"Masahiro Sakurai talks all about game balance in the new Smash Bros. games"

[SmashChu]

I never said every character should be the same.

You didn't; however, to have a perfectly balanced game you have to make everything the same. To get close, you still have to make the characters rather similar. Part of getting a game more balanced is making everyone similar. Look at WoW. Everyone can heal now. It's more balanced, but not more fun.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

Pretty much my reaction upon reading through this Thread.

I'm absolutely ecstatic about all of this, I feel that Sakurai is really putting in an effort to make this game as pleasing to its fans, both hardcore and casual, as possible. I know that he stated from the beginning that he would do just that, but upon reading through the artical, I can say that a good portion of my fears regarding this game have been relieved. Keep up the great work, Sakurai. =D

 

[Big-Cat]

You didn't; however, to have a perfectly balanced game you have to make everything the same. To get close, you still have to make the characters rather similar. Part of getting a game more balanced is making everyone similar. Look at WoW. Everyone can heal now. It's more balanced, but not more fun.

I think it greatly depends on what's the same amongst the cast. Looking at a game like Tekken, everyone has a 10 frame jab and a 15 frame mid-hitting launcher (there are some exceptions though) for starters. The cast is fairly balanced (though some issues are still present) AND rather diverse.

I think universal properties should be things to make the characters well rounded enough while still having their unique appeal.

 

[JediLink]

You didn't; however, to have a perfectly balanced game you have to make everything the same. To get close, you still have to make the characters rather similar. Part of getting a game more balanced is making everyone similar.

When there is asymmetry, there will be tiers. That's an irrefutable law of the universe and I'm not about to argue against it. That said, I still do believe it's possible to have a varied cast while keeping the tiers fairly condensed. Soft counters are probably unavoidable but shouldn't force you to pick another character. Hard counters can and should be avoided. That's what I think, anyway.

 

[pitthekit]

I never meant it would be 10-0 or even 9-1/8-2 matchups, 6-4 and 4-6 matchups ar what i imagined in this situation. every character gets advantages and disadvantages, but not glaring ones like that. maybe each character gets a few 6-4 matchups in either direction and maybe even (very few) 7-3/3-7 matchups, but an equal amount in each direction as well. Of course these estimates aren't accurate to what a perfectly balanced game would be, but i think you get the gist of it, a player might have a disadvantage but if he or she is good enough then it won't matter much.
I can't imagine a 5-5 matchup for every chracter truly existing, so getting it close and with an equal amount of slightly good and bad matchups, i feel the same effect can be achieved.

tl;dr: no character should have a counter, but have slight advantages and disadvantages over others

Wow that sounds linear and boring, I would never mind if my character had a 2-8 mu it just means I need to have a secondary to cover my characters weakness . Ideally a close range -shut down all options characters will always beat a long range pressure and space character if they got close enough since all their options would be shut down. A long range pressure and space character should always beat a slow and powerfully character. If everyone is balanced then we would all be playing different versions of Mario.

 

[Big-Cat]

You say that now, but that uphill climb can take the fun out of the matchup. You're talking purely theory. Have you even continually played a 3-7 or even 6-4 matchup? Even if you're both really good with your characters, it's not easy.

 

[JediLink]

Ideally a close range -shut down all options characters will always beat a long range pressure and space character if they got close enough since all their options would be shut down. A long range pressure and space character should always beat a slow and powerfully character.

No, sir. The better player should win, not the better character. This is a fighting game, not rock-paper-scissors.

 

[Fenrir VII]

It's impossible to make a game with no 7-3 or worse matchups without fully understanding the final metagame, and very hard even after understanding it.

I'm ok with some bad matchups existing. I just hope there are fewer "press B to win" type matchups in the new game.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

I just hope there are fewer "press B to win" type matchups in the new game.

****! That's what I was doing wrong! I kept pressing A to win .

 

[J1NG]

No, sir. The better player should win, not the better character. This is a fighting game, not rock-paper-scissors.

Some people might argue that adding rock paper scissors elements to the game would help in making it balanced. In my opinion, it could only be effective in small doses. Otherwise, I agree with you.

 

[pitthekit]

No, sir. The better player should win, not the better character. This is a fighting game, not rock-paper-scissors.

Ever heard of tier lists? They assume that all players are of equal skill. Meta knight in brawl should always win according to match ups. Remember tier list assume players are of equal skill.

And Rock Paper Scissors does exist in fighting games, any option you throw out can be countered by different option. Example would be if someone was going to spot dodge I could nair, or grab/ pivot grab if my enemy reads this a retreating fair should beat my nair, if I also read his retreating fair I would dash towards him and perfect shield. Dashing away is the only option that can never truly be countered in brawl at least. The only case of the better player winning would be in dittos.

You say that now, but that uphill climb can take the fun out of the matchup. You're talking purely theory. Have you even continually played a 3-7 or even 6-4 matchup? Even if you're both really good with your characters, it's not easy.

yes I main pit in brawl his worst match up is meta knight which is 8:2 meta knights favor. And yes I have fun because I have to play my best and play perfectly. It may take more effort but I really don't care. If really crappy match ups are not fun for you then I suggest you play high tier characters.

 

[JediLink]

Ever heard of tier lists? They assume that all players are of equal skill. Meta knight in brawl should always win according to match ups. Remember tier list assume players are of equal skill.

Wat.

Dude, we're talking about what well balanced games should be like, i.e. what developers should aim for. Are you seriously using Brawl as an example of ideal balance or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Niko Mar]

Ever heard of tier lists? They assume that all players are of equal skill. Meta knight in brawl should always win according to match ups. Remember tier list assume players are of equal skill.

And Rock Paper Scissors does exist in fighting games, any option you throw out can be countered by different option. Example would be if someone was going to spot dodge I could nair, or grab/ pivot grab if my enemy reads this a retreating fair should beat my nair, if I also read his retreating fair I would dash towards him and perfect shield. Dashing away is the only option that can never truly be countered in brawl at least. The only case of the better player winning would be in dittos.

yes I main pit in brawl his worst match up is meta knight which is 8:2 meta knights favor. And yes I have fun because I have to play my best and play perfectly. It may take more effort but I really don't care. If really crappy match ups are not fun for you then I suggest you play high tier characters.

That has nothing to do with Rock Paper Scissors. What you mentioned is about reading and reacting to your opponent, not having a complete advantage over him.

Rock Paper Scissors means that character 1 would dominate 2, 2 would destroy 3, and 3 would obliterate 1.
1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 1

This means that while character 1 would have a complete advantage over 2, 2 would overpower 3, who would in turn be the one character with an advantage over 1. Having this method is not fun at all, as it makes the matches completely dependent on who you pick vs. who the opponent picks. It would be a completely uphill battle and not dependent on our skills. That is THE DUMBEST idea i've ever heard of, especially in a game that's about playing as your most beloved Nintendo characters (with some guests). How fun would it be for me to not be able to pick Kirby (my favorite character), only because my opponent is of equal skill and picks a complete counter to him. Then if I were to pick someone that's a counter to him, my opponent could do the same once more.

 

[Substitution]

Wat.

Dude, we're talking about what well balanced games should be like, i.e. what developers should aim for. Are you seriously using Brawl as an example of ideal balance or am I misunderstanding you?

I think what he meant is according to tier lists, If two player of equal skills fight and one picks Meta Knight, Meta Knight has the better advantage (while ignoring his matchup with Pikachu).

 

[Muster]

Wow that sounds linear and boring. If everyone is balanced then we would all be playing different versions of Mario.

Somebody hasn't tried project M.

 

[josh bones]

Somebody hasn't tried project M.

2.5 sonic.

 

[Muster]

2.5 sonic.

There's a reason they keep updating it you know.

 

[Big-Cat]

Some people might argue that adding rock paper scissors elements to the game would help in making it balanced. In my opinion, it could only be effective in small doses. Otherwise, I agree with you.

That kind of thing is actually reasonably fine. Tactic A beats B beats C beats A. This is greatly what forms the strategy in fighting games whether you realize it or not. Of course, it's not a rigidly defined thing like that one mechanic in Injustice, but it's usually something on a bigger scale, hence the whole risk:reward ratio dealio.

What's a problem is if we apply RPS to the characters themselves. If that's the case, might as well have a game of Link, Zelda, Ganondorf as RPS.

yes I main pit in brawl his worst match up is meta knight which is 8:2 meta knights favor. And yes I have fun because I have to play my best and play perfectly. It may take more effort but I really don't care. If really crappy match ups are not fun for you then I suggest you play high tier characters.

I hardly play high tier characters, and if I do, it's by coincidence. Bad matchups can be fun, but most of us draw the line where something becomes less of a challenge and more of something troublesome.

 

[J1NG]

That kind of thing is actually reasonably fine. Tactic A beats B beats C beats A. This is greatly what forms the strategy in fighting games whether you realize it or not. Of course, it's not a rigidly defined thing like that one mechanic in Injustice, but it's usually something on a bigger scale, hence the whole risk:reward ratio dealio.

What's a problem is if we apply RPS to the characters themselves. If that's the case, might as well have a game of Link, Zelda, Ganondorf as RPS..

This. RPS can be seen in games like Street Fighter's jump/stand/crouch gameplay, and that's fine. Not saying I want high med low in Smash, but something similar would at least be interesting.

 

[Big-Cat]

This. RPS can be seen in games like Street Fighter's jump/stand/crouch gameplay, and that's fine. Not saying I want high med low in Smash, but something similar would at least be interesting.

I thought about LMH in Smash once, but the size and proportions of the characters are too diverse for that to really work. Once thing to do with this would be to make Shield Angling a much more important aspect of gameplay.

 

[J1NG]

I thought about LMH in Smash once, but the size and proportions of the characters are too diverse for that to really work. Once thing to do with this would be to make Shield Angling a much more important aspect of gameplay.

Hmm, maybe. It might be difficult, since it could interfere with the inputs for sidestepping and rolling. You might have to have shield and dodge as separate buttons to make it work. In that case, I'd be interested to hear about it. I know it would certainly give a time and place for, say, an up tilt versus a down tilt where there would be a distinct time to use one or the other. In one instance, if an opponent is angling their shield high, you strike low. If they angle their shield low, you strike high. Seems pretty straightforward. Although if this were implemented, I don't see any reason to add grab techs since that would make shielding vulnerable in a lot of ways, unless grabs were given new functions as well. If they were, I would opt to add grab KO moves like in SSB64 and chain/tech chase grabs.
I still think counter hits and exposed back hits are interesting ideas.

 

[volbound1700]

Here is the issue with balance that people are not considering.


Balance to this board is no items 1v1.

Balance overall could be any scenario including 4v4 items games. Some characters play better with items and Metaknight for example is less dominating in a 4v4 item game. Still characters like Donkey Kong do not make sense with his crappy Final Smash plus weak moveset.

How do you balance all the different styles of this game?

 

[Big-Cat]

That's what Sakurai mentioned in the article. It's two radically different environments so it's really difficult, if not impossible to balance them.

To me, it would seem ideal to start with 1v1, make it adaptable to FFA, but then make sure it still works in 1v1. Easier said than done though.

 

[yessi]

I don't think balancing in FFA is a huge issue. Back when I was a casual gamer FFAing with friends I didn't really think about balancing as being a problem or even something to think about. All I did was pick my favorite characters and start swinging hits.

I agree with balancing starting with 1v1s and then adapting to FFAs because most people who do FFAs are casual gamers who just buy the game, invite friends over, have several 5 stock FFA matches with all items on high, and then move on to some other game or a different activity.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Here is the issue with balance that people are not considering.


Balance to this board is no items 1v1.

Balance overall could be any scenario including 4v4 items games. Some characters play better with items and Metaknight for example is less dominating in a 4v4 item game. Still characters like Donkey Kong do not make sense with his crappy Final Smash plus weak moveset.

How do you balance all the different styles of this game?

This is true, but a couple things.

DK's move set is far from weak; he's the most agile heavy hitter in the game as well as an amazing grappler, he's pretty solid as is. Also his Final Smash is good, it only sucks if you don't have rhythm.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

This is true, but a couple things.

DK's move set is far from weak; he's the most agile heavy hitter in the game as well as an amazing grappler, he's pretty solid as is. Also his Final Smash is good, it only sucks if you don't have rhythm.

Really? I thought that title went to Dedede? :I

 

[NintendoKnight]

Really? I thought that title went to Dedede? :I

DK can jump higher than most characters. He and DDD run at similar speeds, and they have similar attack speeds.

 

[Renji64]

This is true, but a couple things.

DK's move set is far from weak; he's the most agile heavy hitter in the game as well as an amazing grappler, he's pretty solid as is. Also his Final Smash is good, it only sucks if you don't have rhythm.

If he is like P:M dk i will be happy that dk is perfect.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

DK can jump higher than most characters. He and DDD run at similar speeds, and they have similar attack speeds.

A couple of things that DK has over Dedede is that he has better aerial momentum and some of his kill moves have better range and less cool down.

 

[XTheElegantShadowX]

DK can jump higher than most characters. He and DDD run at similar speeds, and they have similar attack speeds.

A couple of things that DK has over Dedede is that he has better aerial momentum and some of his kill moves have better range and less cool down.

Oh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was under the impression that Dedede was more mobile due to his multiple Jumps and Up-Special. I didn't even know DK possessed such tools. XD

 

[volbound1700]

DK was better in Melee IMO. I have a hard time winning with DK in Brawl. All the Heavy Characters in Brawl really stink, especially in 4v4 fights. Dedede has chain grab but that is impossible to do if you have more than one opponent on the screen.