Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)

[Blue Yoshi]

A few things I thought I should make a point to.

I guess Peach does have those things but the difficulty in pulling her some of her techs makes them not worth doing. The major complaint from all Peach mains is the hard work, small reward playstyle of Peach and that she takes a lot of focus and endurance. Oh yeah, she can't kill either and everybody lives to 200% against Peach. Reads don't benefit Peach as much as the other characters.

Don't get me wrong though, I absolutely love Peach and her playstyle. She can normally play aggressive which is perfect for me.

I'm trying to say something, but... well, it's one of those things that's really hard to describe (at least for me. By the time I finally make a post, it will probably be over 9 times I've changed it...)

Ok, this is going nowhere. I'll just stick to a simple example. Everything is heavily overexagerated, but it makes the point (at least well enough).

Ganondorf. He can kill people in 6 hits. Meta Knight. He must use 30 hits to get a kill. Ganondorf lives until high percents. Meta Knight dies at low percents. What makes them different? Everything else.

Meta Knight can hit any of his attacks safely, and can even chain them all together. Ganondorf is a slow walking target, who has trouble landing anything. Sure it takes him only 6 hits to get a kill, but if he can't even land a hit, that's not even any help at all. Imagine if a character like Jigglypuff had nothing but rest, no other moves at all, but rest was a one hit kill at any percent from anywhere on the stage. She can kill anyone in one hit, but that still does not make her a good character, as she will never land rest on anyone.

I'm just going to spend hours on this if I go farther. There was a point I was trying to make, and I am unable to make it, but that example gives an idea. (I was about to make a huge League of Legends example, but scrapped that idea).



Anyways, the other post I wanted to respond to... hopefully I have better luck explaining myself lol.

Ice Climbers have such little risk but a grab is usually the end of your stock

Just realizing now that they were both made by Kev. Not picking on you or anything. Both are things that everyone say all the time. You just described them the best I guess lol.

Anyways, my thoughts on IC's.

Everyone sees the matchup as "I make a mistake, I get grabbed". Nobody notices the other half of the matchup where "IC's make a mistake, they get separated and punished HARD". They mess up their desync once, give a half a second of an open window, that's enough of a window to go in and punish."

What I am trying to get at:

IC's are not a low risk, high reward character. Sure it may not be high risk (lets just call it mid risk), but if they make a mistake, they're dead as well. Everyone plays either too aggressively, getting grabbed, or too defensively, getting poked. There is that special in-between that makes it so that IC's are in that "can't make a mistake" phase.

As an IC player myself, playing a serious match is VERY exhausting. Not only do you have to pay attention to what your opponent does, you have to control two separate characters at once perfectly. One mistake, and you should be punished hard. This is partially why I do not play IC's in tourney matches, because it takes way too much out of me.

Spoiler

[serious]My IC's are so good they make Dawson's IC's look like they're free. I'm being completely serious right now, yep, completely serious[/unserious... er... I mean... oops...]

But seriously, IC's are just as exhausting to play as they are to play against. They are not the easy character to use as everyone thinks they are. If you think that, it's exactly what an IC player wants you to think, and it makes winning already that much easier.

 

[Alacion]

Me mindlessly ranting about Brawl should be expected

Blah shield tilting. I do it so much unintentionally

One of the most fun things about Peach are her stitchfaces and bombs <3

This totally deserves the double post:

http://www.meetup.com/Vancouver-Gamers-Group/
http://www.vancouvergamingexpo.com/schedule.html

or we can start our own group.

Extra:

We're a likable group of people, no? Well how about this (though nothing has come up as of late):

http://www.meetup.com/Extremely-Shy-Looking-for-friends/events/80257062/

I'll work on this a bit more once I get home. Feeling terrible today and skipped two classes >_>

 

[T-block]

NOTHING DESERVES A DOUBLE POST

tetris at metrotown foodcourt =o

let's all quit smash and do that instead

 

[Arcansi]

I don't like tech skill.

Because in essence, a game where you don't need it is better. You shouldn't have to work to get your character to do what you want them to do, they should be able to do it easily, given you make the right decisions.

Tech skill being kept at a minimum optimizes the use of actual skill, e.g. decision making, which is pretty much what brawl is about.

Furthermore you should let your brain do the work in matches. Conscious deliberation of decisions in game leads to VERY inefficient decision making no matter how smart you are. Go with your gut feeling on the majority of punishes (or any other decisions you need to make) and you'll likely see improvement. Yes I am advocating a certain type of auto pilot.

This is THE EXACT REASON I'm bad. (following this, not a lack of)

Alphicans please.

 

[Arcansi]

:fluttershy:

 

[Alphicans]

You know that could just mean you're not capable of getting better.

 

[Kantrip]

Tech skill is important because it ensures depth in a game. If every game was very simple to operate and simply relied on your cognitive skills, it would have no competitive backing because any random, new player with good analytical skills could beat a more experienced player.

 

[T-block]

The example of chess completely destroys your entire post, Trev =P

The idea is that a game is, fundamentally, interaction between two players, and that in competitive games - fighting games in particular - "skill" is generally evaluated in one's ability to "outplay" another player. Technical skill, while it may be cool to watch or even fun to perform as a player, is ultimately a single-player aspect. On that fundamental level, we are more interested in seeing one mind against another, rather than seeing who practises more. It's just a more formal way of thinking of the word "game".

 

[Kantrip]

The thing with Chess for me is the thinking part holds so much depth on its own. I can't really think of how Brawl, or any other fighting game, can lend itself to being that complex. Strategy games are one thing, but when the blunt of "out-thinking" you can do is predicting whether your opponent will air-dodge/which way they will roll/what move they'll throw out, it just won't get to the same competitive level.

Basically, Brawl is too shallow of a thinking game to stand competitively without tech-skill.

Thinking about it, what I'm saying isn't really true. At the same time, I think I'm still going for something. Maybe it's just that I find the game more fun with you actually having to input something and having it be real-time. Otherwise, why not just make Brawl turn-based and make moves calculated decisions?

 

[T-block]

Evaluating on the basis of tech skill is much less interesting though.

If you're saying that Brawl needs tech skill to have any depth (which I don't necessarily agree with... is the game better because SNL exists? and when someone lands it, are we impressed that the player can perform it, or are we impressed that the player got the setup on his opponent?), then following this line of thought, you're saying Brawl is simply not a good competitive game.

 

[Kantrip]

I agree that evaluating on the basis of tech skill is not interesting.

I don't think Brawl needs tech skill to have depth, I don't really know what I'm getting at but I do know that I disagree with the premise of tech skill requirements detracting from a game. Using Melee as an example, with L-cancelling in particular. Does the inclusion of a way to reduce landing lag with the input of L-cancelling detract from the game due to being unnecessary techskill? Or does the game have less competitive depth because of the ability to wavedash? Wavedashing opens up so many more options for spacing and much more, so an argument can certainly be made that THAT particular tech adds more competitive depth. I feel like there are techs in Brawl that the same argument can be made for. A lot of tech skill revolving around items, for example. The option to glide toss out of shield or to glide toss for spacing or z-dropping to set traps and so much more just means more options to weigh, which means more thinking. This is good, right? There are a lot of techs that open up more options. More viable options = more depth.

Or is the original argument that more options are good, but they should be very basic to execute?

 

[Asa]

o hai arcansi

 

[T-block]

Well... yeah, I think L-cancelling is really stupid. There's literally no reason to not L-cancel... there's no tradeoff to be considered; you never see "wow that was a brilliant lack of l-cancel that allowed him to do _____", etc. It's just an extra input that is always advantageous to perform, so from that game theory-esque mindset of only being interested in the players interacting with each other, it's just something that interferes with our evaluation.

But not everyone thinks of games in that way ^^;

 

[Captain L]

in smash 64 I think you get a landing hitbox on some moves if you don't Z cancel them, but the landing hitbox is cancelled if you do.

 

[Kantrip]

That's a good point. I actually agree. When it's unnecessary like that it really is just silly.

 

[Captain L]

theoretically, games that have a lower techskill requirement will be deeper in the long run because more people can play them at a competitive level, and more competition makes everyone better.

But at the same time melee is way more exciting for spectators and would draw a larger playerbase by being flashy

 

[| Big D |]

Hence why checkers has a deeper meta game than chess.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

I did not refresh (thought I did), and did not see Landon's response to T-Block, which is exactly what my post is, but I'll post this anyways, because I already made it, so might as well.



I actually disagree with you there T-Block.

In smash 64, some aerials have an extra hitbox that comes out when you land during that aerial. They can do various things, like pop them up, or knock them away, etc. If you L-Cancel, you do not get these extra hitboxes, and can miss out on their advantages. One very heavily debated one is Jigglypuff's Dair. Each hit is 3%, and the landing hit is also 3%. L-cancelling it gives you your opponent on the ground, while not L-cancelling it pops your opponent up in the air. Although you have more landing lag after not L-cancelling Dair, your opponent is in more hitstun from the pop-up it makes. At high percents, if you do not L-Cancel it, you can literally (depending on your opponent) take your opponent from 150% to over 400% from only non-L-Cancelled Dairs. Whenever I play Jigglypuff, most of the time, I do not L-Cancel the Dairs because I prefer the pop-up trajectory it provides. It gives me more options than one where I can usually only follow it up with something like a grab or up-tilt (both amazing options still).

Another example of this is Pikachu's Fair. This is something I think a ton of people are not aware of at all. When you use Pikachu's Fair, and land with it, you can almost literally use any move out of it, including grab-backthrow, up-smash, up-tilt, etc. However, if you land without L-Cancelling, it knocks them away, and depending on their percentage, possibly for a kill. This is not reliable to use, and should only be used in trolling or fooling around games and stuff, but still, the possibility of Fair killing when you don't L-Cancel it...

Another thing that kinda frustrates some people is Kirby's Dair. If he does not L-Cancel it, he first crouches, making it so that you can't grab him, and he is short enough to avoid several moves and aerials. People realize afterwards that they missed, and if they go for it again, they sometimes get up-tilted. This is not reliable at all, and should never be done, but it's funny when missing a L-Cancel can get you into an up-tilt combo.



Anyways, just thought I'd add that in.

 

[T-block]

GOOD THING I SAID L-CANCEL AND NOT Z-CANCEL

But honestly, I was talking only about Melee... I regrettably do not know nearly enough about Smash 64 to be talking about that game. Obviously if there are situations where failing to L-cancel is advantageous, none of what I was talking about applies, but I don't think there are any in Melee.

I should clarify too that I'm not in any way saying that Melee would be a worse game than Brawl because it requires tech skill.

 

[Alacion]

Boo my post, which is way more important than tech skill, got ignored

I am not a chess player... I only know the very basics (ie. how the pieces move). Good thing I play Peach who just needs to dair and fair. <3

Oh yes. Praise be to the Middle Eastern aisle at Superstore for having their spices at over half the price of the spices in the spice aisle! <3<3<3

 

[_GrapE_]

Chess doesn't go as deep as you guys might think it does...

 

[Blue Yoshi]

In the smash 64 community, it is still called L Cancelling, for "Lag" cancelling.

 

[T-block]

sounds like the smash 64 community is a bunch of POSERS

 

[Blue Yoshi]

I left the 64 boards a LOOOOOONG time ago. So whatever you say about the community doesn't affect me lol

 

[Captain L]

I prefer R cancelling

 

[Blue Yoshi]

What about R aerialing?

 

[Captain L]

never been a fan.


But seriously back in like 2010 when I broke my left wrist I couldn't hit the z button on the 64 controller so I tried to play using R to cancel my landing lag. I recall it not working if the aerial was started too close to the ground

 

[~Firefly~]

Hence why checkers has a deeper meta game than chess.

Chess doesn't go as deep as you guys might think it does...

I'm taking an Intro to AI course, and we spent a couple of lectures discussing complexity of games. I found both of these posts hilarious as a result.

Fun facts about chess: at the start, the first player has 20 possible choices for opening moves; they can move one of 8 pawns either 1 or 2 squares forward, or they can move one of 2 knights in 2 different ways. The second player has 20 choices of moves in the same way. After these first 2 moves, there are 400 possible layouts the board can take, and the players haven't even really interacted yet. Of course, not all of these moves are good moves, and there are both intuitive and algorithmic ways to narrow down choices of moves, but the problem of trying to solve the game of chess becomes intractable (meaning even the fastest computers can't solve them in a reasonable amount of time) after only a handful of moves.

Supercomputers dedicated to playing chess have huge databases consisting of possible opening strategies, game-winning positions, and vast archives of grandmaster games that they use to make decisions, but even so, the number of mid-game possibilities is so absurdly large that no supercomputer can play perfectly. (checkers, on the other hand, has been solved years ago)

To be fair, a lot of the top-level play for Chess is centered around memorizing patterns for opening and finishing moves, which might very well hurt your definition of "depth". Simply having really good analytical skills won't be enough if you're playing an opponent who is more familiar with the set-ups and finishers than you are. But to say Chess doesn't have that much depth seems silly to me.

 

[| Big D |]

Not as much depth as brawl.

 

[Kantrip]

Let's see if AI can archive and analyze all the possible combinations and sequences of inputs that can occur during a 1v1, 8 minute match of brawl.

 

[Captain L]

chess is just people doing moves that look like they'll turn out good 10 moves in advance but really might suck 11 moves later

 

[Alacion]

I'd rather play Brawl because Peach is in it <3

 

[Kantrip]

Problem solved.

 

[Alacion]

Ew Peach is a bishop and Daisy is there.

I replaced Daisy with a texture in my Wii. My only texture hack.

 

[T-block]

multiple times i was so close to buying that chess set

 

[Kantrip]

Yeah it's actually a pretty cool se-

wait a sec

Alas, no Donkey Kong themed chess. Now THAT I would have to buy.

 

[Alacion]

Buy the Diddy Plushie at Metro!

 

[Kantrip]

Maybe if I ever actually went there

Plushies for the Animal Buddies would be way cooler anyways.

 

[Alacion]

Next tourney. Stop by Metro before heading to Stronghold!

I always liked the rhino.

There's an ugly Peach plushie for $27...

 

[Kantrip]

Hmm. Perhaps, it may prove to be a good luck charm/morale boost.

Yeah Rambi's amazing. I maintain that Cranky Kong as a Pokémon Trainer-esque character with command over a trio of Squawks/Squitter/Rambi would make for a fantastic SSB character.