Melee's biggest flaw...

[Chromeless]

I realise that there is already another thread discussing what (if any) flaws Melee had, but I want to discuss one specific flaw that I feel really needs to have attention drawn to it because the more I think about it the more it becomes apparent that this is the biggest fault that Melee posesses.

This flaw quite simply put is the 'clinch game', which is where the game breaks down in a fundamental fashion. The clinch game occurs when both characters are at point blank range and are idealy facing each other, this is the point where the normal rules of the smash metagame are swallowed into obivion in much the same way as a black hole breaks the atomic nature of the universe (yeah, I hate it when essays relate everything to physics as well, I can be a hypocrite can't I?).

Under the 'normal' rules of Smash, each player is capable of making judgements as to whether a stratergy will likely work or whether their opponent has defeated their current approach. In the case of the latter the player will generally have the option of either coninuing in a diffrent approach or falling back into a position that is judged to be safe, which generally takes the form of the ground or a ledge. These 'normal' rules simply do not work in the case of a clinch as there is no solid way of judging exactly what your opponent is going to do next. Let's say that the attacker (whom we will assume has attack priority) tries to grab his opponent, if the defender is to evade the grap his only option in this case is to spot dodge to avoid the throw. But here the defender faces a crucial problem, if he sidesteps and his opponent doesn't try to grab his then he has handed them a free hit, if he doesn't then his opponent may take the oppertunity to thow him anyway.

What's the problem here then? The problem is that the game devolves into nothing more then a guessing game as players become unable to properly judge what their opponent is going to do next, they could be a threat at any time and because of that you may have to randomly dodge or attack to simply avoid the options your opponent has against you.

When it comes down to it the grappling game in Smash Bros works considerably diffrently to how it does in traditional fighters, in Street Fighter for instance throws can be warded off by pokeing the opponent out of grappling range. In Smash brothers this is not the case because close range pokes not only possess little (if any) range advantage, but they don't push the opponent backwards by a significant amount either, while most other attacks that could beat out a throw are too laggy to be effective.

One only needs to watch a Link vs Fox match to see how horrible this can be. Sure, Link is capable of fighting and even beating Fox, but the close range advantages Fox gains over Link means that Link can only pull off a win by constantly out guessing his furry opponent. The problem here is not simply that Fox is a better character then Link, but that in many cases Link needs more then just skill to win, he needs plain old fashioned luck.


Thankfully these problems could be avoided if tweaks were made to character's close range abilities (and naturally I have a few in mind), but first I want to hear other's thought on this issue.

 

[Kashakunaki]

I'm not going to lie... I'm unsure as to whether or not this is a joke thread or not.

And if it isn't, I'm not sure how to properly respond. Not because you've made such an astonishing point and backed it up well, but because I don't see what you are getting at.

Tiers exist because it is technically impossible to make a fighting game balanced, or even an RTS for that matter. No matter how hard you try, how many hours you put forth, and how hard you calculate it you can't boil it down to some simple formula. If that were the case, every fighting game would be balanced.

It's not like developers don't try to balance a game, it's just impossible. There is always going to be a character with more advantages than others.

Before I counter your example, I would like to point out that Smash is NOT like other fighters. Now, using your above example, if you simply counter this "issue" by making "pokes" stronger, stronger entailing more knockback and stun, how would that solve anything? It just gives everything character a new trait. If anything it makes things even easier for the Fox player because it is easier for Fox to pull of grabs than most characters, such as Link, it would be even HARDER for the Link to grab Fox in which grabbing gives that player control and vantage in a conflict.

It's late and I know I didn't give the best counter example (my mind doesn't work well when it's late AND I'm pissed), but my point in a nutshell is:

Smash is not like other fighters and no matter what you do there will always be an inbalance in fighting and RTS games and it can't simply be boiled down to a simple formula, no matter what.

 

[KernelColonel]

Oh, so you want your game to be boring, and predictable, with one combination of buttons resulting in an insta-KO?

Go play Tekken. Maybe your Yoshimitsu Combo will satisfy your problem.

Most of us like the competable randomness. Smash is a game about fun and skill in the same game. Street Fighter and the like don't have major tournaments mostly because they aren't tournament-worthy games; they are not based on skill in many ways.

 

[OysterMeister]

I, too, fail to see the problem. Is the problem that you have to fight against an opponent who can think. It occurs to me that the most fun in Smash to be had comes from outwitting and out maneuvering your opponent. It's the whole battle of the wits thing you hear so much about. Yes, maybe you don't know what your opponent will do. But if you're good you should know enough about your own abilities to decide what's best for whatever situation you get into. It's in deciding if you should fight or flee or defend that the match is won.
A good Link player beats Fox by keeping his distance, by forcing openings with his ranged attacks to that he can use his melee skill for the big KO. But there's no set sequence of moves that can pull this off. And that's the fun of smash: the challenge of variety.

 

[Kelexo]

Skimming through your post, I noticed your complaint about 'unpredictability' and immediately stopped reading.

I agree with OysterMeister, a lot of the fun in the game is outwitting your opponents. It really puts challenge into the game, which is why we all come back to play more. If it was always too predictable, what fun would it be? To always use the same move, or same item, in order to win? Screw that.

 

[Lauf]

Ok you are saying that smash is flawed because it is unpredictability, and is based on luck i agree with that, but isnt life we know it unpredictable, which is the beauty of it and making life as well as smash fun lol

 

[Eaode]

You're complaining about mindgames?

If Link spot Dodges and Fox waits to punish instead of grabbing right away, Fox's unpredictability isn't the problem. Link's predictability is.

 

[GaryCXJk]

I most definately don't see the problem here, and I can speak for all of us that nobody knows what the problem is with the unpredictable nature of Super Smash Bros. In fact, isn't that the very essence of the game? Sure, playing with Link against Fox needs more than skills, but isn't it true that playing with Fox against any character also requires more than skills?

Every fighting game has this unpredictable value. It's not too different with Smash. However, Smash has this added extra in that you have a freedom of movement. So really, it's not that different.

And tiers lists are just bullcrap. Everyone can win with a bottom tier character even if that person is playing against an upper tier character. It only requires skills to do this.

 

[Eaode]

Don't start a tier war Gary. Skill is the main deciding factor, but some characters are better than others, and it matters.

 

[Justin Wiles]

Are you serious?

This is the dumbest topic ever.

I mean... in my humble opinion. Hahah.

It boggles me that you think the only thing you can do is spot dodge, in your example. Most characters' forward tilt is quick, strong, and long enough to ward off grabs. There are also Wavedashes. I know alot of characters that could short hop into a nair or fair, not only avoiding a grab, but keep them at a reasonable distance if the opponent decides to shield instead.

In Link's case, he not only has his neutral A to "poke", but has a much longer grab than most others if the opponent is dumb enough to approach from the front. Shffling a nair is yet another option.

So it's pretty evident to me that you haven't considered all your options before you posted. I didn't intend to turn this into a gameplay lecture (I'm the last person that ought to be doing that), but all I mean to say is that there's alot... alot of stuff you can do. Like alot.

 

[psicicle]

erm, you will want to give a better example than that. A few viable options off the top of my head: crouch cancelled jabs, dashing away, tilts, jumping, WDing out, SHFFLing and all of those character specific things. The only way you are going to get grabbed at close range is if you are going through lag, such as from an arial and there is not way to prevent this if your opponent spotdodges. People also have habits. What people do is not totally random, you have to see these habits that they have. That is how you predict the opponent.

I see what you are saying in that you think that the close range game is just like playing rock-paper-scissors, but there are just so many options that you can't illustrate this without giving a better example.

 

[Eaode]

Listen to psisicle

What the opponent does is not random, and if they make it random, then they are outsmarting you, and they deserve that grab.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Every fighting game has this unpredictable value. It's not too different with Smash. However, Smash has this added extra in that you have a freedom of movement. So really, it's not that different.

He also has another freedom...don't play competative smash.GG

And tiers lists are just bullcrap. Everyone can win with a bottom tier character even if that person is playing against an upper tier character. It only requires skills to do this.

Umm...You're wrong,tiers matter.

There are specific levels of the game when a character can't compensate for skill and vis versa.You can win with a low tier character,but it would requier you to be a perfectionist and not make any mistakes.

The tiers list reflects on the characters as a whole rather than techniques used with X character.Characters such as Fox for example are not high tier for there ability to combo and what not,but there ability to react to a givin situation.

Here is an example of how characters requier"compensation":

Fox misses a Shuffled Nair.

Fox has several options,he can:
-Dash away and come back with another Nair
-D-tilt
-U-tilt
-Shine
-Jab

Now,if it was spot dodged:
-Shine
-Full jump>Shine

Characters such as Bowser:

Bowser misses his Fair:
-Shield>Fortress

Bowser doesn't have as many options has Fox,when means that Fox can focus on playing more intelligently rather than technically.Characters are better than other characters becaus of there ability to react to X situation.

Tiers are very important.

 

[Chromeless]

*Looks at above posts*

Sigh...ok, some people (psicicle in particular) seem to have understood my point (yes I am refering to a situation equivilant to a spotdodged arial), while others seem to have read into my Link vs Fox example too much. To clarify, Link's disadvantages against Fox (and tiers in general) aren't the point I was bringing up, I was simply using Fox as an illustration of a character who has a large advantage in the clinch range (though the statement "Link can only pull off a win by constantly out guessing his furry opponent" is understandably misleading, I'm well aware of what Link is capable of with his projectile setups ).


Now, on the subject of statistics, I'm making this point under the assumption that both players are at least at yomi level 3 in this situation (as Sirlin would put it). If one of the players is being predictable (yomi lvl 1 equivilent) and their opponent decides to take advantage of that then by all means let them, I have no beef with a situation that effectivly isn't random because of the fault of the player.

What I see as problem is when two players who are both capable of being random to a good degree (human beings are poor at being statistically random to a certain extent) are locked in a situation where they pit their randomness together, in which case the out come ends up being...random understandably. And I do see a problem with this, not because the mere existance of a 'straight' guessing game somehow makes the depth of Smash Bros void, but because I honestly believe that there are better ways to handle this aspect of the game.

 

[HyperTheHedgehog]

Street Fighter and the like don't have major tournaments mostly because they aren't tournament-worthy games; they are not based on skill in any way.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Street Fighter and the like don't have major tournaments mostly because they aren't tournament-worthy games; they are not based on skill in any way.

*Looks at HyperTheHedgehog's post*


Wow....that's probably the most retarted thing i've read in a while.

 

[The_Famous_SK]

........... are you saying like you want it to be easier to do rapid attacks? Cuz like, in Melee, if you didn't wanna get grabbed, you could punch and then keep hitting A and it would do a flurry attack and they'd either keep getting hit by it unitl you stopped and then they'd grab you, or they'd have to DI out of the attack and thus out of grabbing range. Well, if you want this anti-throw manuever to be easier, your prayers have been answered.

You can just hold down A now.

 

[Sandrock]

Hmmm...I don't really understand...but its called Melee for reason. It a Melee...Smith-Matrix style. There's 4 people able to pound each other into the ground and it works well. "Able to tell" how the battle will act out just depends on what you know about WHO holds the controller...I guess. For me I use Samus as a major long range person...heck I don't go into close range unless I cant hit the other guy or I'm ready to SMASH the other person out of the level.

Also SSB is not a set it stone game. If the person plays well he can beat anyone with any character if he can use that character well. This is not a simple DBZ fighting game where when one person fires a energy blast, the other has basically Three choices. Fire back and button smash the other player into taking the hit, block, or dodge the attack.

If samus fires a full power shot there's only a few ways to get out of there.
1. depending on the character they may have a B move or [if its even possible] a smash move that can erase that attack. These are endless since each character has its own B moves. Some are super easy [Fox B-down] some are tricky [Marth/Roy B-down]. Its no fun if they all have the same kind of move. [More tricky Mario B>]
2. Shield block the attack. I don't know if the Shields are = in power to each Character but a Jigglypuffs shield has to be little bit weaker than um...Browsers I guess.
3. Shield-dodge - mid air dodge or roll away on the ground from the attack.
4. Just jump!
5. use the level stage to block the attack. [if im missing anything then add it]

That's 5 ways. But depending on who your playing part 1 splits into ether only one move works or two or even more with Zelda/Sheik. Heck the Ice-Climbers probity can double smash it away [not 100% sure if im wrong then ignore it]. Also the Level! Poke-floats could knock you back even with shield right? Not everyone is gonna have a far range attack that is some kind of "shot", not everyone has a good B-up move. That way its not a black and white battle field. Its Random because its fun and more challenging. the luck part could do with a Arwing coming in and blasting you off the level at the last moment when the other person is Dizzy. THATS what I think is the biggest flaw...no level hazard off mode.

 

[HideousBeing]

In response to the first post...
MINDGAMES SON!!!

Welcome to smash BTW.

 

[Sensai]

An incredibly well written essay. The Brawl boards, if not the site, are better because it contains this essay within it.

That being said: if the game were to come down to the level where everything would be based on predictability, then anyone could beat anyone by simply watching enough of their videos. The unpredictability, or the inability to think clearly in the 'clinch game' is what makes this game so good, as you can see the dominant player meld the match into whatever he feels like at those moments.

[Edit:]

Man, you guys post quickly.

In response to your second post: I don't really understand how it could differ from a 'random outcome' to a series of random events. If A and B are being completely random in the middle of a melee fight, then the outcome, by definition, will be random.

Right?

I'd love to hear what your opinions are, too. I really enjoy these types of conversations: meaningful ones where both parties are intelligible enough to realize certain things and are also intelligible enough (or at least I hope) to listen to other's views.

 

[Dragonboy2k4]

Don't start a tier war Gary. Skill is the main deciding factor, but some characters are better than others, and it matters.

Some characters have better/easier "options" than other characters,but it all boils down to skill.Every character has a weak side to them,and depending on the player,its up to him to how much he can demostate his strengths over weakness.Thats how I see it.IMO what a tier list is to me are just listings to show devs who to murder/nerf in the next game.Ask Kirby and Ness what happened after SSB . Iam not saying any names but,you can kinda expect the same thing this time around.Meaning some other character new/old is gonna make a raise only to be nerfed again in the following game.Its a cycle fellas. Thats why I think its pointless to even follow something thats gonna be untrue by the next game.

As of right now tho,Iam a bit concern with Lei Wu Long from the Tekken series,as hes making a raise.He was an underdog type character for a reason,but now the devs for Tekken 6 are making him an *** to fight against,while toning down the ever so popular Devil Jin in the process.It already has "top players"whining and crying about the changes,thus making them switch to characters for self explanitory reasons,only to have the same exact thing happen when the next title rolls around.Comdey Iam telling you.

 

[EvolveOrDie]

I think I understand what your saying, that it is not necessarily the randomness of clinch game that is melee's flaw but that once you enter the clinch a lot of the freedom and control that makes melee such a great game is thrown out the window.

In my opinion melee willfully neglected this problem because while melee is a game of close quarters it is also like Omni stated a game of position. Both Fortunately and unfortunately this game always places at least two characters in direct opposition. Following from that point every aspect of smash is based of that opposition. The advantages and disadvantages are handed out based on players knowledge and skill and character choice, and this is where the part you identify as a flaw comes in, the clinch game as you put it is usually handed to either one of the players in it's entirety. We have to face the truth if your facing a character that can chaingrab yours and you know the opponent is rather competent at chaingrabbing you like to keep your distance. Is it a flaw possibly, is it a limitation probably, can it be fixed definetly, will it change smash irreparably.

The way I see it the clinch game is just one of the things that makes smash unique, and if we took the time to throw in more freedom and options we might find that we don't like what it does to the game balance. I hate to use this example but most fighting games like tekken and virtua fighter only have the clinch game so they specialize in it. I respect your opnion on this and maybe you even know a way to improve the clinch game without altering the overall style of melee's play and if you can more power to you but from where I stand it's another part of the game for good or for ill.

 

[Sephiroth27]

The biggest flaws that I see in Melee are, of course, the unbalance between characters, and SHIELDS.

 

[Eaode]

I just came back to this thread, and realized how irrelevant(sp) the question is. Seriously, this is not a problem of Melee. This is a problem of the human mind overthinking things to the point where either opponent could do anything in that specific situation.


And plus, if you hate this "clinch" scenario, there's aways the option of retreating

 

[pdk]

time to learn to play, bud

thread fails as hard as the ultra-hypocritical misconceptions one in melee disc.

 

[_the_sandman_]

The characters just need to be more balanced in my opinion.

Also if wavedashing was taken out then everyone would be able to play in the same way. If everyone used the same types of "controls" then you can really determine who is the better player. Just because someone can or can't wavedash shouldn't be the determining factor for who is a pro or noob.

 

[MookieRah]

The thing everyone seems to be overlooking is that most players have habbits. These habbits make it easy to predict what the player will do in given situations. Good players learn to not repeat things due to habit and try to address the situation accordingly.

It does become like rock, paper, scissors to an extent, but reading the responses of a player tend to leave hints as to how they might *change* their behavior in the same situation. The better you get at diguising, or even laying hints that you would go one way just to do another is where mindgames come into play.

A basic strategy that greatly illustrates a point is this:
Most people will tech the way they DI or always straight up. These two things make it easy to narrow down your choices for the best offense; however, good players know this simple thing, so then they will DI one way and tech the other.

If you can count on the fact that you are playing a smart opponent then you can make a rather safe assumption that he will do this on your first match. More often than not they will do this just to see if you are the type to capitalize on it. Then a switch up game will begin.

From there to accuarately predict your opponent you must be smart and observant, and a tad bit lucky, but it is at this point in the game where it gets really fun. To me, this is far from a flaw, this is the core of high level play, outsmarting your opponent.

 

[Dantarion]

Habit has one b, i think :D.

Basically, of course, at close range, you aren't going to have time to react in time to dodge something like a jab. No game really has a jab so slow you can actually see it coming. You have to anticipate what your opponent is going to do, and respond accordingly.

 

[180OP]

I would write an entire essay against your argument (Original poster). buuuuuut im tired, and lazy and really don't give a flying wad of poo. brawl is set for dec 3.

Happy dreams.

 

[180OP]

I would write an entire essay against your argument (Original poster). buuuuuut im tired, and lazy and really don't give a flying wad of poo. brawl is set for dec 3.

but I will say that yoooooooooou're wrooooong.

Happy dreams.

 

[Kashakunaki]

I wanted to make a good retort and respond to almost everyone, but there are way too many posts for me to bother.

It isn't a matter of random vs. random. As HideousBeing so elegantly put it: MINDGAMES SON!

People tend to repeat themselves, subconciously or not. However, people are intelligent beings and can realize this and change. Mindgames are the process of fooling an opponent into doing something predictable. That is how the game is played.

Honestly, I still don't see what the issue is here. Give me one sentence describing what you are talking about.

Also, whoever said tiers are bull**** and don't matter, die. Tiers matter. Not necessarily because they are important to know or memorize, but they exist whether you want them to and ignoring their prescense is just stupid. It's like gravity. Okay, it's bull****, but it's there and you can't ignore that (bad analogy, I know, lol).

Fact: It takes more skill for a lower tier character to beat a higher tier character. Why? Because higher tier characters have more advantages. If you put people of equal skill against each other, and give them the same character, it would be a draw. If you put two people with equal skill together, giving one a higher tier character than the other, the one with the higher tier character would win.

Tiers are there whether you want them to be or not. It's not like we make them up, they are there to begin with.

 

[Chromeless]

An incredibly well written essay. The Brawl boards, if not the site, are better because it contains this essay within it.

That being said: if the game were to come down to the level where everything would be based on predictability, then anyone could beat anyone by simply watching enough of their videos. The unpredictability, or the inability to think clearly in the 'clinch game' is what makes this game so good, as you can see the dominant player meld the match into whatever he feels like at those moments.

[Edit:]

Man, you guys post quickly.

In response to your second post: I don't really understand how it could differ from a 'random outcome' to a series of random events. If A and B are being completely random in the middle of a melee fight, then the outcome, by definition, will be random.

Right?

I'd love to hear what your opinions are, too. I really enjoy these types of conversations: meaningful ones where both parties are intelligible enough to realize certain things and are also intelligible enough (or at least I hope) to listen to other's views.

On predictability, throwing off your opponent's predictions and preconceptions is very much important in Smash and most fighting games. However, the issue that I'm trying to address is that there is a diffrence between anticipating an opponent's stratergy and outright guessing their next move because it happens to quickly to humanly react to it. At a distance anticipation of stratergy is far more likely because there is a much greater degree of telegraphing going on between the players, both players (in a 1 v 1) can see their opponents options and hence can judge the space that each player can potentially control.

In spite of that a certain degree of guess work is both inevitable and unavoidable given that there is no way to know exactly what your opponent knows. To bring up the Link vs Fox example again, say that Fox was above Link while both were in the air and chose to fast fall down to attempt a drill kick. Assuming that Fox is not already soo close to Link that his attack is 'safe' and that Link is not recovering from anything the Fox player is taking a gamble, he is betting against the skill of the Link player to react to his approach, that Link will not react fast enough to counter with an upwards stab or any other counter stratergy.

But is the outcome of this tussle then random? Hardly, even though Fox is taking a gamble from his own perspective, the outcome of the exchange is fully in the hands of the ability of the Link player, it comes down to his judgment in the end. But on the other hand (especially if the Link player is farily amature) Link's decision to go for the uair may have simply been a fluke, he may have attempted the move anyway in an act of otherwise poor judgement or even preformed it accidentally. In that respect a certain amount of guess work is inevitable no matter how the game is designed, players simply have to rely on the fact that random play in most cases leaves the player at a huge statistical disadvantage.

One of the exeptions to this is the clinch, where optimum play is statistically random assuming that the players are only capable of human level reaction times (a perfect reaction time would allow a player to beat an opponent as long as they had a single fame over them). Now, as MookieRah pointed out, players have a tendency to be predictable and are seldom capable of being completely random, on the other hand you also admit that good players are capable of overcoming predictablity. The clinch game is hardly so random or dominant that it destroys the fun or skill in the game, but even so the statistical advantage of randomness makes this the weakest aspect of the game in my eyes, the tactical dialogue that would normally result from players telegraphing their moves and trying to hide their stratergies from each other is weaker in the clinch then it is at any other point in the game.

My contention here is fairly simple, it is not that the clinch breaks the game at large (I'm prefectly fine with Link being a weaker close range fighter due to his great ranged capabilities) it is that it is one aspect of Smash that I believe needs to be and can be improved over what it currently is. I'll propose ways this could be doen in my next post.

 

[Sensai]

Ok, I believe I understand now. And honestly, it took me two or three readings of your post to arrive at my (hopefully correct) conclusion.

For those of you who don't understand (which is a definitive possibility at this point), what I believe the man is trying to get across is that the clinch game, the truly melee part of the game (puns are so bad!), does not encourage at all the ability to think clearly. If anything, according to Chromeless (or rather, my perception of what Chromelss believes), this randomness actually gives you an advantage. And this is the point that he takes problem with.

To an extent, I agree with you; this problem could definitely be tuned up a little for Brawl. In fact, if the whole game were strategically driven (to a point) I would be one of the last to complain.

But at the same time, I realize that within the chaos there lies the chance to prove yourself the better Smasher. I stand by my earlier assertion:

if the game were to come down to the level where everything would be based on predictability, then anyone could beat anyone by simply watching enough of their videos. The unpredictability, or the inability to think clearly in the 'clinch game' is what makes this game so good, as you can see the dominant player meld the match into whatever he feels like at those moments.

Without these truly random, spontaneous moments, the game would be nothing but mathematics and strategy. Once again, pure strategy (mostly) would be acceptable...but it just wouldn't be the Smash we've all come to love.

I'd like to present this video as proof that we don't need things to be completely calculated. It's a shining example that the clinch game randomness adds a certain amount of epic to some battles.

Seriously...I must've watched this video 100 times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biiRBEAhYL4

 

[Kashakunaki]

Okay... assuming I know actually understand what your point is (no offense, but you suck at getting those across), your complaining that in the face to face aspect of the game, when your opponent is up in your grill (lol), there is no guesswork, anticipation, or mindgames. It's completely random.

This is because everything "happens so fast," which, I'd like to point out, in your post you talked about anticipation, then complained about the ability for a human being to "react". There is a difference between anticipating and reacting, but moving onward.

Melee is a fast paced game, argueably faster paced than most fighters, and that's what makes it fun. The hectic speed of it all. While Brawl is being slowed down anyways, you're suggesting that the game be slowed down to compensate for this face to face "issue"?

I disagree.

Also, I believe the most important thing here that people are failing to take into consideration here is that Super Smash Bros. is not designed to be a competitive game. By that I mean, it isn't designed with competition at its core. It's a party game, okay, folks? A party game. So in the end, this is all irrelevant.

 

[Chromeless]

Sorry if I'm being a bit too inarticulate, my posts here are more or less quick trains of thought that I didn't have enough time clean up. In any case I agree with you that Melee benefits from requiring guess work, what I'm saying though is that in most cases even if you guess your opponent wrong the game generally gives you oppertunities to correct your mistake as long as you are skilled enough to do so, you can fall back to the ledge, use you double jump, wavedash ect.

In a clinch these oppertunities tend to be very limited if not non existent, as whatever choice you make you end up 'locked in' to that choice. I simply feel that there are better ways of handling this, such as using a skill based throw escape system (I could easily make a whole new thread to cover that), giving players 'safer' ways to break clinches (neutral jabs that push opponents away and recover faster etc) or allowing players to feint ground moves by canceling them before they come out. Hell, even simply giving characters the ability to walk backwards while not wavedashing could significantly add to such a system.

In the end all I'm saying is that the clinch game would become more intersting if players could make up for a wrong guess with sufficiant skill, that way the 'winner' of a guess can't simply expect the outcome to be handed to them without putting up more of a fight. In any case I still stand by my opinion that this is the weakest metagame Melee posesses and could use some significant improvement.

 

[Chromeless]

Okay... assuming I know actually understand what your point is (no offense, but you suck at getting those across), your complaining that in the face to face aspect of the game, when your opponent is up in your grill (lol), there is no guesswork, anticipation, or mindgames. It's completely random.

This is because everything "happens so fast," which, I'd like to point out, in your post you talked about anticipation, then complained about the ability for a human being to "react". There is a difference between anticipating and reacting, but moving onward.

Melee is a fast paced game, argueably faster paced than most fighters, and that's what makes it fun. The hectic speed of it all. While Brawl is being slowed down anyways, you're suggesting that the game be slowed down to compensate for this face to face "issue"?

I disagree.

Also, I believe the most important thing here that people are failing to take into consideration here is that Super Smash Bros. is not designed to be a competitive game. By that I mean, it isn't designed with competition at its core. It's a party game, okay, folks? A party game. So in the end, this is all irrelevant.

So the fact this is a solid compedetive game and could be made into a beter one is irrelivent? Because "it's a party game folks"?

Anyway, I certainly agree that Melee's speed is partly what makes it so addictive but it wouldn't strictly need to be slowed down in order to achieve what I want, some close range moves would have to come out slower but they would have faster recovery times and would be interuptable to compensate for that. If anything the game would end up even faster because players might have to react to their opponent at any time, a player could feint a jab then go in for a throw and their opponent would have to deal with that.

If you want me to explain my proposed system in any more detail just ask.

 

[Sensai]

Do none of you guys sleep around here? Or is it just 4 in the morning where I am...

****. What time do you guys have?

Chromeless, I assume I've hit the nail on the head with your assertions, yes?

Let me start this probably-short post (IT'S FOUR IN THE ****IN' MORNING) by saying that I enjoy the idea of feinting (spelling) ground attacks. I enjoy it so much that I still play SCII just so that I can throw people off by doing it. It's a great addition to a lot of fighting games...

...but I don't think Smash would benefit from it. As Kashakunaki (that's quite the name) states, it's a party game. No, that doesn't mean they're allowed to make it ****ty or anything like that. What it means is that they won't make it into the awesome, end-all be-all fighting game that it could be. The feinting of moves is not necessary for simple party play. At our level, it may be helpful, but...we gotta live with what we got.

And on top of that, assuming for a moment that they DO go above and beyond, the introduction of something like that would require a lot of ground based moves to have long animations (unless of course feinting meant simply cancelling a charged Smash, which I could see...except my next point).

Also, it would change the way we play the game. Fundamentally. Shake it to the core. The games thus far have been based on punishing people for their mistakes that they make in the heat of combat. Allowing them to stand up and simply walk away after completely botching a Marth Fsmash...it would take all the fear of spamming moves away. (I know this isn't exactly what you're saying, but I think you understand.) The game was meant to allow punishing of people who messed up. It should stay like that, instead of allowing the mistake-maker an extra few chances to get away clean.

I'm ****in' tired. G'night.

 

[Chromeless]

I'm posting from Australia BTW...

 

[FrozenRoy]

It's only 3:19 AM here...

 

[Spoon Man]

it's late but I'll try to stay coherent.

I'll say that you raise a valid point, but there are different kinds of luck. Theres the kind you have control over, and the kind you don't.
In smash, you may not know what the enemy will do 100% of the time, that is a given with statistics since there are so many factors. However, you CAN pseudo-predict what he's going to do based on what you have gathered from him already, thus giving you ample control over the situation. This I feel is where the true ability of a player really shines and is what seperates the pros from the beginners, simply being able to make a decision at that instant*.

as for my other type of luck, the one you have no control over, allow me to use a different game as an example. Battle for Wesnoth is a (fun) game where you have 6 races, each of which have different units, and it's turn based. The combat system is where each unit has a certain number of attacks with a certain damage with certain modifiers. HOWEVER the big thing about that game is that the terrain effects the %s of being hit. In that game you have no REAL say over what hits and what misses due to the fact that it's calculated by the game engine. I use this example mainly because I've lost 7 games in a row sheerly due to bad luck today, but whatever.

*I realize that your point is about the factor that you cannot perfectly predict what your opponent will do. This will be the case no matter what situation you are in because of how statistics work. There is no guaranteed 100% thing, ever. There is always, ALWAYS something that CAN happen, no matter how low the possibilities. Even if it seems impossible, such as me spontaneously turning into a zebra. The fact that we can't tell it won't happen means that it might.

I'm sure this sounds like gobbledy gook, but it's 4AM and I can't think straight atm. hopefully I've demonstrated my point.

also I'm somewhat curious to hear what ideas you have for rectifying it, since it doesn't seem possible to introduce something to the game that can rule out randomness, but keep the game fresh and unpredictable (although I don't want to use that word since it basically implies luck, I just can't think of another word).
Then again I suppose that with my arguement it's impossible for there to be NO luck aspect, but I'm still curious to hear what you came up with.