Is the brawl style of gameplay really that bad?

[CRASHiC]

You are confusing DI during combos with counterplay. What little counterplay it provides is harmful to the game's integrity. What it essentially is, is a coin flip after each chess piece is taken to see if the defender gets the piece back.

When a player makes a mistake, there is a consistent and non-variable outcome to their decisions.
This gives their decisions weight.
Without this consistency, the decisions the players make are devalued. If taking a pawn with your knight didn't have a defined outcome, if the player had a chance to get the piece back by guessing a number 1-5, the game would suffer. Sure, could he predict my number based on my habbits? Of course, but to sit there and pretend that this is anymore than an illusion of added depth is silly.

I've stated all of this very clearly several times over,you just have a very severe case of confirmation bias.

 

[Chiroz]

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.

I do agree about liking Melee more than Brawl but I do not idolize Melee either. I think Brawl has many things in which it improved Smash, it's just that it has more things in which it made it worse. I am actually very, very happy Sakurai is going for an in between both. Although I would like it to be close to Melee than to Brawl, it's probably going to be the other way around

 

[CRASHiC]

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.

You clearly haven't read a thing I've written, as I also talked about how there needs to be variable rewards for different risk scenarios, which also ties into the trouble with DI during combos. It devalues high risk scenarios because certain high risk moves that could lead to devastating combos but instead, because of the additional risk put after the combo is started, are most often put aside for safer options due to the increased risk you have.

 

[Chiroz]

You are confusing DI during combos with counterplay. What little counterplay it provides is harmful to the game's integrity. What it essentially is, is a coin flip after each chess piece is taken to see if the defender gets the piece back.

When a player makes a mistake, there is a consistent and non-variable outcome to their decisions.
This gives their decisions weight.
Without this consistency, the decisions the players make are devalued. If taking a pawn with your knight didn't have a defined outcome, if the player had a chance to get the piece back by guessing a number 1-5, the game would suffer. Sure, could he predict my number based on my habbits? Of course, but to sit there and pretend that this is anymore than an illusion of added depth is silly.

I've stated all of this very clearly several times over,you just have a very severe case of confirmation bias.

Your comparison holds no truth. DIng isn't random, this is where your logic falls.

DIng is controlled by your opponent, just like the black pieces are controlled by your opponent (assuming you are white).

You cannot state that something that is solely controlled by decisions is the same as a completely random event.

The equivalent to DIng is you threatening one of your opponents pieces and him reacting to it, he can choose to defend it, attack another of your pieces, etc. (Just like the person DIng can choose direction).

By changing the board the opponent might actually put you in a tougher spot that you were before and even though you probably still have the advantage (unless you made a rookie mistake) you are now not in as good of a position as you were before he played.

The same can be said for DI, your opponent decided to DI and if you can't read him correctly then you won't be in as good as a position as you were seconds before.

The main difference between both games, which you haven't pointed out, is the time you have to analyze. In chess you are not limited by time so guesses are much more educated are precise.

The equivalent to DIng would be playing Speed Chess which is considered more competitive than chess itself by the professionals. In speed chess you do not have the time to analyze your situation and most moves are made from experience and reads (by experience I mean that most players already know the optimal moves when the board is in a certain position, my father studied chess for 10 years, even though he wasn't a professional he knew the best moves in most cases).

In Smash reading a DI is also made from experience and reads, you know what the optimal way to DI from your attack is, yet, it isn't the one your opponent might choose, so you have to read him. Same thing happens in Chess, you know the optimal moves 5-12 moves ahead, yet your opponent might not play that way, soy you have to read them.

You have to explain to me whats makes DIng completely luck based yet a Chess turn is consistent and considered counterplay in your opinion.

 

[Player-1]

You clearly haven't read a thing I've written, as I also talked about how there needs to be variable rewards for different risk scenarios, which also ties into the trouble with DI during combos. It devalues high risk scenarios because certain high risk moves that could lead to devastating combos but instead, because of the additional risk put after the combo is started, are most often put aside for safer options due to the increased risk you have.

tl;dr you chose a bad move and got punished/not punished as much as you could have, so unique to smash.



oh wait, it's only one of the foundations of every competitive fighting game ever

 

[Chiroz]

You clearly haven't read a thing I've written, as I also talked about how there needs to be variable rewards for different risk scenarios, which also ties into the trouble with DI during combos. It devalues high risk scenarios because certain high risk moves that could lead to devastating combos but instead, because of the additional risk put after the combo is started, are most often put aside for safer options due to the increased risk you have.

This isn't a problem with the DI, this is a problem inherent to Brawl, where approaching and following has such a high risk that approaching and chasing is actually not advisable. It is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in the numbers (hitstun cancelling frames, spot dodging and air dodging frames in between other things to be more precise).

 

[CRASHiC]

Your comparison holds no truth. DIng isn't random, this is where your logic falls.

DIng is controlled by your opponent, just like the black pieces are controlled by your opponent (assuming you are white).

You cannot state that something that is solely controlled by decisions is the same as a completely random event.

I chose a number 1-5. You guessed wrong, I got to keep my piece. This is not random either. You have confirmation bias and will not respond to anything you post from now on. Good day sir.

tl;dr you chose a bad move and got punished/not punished as much as you could have, so unique to smash.



oh wait, it's only one of the foundations of every competitive fighting game ever

Except in any other competative game (not just fighters) there's still incentive to go for high risk scenarios because ontop of your normal risk there isn't an additional one either. You see players use moves and setups are largely unsafe at top level play at a high greater rate in just about every competitive game because the game provides an actual incentive to do so.

You really shouldn't jump into a conversation without reading it all the way through. I've already covered this as well and you seem to have a completely misconstrued idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[Player-1]

>implying that there aren't incentive to go for high risk scenarios in smash.

There'a a difference between options that are high risk with high incentives and options that are just plain bad.

I promise you other fighters have options that are just plain bad too.

 

[Chiroz]

I think the problem here is you consider DI to be like rock paper scissors, while DI is most probably rock, paper, scissors, fire, water and wind, dragon, chimaera and your opponent is only able to use 3 while you are able to use all 8.

What I mean by that completely illogical statement is that when you knockback your opponent you and your opponent are not in the same exact position and your opponent does not have complete arbitrary free movement. There is only so much he can do and only so much he can change.

He cannot go from one end of the map to the other or change his DIs momentum abruptly, it is a small proportional change.

What I mean to say by this is that DI does not create a completely random situation, there are conditions that can be evaluated and more often than not you even have abilities that cannot be DIed away from and you can choose to execute (talking about Melee). With the knowledge that you have from the state you are able to make an educated guess that is not completely random, there are factors that you can decide and risks that you can take or not take.

 

[CRASHiC]

Stop making this about fighters vs. Smash. That's what those two kids are trying to make it into.
This is solely about the degenerative effect that DI during combos has on Smash.

And no, there aren't seen nearly as much. There are very few opportunities to go all in at Smash because of the constant and continual guessing game it puts on its players by punishing the player who perofmed a successful action into another series of risk/reward scenario where there needn't be one.

 

[Chiroz]

I chose a number 1-5. You guessed wrong, I got to keep my piece. This is not random either. You have confirmation bias and will not respond to anything you post from now on. Good day sir.

That is a good counterargument, yet you should not state that you won't respond to anything I say . I have to go to the airport though so I might not be able to post anymore. I will give you the fact that that is a good counter argument, yet it isn't what DIng is like, DIng is nothing like that .

What you are suggesting is on the other hand that if you are able to take a pawn then your opponent should have to play exactly as you foretold he would for the next 4-5 moves without changing anything. (That would be the definition of a true combo). Or how do you think it would be?

 

[CRASHiC]

Foretelling moves is the process leading up to the hit itself. Adding an additional guessing game, no matter how stacked in the attackers favor, is destroying the importance of the moments leading up to the successful read.

 

[Player-1]

Stop making this about fighters vs. Smash. That's what those two kids are trying to make it into.
This is solely about the degenerative effect that DI during combos has on Smash.

And no, there aren't seen nearly as much. There are very few opportunities to go all in at Smash because of the constant and continual guessing game it puts on its players by punishing the player who perofmed a successful action into another series of risk/reward scenario where there needn't be one.

again, crashic basically saying one hit kill moves are the best. They already hit you with a move, why have another series of risk/reward scenarios where there needn't be one?

 

[Chiroz]

Foretelling moves is the process leading up to the hit itself. Adding an additional guessing game, no matter how stacked in the attackers favor, is destroying the importance of the moments leading up to the successful read.

Yet you already got a hit, why should you get a higher hit?

What if they allowed you to get 5 hits, yet lowered the damage of each hit to 2% instead of the 10-15% a hit normally does, is it okay then?

Why is the hit not reward enough?

How do you decide when it is enough? How do you decide when the player has received enough reward and a combo must stop?

I mean I loathe the idea of pre-set combos. I am not saying Smash's way is better I just don't think you should say is worse. Everyone has their opinions.

All I am saying until now is that the DI system is as much competitive as any other system out there.

I don't view it as a guessing game, I mean if I did I would have to consider every move I make a guessing game. Everything you are doing from start to finish is reading your opponent or reacting to his actions (even baiting is just guessing that your opponent might fall for your bait and make a mistake) its one or the other, and chasing a DI is no different in my eyes.

The difference between fighting games (or to be more specific Smash and DI system) and just plainly playing rock, paper, scissors, is all of the variables and all of the conditions. Conditions restrict certain options which in term give way to new options, they devaluate some of the options while increasing the value of another set of options. Analyzing all of your options and then waging all of your options against your opponent's options and deciding which one is best to execute, in my opinion, is just as far from a guessing game as choosing what kind of ball to pitch a batter. (And is also what makes it so fun for me).


Edit: I don't know if you can tell by our small debate, but I actually love playing mindgames and actually sort of mind battling.

You have made some arguments that have nullified my own, and even though you won't agree I believe I have made arguments which have debunked some of yours. For me this is a thrill, I don't normally argue in a simple manner, I like to get to know the why's and the how's and then instead of going for the usual "prove why my opinion is true" I always try and go for the "prove why your opinion cannot be true".

I think of Smash's gameplay, and by that matter DIng, as such. Obviously no one is psychic and no one can tell what their opponent will do with certainty so in the end you will always have a small amount of "luck". But for me this isn't luck, it is more about how well you can read and play with your opponents mind, it is a completely different aspect of the game all together. (And my favorite aspect at that, which is the only reason I love Brawl, even though I prefer Melee's gameplay and psychics).

 

[Cassio]

If luck is minimal however its not that relevant. Player interaction is the heart of what it means for any game to have a metagame. Without player interaction, the term metagame becomes meaningless.

A better example on the chess situation would fit these two scenarios:

You establish yourself into a situation whereby you are successfully able to take an opponents piece. From this point if you are completely familiar with the games strategy, you ought to be capable of move by move successfully cornering your opponent into a successful win, regardless of your opponents choices and assuming you move in the established method towards victory.

In an alternate scenario after establishing yourself into a situation where youve taken an opponents piece, they are left with a couple of choices to prevent defeat assuming you do not correctly assess their strategy.

 

[Chiroz]

If luck is minimal however its not that relevant. Player interaction is the heart of what it means for any game to have a metagame. Without player interaction, the term metagame becomes meaningless.

A better example on the chess situation would fit these two scenarios:

You establish yourself into a situation whereby you are successfully able to take an opponents piece. From this point if you are completely familiar with the games strategy, you ought to be capable of move by move successfully cornering your opponent into a successful win, regardless of your opponents choices and assuming you move in the established method towards victory.

In an alternate scenario after establishing yourself into a situation where youve taken an opponents piece, they are left with a couple of choices to prevent defeat assuming you do not correctly assess their strategy.

Well, off to the airport.

Anyways thanks for the small discussion, don't take my arguments too hard, didn't mean any disrespect or anything if I caused it.

Smash's DI is in no way perfect and it has its flaws, yet it is still a very competitive system and also a consistent one (The thing is there are many variables and one of these variables is controlled by your opponent but if these variables meet the same conditions, the same result will always happen).

I cannot argue about which system is better, but in my own personal taste, Smash's way is miles ahead. And one strong point that was made earlier, the "reading your opponent and executing dynamic combos" (even when DI is non-existant or completely irrelevant like in Brawl) is the whole core of Smash. It is what makes Smash Smash in my eyes and in many of the eyes of people who played the game. All combos being true combos would not break Smash at all, but it would take away one of its main exquisivities. (I don't know if that is even a word)

 

[otter]

Well, off to the airport.

Anyways thanks for the small discussion, don't take my arguments too hard, didn't mean any disrespect or anything if I caused it.

Smash's DI is in no way perfect and it has its flaws, yet it is still a very competitive system and also a consistent one (The thing is there are many variables and one of these variables is controlled by your opponent but if these variables meet the same conditions, the same result will always happen).

I cannot argue about which system is better, but in my own personal taste, Smash's way is miles ahead. And one strong point that was made earlier, the "reading your opponent and executing dynamic combos" (even when DI is non-existant or completely irrelevant like in Brawl) is the whole core of Smash. It is what makes Smash Smash in my eyes and in many of the eyes of people who played the game. All combos being true combos would not break Smash at all, but it would take away one of its main exquisivities. (I don't know if that is even a word)

I agree. The analogy I like to use is that everything about smash is more analog than other fighters. Decisions in classic fighters are more digital.

In Street Fighter, you're blocking or you're not. Occasionally, there will be a meter showing how much longer you can block, although it's often infinite.
In Smash, you can shield. It gets smaller over time, but it's hard to tell how much longer you have exactly, and certain parts of your body are poking out and it's not really humanly possible to manage so you just hope for the best.

In Street Fighter, you cannot walk through an opponents body. Your opponent is like a wall. You are dn one side or the other.
In Smash, you can walk through your opponent, but there is some degree of resistance. You can loiter inside of your opponents body and hit them while attacking in the wrong direction.

In Street Fighter, attacks have concrete hitboxes. You are either hitting your opponent or you are not.
In Smash, minute differences in distance can decide whether your hit was just an annoyance or devastating.

And of course DI. You can adjust the trajectory of your character even while being hit. It makes it hard to tell what strings are true combos and what was just a bad DI.

All of these exquisivities make smash feel value unique.

 

[CRASHiC]

again, crashic basically saying one hit kill moves are the best. They already hit you with a move, why have another series of risk/reward scenarios where there needn't be one?

You need to learn to follow a conversation.

Because not everything has a high enough risk to justify it.

 

[MuraRengan]

You should make a separate thread for this topic Crashic. Eventually we will get this one closed down for derailing it. You'd also get more feedback, although i'm sure you know it'll be more negative feedback. But who knows, maybe you'll convince some other people that you've got a good point.

 

[Mithost]

You should make a separate thread for this topic Crashic. Eventually we will get this one closed down for derailing it. You'd also get more feedback, although i'm sure you know it'll be more negative feedback. But who knows, maybe you'll convince some other people that you've got a good point.

This. Case closed so the thread doesn't.

I am excited to see how sakurai plans on balancing the "Hardcore Melee" and the "Casual Brawl" in this game. I can see that the easiest way to add difficulty and keep the game good is to make ledges more difficult to grab (which was the case for mario during Sakurai's megaman demonstration). I wouldn't be against damage being scaled up in this game, another thing that seems likely based off of what we have seen. I believe everyone can agree that if attacks on average do more damage, the game will be faster and more aggressive.

 

[M15t3R E]

This isn't a problem with the DI, this is a problem inherent to Brawl, where approaching and following has such a high risk that approaching and chasing is actually not advisable. It is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in the numbers (hitstun cancelling frames, spot dodging and air dodging frames in between other things to be more precise).

2 things:
#1: This is also true in Melee.
#2: This is not nearly as big a deal in Brawl as you Melee nuts like to pretend it is.
In either game, if you don't read your opponent precisely as you approach, you'll be punished for it. In Brawl, like Melee, top players are very aggressive. It's only people who play Melee exclusively and never watch a Brawl match who thinks Brawl is extremely campy.

(even when DI is non-existant or completely irrelevant like in Brawl)

I don't care about everything else you said. But WTF! Who told you that? Thank you for proving my point that you've never bothered to watch a competitive Brawl match in your life.

 

[Player-1]

You need to learn to follow a conversation.

Because not everything has a high enough risk to justify it.

and you need to learn to qualify your statements if you need to

I'm literally taking exactly what YOU said and showing based off of YOUR logic that one hit kill moves is the way to go.

Did you not say that since the player performed a successful action and they shouldn't be punished with having to go into another risk/reward scenario? You are asking for one hit kill moves then.

 

[CRASHiC]

and you need to learn to qualify your statements if you need to

I'm literally taking exactly what YOU said and showing based off of YOUR logic that one hit kill moves is the way to go.

I also talked about how there needs to be variable rewards for different risk scenarios

I explained it to you plainly, despite having made myself very clear earlier on. Your attempt to undermind my stance by turning it very black and white is not going to detract me, nor is your lack of reading comprehension.

You should make a separate thread for this topic Crashic. Eventually we will get this one closed down for derailing it. You'd also get more feedback, although i'm sure you know it'll be more negative feedback. But who knows, maybe you'll convince some other people that you've got a good point.

this is a discussion about whether or not the introduction of non-DI influence was a good decision. I hold that its a positive decision that was just handled poorly leading to things like pikachu > fox chain grab. This is entirely on topic.

 

[Player-1]

why does there need to be variable rewards? That creates a risk reward scenario when there needn't be one. If you didn't automatically win after you hit the opponent then there's risk the opponent can still win which is bad based on your logic. Stop circle arguing plz.

 

[CRASHiC]

I'm not, and i can't believe you'd argue with variable rewards. You probably aren't even aware of what you are saying.

What you are effectively saying is that Fox's mixups and blockstrings should be reward the same as Ganon's Forward air, or just about anything Bowser does. Having the reward for an action be perportional to the risk of the action is something just about everyone should be for. Wanting anything less is wanting a very unhealthy game.

 

[Player-1]

There are very few opportunities to go all in at Smash because of the constant and continual guessing game it puts on its players by punishing the player who perofmed a successful action into another series of risk/reward scenario where there needn't be one.

this is exactly what you said. If a player gets hit by a successful action and the game is not over then there will be another series of risk/reward scenarios where there needn't be one where the player that got hit can make a comeback so based on YOUR logic the ONLY thing to do is to have one hit kill moves.

 

[CRASHiC]

No it doesn't mean that at all. you're trying to make this very black and white. Obviously not every successful hit is a triumph and should be reward with a game over. The issue is you are taking the reward system and attaching an additional guessing game ontop, this leads to inconsistency in play.

Again, rewards should come in variables with variences of risk and reward. I've made all of this very clear long before you came into the discussion.

 

[Player-1]

I didn't make it black and white, I just pointed out that your statement was black and white when you didn't realize it. It's either you support one hit kill moves or the quote that I quoted is wrong. There is no additional guessing game if there's all one hit kill moves.

 

[CRASHiC]

I'm sorry that you lack the ability to read in context. I've clarified and restated myself enough. Have a good day, please go entertain yourself elsewhere.

 

[Player-1]

all I'm waiting for you is to say "my statement in that quote was wrong"

but for some reason you refuse to do it.

 

[CRASHiC]

Because it wasn't and you have an inability to read. I've clarified and restated it many times and have not contradicted myself. you continue to completely misread what I said and thinks that means you've proven something. I'm sorry but that's not how debate works.

 

[Player-1]

but it was wrong lol you are contradicting yourself. I'm wondering if you even know what you're saying

 

[CRASHiC]

I have not contradicted myself once.
You clearly are not a cognitive person, so i won't be responding to any of your further messages as yuo are incapable of discussion.

 

[Player-1]

the only person that is incapable of discussion is someone who can't admit they're wrong.

edit: and when they realize they are wrong they just say "nope, not talking to you anymore" lol

 

[CRASHiC]

I can articulate myself and explain my position. You can act like an illiterate person with a strong confirmation bias. Its not the debtors job to make up for your lack of proper education.

 

[Player-1]

you haven't explained anything that I've responded to, you just keep making contradictions and then instead of trying to discuss anything you just throw insults out lmfao.

 

[StanHarford]

I'm sorry but can somebody explain to me how more hitstun makes the game more competitive?
Don't get me wrong, I prefer Melee's style of physics too, like almost everyone else. I just want to understand the reasoning behind it.
And could you please explain it without using the word "combo"? That'd be great, thank you.

 

[CRASHiC]

I've explained things quite clearly, I can assure you. Your ability to understand it is another issue entirely.

You however have yet to make a single point.
Let's assume that what you say is true, that I am advocating that Smash be a one hit kill game. (I'm not)
You have not in anyway shown how that would be bad for the game. You somehow trust that this is self evident when it is not. If you wish to discuss something. All you have done is state what you falsely propose as my stance and go "lol" "/sarcasm." The only point you have is that you have none.

I'm sorry but can somebody explain to me how more hitstun makes the game more competitive?

Brawl doesn't have less hitstun, you can just cancel hitstun earlier (a weird distinction but its true.)
It doesn't make it more competitive necessarily. It's a quality that can be used to obtain a competative state, but it is not a requirement.
However many people on here really enjoy it, and confuse fun with competitive in nature..

 

[Player-1]

I've explained things quite clearly, I can assure you. Your ability to understand it is another issue entirely.

You however have yet to make a single point.






see i can do it too?

 

[CRASHiC]

Except I've illustrated how you haven't. Please show me how you have.