Is the skill gap in Smash 4 too small?

[Pyr]

Edge Guarding, Movement rhythm, combos, tech chasing, SDI, DI Mixups, Power Shielding, and Tech skill all exist and need to be learned in Smash 4.

Denying it is ignorance of how the game is played, buttface.

Edit: @ Nobie beat me to it.

 

[Roukiske]

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.

Hahahaha I love the bluntness. That being said, I agree with your general message.

I'm sure anyone who's tried both games seriously will not deny how high Melee's skill ceiling is. Saying Sm4sh can surpass the skill ceiling of Melee at it's current state as of right now is quite the statement. Personally, I see that as being impossible, but maybe some people know things about the game that I don't know. Perhaps this is true, but before I go changing my opinion I would rather see it with my own eyes how high the skill ceiling can be. Thousands of players such as myself and all of you are trying to dissect the game and push it to it's limits. However given the engine, don't you think the limit is simpler to find? We are at this day and age where if something is discovered, we will know very quickly (unless you choose to hide it you douche :D) Until then I highly doubt Sm4sh will reach close to Melee. Everything in Sm4sh is in some shape or form in Melee, but not vice versa.

That's not to say Sm4sh isn't a great game, I still play it a lot and enjoy it, but I accept it's limits. That is however until someone shows me (or I figure it out for myself) how far the game can be pushed. Can a random upset the bracket? Yeah, but I think true high level players won't let that happen. Even so how do we know that random isn't quite good themselves?

The skill ceiling is still high, reading your opponent is quite the technique after all. Ah, while we're talking about reading your opponent, you get to play a whole set with them. 1 game, assuming they don't switch character should be enough to know your opponent. Even though smash is very free in how to play, FGC pro's have to deal with rounds even shorter than ours to read their opponent, and they do it well mind you.

 

[cot(θ)]

In my opinion, the true skill ceiling of Smash 4 is driven by more, and more balanced characters, which means not only that more matchup knowledge is required, but that more stages can be legal, because we don't have OP characters like Brawl MK causing stages to be banned, which increases the importance of stage knowledge. In other words, although this game has a lower skill ceiling tech-wise than Melee, it has a higher skill ceiling in terms of knowledge, and using this knowledge to your advantage.

 

[Pwii]

Hahahaha I love the bluntness. That being said, I agree with your general message.

I'm sure anyone who's tried both games seriously will not deny how high Melee's skill ceiling is. Saying Sm4sh can surpass the skill ceiling of Melee at it's current state as of right now is quite the statement. Personally, I see that as being impossible, but maybe some people know things about the game that I don't know. Perhaps this is true, but before I go changing my opinion I would rather see it with my own eyes how high the skill ceiling can be. Thousands of players such as myself and all of you are trying to dissect the game and push it to it's limits. However given the engine, don't you think the limit is simpler to find? We are at this day and age where if something is discovered, we will know very quickly (unless you choose to hide it you douche :D) Until then I highly doubt Sm4sh will reach close to Melee. Everything in Sm4sh is in some shape or form in Melee, but not vice versa.

That's not to say Sm4sh isn't a great game, I still play it a lot and enjoy it, but I accept it's limits. That is however until someone shows me (or I figure it out for myself) how far the game can be pushed. Can a random upset the bracket? Yeah, but I think true high level players won't let that happen. Even so how do we know that random isn't quite good themselves?

The skill ceiling is still high, reading your opponent is quite the technique after all. Ah, while we're talking about reading your opponent, you get to play a whole set with them. 1 game, assuming they don't switch character should be enough to know your opponent. Even though smash is very free in how to play, FGC pro's have to deal with rounds even shorter than ours to read their opponent, and they do it well mind you.

I'm certainly looking to see what 2044 or whatever looks like too, but Nintendo's stance towards game balancing doesn't give me much hope. The first patch nerfed little mac and removed DACUS. The second nerfed the only character with aggressive combos instead of raising the rest of the cast to that level. That and the attitude of people who just mained diddy because tires doesn't give me hope. But then again, only time will tell. Hopefully you're right.

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?

Listen here you buttface... All it does is take out half the pools of depth from Melee and reduces the depth of another few.

If you don't understand how these aspects are reduced, I'm going to petition Smashboards to add a Kappa emote so I can accurately show how much of a **** I give. Also your counterpoint basically boils down to "Yes Sm4sh removed depth, but not as much as you're saying it is!"Unless I'm wrong and there's some game mechanic in Sm4sh that Melee doesn't have?

In my opinion, the true skill ceiling of Smash 4 is driven by more, and more balanced characters, which means not only that more matchup knowledge is required, but that more stages can be legal, because we don't have OP characters like Brawl MK causing stages to be banned, which increases the importance of stage knowledge. In other words, although this game has a lower skill ceiling tech-wise than Melee, it has a higher skill ceiling in terms of knowledge, and using this knowledge to your advantage.

There is no way of telling how balanced the game is at this point. It might feel that way, but don't forget once the PK kids grab release frame data from Brawl was discovered they dropped several tiers. Also it took a while for Shiek's chain grabs to take out such characters as Pikachu, Samus, Yoshi, etc. If it is balanced, that would be nice. And Nintendo is showing that they care somewhat about balance, although PMDT they are not. Also, frustratingly, more stages like Wuhu and Skyloft are being banned because Nintendo said so. No copyright = no stream = no legal. At least Town and City is still here.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Yo, everyone, calm down.

Pretty please?

 

[Pwii]

I'm calmer than you are. (It's a reference no ban plz)

 

[Nobie]

If you don't understand how these aspects are reduced, I'm going to petition Smashboards to add a Kappa emote so I can accurately show how much of a **** I give. Also your counterpoint basically boils down to "Yes Sm4sh removed depth, but not as much as you're saying it is!"Unless I'm wrong and there's some game mechanic in Sm4sh that Melee doesn't have?

More mechanics does not automatically equal a better game. You're free to prefer the game with more mechanics, but there's nothing that says, for example, that Guilty Gear is a better game than Street Fighter IV because it has roman cancels (or yellow roman cancels in the case of the new game), bursts, dusts, etc.

But let's take one of the examples that you just straight up say takes less skill to implement, to the extent that you decided not to list it as if it were a non-existent skill: edgeguarding. What makes edgeguarding less skillful in Smash 4? Does it require less skill for the person edgeguarding or being edgeguarded, or is it both? What makes ledgehogging a feature of skill, and ledge trumping not?

Obviously I'm not saying that edgeguarding is some skill-less, mindless exercise in Melee, but I think it's either an active desire to avoid learning a new system or just plain bias that the ledge play in Smash 4 can't be appreciated on its own merits, just because it's not as unforgiving for the defender as the one in Melee.

Putting aside this specific point, another thing I find bizarre about the whole offense vs. defense debate is that, when a game requires the defender to be immensely skilled to defend successfully, that's considered a good thing because it shows that your defense needs to be top-notch to withstand the onslaught, but if it's a game where defense has the edge and it requires a ton of skill to attack into that, then that's a game that fails to properly reward skill properly. It's such a strange mindset to me.

 

[LightLV]

More mechanics does not automatically equal a better game. You're free to prefer the game with more mechanics, but there's nothing that says, for example, that Guilty Gear is a better game than Street Fighter IV because it has roman cancels (or yellow roman cancels in the case of the new game), bursts, dusts, etc.

More mechanics = more options. There are alot of facets to this, like how effective the mechanics mesh together and what they bring to the table. Removing the possibility for options makes the gameplay more dull and linear. I think the noticable problem for me is that Smash Bros quit being progressive after Melee, and instead focused primarily on damage controlling the competitive skill gap.

At least, thats my gripe with Smash Bros as of late; that it isn't moving forward, just trying to find a middle fence to straddle. I don't remember anyone ever complaining about how difficult Melee was when it was the newest entry, but when brawl came along, everything changed, because of just how vastly different a game it was. I honestly believe that if Brawl was moved in the same direction that Melee was, casuals wouldn't have even noticed.

But let's take one of the examples that you just straight up say takes less skill to implement, to the extent that you decided not to list it as if it were a non-existent skill: edgeguarding. What makes edgeguarding less skillful in Smash 4? Does it require less skill for the person edgeguarding or being edgeguarded, or is it both? What makes ledgehogging a feature of skill, and ledge trumping not?

Obviously I'm not saying that edgeguarding is some skill-less, mindless exercise in Melee, but I think it's either an active desire to avoid learning a new system or just plain bias that the ledge play in Smash 4 can't be appreciated on its own merits, just because it's not as unforgiving for the defender as the one in Melee.

It has more to do with the kind of dynamic that edgeguarding brings to the game as a whole. When you take edgeguarding and make it trivial, you're taking significance from every other area of the match. Getting knocked off becomes less impactful, which means you're given more chances to come back, which makes high damage less impactful, which makes stage control less impactful. It kind of changes everything.

The person who's technically playing better is now having to work harder to secure his kill, while the person getting knocked off is given chance after chance to get back on the stage and flip the tables. All the mechanics here are now actively working against the person who's winning. Combine this with stale moves, rage, ect ect and you get a game that feels as if it's trying harder to artificially close the skill gap than it is to provide adequate reward for being better at the game.

Putting aside this specific point, another thing I find bizarre about the whole offense vs. defense debate is that, when a game requires the defender to be immensely skilled to defend successfully, that's considered a good thing because it shows that your defense needs to be top-notch to withstand the onslaught, but if it's a game where defense has the edge and it requires a ton of skill to attack into that, then that's a game that fails to properly reward skill properly. It's such a strange mindset to me.

You make a point, but I don't know how well it applies here.

Defense in fighting games is directly tied in 1:1 with the offensive aspect of the game. If you can block high/low, you need high/low property attacks. If you can grab, there need to be rules concerning them. Offensive attacks have to be balanced for both the attacker AND the defender -- this is where frame advantage comes into play. Without a blockstun/push and recovery dynamic between frames and movesets, every character would essentially be a clone of another. This is how you create safe/unsafe situations, allow offensive pressure, and make fights interesting.

In Smash 4, by making every attack unsafe, and evasive movements so much harder to punish than effectively use, you severely skew the offense/defense balance by just outright favoring defense instead. It's really easy to point out even subconsciously, which is why rollspam, though punishable, is so annoying to many players. Especially ones who play other fighting games, where the offense/defense balance isn't so out of whack. It is significantly easier to evade a player than to catch a player. It is significantly easier to block > punish an attack than sucessfully throw one out. Thats why people call Smash 4 a defensive game -- its mechanics encourage it.

 

[Pwii]

More mechanics does not automatically equal a better game. You're free to prefer the game with more mechanics, but there's nothing that says, for example, that Guilty Gear is a better game than Street Fighter IV because it has roman cancels (or yellow roman cancels in the case of the new game), bursts, dusts, etc.

But let's take one of the examples that you just straight up say takes less skill to implement, to the extent that you decided not to list it as if it were a non-existent skill: edgeguarding. What makes edgeguarding less skillful in Smash 4? Does it require less skill for the person edgeguarding or being edgeguarded, or is it both? What makes ledgehogging a feature of skill, and ledge trumping not?

Obviously I'm not saying that edgeguarding is some skill-less, mindless exercise in Melee, but I think it's either an active desire to avoid learning a new system or just plain bias that the ledge play in Smash 4 can't be appreciated on its own merits, just because it's not as unforgiving for the defender as the one in Melee.

Putting aside this specific point, another thing I find bizarre about the whole offense vs. defense debate is that, when a game requires the defender to be immensely skilled to defend successfully, that's considered a good thing because it shows that your defense needs to be top-notch to withstand the onslaught, but if it's a game where defense has the edge and it requires a ton of skill to attack into that, then that's a game that fails to properly reward skill properly. It's such a strange mindset to me.

The guy I was responding to asserted that Sm4sh had the same amount, if not more depth than Melee.

Sm4sh has less to offer than melee when it comes to edgeguarding. A huge concept in edgegaurding is whether or not to sweetspot, when to stall, etc. In Sm4sh it is always the best idea to go to edge. Just wait until you get like a foot below the stage and you're in sweetspot range for a good 3 seconds. Once you do sweetspot, all you do is try and see if your opponent is going to trump (then you roll on/ get up attack, forget which) or corner pressure you (which you can answer with a ledgejump, a roll on, a normal getup, or get up attack, and your opponent has to read which one.)

There's still the whole bit with double jump/going offstage to edgeguard, which retains the bit from Melee. But the whole concept of sweetspotting is reduced in complexity. It's a flowchart. Go to sweetspot range -> sweetspot -> If your opponent trumps, react and roll onstage, otherwise pick a random option that'll work unless they read it. This **** is so basic even I can understand it.

So where's my Kappa emote [Kappa]?

Btw it takes a ton of skill to be offensive and defensive in Melee. See: Mango whining about not being able to just go hyper-aggro against Armada, Laser camping, dash dance camping, Puff, platform camping, walling (lol) and powershielding. You just don't think of Melee as a defensive game because the defender is doing more than standing still.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

I think this thread has turned into another Melee vs. Smash 4 thread, which I'm pretty sure aren't allowed and/or constitute trolling.

 

[LancerStaff]

At least, thats my gripe with Smash Bros as of late; that it isn't moving forward, just trying to find a middle fence to straddle. I don't remember anyone ever complaining about how difficult Melee was when it was the newest entry, but when brawl came along, everything changed, because of just how vastly different a game it was. I honestly believe that if Brawl was moved in the same direction that Melee was, casuals wouldn't have even noticed.

I don't think you've paid attention to video game history. As soon as there's an online mode every little thing becomes common and specifically has to be delt with, leading to complaints that previously didn't exist without online. Mario Kart is a good example. Remember Snaking in MKDS? It had been around for awhile, being most prominent in MKDD beforehand. It was just as overpowered in MKDD and yet you didn't hear a peep. There's a 100% chance that the same would of happened to Brawl had things not been fixed.

People always complain about things that look like glitches anyway.

 

[Nobie]

There were some points brought up about edge guarding that I think are interesting to think about, not so much to make it a Melee vs Smash 4 thing, but that I think it requires reflecting on some of the core components of Smash Bros as both a casual and competitive game.

The arguments have been over whether ledge mechanics of game X or game Y are better or worse for competitive play based on the degree to which being knocked off stage is a disadvantage. I think everyone can agree that, aside from things like Meta Knight planking in Brawl and things like VIllager shenanigans in Smash 4, being off the stage is inherently worse a position than being on the stage.

However, the very fact that there is an "on-stage" and "off-stage" is part of what makes Smash Bros. function, and I don't mean that in a "this game is beautiful!" sense. Why are characters allowed to recover in the first place? Why do characters take damage and get sent flying further away instead of losing all of their health and automatically getting KO'd? Why do Sakurai angles exist? It's all to give a chance for the player who is getting hit or in a disadvantageous position a chance to come back. These aren't "comeback" mechanics in the sense that Rage is usually criticized for, but rather the game giving opportunities to players to keep fighting. They're an inherent part of Smash Bros. and I think that evaluating ledge play requires that we remember this.

At the same time, all of those elements that make it possible to survive beyond what is "expected" can also be the ingredients that result in early kills. Being off-stage means being susceptible to edge guarding of all sorts, and it's possible to edge guard in all Smash games. In some games it's more pronounced than others: case in point, Fox shine spiking. The very fact that Fox can do that is I think a defining feature of Melee, and the appeal of being able to take stock after stock within almost the blink of an eye is one of its stand-out features. And yet there's nothing to say that this is the "right" or "only" balance to how being off-stage should work, that recovery should be a difficult task, because being off-stage just gives you less options compared to your opponent in any game, bar specific exceptions.

Basically, recovering from off-stage is integral to Smash Bros. in a lot of ways, and I think it's not surprising that the games have tended towards making getting back comfortable. Whether that makes a game more or less competitive, though, is very much an eye of the beholder thing, because it gets to the core of how we individually define "competition."

 

[Pwii]

There were some points brought up about edge guarding that I think are interesting to think about, not so much to make it a Melee vs Smash 4 thing, but that I think it requires reflecting on some of the core components of Smash Bros as both a casual and competitive game.

The arguments have been over whether ledge mechanics of game X or game Y are better or worse for competitive play based on the degree to which being knocked off stage is a disadvantage. I think everyone can agree that, aside from things like Meta Knight planking in Brawl and things like VIllager shenanigans in Smash 4, being off the stage is inherently worse a position than being on the stage.

However, the very fact that there is an "on-stage" and "off-stage" is part of what makes Smash Bros. function, and I don't mean that in a "this game is beautiful!" sense. Why are characters allowed to recover in the first place? Why do characters take damage and get sent flying further away instead of losing all of their health and automatically getting KO'd? Why do Sakurai angles exist? It's all to give a chance for the player who is getting hit or in a disadvantageous position a chance to come back. These aren't "comeback" mechanics in the sense that Rage is usually criticized for, but rather the game giving opportunities to players to keep fighting. They're an inherent part of Smash Bros. and I think that evaluating ledge play requires that we remember this.

At the same time, all of those elements that make it possible to survive beyond what is "expected" can also be the ingredients that result in early kills. Being off-stage means being susceptible to edge guarding of all sorts, and it's possible to edge guard in all Smash games. In some games it's more pronounced than others: case in point, Fox shine spiking. The very fact that Fox can do that is I think a defining feature of Melee, and the appeal of being able to take stock after stock within almost the blink of an eye is one of its stand-out features. And yet there's nothing to say that this is the "right" or "only" balance to how being off-stage should work, that recovery should be a difficult task, because being off-stage just gives you less options compared to your opponent in any game, bar specific exceptions.

Basically, recovering from off-stage is integral to Smash Bros. in a lot of ways, and I think it's not surprising that the games have tended towards making getting back comfortable. Whether that makes a game more or less competitive, though, is very much an eye of the beholder thing, because it gets to the core of how we individually define "competition."

It's not necessarily about how good recoveries are, it's about how complex the interactions are. Sm4sh has less depth than Melee, and no one who disagrees can say anything other than "It's just how I feel." or "4 out of those 9 areas you listed where Melee is more deep are somewhat debatable."

 

[thehard]

Keep digging. You are extremely close to the truth.

Here is a hint: Try searching Mew2King's post circa 2010.

You will see alot of. "I choose not to play that way because it's lame."

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.

Adding on to this, Mang0 no longer plays Jigglypuff because he thinks the way she's played isn't entertaining + got criticism for her being too gimmicky/easy to win with. He prefers playing spacies for "style".

 

[PCHU]

Well, I don't think the skill gap is too small, but I will say this:

An acquaintance of mine has been wanting to beat me at Smash for years.
He couldn't do it in Melee, couldn't do it in Brawl, and then, one night, he tried it on Smash 4, and actually won twice, but still lost the majority.
He's not that great of a person, but I'm still willing to help out anyone who wants to learn, so I talked with him about it after the fact, mentioning that I didn't like the game but I was willing to keep playing it.
He responded "I don't like the game because it feels too easy to get to your level."
I honestly thought he'd enjoy it more because it did place the odds more in his favor, and this is a person who has historically been willing to change entire match conditions in order to give himself more of a chance.

While a noob won't necessarily beat someone with experience, the gap is much closer than it has been before, for better and for worse.
Still, unless you're honestly considering switching games, I don't think it's that big of a deal, you just really have to familiarize yourself deeply with character strengths/weaknesses along with general option select.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

More options =/= a better game.

New options can ruin a game or make other ones not viable.

People are over simplifying options anyways on both sides.

 

[Evil Donkey Kong]

It's not necessarily about how good recoveries are, it's about how complex the interactions are. Sm4sh has less depth than Melee, and no one who disagrees can say anything other than "It's just how I feel." or "4 out of those 9 areas you listed where Melee is more deep are somewhat debatable."

So what if smash 4 has less depth than melee? Does that mean that it is a bad game?

 

[Foster J.]

I think in general Sm4sh is more a game of options, when compared to Melee which is a game of combos.
Granted, some characters get more out of their options than others, like say Diddy's early percentage juggles, or waiting for the air dodge and then punishing him.
Because it's a game of options, more so than Brawl was (RIP ledgehog.... I miss you) we got the option of ledge trumping, but in general even with it's faster paced engine, it's extremely easy to recover in this game, and punishing people offstage is hard / risky too.

The skill gap, imo resolves around the idea of reading the opponent the better, condition him to shielding while playing a character with a killing throw? That's a thing sadly.

And one of the most prominent "skill gaps" we see is the shield grab meta, where people are going to camp with shields until an opportunity rises, and that is exactly where smarter more aggressive players win.

 

[Muro]

So what if smash 4 has less depth than melee? Does that mean that it is a bad game?

There are many factors that go into your enjoyment of a game, competitive depth is just one of them. It's perfectly fine to admit sm4sh is not as deep as melee and still enjoy playing it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

There are many factors that go into your enjoyment of a game, competitive depth is just one of them. It's perfectly fine to admit sm4sh is not as deep as melee and still enjoy playing it.

On another side it's also ok to not like something if it turns you off about that game.

 

[DunnoBro]

I wish people had less invincibility when they barely grab the magno-ledge in sm4sh, and worse recoveries overall to make gimping easier... Or just was overall easier to ledge trump people, or punish their ledge get up options. But the ledge trumping and lack of invincibility on regrab is definitely a far superior design choice than how it worked in any game past.

Also the fact pwii listed combos as something to learn in melee but not sm4sh should make it obvious he isn't worth replying to.

 

[SmashGamer112]

A format of 2 stocks and rage definitely makes upsets much easier to happen. That I agree with. I think when someone wins a close game, it wasn't much of an outplay. But when someone solidly wins a game, then it means much more than it usually does.

3 stocks always worked better imo, if by accident you did something it shouldn't cost you the game if you were the better player but with 2 stocks comebacks and upsets can happen more often not giving the win to the better player.

 

[Pwii]

Also the fact pwii listed combos as something to learn in melee but not sm4sh should make it obvious he isn't worth replying to.

All it does is take out half the pools of depth from Melee and reduces the depth of another few.

Sm4sh combos are not as deep or complex as in Melee. Let's take Falcon's throw game.

Sm4sh: D-throw. If they're close enough, nair. If they're too far out, try for a falling uair, then cover the airdodge landing with a gentleman. If they're too high percent, stay under them and try and take stage position while watching for a punishable airdodge.

*Melee:
low percent-----
Floaties: D-throw. Regrab on bad DI. Nair on good DI.
Fastfallers: U-throw until like 30 when they start hitting the platforms. Techchase (see Gravy's thread.)

mid percent-----
Floaties: U-throw starts comboing into uair. Depending on DI/stage position, sometimes this can lead to a knee.
Fastfallers: D-throw into techchase. Again, if you don't think this is complex, read Gravy's guide. OR If there isn't a platform, you can try U-throw into a combo starter like D-tilt, nair, turnaround bair, or stomp if you think they'll miss the tech.

high percent----
Floaties: D-throw can combo to knee. If it doesn't, it usually combos into u-air into knee.
Fastfallers: U-throw combos into knee. If I remember correctly, DI behind will make you respond either with a bair, or reverse uair/knee.

*Keep in mind that I'm still learning CF, so don't quote me on this.

Note that I didn't include middleweights, because I haven't learned enough about comboing them. Point is, it's a lot more complex than Sm4sh. Not that combos don't exist, but they're almost braindead in Sm4sh. Everything's either as guaranteed as Kirby's dair-> u-tilt or it's taking stage position while you try and throw your opponent off with a 50/50 for the airdodge/attack. There's no room for creativity or style.

 

[DunnoBro]

Sm4sh combos are not as deep or complex as in Melee.

Didn't say they were or weren't, but you still need to learn your combos and follow-ups (especially for air dodge baits)
To try to justify the exclusion of combos as an integral part of sm4sh knowledge like you're doing is honestly laughable.

(Also the fact you failed to mention falcon gets a guaranteed dair spike offstage, or dair > knee chance onstage if they try to air dodge after downthrow shows your overall lack of sm4sh combo knowledge and should tell you that you probably shouldn't be trying to speak about sm4sh's combo game as a whole while being so ignorant to it)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It's not necessarily about how good recoveries are, it's about how complex the interactions are. Sm4sh has less depth than Melee, and no one who disagrees can say anything other than "It's just how I feel." or "4 out of those 9 areas you listed where Melee is more deep are somewhat debatable."

Ok now I am going to challenge you on this.

Is it real depth or is it the fact that edgeguarding can be more rewards because Melee ledges are terrible.

Some characters cannot grab the ledge as someone throws a move out, nothing will help them.

As Peach I can just Bair over and over and pretty much cover most of the options alone on just doing that.

Edge hogging shuts off options, not really respecting the options the opponent has unless it's Peach or someone with an actual good recovery.

Smash 4 makes recovering easier but there seems to be more confrontations off stage to get the kill and end a stock.

How is that inheritly objectively worse depth?

This reads to me of, it's different therefore worse rather than actually looking at it.

Sm4sh combos are not as deep or complex as in Melee. Let's take Falcon's throw game.

Sm4sh: D-throw. If they're close enough, nair. If they're too far out, try for a falling uair, then cover the airdodge landing with a gentleman. If they're too high percent, stay under them and try and take stage position while watching for a punishable airdodge.

*Melee:
low percent-----
Floaties: D-throw. Regrab on bad DI. Nair on good DI.
Fastfallers: U-throw until like 30 when they start hitting the platforms. Techchase (see Gravy's thread.)

mid percent-----
Floaties: U-throw starts comboing into uair. Depending on DI/stage position, sometimes this can lead to a knee.
Fastfallers: D-throw into techchase. Again, if you don't think this is complex, read Gravy's guide. OR If there isn't a platform, you can try U-throw into a combo starter like D-tilt, nair, turnaround bair, or stomp if you think they'll miss the tech.

high percent----
Floaties: D-throw can combo to knee. If it doesn't, it usually combos into u-air into knee.
Fastfallers: U-throw combos into knee. If I remember correctly, DI behind will make you respond either with a bair, or reverse uair/knee.

*Keep in mind that I'm still learning CF, so don't quote me on this.

Note that I didn't include middleweights, because I haven't learned enough about comboing them. Point is, it's a lot more complex than Sm4sh. Not that combos don't exist, but they're almost braindead in Sm4sh. Everything's either as guaranteed as Kirby's dair-> u-tilt or it's taking stage position while you try and throw your opponent off with a 50/50 for the airdodge/attack. There's no room for creativity or style.

A lot of this applies to Smash 4 in terms of weight and percentage.

The combo games of both are still very much, 2-3 hits then interaction to see of more can be followed up of people go deep.

There isn't an arbitrary useless tech barrier like L-Cancelling to keep people from being able to do it but oh well, it's an objectively bad mechanic anyways.

Yes Melee overall has a stronger combo game, that doesn't exist to some degree maybe in some cases show stronger for players who understand those options on Smash 4.

 

[Pwii]

Didn't say they were or weren't

That's literally all I said about combos until you responded to me. I said they were less complex than Melee combos. Don't make it out like I'm saying something I'm not.

Ok now I am going to challenge you on this.

Is it real depth or is it the fact that edgeguarding can be more rewards because Melee ledges are terrible.

Some characters cannot grab the ledge as someone throws a move out, nothing will help them.

As Peach I can just Bair over and over and pretty much cover most of the options alone on just doing that.

Edge hogging shuts off options, not really respecting the options the opponent has unless it's Peach or someone with an actual good recovery.

Smash 4 makes recovering easier but there seems to be more confrontations off stage to get the kill and end a stock.

How is that inheritly objectively worse depth?

This reads to me of, it's different therefore worse rather than actually looking at it.



A lot of this applies to Smash 4 in terms of weight and percentage.

The combo games of both are still very much, 2-3 hits then interaction to see of more can be followed up of people go deep.

There isn't an arbitrary useless tech barrier like L-Cancelling to keep people from being able to do it but oh well, it's an objectively bad mechanic anyways.

Yes Melee overall has a stronger combo game, that doesn't exist to some degree maybe in some cases show stronger for players who understand those options on Smash 4.

I'm saying edgeguarding is less complex in Sm4sh. It's not an issue of how easy it is, it's just flowchart. Now I am honestly not qualified to go super deep into edgeguarding in Melee because I still have a lot to learn in that area, but what about sweetspotting?

Here's how Melee sweetspotting works: If you don't sweetspot and they remain on the stage, you can usually be punished for it, depending on how prepared they are for the edgeguard. Sweetspotting is usually better if you can pull it off because you can invincible ledgedash/get back onto the stage from there instead of getting punished and maybe knocked off again from that punish. But then again, if your opponent can't combo you well in the matchup, or they've been taking ledge usually, the better option might be to go for the stage.

Not to mention the mixup. Will you go to ledge or won't you? You see this a lot from Captain Falcons, as they have very little options in general. Also spacies can shorten to make you think they're going onstage while really shortening to the egde. It adds a fakeout element to it.

Many characters can also stall. There's a small window to sweetspot, which makes it more complex and NOT because it's harder. It makes it more complex because the opponent can cover that window with a ledgegrab. You know as the edgeguarder that there is only one point where they can sweetspot. But they can also mix up the timing of when they get to that point via stalls, fastfalls, and double jumps to throw you off or fake you out.

How does sweetspotting work in Sm4sh? You always go for it. If you can't just jump back onstage with an attack that'll cover your ass (an option which also existed in Melee) then there is never any reason to do anything other than sweetspot. The distance you can be from the ledge and sweetspot it is large so even if you fear getting trumped you can mix up the timings fairly easily. There is no thought process. There is no weighing of options and risks.

Melee recovery: Do I want to go onstage or sweetspot? Which has my opponent been covering, and which do I think they will cover? Are they close enough to cover both options? Can I fake them out by acting like I'm going to go for one, but then go for the other?

Sm4sh recovery: Welp, time to sweetspot.

Now I left out the whole offstage edgeguarding game, because I honestly don't know enough about it to talk. But sweetspots are a part of recovery and edgeguarding, and they are reduced in complexity in Sm4sh.

As for Sm4sh combos, my point was not the number of hits but the complexity involved. Please show me an example from Sm4sh that's equivalent to my ****ty falcon flowchart. Or better yet, equivalent to someone who knows what he's talking about a whole lot more than I: https://youtu.be/2q47dhfuaCY?t=300

You can say your Hoos and your Haas are deep and thought provoking, but I don't see it, so please show me.

 

[Pyr]

If you always go for a ledge sweetspot in Smash4, and your opponent doesn't trump you for it or intercept you before you reach the stage (fall-off aerial), then you're playing a bad opponent. Always sweetspotting is dangerous and risky due to telegraphing yourself. If they trump you and you go for the ledge again, you're going to get KO'd.

For combos, watch Smash 4 high level matches that aren't just Diddy combos. Diddy is extremely linear in his gameplay. Watch some Boss Luigi and Mario. Watch some Seagull Joe Sonic. Watch some Sheik. Hell, watch any character that has a basic combo that allows for a mixup afterwards. Diddy's Hoo Hah isn't that.

I can't see the video you linked, but I can give a direct example: Luigi. He can sour-spot Nair into grab, jab, utilt, dtilt, etc most of the cast at low damage. If you attack, his fast jab and tilts will either draw or beat out what you can do because he has more advantage in this state. If you shield, he can grab. If he shields and you attack, it's a free grab.

From grab, he gets 2 aerials for free. They are true most of the time at lower percents. They lead to a re-grab, a ground attack, a fireball lock if you don't tech, running into PP Fsmash if you do, or another grab. Depending on how you DI, he can dair-spike you into regrab, sour nair into more aerial pain from it, ff and shield and have you do something. If it's not a grab, jab, or tilt, you get up-B'd because it comes out in 8 frames and he can react to anything else slower then those 8 with a spot-dodge or roll. Fun times, right?

Oh, and it's all DI dependent. He has to read your DI and react accordingly to all of this to minimize the pain you receive.

Higher damage means he can start getting less from sour nair and d-throw, but that's been part of Smash for forever: your combos start to not work at higher percents. But, sour Nair and D-throw can lead to kills via Down-B.

Speaking of Down-B, it can gimp basically everyone not named Villager if they try to sweetspot and only sweetspot. That said, intentionally letting them fall out of it leads to a techchase situation. If they don't tech, you still get a chase situation, leading to more. Since a lot of Melee's combos can lead to a lot of tech chases to continue putting on damage, I included this example as well.

And this is just Luigi's basic stuff. Fireball traps, jab resets off of fair, all the fun stuff platforms can do for the green man, all the things you can do when catching them with an uair. Once you get hit by Luigi, you start playing a very deep game of Yomi to get out of the combos (or strings, or whatever), and Luigi plays a deep game of Yomi to keep you in them.

And Luigi isn't even S tier. There are so many fun things that can be done with other characters in the forms of combos, chases, setups, and everything else, which is a basis of a lot of Melee's combo game. Which is deeper depends on viewpoint: You're more likely to get 0-death'd in Melee, but you'll get more interaction then DI'ing and teching until you die in Smash 4.

It is unfair to attribute the entire combo game to Diddy's combos from a down-throw. You're just making blanket statements without research and without any real time put into the game. Your opinion isn't valuable not because it's wrong or right, but because it's uninformed and based on bias.

 

[Pwii]

If you always go for a ledge sweetspot in Smash4, and your opponent doesn't trump you for it or intercept you before you reach the stage (fall-off aerial), then you're playing a bad opponent. Always sweetspotting is dangerous and risky due to telegraphing yourself. If they trump you and you go for the ledge again, you're going to get KO'd.

For combos, watch Smash 4 high level matches that aren't just Diddy combos. Diddy is extremely linear in his gameplay. Watch some Boss Luigi and Mario. Watch some Seagull Joe Sonic. Watch some Sheik. Hell, watch any character that has a basic combo that allows for a mixup afterwards. Diddy's Hoo Hah isn't that.

I can't see the video you linked, but I can give a direct example: Luigi. He can sour-spot Nair into grab, jab, utilt, dtilt, etc most of the cast at low damage. If you attack, his fast jab and tilts will either draw or beat out what you can do because he has more advantage in this state. If you shield, he can grab. If he shields and you attack, it's a free grab.

From grab, he gets 2 aerials for free. They are true most of the time at lower percents. They lead to a re-grab, a ground attack, a fireball lock if you don't tech, running into PP Fsmash if you do, or another grab. Depending on how you DI, he can dair-spike you into regrab, sour nair into more aerial pain from it, ff and shield and have you do something. If it's not a grab, jab, or tilt, you get up-B'd because it comes out in 8 frames and he can react to anything else slower then those 8 with a spot-dodge or roll. Fun times, right?

Oh, and it's all DI dependent. He has to read your DI and react accordingly to all of this to minimize the pain you receive.

Higher damage means he can start getting less from sour nair and d-throw, but that's been part of Smash for forever: your combos start to not work at higher percents. But, sour Nair and D-throw can lead to kills via Down-B.

Speaking of Down-B, it can gimp basically everyone not named Villager if they try to sweetspot and only sweetspot. That said, intentionally letting them fall out of it leads to a techchase situation. If they don't tech, you still get a chase situation, leading to more. Since a lot of Melee's combos can lead to a lot of tech chases to continue putting on damage, I included this example as well.

And this is just Luigi's basic stuff. Fireball traps, jab resets off of fair, all the fun stuff platforms can do for the green man, all the things you can do when catching them with an uair. Once you get hit by Luigi, you start playing a very deep game of Yomi to get out of the combos (or strings, or whatever), and Luigi plays a deep game of Yomi to keep you in them.

And Luigi isn't even S tier. There are so many fun things that can be done with other characters in the forms of combos, chases, setups, and everything else, which is a basis of a lot of Melee's combo game. Which is deeper depends on viewpoint: You're more likely to get 0-death'd in Melee, but you'll get more interaction then DI'ing and teching until you die in Smash 4.

It is unfair to attribute the entire combo game to Diddy's combos from a down-throw. You're just making blanket statements without research and without any real time put into the game. Your opinion isn't valuable not because it's wrong or right, but because it's uninformed and based on bias.

Well I just got blown the **** out. :/

I'll give you combos, but you're using off-stage ledge games to try and argue that Sm4sh is as complex as Melee. Melee has that same area of interaction of off-stage edge game, I was talking about sweetspotting vs not sweetspotting when your opponent is onstage.

 

[Pyr]

Well I just got blown the **** out. :/

I'll give you combos, but you're using off-stage ledge games to try and argue that Sm4sh is as complex as Melee. Melee has that same area of interaction of off-stage edge game, I was talking about sweetspotting vs not sweetspotting when your opponent is onstage.

Well, different mechanics result in different ledge games played. I wasn't saying one is deeper then the other. I was saying that they both function differently and have to be handled differently. I'm of the opinion that I'd rather have Melee ledge mechanics to make going off stage have a higher risk and a higher reward. I can see the appeal for both forms, but I agree with you that Melee's ledge game just feels better.

 

[DunnoBro]

That's literally all I said about combos until you responded to me. I said they were less complex than Melee combos. Don't make it out like I'm saying something I'm not.

I never responded to you about that, i pointed out your list of areas of skill that need to be developed on between the two games is faulty.


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

I don't care which has the deeper, more complex or subjectively flashy combos to you, all I pointed out was that if you think you don't need to develop your combo/string game in sm4sh, you're simply not someone worth acknowledging in a serious debate about the game.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

That's literally all I said about combos until you responded to me. I said they were less complex than Melee combos. Don't make it out like I'm saying something I'm not.


I'm saying edgeguarding is less complex in Sm4sh. It's not an issue of how easy it is, it's just flowchart. Now I am honestly not qualified to go super deep into edgeguarding in Melee because I still have a lot to learn in that area, but what about sweetspotting?

Here's how Melee sweetspotting works: If you don't sweetspot and they remain on the stage, you can usually be punished for it, depending on how prepared they are for the edgeguard. Sweetspotting is usually better if you can pull it off because you can invincible ledgedash/get back onto the stage from there instead of getting punished and maybe knocked off again from that punish. But then again, if your opponent can't combo you well in the matchup, or they've been taking ledge usually, the better option might be to go for the stage.

Not to mention the mixup. Will you go to ledge or won't you? You see this a lot from Captain Falcons, as they have very little options in general. Also spacies can shorten to make you think they're going onstage while really shortening to the egde. It adds a fakeout element to it.

Many characters can also stall. There's a small window to sweetspot, which makes it more complex and NOT because it's harder. It makes it more complex because the opponent can cover that window with a ledgegrab. You know as the edgeguarder that there is only one point where they can sweetspot. But they can also mix up the timing of when they get to that point via stalls, fastfalls, and double jumps to throw you off or fake you out.

How does sweetspotting work in Sm4sh? You always go for it. If you can't just jump back onstage with an attack that'll cover your *** (an option which also existed in Melee) then there is never any reason to do anything other than sweetspot. The distance you can be from the ledge and sweetspot it is large so even if you fear getting trumped you can mix up the timings fairly easily. There is no thought process. There is no weighing of options and risks.

Melee recovery: Do I want to go onstage or sweetspot? Which has my opponent been covering, and which do I think they will cover? Are they close enough to cover both options? Can I fake them out by acting like I'm going to go for one, but then go for the other?

Sm4sh recovery: Welp, time to sweetspot.

Now I left out the whole offstage edgeguarding game, because I honestly don't know enough about it to talk. But sweetspots are a part of recovery and edgeguarding, and they are reduced in complexity in Sm4sh.

As for Sm4sh combos, my point was not the number of hits but the complexity involved. Please show me an example from Sm4sh that's equivalent to my ****ty falcon flowchart. Or better yet, equivalent to someone who knows what he's talking about a whole lot more than I: https://youtu.be/2q47dhfuaCY?t=300

You can say your Hoos and your Haas are deep and thought provoking, but I don't see it, so please show me.

You keep overly ignoring main points I bring up.

Melee is also a flowchart if you know what they are going to do or some characters have virtually no real options and just have to try and DI up to get back while a character like Peach is just going to Bair Falcon until she gets him to a percent where a turnip or nair will end him from being able to recover. It literally is that simple.

It takes techskill and speed sometimes to pull off edge-guarding but outside of the tech skill and knowledge needed sometimes on a mental level it's incredibly simple.

For some characters yes it is a choice of ledge or stage, that doesn't change for either game. If Sheik wants to UpB back on stage, you grab the ledge because she is going to suffer huge lag after landing on stage.

Falcon you can cover of what he can try to comeback with they using aerials to gimp his use of UpB, til he has to go higher and higher until you nail him with a stronger aerial for a kill. Survivability of being heavy works for him, not for getting back on because his recovery isn't that good.

You weight risks and options in both games, you need to stop pretending this doesn't exist in smash 4. If I know they will aim for the ledge I can aim to trump them or use an aerial to cover it. You have to consider that in Smash 4 what their options are far more than in Melee since guessing right once isn't going to end a stock like it can in Melee. And with the better recoveries there is a lot more to consider when you play against them in terms of options.

Like Pyr said, your opinions screams to me you either don't know much about how some of this plays out in Smash 4 or just don't care to rethink yourself on this issue.

I have for Melee and PM over the years, you should do the same for game you don't seem to be that well versed in and seem to be making far more assumptions than legitimate research and learning.

 

[HeavyLobster]

If there's any aspect of Smash 4 where depth is limited compared to Melee, it's its gimped dashdancing system rather than its ledge mechanics. There are still interesting things you can do with Smash 4 dashes, but with Melee it feels like you can do anything if your fingers are fast enough. Other than that and wavedashing it feels like a lot of tradeoffs as far as differences between the two go.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Why not just name the thread Melee vs Smash 4. The title would be more accurate to the actual discussions taking place.

You would think this would be on the merits of the game itself what volume of space is between the skill floor and ceiling but instead its simply "How does this stack against melee".
Good grief, you people are nothing if not stubborn.

 

[PCHU]

Why not just name the thread Melee vs Smash 4. The title would be more accurate to the actual discussions taking place.

You would think this would be on the merits of the game itself what volume of space is between the skill floor and ceiling but instead its simply "How does this stack against melee".
Good grief, you people are nothing if not stubborn.

The skill gap is small, but I don't think it's too small.
It's more uncomfortable (to me) than anything; too small would be more along the lines of a dice roll, like Mario Kart 8.
Regardless of how big the skill gap is, it shouldn't affect how much you enjoy the game, and that goes for everyone.
If you already like it, nobody's trying to get you to not like it.

 

[ぱみゅ]

What everyone seems to miss is that SSB4 is a new game. It's still being figured out, and the fact recoveries have been buffed also means people could choose to go for offstage attacks more often, but people are still too uncomfortable with the game to do so.

Sure, there aren't too many things to learn about this game (some ATs are even being removed after each patch), but that doesn't mean the game can't be complex in its own sense, leaving aside any other Smash game.

 

[LightLV]

Ok now I am going to challenge you on this.

Edge hogging shuts off options, not really respecting the options the opponent has unless it's Peach or someone with an actual good recovery.

Smash 4 makes recovering easier but there seems to be more confrontations off stage to get the kill and end a stock.

How is that inheritly objectively worse depth?

Melee rewarded the player who knocked the other one off the stage, while Smash 4 puts most of its mechanics into not penalizing the player who gets knocked off. It's not a matter of worse vs better, it's a matter of preference. A game where skillful play is heavily rewarded, or where mistakes are heavily forgiven. One isn't particularly better than the other, but for competitive play, people tend to lean towards the later.

Melee is also a flowchart if you know what they are going to do or some characters have virtually no real options and just have to try and DI up to get back while a character like Peach is just going to Bair Falcon until she gets him to a percent where a turnip or nair will end him from being able to recover. It literally is that simple.

It really isn't that simple...not in Melee or any SSB game. The recovering person in melee certainly had less options for recovery, but that isn't saying much since their options on the map were vastly higher than any other game.

And Luigi isn't even S tier.

PPFFFFFF. Luigi is just as stupid as Diddy was. The only reason people havent been complaining about Luigi is because they were too busy crying about Diddy. Now that Diddy got nerfed, i fully expect people to start abusing him. He's a decent character off frames alone, and thats without Dthrow > Down-B (or Dthrow > literally anything) being a guaranteed killmove.

He may not be as mechanically dumb as Rosalina or Sonic, but he's nowhere close to a bottom barrel pick. That's like saying "Melee has more characters than Fox!" and then using Jigglypuff as an example.

 

[Nobie]

I'm not the original poster or anything, but there's something that I've been thinking about in regards to the idea of a "skill gap." Namely, what does it even mean when people say "skill gap?"

It sounds kind of ridiculous to ask this, because the phrase should more or less explain itself. But look again at the OP, and you'll see them express concern that the skill gap is only visible at the top 1% of players. However, I've seen something of a different complaint as well. In a variety of games, one of the concerns on a competitive level is that the top 1% of players can't distinguish themselves from the top 10%. I've heard skill gap (or lack thereof) expressed as an issue when comparing low to medium players, medium to high, and high to advanced.

So is a game where everyone but the best of the best can trade games with each other an example of a problematic "skill gap," or is that in fact the sign of a very good skill gap, because there is that sharp incline at the very top? What if a game blurs low to mid-level skill, but makes mid to high, and high to advanced steeper slopes? What if getting to the very top means the skill gap starts to diminish, but that the jump from low to high is 100x more difficult than any game out there?

What does it really mean for something to be "easy to learn, hard to master?" What defines mastery? Are ZeRo and Mang0 the examples of masters, or is it more like "general top 8-16 tournament results?"

 

[LightLV]

What I think people really mean when they say skill gap is how much technical mastery is in the game. Smash 4 has alot of freedom but not very many ways to expand on it. You've got spacing and very simple combo paths, and thats about it. Everything else is reads and mindgames basically. There's footstooling, and some character-specific gimmicks like ledge-cancelling, and possibly some room for perfect pivot to evolve. But not much you can master that will apply to every character in the game.

Melee was full of techniques to master, before you even get to L-cancel or Wavedash. Shields had variable density you could control. Foxtrotting due to less restrictive movement. Powershield was a universal reflector. Crouch Cancelling. 8-directional air dodge could be used also for recovery and platforming. Shorthop increased aerial-to-ground game. L-Cancelling boosted your offensive capabilities with better combo AND approach options. Sidestep was also introduced. The better you got at any of these things, the better you were at using every single character in the game, and combining them together results in the ridiculous things you see on youtube.

And thats where people get off saying SSB4 has a low skill gap. There's plenty to learn about using individual characters, but the game itself doesn't offer much emergence when it comes to mechanics. Mastering any one skill in Melee was like mastering a character-specific AT in Brawl for the entire cast. There aren't many parallels to be had in smash 4, and they even removed most of the exploits people built their playstyles around from Brawl.

 

[Pyr]

PPFFFFFF. Luigi is just as stupid as Diddy was. The only reason people havent been complaining about Luigi is because they were too busy crying about Diddy. Now that Diddy got nerfed, i fully expect people to start abusing him. He's a decent character off frames alone, and thats without Dthrow > Down-B (or Dthrow > literally anything) being a guaranteed killmove.

He may not be as mechanically dumb as Rosalina or Sonic, but he's nowhere close to a bottom barrel pick. That's like saying "Melee has more characters than Fox!" and then using Jigglypuff as an example.

Ya... Not even close to the point of my post, or even that statement in and of itself.

And, to your above post, I can't think of any informed person that thinks tech skill equates to a deeper game with a higher skill gap between levels of play.

 

[Kurri ★]

Ya... Not even close to the point of my post, or even that statement in and of itself.

And, to your above post, I can't think of any informed person that thinks tech skill equates to a deeper game with a higher skill gap between levels of play.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't tech skill actually mean a larger skill gap? It may not lead to a "deeper" or better game, but it would mean more things to learn and master and after know when and how to use them. Sm4sh doesn't have things like DACUS, or L-Cancels, so that means there's less things for me to learn and do to reach a reasonable level of competitive play. Not saying that the skill gap in Sm4sh is minuscule or non-existent, but it's definitely more manageable than PM/Melee's and really there shouldn't be a problem with that. There's still so much you have to learn and work up on to even be considered good and to become a top player there's more after that.

Personally I think the skill gap is a-okay. I mean, if it was too small, why am I not getting that tournament money?