Is the skill gap in Smash 4 too small?

[TheReflexWonder]

I think Smash 4 seems to have a pretty solid balance of offense and defense. You have characters who can safely poke, start something, and deal loads of damage per exchange (Sheik, Falcon, Luigi). You have characters who function better by waiting around at mid-range, walling, and taking advantage of small mistakes repeatedly (Rosalina, Olimar, Wario, Mega Man).

Obviously it's not so simple overall, and the mobility on the fastest characters tends to allow them to do both well, but as far as who's winning, I don't think it's just a campfest. That could change over time, of course, like it tends to for fighting games.

 

[outfoxd]

That's definitely true. I think in many competitions defence is always gonna be the best option a lot of the time. It's always a matter of making the other guy show his hand first. We just need to have a ruleset that doesn't let defence be the only viable strategy. This goes for both smash and MMA. It's kinda harder with sm4sh because the game was made to favour defence so much.



eh, there's defence and then there's a dude rolling around trying to avoid interaction. Defence can be fun to watch, but it can't be so simple as pressing a button, and it can't completely shut down other play styles.

Defense is cool when it's part of a counterpunchers mentality. Defense with intent to hurt the opponent way worse. While I'm not a good player, I tend to go into DHD matches with the mindset to get my man to chase me so I can put a beating on him

 

[FimPhym]

Ironically unlike smash 4, SF4 series is technically intensive, ESPECIALLY with Wolfkrone's main C.Viper who relies on alot of set-play and putting people in situations where you must block or get hit. True 50/50 mix-ups that don't actually exist in this game. C.Viper was the type of character that could blow up a good player if they simply blocked right instead of left and then she reset her mix-up.

I get what you are saying, but the engines in both games are very different and SF4 allowed for a very exploitative kind of metagame that abused flaws in the engine and it's wake-up game.

And online really is perfect for mastering set play and C.Viper's footsies are terrible so Wolfkrone didn't need to worry about that or fundamentals as much. Basically she kind of ignored fundmanetals and did her own thing.

I see your point, though I think it takes more than set play you could learn in training mode to dominate the best players in the world. It's a nuanced point about set play vs reactive stuff and how much online effects all that, but I'm sure we both agree sf4 is no slouch of a game. If people get good online at smash 4 that won't indicate a shallow or random game - In fact you seem to believe it will be even harder for online players to get good enough to compete at tournaments level? Which is now pretty away from the original point I wanted to make: that the fear of online players being good and that meaning the game sucks has come and gone in the traditional fighters.

Turns out it was just no big deal, just purists being snippy since online play had traditionally been awful or non existent.

Re: most fighting games are defensive at their core, I'd agree a lot of them are. I think there are exceptions though, skullgirls and guilty gear really incentivise you to get your stuff going before the other guy does. Obviously it's not blind aggression but they'd be on the high end of "reward offense" even if defense is still a vital skill for when you don't get the initiative.

Totally agree with your point that the top level play in most games won't match "most exciting thing to spectate" though. The idea that players should play for spectators as opposed to spectators wanting to watch to see display of skill is such a weird assumption that flies around.

 

[outfoxd]

Smash doesn't have a Mayweather esque defensively perfect almost boring player yet? Benefit?

 

[Cassio]

The rules of almost any form of competition will favor defense, pretty sure this is even true for war.

In truth, the conflict between an offensive oriented goal with tools that lean defensive on balance is what creates a lot of the depth in player to player interactions, because the gap between the two is filled with human ingenuity. If the tools allowed for an easily achievable goal there would be less meaningful interaction.

Not a perfect analogy, but imagine two persons were given the task of building a tent shelter. One has access to a Sports Chalet super store and the other must build from a pile of leaves, sticks and rocks. Who will be using their ingenuity more to complete their task?

Those are the three things to keep in mind. The goal, the tools youre provided to achieve that goal, and the human element that fills the gap between the two. The task shouldnt be impossible but at the same time you dont want it to be mindless either.

 

[LightLV]

Talking about how 4 is overly defensive or honestly even particularly defensive at all betrays a serious lack of understanding of how the game actually plays, but then I see you guys talking about how campy or inactive dabuz's playstyle is and it's even more obvious you don't even know what you're watching when you see this game played since what dabuz actually does is play an incredibly active and efficient control game.

I think this kind of opinion (that smash4 isn't defensive) simply comes from someone who's never really played an offensive game before. You don't even need a deep understanding of the game to identify this -- Smash 4's defensive options are vastly superior to any offensive ones. A blocked move is nearly always unsafe unless spaced right. Dodge rolls have less vulnerability than ever before. Knockback has been increased on nearly every throw to lessen guaranteed followups. Ledge fighting is a real thing, instead of a crippling disadvantage. A blocked move at minimum puts you back at neutral, and at best provides a KO counterattack. Ledge mechanics and blast zones greatly favor the recovering player more than the attacking player.

People who say Smash 4's defensive options are offensive simply don't know what offensive gameplay is. Smash 4 doesn't reward a player for forcing his opponent to block his attacks; he's only ever punished for it, or not rewarded at all.



Edit: And on the topic of other fighting games:

Defense is such a big part of fighting games because the burden of defense is on the person being attacked, not the person doing the attacking. Waking up to a high-low mixup, trying to react to overheads, watching for throws, dodging unblockables, all of these things need to be taken into consideration. It's not as simple as just "I blocked you, now i can hit you". And this isnt even considering games with chip damage.

 

[outfoxd]

I think the lack of lots of shields damage contributed. It's not quite risky enough to turtle.

 

[Big-Cat]

Ironically unlike smash 4, SF4 series is technically intensive, ESPECIALLY with Wolfkrone's main C.Viper who relies on alot of set-play and putting people in situations where you must block or get hit. True 50/50 mix-ups that don't actually exist in this game. C.Viper was the type of character that could blow up a good player if they simply blocked right instead of left and then she reset her mix-up.

I get what you are saying, but the engines in both games are very different and SF4 allowed for a very exploitative kind of metagame that abused flaws in the engine and it's wake-up game.

And online really is perfect for mastering set play and C.Viper's footsies are terrible so Wolfkrone didn't need to worry about that or fundamentals as much. Basically she kind of ignored fundmanetals and did her own thing.

This applied to El Fuerte as well. As traditional footsies, they were both absolutely dreadful. Neither have much in range for any of their normals. Their mobility is what makes them frightening in neutral. They are both exceptional at mind games and whiff punishing.

I think it's a feature for how SF4's wakeup game is. It's not unlike Guilty Gear where every character has okizeme setups. el Fuerte, Viper, and Abel to a lesser extent were the first real examples of this kind of focus.

 

[Muro]

I think the lack of lots of shields damage contributed. It's not quite risky enough to turtle.

It's also a much easier tactic to implement. Spacing takes a lot more skill than holding shield. But holding shield beat even good spacing sometimes, the skill it takes vs the reward it gives is uneven.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

While I would agree most fighting games by nature favor defense to some degrees, some players can't really sit back and pitch a tent.

I'm one of them. I can do it if pushed to the wall, Ice Climbers in Brawl, but I can't sit back and do it all say. I play passive aggressive if possible in every smash game with weird mix ups.

 

[LightLV]

While I would agree most fighting games by nature favor defense to some degrees, some players can't really sit back and pitch a tent.

Yeah. In real fighting games, if you're blocking, you're just setting yourself up for issues. It's not a favorable position to be in -- if you're fighting a zoner you're probably just getting chipped out and kept in their strongzone, if you're fighting a rushdown character you're just waiting to get put in a corner and blown up. Another big difference is zoning characters in general. In Smash 4, it's simply any character with an abusable projectile. In regular fighting games, it's someone who dominates the match at a specific range, but is royally screwed the moment they get cornered or forced to eat a blockstring or oki.

In Smash 64 you could eat a shieldbreak combo for blocking, in Melee you could be pushed off the map or shieldpoked into a combo. In smash 4, you block a move and either get a free escape or a punish. There are no downsides to defense in this game.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I guess. Some Guiles don't mind getting cornered in certain matchups. One of Vega's strengths is that his Flying Barcelona Attack (the wall dive) prevents him from getting cornered in most matchups. It's rarely as simple as "good at x range, bad up close."

 

[Nobie]

I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that you can't punish someone for shielding in Smash 4 when not only grabs exist but shields continuously shrink the longer you hold them. Like, I know shields regenerate quickly and that it doesn't count as a shield poke if the attack you wore down the shield with hits outside the body as well, but there are so many things that make shields exploitable that I'm surprised we're still talking about this topic months later.

For example, I use Mega Man, and it's Mega Man 101 to get your opponent to shield when they shouldn't, because it means grab followups, it means empty jumps into uppercuts as they try to retaliate, it means time for Mega Man to set up Metal Blade/Crash Bomb/whatever custom moves shenanigans. And keep in mind that Mega Man's aerials are generally terrible for jumping in on a grounded opponent. If they shield, it's actually impossibly to pull back enough to avoid a grab, and the closest thing you have to being able to do aerials safely is short hop nair allowing you to escape. If Mega Man can fight shields despite having a terrible air to ground game, then I don't know how people who use characters with aerials that can be used to approach are having such a hard time with shields.

You have Mewtwo as a brand new DLC character who eats shields for breakfast as long as you're not charging in with dash attacks and getting punished for it (btw totally guilty of this; it's a bad habit). You have Peach's floats which allow her to weave in and out and punish anyone who tries to retaliate out of shield. You have power hitters who can push shields back far enough that it's nearly impossible to retaliate. Even Samus, who has a terrible grab and some unreliable moves, can fight shields as long as she spaces well with tilts, wears them down with missiles and charge shots, and just generally plays intelligently.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

I think this kind of opinion (that smash4 isn't defensive) simply comes from someone who's never really played an offensive game before. You don't even need a deep understanding of the game to identify this -- Smash 4's defensive options are vastly superior to any offensive ones. A blocked move is nearly always unsafe unless spaced right. Dodge rolls have less vulnerability than ever before. Knockback has been increased on nearly every throw to lessen guaranteed followups. Ledge fighting is a real thing, instead of a crippling disadvantage. A blocked move at minimum puts you back at neutral, and at best provides a KO counterattack. Ledge mechanics and blast zones greatly favor the recovering player more than the attacking player.

People who say Smash 4's defensive options are offensive simply don't know what offensive gameplay is. Smash 4 doesn't reward a player for forcing his opponent to block his attacks; he's only ever punished for it, or not rewarded at all.



Edit: And on the topic of other fighting games:

Defense is such a big part of fighting games because the burden of defense is on the person being attacked, not the person doing the attacking. Waking up to a high-low mixup, trying to react to overheads, watching for throws, dodging unblockables, all of these things need to be taken into consideration. It's not as simple as just "I blocked you, now i can hit you". And this isnt even considering games with chip damage.

One could say that in Smash 4 you are punished for being offensive, but you could also say that in Melee you are punished for being defensive. Shields in Melee were awful, there was so much shield stun that you couldn't follow up a blocked attack with a counterattack, and the shields were so tiny that more often than not you will just be shield poked, defeating the purpose of using a shield in the first place. The entire purpose of a shield is to block an incoming attack, so shouldn't the player be rewarded if they successfully block that attack, instead of punishing them?

 

[LightLV]

I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that you can't punish someone for shielding in Smash 4 when not only grabs exist but shields continuously shrink the longer you hold them. Like, I know shields regenerate quickly and that it doesn't count as a shield poke if the attack you wore down the shield with hits outside the body as well, but there are so many things that make shields exploitable that I'm surprised we're still talking about this topic months later.

Yes, grabbing is a counter for shielding, but shielding is a counter for literally everything else. A few exceptions don't change anything. For the vast majority of characters, for the vast majority of matchups, blocking is nigh unpunishable. Just about the only thing you can do to someone shielding is grab them, or bait a shield and grab it. It doesn't change much.

And Megaman has bad aerials? No he doesn't. Jump-ins are terrible for every character in this game, and Megaman not only has plenty of fadeaway candidates, but one that comes out extremely fast AND KOs.

One could say that in Smash 4 you are punished for being offensive, but you could also say that in Melee you are punished for being defensive. Shields in Melee were awful, there was so much shield stun that you couldn't follow up a blocked attack with a counterattack, and the shields were so tiny that more often than not you will just be shield poked, defeating the purpose of using a shield in the first place. The entire purpose of a shield is to block an incoming attack, so shouldn't the player be rewarded if they successfully block that attack, instead of punishing them?

What are you talking about? There are tons of entirely unsafe moves in Melee despite blockstun and blockpush, you didn't attack for free in that game. The difference is that not EVERY move in the game was unsafe. It allowed some room for offensive poking. The same grab gimmicks that work in Smash 4 worked in Melee too. There was just more room for strategy around it, and every character wasn't

 

[Cassio]

Lightllv if you are implying Melee is offensive oriented you are mistaken. Moreover, most of your claims of defensive mechanics aren't inherent defense at all.

You seem ready to toss others opinions away from their heavily assumed lack of experience. What is your experience that you're trying to speak from authority? In lieu of this most of your positions are pretty controversial and don't have substantial support.

 

[Nobie]

Yes, grabbing is a counter for shielding, but shielding is a counter for literally everything else. A few exceptions don't change anything. For the vast majority of characters, for the vast majority of matchups, blocking is nigh unpunishable. Just about the only thing you can do to someone shielding is grab them, or bait a shield and grab it. It doesn't change much.

And Megaman has bad aerials? No he doesn't. Jump-ins are terrible for every character in this game, and Megaman not only has plenty of fadeaway candidates, but one that comes out extremely fast AND KOs.

Mega Man's aerials are good for air to air combat but are waaaay worse than everyone else's when it comes to attacking the ground. Also, if you hit a shield the game actively makes it more difficult to fadeaway compared to if you land a hit successfully.

Deep jump-ins are terrible for characters but a well-spaced low landing lag/auto canceled/powerful aerial? Those can and have made a difference. And even though shield are strong (I said they're exploitable, not that they suck), the game is actively set up so that no one can shield for too long. At some point they have to come out of shield.

 

[LightLV]

Lightllv if you are implying Melee is offensive oriented you are mistaken. Moreover, most of your claims of defensive mechanics aren't inherent defense at all.

You seem ready to toss others opinions away from their heavily assumed lack of experience. What is your experience that you're trying to speak from authority? Most of your positions are pretty controversial and don't have substantial support.

I don't speak from authority, i'm speaking from logic, and I don't really need any proof of anything to claim that Smash 4 is a defense-oriented game. Its mechanics speak for it, the players speak for it, and if it wern't true, this conversation wouldn't come up so much. People can try and bend the definition of "defensive" all they like. And I never once said Melee was offense oriented, but if you want to compare it to Brawl or Smash 4, then it most certainly would seem to be.

As for what I assumed to be a lack of him playing offense-oriented games, he can correct me if i'm wrong. I don't see why people fight the observation of Smash 4 being defensive anyway. But for anyone who's played other fighting games, this isn't even an argument, unless people want to play around semantics.

 

[Cassio]

As for what I assumed to be a lack of him playing offense-oriented games, he can correct me if i'm wrong. I don't see why people fight the observation of Smash 4 being defensive anyway. But for anyone who's played other fighting games, this isn't even an argument, unless people want to play around semantics.

1. You can just not assume.
2. Are you saying other fighting games don't lean defensive? Not only is that counter to what I hear from most other experienced players on the matter, on the very last page EL said this

Top player metagame manipulation is definitely real.

Here is the truth and it will blow you away

All fighting games when played optimally lean towards being "defensive".

Shocking I know.

Anyways , pretty sure most aren't saying smash 4 isn't defensive. Just like most other fighting games, which is fine.

 

[LightLV]

1. You can just not assume.
2. Are you saying other fighting games don't lean defensive? Not only is that counter to what I hear from most other experienced players on the matter, on the very last page EL said this
*snip*
Anyways , pretty sure most aren't saying smash 4 isn't defensive. Just like most other fighting games, which is fine.

I'm not really understanding. That statement doesn't really...mean much... I mean, of course you need good defense to be good at the game. Getting hit takes your health away. Defense being important =/= defensive game.

Anyways , pretty sure most aren't saying smash 4 isn't defensive. Just like most other fighting games, which is fine.

Actually, if Smash 4 was the first game in the series, this could be true. Smash 4 is defensive in relation to other fighting games, but the only reason anyone cares is because it's also highly defensive in its own context. Do note, every defensive mechanic present in SSB4 (minus Airdodge and Sidestep) has existed since SSB64.

SSB64 = Dodge Roll, Shield, Ledge grab.

Melee = added Airdodge and Sidestep. Lowered hitstun and blockstun enough to stop 0-to-death combos. The only game since 64 to add additional offensive options.

Brawl = Freefall removed from airdodge. Snapping added to ledge grabbing. Hitstun reduced to nearly negligable amounts. Same Move proration drastically increased. Can airdodge cancel hitstun. Perfect Shielding made easier. lower gravity makes recovery much easier.

Smash 4 = Blockstun removed, Blockpush removed. Shield recovery highly increased. Perfect Shielding still made easier. Hitstun slightly increased, but knockback increased nearly across the board. Blast Zones pushed back. Edgehogging removed. Drastically increased dodge roll efficiency. Chain grabbing removed.

Overall, the person being attacked, or recovering, or defending, or about to die, gets favored more and more increasingly with each entry in the series. You may also note that no new offensive options are present either...and by nerfing Blockstun/Blockpush values, you're inherently nerfing offensive options, since those were there to balance out that relationship for the attacker.

tl;dr, Smash 4 favors defense over offense. One would call that a defensive game. I don't really know how else to put it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

In all honesty I think the offensive vs defensive think is that right now it is balanced pretty well, fair on both sides.

Something I think no other smash title has, characters have identity in playstyles, some are more offensive, some are more defensive.

Instead of the majority of the cast going one way or the other.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Melee = The only game since 64 to add additional offensive options.

What? For Brawl, there's glide toss, DACUS, loads of chaingrabs, many combos only possible due to buffering, footstools and Jab locks...Also, shield pushback is significantly higher in Brawl (and Smash 4) than in Melee (outside of lightshielding). Marth D-Tilt pushes you away like nuts, for an easy example. Shieldstun was decreased but pushback was increased.

As for your Smash 4 list, the "weakening" of DI and SDI, significant airdodge landing lag, the removal of invincibility carrying over to ledge drop, worse spotdodge frame data, the frame (or two) of vulnerability on a ledge grab...You're ignoring a LOT of stuff that impacted the offensive potential in these games in a way that added useful options.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Smash 4 definitely rewards smart traps. Spot dodge and roll i-frames were reduced and air dodge has 20 frames of landing recovery. Thats a third of a second. That is INSANE!!! And ledge re-grab i-frames removed. that is also meta changing at high level.

You have to realize that in previous smash games, the community basically admitted they couldnt be competitive at all with those i-frames on ledge regrab. A rule was created JUST TO MAKE THE GAME PLAYABLE IN TOURNAMENTS!!!

This is HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!!!!

You want to talk about defensive mechanic abuse, then you MUST acknowledge that ledge regrab abuse is a THING in previous smash games and basically can't be stopped when certain characters do it.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Ledge invincibility abuse is one of the biggest reasons I don't play competitive Melee. It completely rewrites everything related to the ledge and makes any and all ledge-related interaction revolve around one action that gives you invincibility in the neutral position (which is STUPID). Why time your edgeguards well when you can let ledge invincibility (and the ability to hog the ledge through the entirety of a ledge roll animation) do most of the work for you?

 

[LightLV]

In all honesty I think the offensive vs defensive think is that right now it is balanced pretty well, fair on both sides.

Something I think no other smash title has, characters have identity in playstyles, some are more offensive, some are more defensive.

Instead of the majority of the cast going one way or the other.

I personally think it's in a better spot than brawl was. The funny part is though, I hated brawl, but people i know who played it competitively have the same opinions about SSB4 that they bashed me for having about Brawl when it came out after Melee.

What? For Brawl, there's glide toss, DACUS, loads of chaingrabs, many combos only possible due to buffering, footstools and Jab locks.

With the exception of i think DACUS and footstools, all of this was possible in melee. Not that it mattered, hitstun alone was enough to do basic combos in Melee, and that's not even including L-cancel and wavedash. So i don't really see how it makes any difference, when compared to the other changes like no hitstun and airdodge cancelling and the such. Those options you mentioned were pretty much all brawl had left.

As for your Smash 4 list, the "weakening" of DI and SDI, significant airdodge landing lag, the removal of invincibility carrying over to ledge drop, worse spotdodge frame data, the frame (or two) of vulnerability on a ledge grab...You're ignoring a LOT of stuff that impacted the offensive potential in these games in a way that added useful options.

I'm ignoring it because it's negligible in relation to the rest of the list. I'm sorry, 2 frames of vulnerability on ledgegrab is simply a saving grace of sorts, albeit a very very tiny one, ledge mechanics are so lenient that fall KOs are the minority. Again, i know BRAWL players that complain about the lack of offensive options in Smash 4. There were people on this very forum crying about the removal of DACUS and other ATs.


By the way? I also left out tripping. So, there you go.

 

[Roukiske]

Ledge invincibility abuse is one of the biggest reasons I don't play competitive Melee. It completely rewrites everything related to the ledge and makes any and all ledge-related interaction revolve around one action that gives you invincibility in the neutral position (which is STUPID). Why time your edgeguards well when you can let ledge invincibility (and the ability to hog the ledge through the entirety of a ledge roll animation) do most of the work for you?

I see this as a somewhat popular opinion about Melee. It's somewhat true, but in my eyes I see it as rewarding the player for getting attacks in. Perhaps it's a bit too much of a reward, but just a little. For me, the opposite happens in Sm4sh in which I see that getting hit at mid % just resets the game back to neutral and rewards the attacking player with just damage and possible positioning.

It is just my preference, but I feel this is not reward enough for getting the hit. Even when the defending player gets off stage there are maybe too many options for them to get back to the stage. Aside from air dodging, everyone's recovery is quite good besides maybe a small portion of the cast. I think of it as the two lesser extremes. In Melee the attacking player has slightly too many options while in Sm4sh its the other way around. It's not to say that the disadvantaged player can't get back to the stage in Melee, and someone in Sm4sh can't get spiked though. A good balance between those 2 and I think the ledge game could have been better.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If your complain as a brawl player for offensive options, I'm not sure what you are asking for.

Almost everything from there is here in Smash 4 and then some.

Coming from a dude who played brawl here.

 

[LightLV]

Ledge invincibility abuse is one of the biggest reasons I don't play competitive Melee. It completely rewrites everything related to the ledge and makes any and all ledge-related interaction revolve around one action that gives you invincibility in the neutral position (which is STUPID). Why time your edgeguards well when you can let ledge invincibility (and the ability to hog the ledge through the entirety of a ledge roll animation) do most of the work for you?

Don't get knocked off the stage. That was always the point of Smash. In all honestly Melee could have had edgehogging completely removed, and its edgeguard game still would have been brutal.

I see this as a somewhat popular opinion about Melee. It's somewhat true, but in my eyes I see it as rewarding the player for getting attacks in. Perhaps it's a bit too much of a reward, but just a little. For me, the opposite happens in Sm4sh in which I see that getting hit at mid % just resets the game back to neutral and rewards the attacking player with just damage and possible positioning.

Indeed, this is what bothers me the most about Smash 4. I dont really mind how the neutral game plays out, it's campy but not as much as brawl was. But the ease at which players are able to recover is the most annoying feature. If i had to give the edge to anyone, i'd rather it go to the attacker. The objective is to knock them off the stage anyway, why are they given so many chances to recover?

Going out to strike a player who's recovering, only to see a red KO spark and have them still not die is by far the most baffling and infuriating thing to see in this game.

Not to mention, a recovering player can simply do his recovery move and manage a wallspike KO if you happen to get hit.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

With the exception of i think DACUS and footstools, all of this was possible in melee. Not that it mattered, hitstun alone was enough to do basic combos in Melee, and that's not even including L-cancel and wavedash. So i don't really see how it makes any difference, when compared to the other changes like no hitstun and airdodge cancelling and the such. Those options you mentioned were pretty much all brawl had left.

By the way? I also left out tripping. So, there's that.

I'm ignoring it because it's negligible in relation to the rest of the list. I'm sorry, 2 frames of vulnerability on ledgegrab is simply a saving grace of sorts, albeit a very very tiny one, ledge mechanics are so lenient that fall KOs are the minority. Again, i know BRAWL players that complain about the lack of offensive options in Smash 4. There were people on this very forum crying about the removal of DACUS and other ATs.

The only things you can buffer in Melee (iirc) are jumps out of hitstun. You could also flood the game with roll inputs via the C-Stick, but that's not the same thing. Jab locks only worked for a single hit in Melee, whereas you could continue them as long as you had stage in Brawl, getting better positioning and creating infinites (hi-5 Squirtle Jab).

Melee didn't let you buffer offensive actions at all. Brawl (and only Brawl) allowed you to buffer multiple inputs at once, which is something unique to it; Smash 4 lets your latest input override all previous inputs in a buffer window.

If anything, tripping could technically count as something that opened up offensive play, because it would certainly get the opponent to rush in if you tripped. I'm not saying it was a good mechanic, but you brought it up in a list of things to consider, not me.

I'm not comparing the games, myself; I'm just saying that you left a bunch of important ones out. You may not see them as significant, but I would say that that is because you don't play the game at a high level. People pushed the hell out of 1-frame windows in Melee and Brawl--Why wouldn't they in Smash 4?

Ledge mechanics in Melee let you become ridiculously safe once you manage to get to the ledge. People have gotten better (and will continue to) punishing ledge options reliably and covering multiple options at once. I guarantee you that we will have some real killers with ledgeguard stuff. I've been pushing Wario hard in that respect, and I expect it to get much better for a lot of characters. It sounds like you're trying to justify your feelings by citing people who changed their minds after disagreeing with you in the past. Sorry--I'm too busy finding new stuff and enjoying the good balance of the game to worry about it.

Don't get knocked off the stage. That was always the point of Smash. In all honestly Melee could have had edgehogging completely removed, and its edgeguard game still would have been brutal.

Indeed, this is what bothers me the most about Smash 4. I dont really mind how the neutral game plays out, it's campy but not as much as brawl was. But the ease at which players are able to recover is the most annoying feature. If i had to give the edge to anyone, i'd rather it go to the attacker. The objective is to knock them off the stage anyway, why are they given so many chances to recover?

Going out to strike a player who's recovering, only to see a red KO spark and have them still not die is by far the most baffling and infuriating thing to see in this game.

Not to mention, a recovering player can simply do his recovery move and manage a wallspike KO if you happen to get hit.

The edgeguard game would still be brutal because ledge invincibility allows people to hit with whatever they want at any time without significant fear of repercussion. It'd still be ridiculously centered around abusing invincibility instead of timing options well--Same with the 20-frame tech window. Great timing isn't necessary there if you can do it ages in advance.

Ledgeguarding is significantly more important as a result, as is the ledge invincibility window. The fact that you can't seem to make the most of the opportunities doesn't mean that better players won't.

 

[thehard]

Brawl and Smash 4 have the same amount of hitstun as Melee, fyi, just that hitstun canceling and higher base knockback also exist

I always wonder why people who complain about the safety of shields in Smash 4 don't play Mega Man, Mac, Yoshi, Falcon, Peach, or Shiek or something. There's also the fact that you can make great use of empty jump ins in Smash 4, bait your opponents to drop shield or they stay in it, scared, and can suffer pokes or a shield break.

Also, defensive play is almost always the better option in many games simply because all tools designed for offense can almost always be used for defensive measures too.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I always wonder why people who complain about the safety of shields in Smash 4 don't play Mega Man, Mac, Yoshi, Falcon, Peach, or Shiek or something.

They do.

 

[Roukiske]

Brawl and Smash 4 have the same amount of hitstun as Melee, fyi, just that hitstun canceling and higher base knockback also exist

I have always wondered if hitstun cancelling still existed. I have heard reports of it not existing, but seeing with my own eyes says otherwise. In Melee, you can tell when you aren't in hitstun because your character exits a visible hitstun state, allowing you to jump. In Sm4sh you can airdodge before seeing the hitstun visible state disappear. This makes judging hitstun inaccurate. I was once told something is a true combo because I could visibly see when the video was slowed down that they were still in hitstun. I debunked it by replicating it multiple times and each time the opponent could have airdodged much much sooner.

 

[thehard]

Don't get knocked off the stage. That was always the point of Smash.

BUT

https://youtu.be/NHNq5eab1D8?t=40

I've seen this sentiment a lot from people who dislike the new ledge mechanics, that "if you've been knocked off the stage you don't deserve to come back" which is baffling to me. That imaginary game they're describing sounds really bland.

I have always wondered if hitstun cancelling still existed. I have heard reports of it not existing, but seeing with my own eyes says otherwise. In Melee, you can tell when you aren't in hitstun because your character exits a visible hitstun state, allowing you to jump. In Sm4sh you can airdodge before seeing the hitstun visible state disappear. This makes judging hitstun inaccurate. I was once told something is a true combo because I could visibly see when the video was slowed down that they were still in hitstun. I debunked it by replicating it multiple times and each time the opponent could have airdodged much much sooner.

Doesn't hitstun wear off in Smash 4 when the smoke near your character does?

 

[LightLV]

If anything, tripping could technically count as something that opened up offensive play, because it would certainly get the opponent to rush in if you tripped.

...are you trolling me right now?

Brawl and Smash 4 have the same amount of hitstun as Melee, fyi, just that hitstun canceling and higher base knockback also exist

I always wonder why people who complain about the safety of shields in Smash 4 don't play Mega Man, Mac, Yoshi, Falcon, Peach, or Shiek or something. There's also the fact that you can make great use of empty jump ins in Smash 4, bait your opponents to drop shield or they stay in it, scared, and can suffer pokes or a shield break.

Brawl could have had 5x Melee's hitstun, it's completely irrelevant if you can cancel out of it. Empty jumpins for grabs have always been important in smash bros...just now they feel stronger because the other approach options got nerfed.

Also, defensive play is almost always the better option in many games simply because all tools designed for offense can almost always be used for defensive measures too.

I've seen this sentiment a lot from people who dislike the new ledge mechanics, that "if you've been knocked off the stage you don't deserve to come back" which is baffling to me. That imaginary game they're describing sounds really bland.

I really need someone to explain this to me, because I hear this more in Smash Bros communities than I ever hear elsewhere. Either you're attacking or you're defending, and unless it's a counter move I really don't understand how you're doing both. Defending and then Attacking is VERY DIFFERENT from attacking to make the other person defend, or beat out another attack.

And yeah, "Never give up" is the name of the game, because as powerful as edgeguarding was in Melee, the attacker could always screw up, which happens in all levels of play. Was just watching a video the other day where i think M2K tried to wave off the ledge to grab it, did an airdodge instead and died.

I think the problem they have with it is, "If you get knocked off, you don't deserve to have as many options for coming back as I have for stopping you". Ledges exist for a reason, but after a certain point it's just like "why are you still alive, you got smashed at 110%."

 

[thehard]

Sorry, I should have specified APPROACHING... that's what we all mean by aggressive play right?

Personally, I find Smash 4's ledgeplay/off-stage game to be way more brutal than Melee's, because if you're edgeguarding efficiently, you're likely hitting your opponent A LOT, what with the overall strong recoveries (and being rewarded for it, because you have a good recovery too to make it back to the stage [likely])

 

[Roukiske]

Sorry, I should have specified APPROACHING... that's what we all mean by aggressive play right?

Personally, I find Smash 4's ledgeplay/off-stage game to be way more brutal than Melee's, because if you're edgeguarding efficiently, you're likely hitting your opponent A LOT, what with the overall strong recoveries (and being rewarded for it, because you have a good recovery too to make it back to the stage [likely])

Ah, I would think the same thing too, until I started to notice that unless you're spiking someone, getting a hit when edgeguarding still means both you and your opponent can probably make it back on stage unless its one of the few characters with bad recovery distance. The recoveries are just that good.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

...are you trolling me right now?

I thought we were comparing changes that affect how offense and defense work in each Smash game, not justifying the questionable mechanics in each of them (of which there are many). Feel free to ignore everything else I said, though, I guess. Unsubscribing here as it is.

 

[Purin a.k.a. José]

I don't think it is so small. The game is getting faster and faster as time goes by (well, at least in my opinion), and I don't think I saw any competitive match where the worse player won. Maybe in a For Glory-like scenario (lag, delay, FD balance), but not in any tourney. If there it was one, tell me, but I didn't hear about anything like that. In Brawl, yep, but not in the rise of Hoo-Haa.

 

[Pwii]

stuff

Listen here you buttface.

You don't understand how walling works in Melee. Moves interact with each other differently, along with Crouch Canceling and disjoints you can easily punish someone who spams aerials. Peach and Puff are notable characters whose walling is not unpunishable, but fairly safe. This comes more down to the character, as you have some characters like Gannon, Samus, or Icies that have to be a lot more careful with what aerials they throw out. Most other characters land somewhere in the middle, with it mostly being matchup dependent. All you proved is that Sm4sh can only be played a certain style, while Melee has more variety.

Sm4sh has a lower skill ceiling than Melee. The areas of skill are more obvious to players unfamiliar with Melee, but Melee has more areas of skill to develop in.

Sm4sh: reads, spacing, patience, setups/frame traps, conditioning, matchup, game knowledge

Melee: reads, spacing, patience, setups/frame traps, conditioning, matchup, game knowledge, shield pressure, edge guarding, dash dancing/movement rhythm, platform movement, combos, tech chasing, SDI, DI mixups, Powershielding, and tech skill.

If there is ANYTHING that Sm4sh develops beyond what Melee offers, please tell me. All it does is take out half the pools of depth from Melee and reduces the depth of another few. The only reason anybody thinks differently is because Sm4sh characters move so slowly it's easier for scrubs to pick out certain subtleties like reads and conditioning because they're simplified, slowed down, and there's only fewer of these instances to notice. It's like comparing Speed Chess to Pawns-Only Chess. It's not that pawns aren't a vital, intricate, or deep part of chess, but the skill ceiling is obviously lower.

 

[Nobie]

Listen here you buttface.

You don't understand how walling works in Melee. Moves interact with each other differently, along with Crouch Canceling and disjoints you can easily punish someone who spams aerials. Peach and Puff are notable characters whose walling is not unpunishable, but fairly safe. This comes more down to the character, as you have some characters like Gannon, Samus, or Icies that have to be a lot more careful with what aerials they throw out. Most other characters land somewhere in the middle, with it mostly being matchup dependent. All you proved is that Sm4sh can only be played a certain style, while Melee has more variety.

Sm4sh has a lower skill ceiling than Melee. The areas of skill are more obvious to players unfamiliar with Melee, but Melee has more areas of skill to develop in.

Sm4sh: reads, spacing, patience, setups/frame traps, conditioning, matchup, game knowledge

Melee: reads, spacing, patience, setups/frame traps, conditioning, matchup, game knowledge, shield pressure, edge guarding, dash dancing/movement rhythm, platform movement, combos, tech chasing, SDI, DI mixups, Powershielding, and tech skill.

If there is ANYTHING that Sm4sh develops beyond what Melee offers, please tell me. All it does is take out half the pools of depth from Melee and reduces the depth of another few. The only reason anybody thinks differently is because Sm4sh characters move so slowly it's easier for scrubs to pick out certain subtleties like reads and conditioning because they're simplified, slowed down, and there's only fewer of these instances to notice. It's like comparing Speed Chess to Pawns-Only Chess. It's not that pawns aren't a vital, intricate, or deep part of chess, but the skill ceiling is obviously lower.

How convenient of you to forget that edge guarding, movement rhythm, platform movement, combos, tech chasing, "hitstun shuffling," DI/vectoring, powershielding, and tech skills like perfect pivoting exist in Smash 4, eh?