Is the brawl style of gameplay really that bad?

[MuraRengan]

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.

Yes. This so much.

 

[GaretHax]

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.

Ah so the reason we were able to do an Injustice tourney, Melee Tourny, BlazBlue tourney, and then start PM BEFORE BRAWL SEMIFINALS was because the TO's were running Brawl inefficiently. Darn you caught me, every single TO in the history of Brawl Tournaments has just had poor time management skills.

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.

I don't know about you but I really like being able to get out of combos and the general lack of auto-combos in smash. To me it is one of the main things that really makes the game what it is, in Melee to secure a combo you have to put a lot of effort into tech-chasing, reads, and reacting to DI, not to mention trying to predict how they will react to what you are doing. It is this constant freedom of options and ability to CONTROL (even in just a small way) what happens (even while you are being combo'd, whether it directly involves your own character, or the interaction between one or more other characters, that truly makes smash games unique. Freedom of movement and control over just about anything that your character performs or that happens to your character is what really sets the feel of smash so far apart from other games. The pure unmitigated interaction between two players and the game is downright beautiful at times. I honestly hope that Smash4 has even more movement options and more freedom than Melee and proceeds to blow our minds with potential for creative liberties in areas of play we never even conceived possible. Returning to my original beef with your argument, if I punch someone in real-life or land a blow when practicing swordplay I don't expect my opponent to throw his hands up in the air and let me wail on him to reward me for my hard work. I expect them to react and try to avoid further damage, auto-combo's in traditional fighters seem far sillier to me than even the most guaranteed of follow-ups in Melee.

 

[GaretHax]

wait what I hit edit...

 

[Cassio]

Ah so the reason we were able to do an Injustice tourney, Melee Tourny, BlazBlue tourney, and then start PM BEFORE BRAWL SEMIFINALS was because the TO's were running Brawl inefficiently. Darn you caught me, every single TO in the history of Brawl Tournaments has just had poor time management skills.

I know you were trying to be facetious but this isnt far from the truth. MLG ran brawl very efficiently alongside many other games. We have a TO in SoCal renowned for running tight tournaments, and just a month ago was a TO for an event that hosted most of the popular fighting games, melee, and brawl (60ish entrants for brawl). Singles and Doubles ended at a very reasonable time. Its understandable that when games are run in a grassroot, back patting style an extremely heavy portion of TOs will run events inefficiently. In my experience TOs care more about making their friends happy then running a professional event. Not to say that Brawl is a speedy game, but it can definitely be run well within time constraints.

 

[CRASHiC]

Mura I think you need to take a long hard look at your place in competative games if you are going to reduce a successful hit to a fluke.
Also you are greatly uninformed about Marvel. I can assure you that Neo is reacting or predicting with every single assist call, super, or move. Its what makes his playstyle so great, his ability to play such strong keepaway and turn it into rushdown to punish even the slightest miststep. You should worry more about getting better at the games you chose to play and less about diminishing the success of other players.

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

You can like or dislike something but understand that entertainment has little use in regards to competative games.
The competative player wants consistency. They want determinable outcomes.

And no, combos are not always the same. This is a misconception by those who don't play or watch these sorts of games. Generally a well designed charecter will opt for one of several combos, one that builds meter (smash doesn't have this), one that does the most damage, wheather to go for a combo that is intentionally dropped to lead into another combo (melee has this) and one that leaves them with the best possible stage position (smash has this). It should be up to the player who made the proper guess to decide which of these to go to. There is still a lot of variance in a stricter system.

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?

Except they don't. Who told you they do? Did someone tell you Blazblue was still popular?

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.

He does stand to come out in a loss though. Do you play or even watch these games? A dropped combo can mean a huge difference. It means you're left with bad stage position. It means a situation that would have put you in the lead you are now left behind.

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).

The 2nd half of this is completely incomprehensible. But I'll respond to the first.

No it wouldn't. there's no reason you couldn't have the numbers work correctly without this happening.

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.

I'm not taking options away, I'm taking away a system that strips players of options by adding an arbitrary guessing game.

 

[GaretHax]

I know you were trying to be facetious but this isnt far from the truth. MLG ran brawl very efficiently alongside many other games. We have a TO in SoCal renowned for running tight tournaments, and just a month ago was a TO for an event that hosted most of the popular fighting games, melee, and brawl (60ish entrants for brawl). Singles and Doubles ended at a very reasonable time. Its understandable that when games are run in a grassroot, back patting style an extremely heavy portion of TOs will run events inefficiently. In my experience TOs care more about making their friends happy then running a professional event. Not to say that Brawl is a speedy game, but it can definitely be run well within time constraints.

My point was more along the lines of how you avoided direct comparison of the time Provided for other games when compared to Brawl. I've never heard of or attended one that, simply and tastefully put, didn't occupy more time than any other event at the venue.

 

[CRASHiC]

I don't know about you but I really like being able to get out of combos and the general lack of auto-combos in smash.

What you like has nothing to do with competitive play.

 

[Cassio]

Alright, I guess I just dont see the issue though if events are capable of being run on a reasonable schedule.

Also Mura to answer your old question it has more to do with gameplay than camping. Things like kill% being higher and kills being earned through positioning moreso than strings and combos extends gameplay.

 

[GaretHax]

What you like has nothing to do with competitive play.

Nor does your own personal taste have anything to do with any kind of viable definition, I would ask you to bear that in mind when talking about something so obviously and wholly subjective, especially before being outright derogatory with literally no attempt to refute, debate, or even acknowledge my points. After all we are all competing when we play or participate in any kind of event involving more than just ourselves, people just compete at different levels.

 

[CRASHiC]

My point was more along the lines of how you avoided direct comparison of the time Provided for other games when compared to Brawl. I've never heard of or attended one that, simply and tastefully put, didn't occupy more time than any other event at the venue.

Some Star Craft Matches take as long as some Smash tournaments.

Also Smash games, Melee or Brawl, take up more time than fighters so I don't really see your point. In fact its the number one complaint by tournament organizers in the fighting game community, and they point it, not to the games themselves, but the communities insistence on having both singles and doubles when no other game gets two events.

Nor does your own personal taste have anything to do with any kind of viable definition, I would ask you to bear that in mind when talking about something so obviously and wholly subjective, especially before being outright derogatory with literally no attempt to refute, debate, or even acknowledge my points. After all we are all competing when we play or participate in any kind of event involving more than just ourselves, people just compete at different levels.

Not a single point you raised was anything other than what you liked or something that I hadn't responded too already.

However I do highly question why it is that fighters are always the ones coming up in response to this. They have nothing to do with Smash's flaws, especially since Smash isn't a fighitng game.

 

[Hello.]

Well, ignoring those wall of texts, Sakurai has openly stated the game will be slower than Melee, but faster than Brawl. http://kotaku.com/the-next-smash-bros-will-balance-casual-and-hardcore-513211771 Of course this was already posted but this thread seems to need it to be reposted.

Even though that doesn't confirm everything, such as automatic ledge grabbing (which according to some, isn't in SSB4.)

 

[Vkrm]

A lot of first hits are fluke in FG's. A really good cross up makes so that even the aggressor has no idea which side he'll land on. Just my 2 pennies.

 

[CRASHiC]

Yes but the aggressor chose to put himself in that situation. There's a fundamental difference of choice and making an action there.

 

[Chiroz]

You can like or dislike something but understand that entertainment has little use in regards to competative games.
The competative player wants consistency. They want determinable outcomes.

You seem to be misinterpreting what players want. Players want consistency in their own actions, not in the opponents actions. If they wanted consistency in the opponents actions they would play level 1 bots or practice mode. You want the game to be a challenge at all steps of the game not only on the first hit of the game. Consistency is achieved by having full control of your character and losing control of your character for an amount of time dictated solely by your opponents muscle memory is not consistent.

And no, combos are not always the same. This is a misconception by those who don't play or watch these sorts of games. Generally a well designed charecter will opt for one of several combos, one that builds meter (smash doesn't have this), one that does the most damage, wheather to go for a combo that is intentionally dropped to lead into another combo (melee has this) and one that leaves them with the best possible stage position (smash has this). It should be up to the player who made the proper guess to decide which of these to go to. There is still a lot of variance in a stricter system.

You seem to confuse Smash with other fighting games. Has an IC grabbed you before? Do you see him doing different chain grabs when he grabs? He will always know and use the one he knows is most effective wherever he grabbed you. Has a Falco grabbed you at sub 20%? He will always know just how far to regrab you in order to get you exactly where he wants you to DAir you at the end of the combo. Fact is when combos have a set knockback you will always be able to memorize what the best situation is and since there is no variable in the equation then you can always perform the same exact combo.

If the opponent had no say in your combo then every single time you hit Mario at 15-30% with your Utilt you should be able to do the exact same combo on him, every single time. You could also do this combo to all characters around Marios weight, every single one of them, once the character gets too heavy or too light, you find a new combo to perform to them. Pretty soon you will know the best possible combo for each weight and % there is. The way to avoid this would be making the moves not combo at all (giving them higher knockback so you can't combo out of them or giving them bigger end hitlag), but then how would this be better than allowing you to continue a combo through outsmarting?

Except they don't. Who told you they do? Did someone tell you Blazblue was still popular?

Ok, so if you get hit in a popular fighting game nowadays does it always lead into a combo and does the opposing player just wait for you to finish your combo?

He does stand to come out in a loss though. Do you play or even watch these games? A dropped combo can mean a huge difference. It means you're left with bad stage position. It means a situation that would have put you in the lead you are now left behind.

He can stop chasing at any moment he desires he does not have to go into a bad position, in fact if you decide to just let your opponent leave nothing happens to you. The system does not create any negative situation for you at all, it is up to you to decide that, not the same can be said for your opponent.

The 2nd half of this is completely incomprehensible. But I'll respond to the first.

No it wouldn't. there's no reason you couldn't have the numbers work correctly without this happening.

Let me try and explain it to you then.

If a certain move combos into something else and you didn't want it to, you would then "change the numbers." The player would then find a new move to combo from or into. This process of changing and adapting would go on until no move would combo at all or until each move could only combo into the specific moves that you as a designer saw fit for it to combo into (thus limiting the player to game integrated combos and not dynamically created ones). After this process is finished the player would memorize every weight/% possibility and every combo available and he would always execute the combo that he had to at the moment that he had to.

Basically it would lead into an if statement - Can I combo out of this? Then do it. There would be no reason not to combo and nothing avoiding you to combo, what this means is that in order to avoid 0-Death combos you would mandatory have to put a stop to these combos at some moment and this would have to be by having abilities that don't combo at all, which is not what you want right?

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'm not taking options away, I'm taking away a system that strips players of options by adding an arbitrary guessing game.

Look, you are taking away the option of the defending player to defend himself. You seem to believe you are giving more options to the attacking player when in fact you aren't. When things aren't dynamical you will always choose the best outcome, always, you have no reason to choose differently.

The only valid point would be stage positioning, but that could just be added to the list of weight and %. Players would just memorize every position, weight and % in the game and every time they are at that current position and x character has y% of damage then this is the right combo to do. You take away all choice from the attacking player too, there would always be an optimal solution.

Every single problem has an optimal solution, the thing is, on a problem that doesn't dynamically vary then the optimal solution never varies either, which means it can be memorized and thus can be executed exactly the same every single time.



In a regular fighting game if you knew there was a combo that did the most damage and it was able to be started by your low punch, then every single time you got a low punch you would always go for that combo.
(You might say that the player may want more special bar or w/e but in that case there will also be an optimal combo for building that bar and as soon as you get that low punch you will go for that other combo, there is no variance at all).


There are basically 4 things interacting. Game Physics, Random Events and Both Players. What you want is a system where everything is solely dictated by the Game Physics and the attacking Player. The thing is Game Physics don't vary, the coding won't change so once the situation where GP and AP dictate everything arises, the outcome will always be the optimal (as long as the AP has knowledge of which is the optimal solution)


Edit: By your logic why not have it so that every time you connect a hit with your opponent a menu would show saying: Which combo string do you want to perform out of this move - More damage or more knock back? And then a small cinematic happens showing your character doing flashy moves and then a set amount of damage and knock back is done.

That's how entertaining it would be.

 

[CRASHiC]

Kid you're hopeless in so many ways. "Consistency is not consistency"

 

[MuraRengan]

Mura I think you need to take a long hard look at your place in competative games if you are going to reduce a successful hit to a fluke.

Well, I demonstrated my position by presenting you with a typical scenario in which many encounters are "flukes" (although I prefer the word chance, since it's more accurate). Now I think it's up to you to demonstrate where I'm wrong. What you're doing here is just avoiding the argument.

Also you are greatly uninformed about Marvel. I can assure you that Neo is reacting or predicting with every single assist call, super, or move. Its what makes his playstyle so great, his ability to play such strong keepaway and turn it into rushdown to punish even the slightest miststep. You should worry more about getting better at the games you chose to play and less about diminishing the success of other players.

Me, uninformed about Marvel? Possibly, I don't play it. However, I have friends that play it, and I watch it every day. I ask questions about game mechanics and try to be informed. But then again, my comment isn't something that needs to come from experience of Marvel. The comment I made was with regards to how Marvel's combo system over rewards for a single hit, which is something I can see just from watching a video. Even my friends who play it say that the combo system is stupid. But all this is irrelevant. What's really important is next.

The ability for marvel players to predict events is completely different from the ability for smash players to do so. Their options are altogether different, because the physics a game like Marvel is nowhere near as variable as the physics in smash, the hit mechanics are completely different, the layout and boundaries are different, and the overal point of the game is fundamentally different. It's truly apples and oranges. You really should not try to argue about necessary smash mechanics in terms of Marvel mechanics.

In fact, that's your main problem. You don't seem to understand that different games need different things. Just look at what you said here:

The competative player wants consistency. They want determinable outcomes.

Your first error is in generalizing all of competitive play into such a simple statement. Yes, a competitive player wants consistency, but what you refuse to accept is that DI, as incorporated in smash, is a consistent mechanic. It can be consistenly predicted, and consistently acted upon. Even though DI may result in varying outcomes, the spectrum of those outcomes can be determined consistently. This not opinion, it has been demonstrated time and time again, so much that it is established as a balanced system.

Your disagreement stems from something other than consistency. It's in what you said here:

And no, combos are not always the same. This is a misconception by those who don't play or watch these sorts of games. Generally a well designed charecter will opt for one of several combos, one that builds meter (smash doesn't have this), one that does the most damage, wheather to go for a combo that is intentionally dropped to lead into another combo (melee has this) and one that leaves them with the best possible stage position (smash has this). It should be up to the player who made the proper guess to decide which of these to go to. There is still a lot of

variance in a stricter system.


He does stand to come out in a loss though. Do you play or even watch these games? A dropped combo can mean a huge difference. It means you're left with bad stage position. It means a situation that would have put you in the lead you are now left behind.

Here you are trying to talk about smash in the terms of other fighters. Smash doesn't have meter, dropping combos in smash doesn't lead to bad stage position. Upkeep of combos in smash is not as important as in other fighters. What is important in smash is positioning and option coverage, and DI helps to affect both of these criteria.

You need to stop thinking about Smash combos as if they are the same as combos in other fighters. You will continue to be hopelessly wrong if you continue to do so. Stocks, the ring out system, ledges, platforms, etc, all these things make smash fundamentally different from other fighters. and you cannot talk about them accurately if you do not first acknowledge that fundamental difference.

 

[CRASHiC]

"Dropping combos in smash doesn't lead to bad stage position" OH BOY. Like get offline and start playing some games god damn. Never fought a Marth in his life

 

[GaretHax]

Some Star Craft Matches take as long as some Smash tournaments.

Also Smash games, Melee or Brawl, take up more time than fighters so I don't really see your point. In fact its the number one complaint by tournament organizers in the fighting game community, and they point it, not to the games themselves, but the communities insistence on having both singles and doubles when no other game gets two events.



Not a single point you raised was anything other than what you liked or something that I hadn't responded too already.

However I do highly question why it is that fighters are always the ones coming up in response to this. They have nothing to do with Smash's flaws, especially since Smash isn't a fighitng game.

You are using your own definitions of what smash is, and what constitutes competitive play. (seemingly drawn from, big surprise, your own personal taste) Quite frankly by your definition anyone besides you seems to be incorrect, hope you manage to prove... whatever it is you are trying to prove. Peace.

 

[Vkrm]

Yes but the aggressor chose to put himself in that situation. There's a fundamental difference of choice and making an action there.

But assuming the aggressor gets the hit in a situation like that, can not blocking be seen as a big enough mistake to warrant all the damage? Remember that we're talking about an ambiguous cross up. I guess in most cases who ever has to block the incoming attack has already lost one engagement, but I really detest situations where I get outplayed once and lose a round for it.

 

[MuraRengan]

"Dropping combos in smash doesn't lead to bad stage position" OH BOY. Like get offline and start playing some games god damn. Never fought a Marth in his life

Again, you're probably bad at smash, especially if you're talking about Melee Marth. At this point, I'd gues you're starting to realize that you're wrong, and would rather just take shots at other people's arguments rather than actually refuting them. I'll come back to this in a couple hours.

 

[CRASHiC]

I've come to realize that there's no point in talking with someone who would rather disrespect an entire scene of a game he doesn't know how to play by asserting that their game is based on luck and attacking the merrit of another player, or a kid whose logic and sentence structure are so incomprehensible he states that having a predictable outcome for an event isn't consistent. You two both have proved incapable of discourse, and I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Chiroz]

Kid you're hopeless in so many ways. "Consistency is not consistency"

No, you should listen to your own terms. Liking something has nothing to do with competitive.

Competition: It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation.

Making the game be about you and the system is not competition although you view it as such, you need 2 competing forces for competition aans you want to eliminate one of them, stop saying your word is true and others is flase.



Let me explain to you how your system works in a way that you can understand.

You want a system that is only dictated by starting conditions. What this means is that after a combo has started, nothing can change these conditions (if anything was to change it then you would be doing the same thing as DI which is just a dynamic change in your opponents position and you bash it because it creates a change).

Because of the fact that nothing changes then when a similar starting state is met you can perform the exact same actions and they will always achieve the exact same outcome.

Because outcomes can be determined with 100% certainty then you can compare and analyze every situation you can list (or in this case any combo you can come up with) and through this comparison and evaluation, again because nothing can change, you can actually determine which outcome is your most desired outcome.

Because of the fact that you can determine with 100% certainty your most desired outcome this means that you will always be able to perform the optimal combo at every given situation (as long as you have the technical skills).

Because you can always perform the most optimal combo then you will never be presented with a choice, thus you take away the option from the player and leave him with only one action. (And in the process you take away the other player's ability to defend himself)

And thus you strip them both away from any choice as soon as a combo-able move is landed.

Is it understandable now?

or a kid whose logic and sentence structure are so incomprehensible he states that having a predictable outcome for an event isn't consistent. You two both have proved incapable of discourse, and I have better things to do with my time.

I was saying the consistency you say is not the consistency players want. Otherwise all games would be movies. After all aren't movies completely consistent? Nothing ever changes, that must be the best gameplay of any game ever!

 

[CRASHiC]

The ability to do what is optimal is the entire purpose of playing a game competitively. The point is to optimize the game.

 

[Chiroz]

The ability to do what is optimal is the entire purpose of playing a game competitively. The point is to optimize the game.

But it isn't if it was then people would have the most fun playing against the Sandbag character or at the Training Mode. The sole purpose of a VS game is the fact that you cannot perform the most optimal at all times without outsmarting your opponent, but you want the game to be solely about you and the game. Go play single player.


Edit: Also if you can always perform the most optimal combo then the game becomes all about getting the one hit that gives you the most optimal combo of them all. You will always strive to get that one hit that combos into the best of the best of your combos and then the game becomes a Brawl IC's match (have you seen how those are played?).

 

[Vkrm]

I've always wondered why traditional FG's don't ever have one player who is considered the best. It could be that the melee comunity is just that small but I don't know. Any thoughts?



Does brawl have consistent result like melee?

 

[Chiroz]

The ability to do what is optimal is the entire purpose of playing a game competitively. The point is to optimize the game.

 

[CRASHiC]

I've always wondered why traditional FG's don't ever have one player who is considered the best. It could be that the melee comunity is just that small but I don't know. Any thoughts?

Because there community is older, larger, and has a higher incentive. When you can fly around the world playing the game you love, you have more time to dedicate to optimizing it (especially when Madcats is fronting the bill)

Can you agree that you do strip them of all their choices now? Instead of saying you are adding any. We can go little by little.

You really don't understand what optimizing a game is and I really wonder why you're playing a competitive game at all.

 

[Chiroz]

You really don't understand what optimizing a game is and I really wonder why you're playing a competitive game at all.

Edit: BTW if you want to talk about consistency, in most sports everyone is always moving as you hold the ball, they don't stop so you can do the most perfect shot.​

​

- You are always being blocked in basketball.​

- You have people running and tackling you in American Football.​

- The ball is always changed by the angle you hit it with, the wind and the velocity of the pitch in Baseball.​

- Your opponent always gets a move right after yours in Chess.​

​

So all of these things are changing the game state, are you also implying all of these games do not fall into the competitive category? We should probably inform the masses​

Actually the one that doesn't understand what you are implying is youself. I have programmed games and have programmed min/max optimization game trees and you know what all of these trees have? Branches. You know why? Because the opponent is also trying to optimize his moves, this is what gives the game an uncertain outcome and is what drives the games competitiveness. If the opponent has no moves the tree has no branches and the game tree is one straight line which would be the equivalent of a movie.

Your implication is not that we make the game completely linear, but instead it is that we cut a huge branch of our tree (a very, very big branch of the tree), thus making the game more linear and I am trying to show you that in fact that is not adding more choice, it is taking it away. You might find it more fun this way, but that is an opinion, it is not a fact like the one I am showing you.

Also I am trying to show you that this way actually makes the game require less skill and less thought, which in my opinion (this is my opinion) makes it less fun. I like challenge and I like analyzing and outsmarting my opponent, and I like putting thought into my moves not being a mechanical robot.You could try adressing my points instead of just saying I don't know what I am talking about.

You could logically explain how my points are wrong or how your system actually adds choice. And while you're at it also explain how these games which give the defense options are loved by so many people and yet don't fit your category of how a competitive game should be.

I mean if you steal the ball in basketball, everyone should stay put and allow you to go dunk it, you should be rewarded after all for your action.

Analyze this example and you will notice most sports and video games (RTS, RPGs, MMOs, Action games) have a system where once you are rewarded you get a chance to emphasize on that advantage but your opponent always has a way to react or defend himself. Almost no game allows you to have complete dominance with no defensive actions whatsoever from your enemy after his 1st mistake.

 

[CRASHiC]

I already have explained in full, I don't have to do it 3 times over.

And as for "being loved by so many people" Blazblue world finals fail to break 200. Smash is one of the smallest competitive scenes out there by far.

 

[Chiroz]

I already have explained in full, I don't have to do it 3 times over.

And as for "being loved by so many people" Blazblue world finals fail to break 200. Smash is one of the smallest competitive scenes out there by far.

You do not explain it, you only say you are right and avoid all comments which explain why you are wrong. I do not play Blazblue and was not talking about it.

You said yourself that when you do a correct action you should be rewarded and this reward should hold no opportunity for variability whatsoever, otherwise there is no consistency and this is what players want and if it isn't in a game it is not competitive according to you.

I quoted to you the most popular games on the planet (basketball, baseball, american football, chess) and explained to you how they don't fit this criteria, those are the games that are loved by so many people, care to explain why all of the sports known to mankind (except for golf) break all of your criterias and logic?

In order to compare side by side

Smash
1-) Your opponent makes a mistake
2-) You get a hit
3-) He is able to DI
4-) You can try to read him in order to chase and punish some more

Basketball
1-) Your opponent makes a mistake
2-) You steal the ball
3-) The opponent is able to block you and has the chance to steal the ball back at any moment
4-) You can try to read him in order to avoid him and make a shot/pass


You said this way of rewarding was bad and that players do not like it. Then why is it that all sports hold these rules at heart?

 

[CRASHiC]

Because none of that does, you have a very fundamental lack of knowledge here and a complete forgo of reason to prove your point.

There is no game more consistent than chess, and the fact that you would use it as an example only goes to show you're completely ignorant.
Just because you say words doesn't mean I have to respond to them or that they are worth anything.

 

[I_hate_usernames]

Guys, I don't think we're ever going to get a game with the same technicalities as melee, ever...

Sakurai has stated how he had spent days and weeks at a time tweaking and perfecting the code and mechanics, he actually spent so much time on it he ended up hurting himself though fatigue.

He also stated that he's never doing that again, so perhaps you guys are expected a bit too much from him and the crew...

 

[Chiroz]

Because none of that does, you have a very fundamental lack of knowledge here and a complete forgo of reason to prove your point.

There is no game more consistent than chess, and the fact that you would use it as an example only goes to show you're completely ignorant.
Just because you say words doesn't mean I have to respond to them or that they are worth anything.

Here you go.



No game is more consistent than chess.

Why is chess consistent? Because there is only a set of moves the opponent can make right?

But when you make your move you are trying to guess which move the opponent is going to make, you cannot guess the future, so you do not know how he will play, you can only try and tell what he will play because you know how he thinks and you know what is optimal for him (depending on board position) thus you play what you think is best considering what he will do.



What is DI? Your opponent is hit, there is only a set amount of directions and distance he can DI too right?

You take your next action trying to guess how your opponent is going to react, you cannot guess the future, so you do not know where he will DI, but you can only try and tell how he will DI because you know how he thinks and you know what DI is optimal for him (depending on characters and stage position) thus you take the action you think is best considering what he will do.




Yet having DI creates non-consistent gameplay (you said so yourself)


Why does DI create non-consistent gameplay?

Given a strict set of starting conditions (%, weight, position and trajectory) your opponent is able to change a few of these conditions at any time in very limited proportions (he is able to change his position) which in term means that any action you take will be an educated guess as you cannot tell how your opponent will use his ability to change the conditions.


How does a turn in Chess work?

Given a strict set of starting conditions (piece positions on the board) your opponent is able to change a few of these consitions in his turn in a very limited proportion (only the position of one piece) which in term means that any action you take during your turn is an educated guess as you cannot tell how your opponent will use his ability to change the conditions.



There you go...


I hope you understand by quoting Chess I was actually trying to prove to you that these games are consistent and you agreed with me. I was comparing the nature of sports and table top games to DIng in Smash and you completely agreed with the point I made.

And no you don't have to respond to my arguments if you don't want to, but you should note how I am not the ignorant one as you didn't even notice how I made you contradict yourself without even thinking about it.

 

[Cassio]

lol, I almost think Crashic is playing devils advocate. I can appreciate combo intensive gameplay in a competitive game.

However, non-guaranteed touches and strings in smash or many other competitive fighters is definitely attributable to waaaaaay more than luck. Luck is always a small portion, but on the whole its largely controlled by the players themselves. This is essentially a definition of the word metagame. Looking at a game excluding its metagame and players, the most optimal move is generally to make no move and to simply react to the actions of your opponent. However games do not devolve to this because of our understanding of the player behind the character. "If I do this, theres a strong chance my opponent will do that", "My opponent teched right 3 times already, he will probably do this again next time". By improving on the amount of these interactions, depth is added to the metagame.

Issues can occur however when the defensive options of a game become so strong, that the reward for a correct guess pay pennies on the risk involved. This was a pretty big problem when brawl first came out because its defensive mechanics were very apparent, and players werent smart or familiar enough with the games mechanics to capitalize on successful hits. However two things changed as Brawl developed, one of which was the improvements in players technical abilities via buffering, powershielding, timing and spacing; all of which drastically improved the reward players achieved from winning the initial interactions. For a long time most our top level brawl players in the US felt they could get by with little practice or mediocre tech skill, and the japanese quickly rectified this mindset by coming over and destroying us in Apex 2012.

More relevant to this discussion though, improvements in the metagame via positioning, momentum, and other player interactive elements started to favor more aggressive play as understanding developed. Taking advantage of situations where the players were offstage, in the air, off a grab, etc brought greater rewards to those who understood how to abuse them (and alongside tech skill improvements created a significantly more developed metagame for Brawl). Overall it made assertive play much more significant in Brawl. This player interactive element exists in most fighting games and particularly smash, but its most apparent in Brawl because of its importance and imo is its biggest asset as well as why our players tend to state Brawl requires smarter play.

As stated its an element that exists to some extent in about every fighting game. As for smash, is it possible a successful exchange could lead to a disadvantage for the successful aggressor? Yes. Is there a small element of luck? Yes. However to attribute more than a tiny portion to luck over the intelligence of the player behind the decision is incorrect. Both players are actively attempting to make the most accurate choice possible based on the game, their position, and the player. Off a hit virtually all games, including brawl, strongly favor the player who's attack connected (as stated previously in the past brawl bashers griped at the defensive strength players from being attacked mainly from lack of hitstun. If things stayed that way i could see it as a valid complaint of its competitive worth, but things change...). Assuming technical aptitude, the player with the better understanding of the overall scenario will win a significant portion of these exchanges.

 

[CRASHiC]

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. Everything I've said today I hold to be true, ask Ultimario go do it ask him what I think about Smash DI go ahead spam his page everyone -however I've clearly wasted my time with those two.

 

[Chiroz]

Yet you haven't come up with a single argument against mine, I love how you don't respond to anything you can't answer.

Everything I've said today I hold to be true

The thing is, you are not the ruler of the world and you do not decide what everyone else likes. Even worse you do not decide what is competitive or what is consistent.

All I have done is tried to prove to you how your definition of consistency and competitiveness is not in any way correct. I am not discussing if DI is fun or not (although I have stated my opinion which is that I like DI), my argument is solely about teaching you that you cannot make claims such as "what everyone wants" and "it isn't competitive" specially saying "it takes away options" when all of these claims are obviously false.

I have given you counterexamples to each of these claims and you have not even touched on any of these counterexamples and even agreed with me on one of them.

If you like true-combo heavy games, by all means go play them, but when someone plays basketball, don't tell the players their reward system is not the correct one by the laws of the almighty god.

 

[CRASHiC]

The fact that you don't even understand the difference between counter play and consistency is about all I need to know to see that you are incapable of handling this conversation. I have responded to your statements. Not points, because you don't have any.

 

[bmullins123]

I personally think brawl makes you feel light for example getting a chain grab and putting the opponent of stage then down smash them is way easier with brawl then melee because of the gravity mechanics . In, my opinion P:M is better then brawl because they have the gravity and also the speed I want from melee but with the characters and feel brawl gives. Do you agree?
NOTE: You guys keep arguing, this thread will surely be closed, it's happen plenty of times to me. Just putting a heads up.

 

[Chiroz]

You haven't reponded to any of my statements at all, you gave your statements then decided all of my counterexamples, which aren't even statements they are real life examples, facts and proof of how your arguments are wrong.

The fact that you don't even understand the difference between counter play and consistency is about all I need to know to see that you are incapable of handling this conversation. I have responded to your statements. Not points, because you don't have any.

I don't understand why people sometimes can't understand simple things. Look you gave a definition of consistency, not me.

You said that if you were able to perform an attack and the opposing player was then able to change the state of the game in any way and avoid your combo then the game was not consistent and you also claimed this is what players want and implied that anything I said to oppose this argument meant I did not have a grasp on what competitiveness means.

That was all you, you said all of those things.

I baited you and gave you a lot of comments to understand your reasoning (and read your previous posts) which you claim to be because if you have achieved a certain action with a certain pre-determined set of conditions then you should be rewarded and these conditions shouldn't change because otherwise the system would be at fault for not rewarding you.

AGAIN ALL YOU BUDDY.

I now compared said non-rewarding system that you claim is so bad to another system which you claimed is the most consistent system out there.

No where in any of my arguments am I stating or giving my own opinion about what consistency is, and no where (except for the dictionary definition, which is not my opinion but an actual definition) do I say what I believe is competitive either.

I have just, point by point proven to you how the system that you called so flawed and said was not consistent and not competitive is in fact integral to the game you call the most consistent yet.

If you mean to make a valid point you should address what is wrong with my comparison, because if my comparison was in fact correct then your initial statement is proven to be false.



A -> Pre-determined set of conditions
B -> Ability for your opponent to change conditions
C -> Consistent and Competitive
D -> Chess

A and B entails not C
D entails C
D entails A and B

Thus if you have D, you will end up with:

D, A, V, C and not C

The above statement is an impossibility so one of the logical sentences must be wrong.

 

[Player-1]

according to crashic we just need a game with all one hit kill moves. After all, you're not devaluing the the decisions the players have made to that point and it doesn't give the person who made the mistake a constant chance of survival.




plus this will make tournaments be like 10 times shorter. Man this has like no downsides what so ever.
/sarcasm.