I've been thinking about how shields could work better...

[Necro'lic]

This is super theorycrafting time since I already know Ultimate isn't like this, but with all the discussions I've been having about how shielding works in Ultimate with the higher endlag and perfect shield, I feel like there might be a better way to make shields work. Here are two ideas of mine:

Low shield endlag + Move specific shieldstun

I think the system we have in place now where most of the punishment of shielding comes from the endlag of it is a bit too simple an interaction if you can believe it. I think a better system would be to have a very low endlag on shield of maybe 5 frames or something ridiculous, but almost all attacks have a very high shieldstun factor.

With this system in place, most of the safety of the move on shield is based on the shieldstun of said move rather than the shield's mechanics itself. On top of this, if the generally slower moves end up being safe on shield while the quick moves, or at least some, end up being less safe, it could also potentially emphasize more whiff punishing play rather than simply staying in shield.

For example, Maybe you can have Ganondorf's FAir have high landing lag, but very high shieldstun to the point where it is safe on shield. At that point, if you think he's going to FAir at you, you simply make him miss and punish instead of simply shielding, discouraging the spamming of shield for approaching. On the other hand, maybe Ganon's UAir or NAir could have very low landing lag, but absolutely no shieldstun, so if the landing lag is more than 5 frames (most likely), it can be approached and punished, stopping the spamming of simply fast options to stop approaches with shield. Basically, shield can both stop approaches as well as not be spammed to approach, depending on what your opponent is doing.

This is really me spitballing an idea I admittedly haven't thought completely through yet, but the general reasoning behind it is to go against the trend I see in pretty much every Smash game where the fastest attacks also mean the safest on block, giving way too much advantage to those with low frame pokes while hurting many characters who simply don't have a good safe on shield option. And I haven't even gotten to my other, admittedly less crazy idea.

Character specific shield health amounts + Move specific shield damage

Right now, all characters share the same amount of health on their shields. What if it wasn't like that? What if characters that are meant to have either less defense or more active defense, like Sheik and Villager respectively, had lower than average shield health to work with? Vice versa for more shield-reliant characters like pretty much all heavies, or maybe Jiggs too because of her special shield break? This then leads me to my next idea, move specific shield damage.

I already know some moves have shield damage already, like Bowser Bomb and Shield Breaker, but a lot of the shield damage comes from the move's damage. What if it was completely separate from the damage, so high damage moves like smash attacks can do almost nothing to shields? This could really help balance out faster characters' smash attacks by having them deal smash attack amounts of damage with little shield damage.

Again, these are all not really fleshed out, but just thoughts flying in my head. But the general idea besides buffing heavies and nerfing low frame data monsters is to just give more ways to work and balance moves for the characters overall. I know this isn't how Ultimate will be, but mark my words if I find a way to mod Ultimate years down the line, I will try this out. Just not sure how good it will be. :/

 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

These sorts of hands on approaches to shields would definitely have greater potential for balance. For instance, Smash 4 has a lot of great B-Airs that can have good landing lag, good damage, and as a result of good damage good killing power and good shielstun. But because you gave them good damage you made them arbitrarily safe on block because it pushes them too far and delivers enough shieldstun to cover the low landing lag. Increase the landing lag, and you'll make it less safe on whiff as well as on block, you can't choose one or the other. Reduce the damage and you reduce its killing power along with its shieldstun. Again, can't choose one or the other. By having block states pre-programmed into the move separate from their other statistics then you would have an easier time balancing them around the strengths and weaknesses you want that move to have. And diversified strengths and weaknesses on attacks would allow characters to seriously use more of their movesets depending on the scenario.

The issue, as ever, is development resources. The character roster isn't getting smaller, so you would only add to the work it would take in order to balance the game. Having formulas dictate everything like in previous games would be far faster and less resource intensive. Plus intelligent design for shield mechanics might result in unintended consequences the developers didn't count on. For instance if they gave Lucario's Aura charge enough shieldstun to blockstring into itself, then you just created a move that breaks shields and wasn't intended to do that. Now you're in the difficult position of deciding whether you should fix an obvious bug that players will interpret as an unwarranted nerf.

As for character specific shield health I don't have very strong opinions either way. It would be appreciated for characters with poor OoS options like Link and most heavyweights. Because they're more tactical about putting down their shield and if it didn't shrink in size so dramatically they could wait longer. Personally I would make it so that heavyweights are less effected by shield push. Since they should literally be harder to push around than the lightweights.

 

[Teeb147]

It does seem like it could be useful for moves likes Zapp's talking about, like bairs, etc. but otherwise I dont think it would change too much?
I do like theorycrafting and my points aren't to counter yours, but just to try to understand a bit better..

AFAIK, it's already kinda balanced in Ultimate. Zer0 made sure to mention this too, how the low landing lag and shield stun made it easy to be aggressive and shielding not as good as smash4. Bairs(etc) aren't quite as good as before since other moves are closer to the landing lag.
And since higher damage attacks do more shield stun, and usually they're the ones that have more landing lag, it does make it that weaker hits aren't going to be as safe. It didnt mean as much before because of enormous landing lag on heavy attacks, but that's changed now. So maybe you can explain a bit more if there's more something to be gained by what youre talking about.
Is there a reason to have low damage moves have higher shieldstun and high damage moves have lower shieldstun? Else I'm not sure there's too much of a point unless the devs are aware of really higher play to the point of knowing what moves would be good to not be based on the dmg (and shieldstun value they already add)

Besides that, I did think it could be interesting to have low shielding endlag too, it'd make it that you can shield a lot more and act out of it without jumping. but then again I dont know if I want people shielding all the time as they move around.. dunno, might rather have regular movement and then timing well when to shield.
So you're talking about adding shieldstun all around too? so what'd be the point of shielding at all if it could be followed up? Right now seems to be a decent balance, and changing it would make it too easy to follow up, or if low dmg moves are even more unsafe .. they're kind of useless to approach with... right? Is there a reason to have high dmg (usually heavy) moves be safe and turn them into low risk high reward?

Also, Is there a point to character-specific shield health? Do we really want some characters to have their shields bust sooner? I never really liked shields breaking, I just think of it as an incentive not to shield all the time, but I could be convinced otherwise.

There might already be answers to the stuff I'm asking, but I'm just not sure yet at this point.

 

[Necro'lic]

And since higher damage attacks do more shield stun, and usually they're the ones that have more landing lag, it does make it that weaker hits aren't going to be as safe. It didnt mean as much before because of enormous landing lag on heavy attacks, but that's changed now. So maybe you can explain a bit more if there's more something to be gained by what youre talking about.

One of them was the Bair problem Zapp mentioned and how they seem to be the go to for aerials for pretty much all the cast because they have low lag high damage, and thus they have high shield damage and shield stun along with spammability. Plus, I highly doubt even with the lower landing lag that heavy attacks will be safe on shield, but with the higher shieldlag, I know for a fact fast moves will be even safer for the same reasons. I guess it depends on the value of shieldstun per damage point, but it still limits design and balance freedom when it comes to something that you want to be weak on shield but pretty good in almost all other areas.

Is there a reason to have low damage moves have higher shieldstun and high damage moves have lower shieldstun?

Depends on the character and what they want. This is mostly thinking about a problem from a designer standpoint rather than a player standpoint, because a system with more freedom like this would allow for more variance in purpose of moves. For example, let's say you want Bowser to rely on grabs only for shield pressure, maybe because his grappling skill is really high. You can have his smash attacks deal respectable shield damage with minimal shieldstun. Or for the opposite, maybe you can have Kirby's usually lower damage moves deal lots of shield pressure both to work as a strength for him as well as make it so the enemy is aware he is strong against shield play and thus weaker against aggression or something.

Basically, it makes designing the characters to fit specific niches far easier.

Besides that, I did think it could be interesting to have low shielding endlag too, it'd make it that you can shield a lot more and act out of it without jumping. but then again I dont know if I want people shielding all the time as they move around.. dunno, might rather have regular movement and then timing well when to shield.

Hey, maybe 5 frames is too fast. Maybe we can go with Brawl/Smash 4's 7 frames baseline. I was just spitballing a low number.

So you're talking about adding shieldstun all around too? so what'd be the point of shielding at all if it could be followed up? Right now seems to be a decent balance, and changing it would make it too easy to follow up, or if low dmg moves are even more unsafe .. they're kind of useless to approach with... right? Is there a reason to have high dmg (usually heavy) moves be safe and turn them into low risk high reward?

Shieldstun across the board would be increased. Sure, some select moves or select characters might have little to none, but overall, shieldstun would be increased. And again, low reward moves would still not come with a lot of risk since they would be safe on whiff and can still be used in the advantage state for combos, reads, etc. High reward moves would only be low risk on shield IF you wanted that specific move to be, so you would then focus on punishing it via spacing and/or making them whiff with a spotdodge/roll or whatever. And even with all this, you can easily make a high reward move unsafe on whiff AND shield if you want, just like you could make a low reward move safe on shield AND whiff.

Also, Is there a point to character-specific shield health? Do we really want some characters to have their shields bust sooner? I never really liked shields breaking, I just think of it as an incentive not to shield all the time, but I could be convinced otherwise.

Honestly, I find shield breaks FAR too advantageous because they last far too long. If they lasted a third of the time, then it would feel much better. Basically only enough time to get a fully charged smash attack off. If you could add that, then I don't see why we couldn't add another variable to balance characters with if the end result of making shields weaker isn't so binary.

 

[Necro'lic]

These sorts of hands on approaches to shields would definitely have greater potential for balance. For instance, Smash 4 has a lot of great B-Airs that can have good landing lag, good damage, and as a result of good damage good killing power and good shielstun. But because you gave them good damage you made them arbitrarily safe on block because it pushes them too far and delivers enough shieldstun to cover the low landing lag. Increase the landing lag, and you'll make it less safe on whiff as well as on block, you can't choose one or the other. Reduce the damage and you reduce its killing power along with its shieldstun. Again, can't choose one or the other. By having block states pre-programmed into the move separate from their other statistics then you would have an easier time balancing them around the strengths and weaknesses you want that move to have. And diversified strengths and weaknesses on attacks would allow characters to seriously use more of their movesets depending on the scenario.

You got the basic gist of my idea down. Cool. :D

The issue, as ever, is development resources. The character roster isn't getting smaller, so you would only add to the work it would take in order to balance the game. Having formulas dictate everything like in previous games would be far faster and less resource intensive. Plus intelligent design for shield mechanics might result in unintended consequences the developers didn't count on. For instance if they gave Lucario's Aura charge enough shieldstun to blockstring into itself, then you just created a move that breaks shields and wasn't intended to do that. Now you're in the difficult position of deciding whether you should fix an obvious bug that players will interpret as an unwarranted nerf.

Honestly, I think your Lucario Aura example would not be a problem with this system simply because you can make Lucario's moves have a fixed shieldstun and shield damage amount no matter how much Aura he has at the time, since it would be separate from his move's damage variable instead of working off of it.

As for finding the right numbers for the equations, I don't think it will be easier than just having these independent variables to play with. After all, the more vairables you can change, the more ways you can balance the game. Development is definitely a problem, but this wouldn't really make it worse. I'd still say it'd make it technically better because of my last point.

As for character specific shield health I don't have very strong opinions either way. It would be appreciated for characters with poor OoS options like Link and most heavyweights. Because they're more tactical about putting down their shield and if it didn't shrink in size so dramatically they could wait longer. Personally I would make it so that heavyweights are less effected by shield push. Since they should literally be harder to push around than the lightweights.

Didn't think of shield push. Honestly, that feels more like a downside to have less shield push, since you are still within striking distance from the aggressor.

 

[Teeb147]

Thanks for responding, I'll look more at it tomorow. But I had a thought about the bair (and such) problem..
There's a seperate(bonus) shieldstun (by shield damage? or is that the point, that it's not factored in at all?) value added to different attacks, so, I think, all that's needed is to make an attack (like good bairs) have a negative value and you can reduce and even negate the shieldstun of those specific moves. (I think I saw some already have neg values)

So Bowser could have a high value to be safer if hitting, and then speedsters's high damage (safe) attacks on landing could be lower like you're looking for. They'd still be good, but not so safe on shield.

Anyway, it was a thought I had while walking. I'll check back tomorow.
Now that I think about it, it's possible that's the entire reason you're talking about it, because there's not at all a seperate number that 'could' change it for individual attacks. Which would make sense

---
Addition:

Another quick thought I had, in the shower, meeting you halfway with my earlier thought... Rather than reinventing a whole new shieldstun value of itself for each attack, why not use the existing formula as it is, and just add a bonus value for each attack (kinda like the added shield dmg value), so that each attack by default is added 0, and then you can put a number there for attacks that you want to tweek.

So you can add shieldstun to the attacks you feel deserve more, and subtract some to attacks (like bairs) that could use less.
Much easier to implement

 

[zabimaru1000]

I personally think the best additions to the shield mechanics are

- Have less shield regeneration per sec.
There's obviously no way of telling how much there is compared to the past games right now, but do know that Smash 4 had the most regeneration per sec. I'm assuming Ultimate's rate of regeneration is the same thing as Smash 4 for now. Having this will help discourage shielding a lot along with the presumably more shield stun and less landing lag that people have been saying. It also encourages more shield breaks if people are careless.

- Perfect shield can also reflect projectiles.
Melee had this with powershield, and it adds a dynamic to a game where quite a lot of characters have projectiles and will discourage camping and projectile spam. Reflecting attacks increases the damage and knockback, but perfect shield would decrease the reflected projectile's damage and knockback.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

Reviving this thread to bring up a new topic:

Get Rid of Shield Poking, AKA Shield Stabbing


Why:

-It's an antiquated counterbalance to older, simpler Smash designs that the series has addressed.

-Caused jank and inconsistencies such as poking at full or near full health shields depending on character hurtbox and shield sizes that vary.

-Goes against shielding's focus on managing your options out of shield, as poking can feel random and more based on luck than skill.

-Shield tilting isn't a good solution due to its static use against poking and when other OoS options are much more effective in most situations.

-It does not translate as a balanced alternative to a traditional fighter's High and Low block system; Smash is fine enough without it.

-It is unneeded as Smash already has shield breaking as a method to discourage over usage of shielding.

-Due to shrinking shields, it's unclear what moves can poke at what time on what characters, which makes the protection of low HP shields very inconsistent, and can even rob the aggressor from getting shield breaks.

-Grabs, spacing moves, and high damage/stunning attacks are enough to keep high HP shields fair.



Why not:

-Hitting opponents while shielding feels good.




The series has since evolved from archaic mechanics:

-Lag Canceling
-Meteor Canceling
-Tripping
-RCO lag
-Weight Depended Throws

As well as frustrating strategies:

-Chain Grabbing
-Edge Hogging
-Ledge Planking
-Spamable Rolls & Air Dodges
-Early Multi-Hit Rage KO's.

That the novelty of preserving Shield Poking is more trouble then it's worth...


I propose that it should be removed, as for every character's shield to have the same properties of Yoshi's, in-exchange for slow shield regeneration to prevent players from running away to restore their shield's HP.