance for survival (bad) and takes away the chance for reward from someone who has made a successful guess. An excess of Rock, Paper, Scizor's damages the integrity of play and this particular instance lowers the importance that the initial prediction is suppose to have. When you add choices to one person you are taking away something from another person. DI during combos is anti-design and really alters the state of play in a very bad way by devaluing other decisions and punishing someone for doing well.

So what you want is to have unavoidable combos? I think the thing that makes smash so fun is the fact that combos happen dynamically and through the reaction of the opponent (His DI or mistaken predictions). If he could not react at all then we can just memorize weight/knockback distances and have unavoidable combos for every weight and % present in the game, it becomes a very stale game and it just detracts from the system itself. It is much, much worse game design. Which is why I hate most regular fighting games with unavoidable combos

Edit: Also most "good" fighting games nowadays introduce elements to break combos, I have no experience in this as I do not play them but normally this mechanics are viewed as godsends (and also as more depth) by players, why do you think that is?

Edit2: Another flaw in your logic is that you say the player who connected the hit doesn't get rewarded. He already hit you, he already got a reward, he then starts a system where he can only come out on top, this system poses no negatives for him, only a possibility of more positives as long as he can keep outsmarting his opponent. Its the best way to reward if you ask me.

Edit3: If the system was as you said, in order to avoid 0-Death combos most moves would have to not combo at all at certain %'s which would mean that at certain %'s then you would only be able to get 1 hit and then not get extra rewarded at all (which is less than a 50/50 chance).

This is because if any move was able to combo then that would be the move you would always use. Your opponent cannot react, so there is no dynamic element (for that specific weight and damage % which you memorized) so you will always do that one move that can combo, without any exceptions, so as soon as you hit that one move, you already know the next move that can combo at this new % because you have practiced it and there are 0 dynamic elements, then the next move that can combo at this new % until your opponent's death is achieved.

In order to avoid these 0-death combos you would most certainly need to have 0 abilities that can combo or abilities that combo into other specific abilities, (that way you can design when exactly the combo would end) but this would take away your options too leaving you with bland game integrated combos which you can't even mix up which in turn would mean that every character would play like Brawl ICs (if you connect a grab it is up to your hours in practice mode to decide what happens, but in this case it would be many moves and not just a grab).

I am afraid it is you who has the illusion, you believe taking away options from both players adds more depth, you are wrong.