Multihit Powershield behavior - why I think it's blech

[ph00tbag]

You pretty much ingored most of my points that were in the title post. High reward is not automatic. You don't get a free punish off everything you powershield. Some moves are better off not powershielded, because shieldstun is an important part of punishment that powershield is not a negation of, leaving you better off to do something else. It's not particularly high risk, because the input for powershielding is identical to blocking normally, just timed within a few frames. Compared to a parry in SF3S the input is completely separate from blocking. In SoulcaliburV, it's a true reversal, and for its own "superguard" maneuver you need to tap and release the guard button right before taking a hit. In any of those cases, you will get hit if you fail, or take a substantial form of chip damage by blocking normally. Overshooting the timing on a powershield results in you... just blocking normally. It's not even comparable to a parry for what it does and what little execution it requires. It's just a guard with benefits that you're assuming is the best thing to do every time, which it isn't. There's serious limits to what it does, even with moves that never caused it to pushback on PS.

Meanwhile, in Guilty Gear and Blazblue, just defending has reduced blockstun, and functions almost entirely like a smash powershield, except block pushback is also, get this, drastically reduced. In recent iterations of BB, in particular, just defend carries over on one input. I can quote mechanics in other games, too. It doesn't really speak to the reality of how things work in Smash. The ultimate point is that you want to buff multi-hit moves by removing their most effective counter that is explicit and universally available, because it is a counter that functionally made them borderline useless, but also refuse to even entertain the notion of introducing a different, explicit, universal counter that actually punishes the player for improper use.

I don't see how powershielding having limits outside of pushback, which haven't changed at all, that I'm aware of, actually supports what you're trying to say. I'm not trying to argue that PS is the best option to use against any move. I'm arguing that your specific complaint of this single change being a problem w/rt multi-hit moves is predicated on the notion that it's okay for the game's common language to have no way to handle a given move, or class of moves, and that that notion is wrong.

Let me put it this way. If you can't punish the move with a block, powershield, cc, smart SDI or dodge, and you can't punish it from just outside it's range with half the cast, and the only way to punish it is by being where it doesn't threaten to begin with, thus having won some guessing game at neutral, how are you supposed to deal with the move on defense? This extends beyond Zelda, and Peach, and ZSS. This about every conceivable situation where it could arise, and more importantly, the ones we, in our hubris, could not have conceived of.

ph00tbag, embracing MvC2 would be intentionally littering P:M with uncounterable moves. Where have I done that? There's hardly a reason to put "universal counters" to these moves that I am specifically singling out when there was never any burden of proof to necessitate adding them. They were put in by Melee's original design (barring GnW) and players have been using and dealing with those moves for a decade, which is the burden of proof. I have no need to present a defense to the moves I'm mentioning because they were not just put in by us just recently and thrown to the dogs, but tested by an immersion philosophy many years ago. If you think I'm somehow guilty of being an irresponsible designer, then most consumers of Melee that wanted P:M are guilty of that. Don't direct your single-minded fury to me. Your problem with a lack of "universal counters" to some moves is way bigger than just what I'm arguing about if you're this clingy about it. For one, grabs and particularly throws don't have meaningful counters, and neither does fast and long dash dance camping. These mechanics are also imbalanced among the cast. I don't see you talking about them, and I don't want you inflating this thread with tangential comparisons that you could just as easily create a focused discussion on one of your own outlets for.

I didn't say you're embracing MvC2. I said that, on some level, you're embracing the design philosophy it shares, that the game's common language can be insufficient to comprehend the game's movesets, and the end result is invariably no worse, and sometimes even better, than if the myriad options presented by the game are prepared for by options that every character possesses.

And anyone who knows me can tell you there is no single-minded fury at play here, that I actually just enjoy arguing, and that this is one topic, in particular, where I have fairly strong opinions. They can also tell you that I argue about this all over the place, and you just happened to make a post that touched on the topic, so here I am. I won't go away just because you're complaining about me arguing with you.

 

[Zerudahime]

charging attacks is not a solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HTuuXNNat8

Some of them are PSable on reaction... >,>
EDIT: you can see how rage-inducing it is considering I couldnt get my push to the ledge that I wanted.
PS. I dont usually rage.

 

[Magus420]

I'm sure that was done on reaction... on WiFi(?)... and there only being 4 frames between the charge and hit on that particular move.

 

[DMG]

yeeeeeee

as they would say in animu

"LUCKY!"

 

[Player -0]

charging attacks is not a solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HTuuXNNat8

Some of them are PSable on reaction... >,>
EDIT: you can see how rage-inducing it is considering I couldnt get my push to the ledge that I wanted.
PS. I dont usually rage.

You WERE charging the F-Smash while he was stuck in an L-Cancel, which means it's partially your fault for not just throwing it before he could shield. It was pretty obvious you were charging your F-Smash and anybody would've just thrown out their shield as soon as they saw you go pewpewpew magic ball of multihit doom.
So basically I'm saying:
1. You mistimed your F-Smash
2. He didn't do it on reaction, he saw you charging your F-Smash
3. You got to spam F-Smash on him against a tree

 

[Calabrel]

The_NZA, your arguments echo my own completely, especially opposing the idea that all the multi-hit user is going to be powershielding consistently. Even if they were powershielding every multi-hit, all the multi-hit player needs to do is either time their multi-hit aerial earlier/later, or charge their multi-hit smash a few frames. This isn't an issue, powershielding should be rewarded, as powershielding the pinnacle of defense against aerials/smashes/tilts.

The backlash against this mechanic is being completely blown out of proportion, these multi-hit moves that this change affects aren't useless now that powershielding multi-hits exist, they are just very slightly less useful.

 

[ph00tbag]

Calabrel, you need to calm down.

My alerts be blowin' up when you be postin'.

 

[Calabrel]

Well stop making reasonable and sensible posts then.

 

[RyokoYaksa]

Okay, I didn't mean to say "all moves are better powershielded". I meant to say "all moves SHOULD be superior to powershield". It seems like simple design 101 to me and I think the game is richer for it. I never think Powershielding will enter a rotation of decision making, where someone goes "I'm giong to use a multihit move in case my opponent power shields", but I do think on the occasion of high level play, we might see a player who risks it all by shielding as late as possible on reaction leading to power shielded openings. In that case, the opponent can respond by charging attacks. That to me would be the highest level smash.

And speaking to the risks of powershielding, if you undershoot it, your safe. If you overshoot it, you will get hit (since you will put up your shield too late). We could be reversing our usages of over/undershoot but the point remains the same.

Perhaps all moves "should be" superior to powershield but the point remains that they aren't. My problem with his mechanic being shoved in is that, despite being implemented under the pretense that it "gives similar reward to all attacks" it actually makes powershield reward even more variable, not more consistent, than before. It singlehandedly made multihit moves that were relied on for consistent pushback go from still providing the expected pushback to push out PS, to negating all of it while in addition providing a "HMM I WONDER WHAT I CAN KILL YOU WITH" freeze of time to make a proper punishment decision not seen with the vast majority of moves. In other words, the reward for PS'ing certain moves went from meh to enormous with that change alone. Powershielding most moves that do any significant shieldstun- that is, moves safe for their frames and not so much their shield pushback, were never much benefit to PS even with Brawl/P:M's pushback negation. Would that warrant making these moves I mentioned having less shield disadvantage so they're not just free strong punishes on PS since by comparison most moves aren't? Maybe, but I would say that's a ******** means of compensation for something that never needed to happen to begin with, although this would not be the first time some moves got changed to keep up with the effects of a global code hindering their specific purposes. tl;dr this was not thought through elegantly and is certainly not a correct homage to Melee at any rate.

Also the risk involved with powershield is still highly exaggerated. Comparing it with other parry/superguard techs that use inputs either separate from block or require a window of not blocking, P:M powershield is a breeze and it happens somewhat often just in the normal course of play (which again, makes players appreciate reliably pushing multihits as a GFTO for the few characters that have them in expectation of this, which after 12 years pretty much defines a large part of their playstyle). Those other defensive moves from other games require you to go out your way to do it, and can easily go whole matches without seeing them as a result. Even Melee's powershield took a lot more finesse to do and has much more limited, yet consistent, reward against all moves as far as punishment opportunities vs. normal shield. You could charge a smash if you really wanted to to avoid their powershield timing but you you lose your frame advantage if they decide to attack at the same time, or worse leave yourself open to a counterhit if you get hit while charging, which is a disproportionately high price to pay just to have a move inflict pushback on normal shield with no real expectation of it hitting.

 

[The_NZA]

Perhaps all moves "should be" superior to powershield but the point remains that they aren't.

What moves aren't superior to powershield and instead should be regularly shielded?



Just to be clear, your mad that in 2.6, if someone powershields the first hit of Zelda's usmash/fsmash, they have X+a number of frames to respond with, which is marginally superior to the X frames of response time one would get from powershielding any other move in the game.

To keep things in mind, in PM, multihit moves were buffed to be more reliable and less SDIable. AND (correct me if I'm wrong), they do superior shield damage on average compared to many other smash attacks.

Seems like the BR is trying to find where they want to fit the identity of Multihit moves and you are arguing
1. these changes weren't observed carefully
2. Because melee
3. Heavy nerf to Zelda/Peach who didn't need nerfs.
I would personally like to see a world where powershielding was very powerful, and I think they are getting to a place where they are working to improve it (it is easier to execute, universal multihit PSing, etc.). Now, on our way there, something iss going to bite: Either powershielding Multihits is going to be worse (as in not used) or its going to be superior to powershielding a regular move. When I examine that idea, I don't see why I should reward a defensive character using a defensive multihit move over someone who is aggressive and lands a difficult to land power shield. My reasons for that involve depth of gameplay design. Consider the following two interactions.

Scenario 1:
A Zelda playing defensive/campy dins fire traps, a shiek runs in and nairs, a zelda spot dodges and fsmashes, shiek powershields, Zelda has enough time to fsmash again, Shiek gets hit.

Result: Powershielding is useless. Fsmash applies free pressure and is a great tool.

Scenario 2:
A Zelda playing defensive/campy dins fire traps, a shiek runs in and nairs, a zelda spot dodges and fsmashes, shiek powershields, Zelda is in lag, Shiek dash attacks/grabs

Result: Powershield is useful, Fsmash is still useful, in case he didn't PS, but is better punished in this instance

I think more options is good, and in this case I like seeing PS set up as a global counter rather than Multihits being set as a counter to PS.

Also the risk involved with powershield is still highly exaggerated. Comparing it with other parry/superguard techs that use inputs either separate from block or require a window of not blocking, P:M powershield is a breeze and it happens more often than not just in the normal course of play (which again, makes players appreciate reliably pushing multihits as a GFTO for the few characters that have them, which after 12 years pretty much defines a large part of their playstyle). Those other defensive moves from other games require you to go out your way to do it, and can easily go whole matches without seeing them as a result. Even Melee's powershield took a lot more finesse to do and has much more limited, yet consistent, reward against all moves as far as punishment opportunities vs. normal shield. You could charge a smash if you really wanted to to avoid their powershield timing but you you lose your frame advantage if they decide to attack at the same time, or worse leave yourself open to a counterhit if you get hit while charging, which is a disproportionately high price to pay just to have a move inflict pushback on normal shield with no real expectation of it hitting.

Just to be clear, you are saying choosing to hit the shield button within 4 or less frames (I don't know the real number but thats the brawl number) when an incoming attack connects with your character in a fast paced game like PM is not risky because in other fighters, parry is assigned to a separate button!? You do realize that these other staples of blocking exist in fighters too, right:

1. Retreating and blocking are the same button, allowing you to zone and block at the same time
2. In Smash, you have a health bar for your shield, while other fighting games are way more lenient in this regard
3. Getting hit in smash can lead to a major positional disadvantage in a unique way (true of some fighters)
4.. Parrying/advanced guarding can sometimes be done at the same time as blocking in traditional fighters, as is the case of Umvc3. This actually makes blocking significantly easier, which disproves your whole argument. When you distill WHY its so easy, its largely because in MvC, every hit can lead to a MAJOR disadvantage (whereas this isn't true in streetfighter). Therefore, they made parrying easier in response.

Where in the spectrum does Smash fall? I'd say a major hit in smash could lead to a combo shaving off 40% in addition to putting you in a disadvantageous position (roll, off stage, edgeguard) and sometimes even a kill move. **** yes, powershielding in a game like that is highly risky, and **** yes it should give you a reward.

 

[The_NZA]

charging attacks is not a solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HTuuXNNat8

Some of them are PSable on reaction... >,>
EDIT: you can see how rage-inducing it is considering I couldnt get my push to the ledge that I wanted.
PS. I dont usually rage.

THIS video is an AMAZING example of why I think this Powershield change is good. Just take a look at it:
MK read your fmsash right and PSed it. Chose to jump when you were in hitlag, at which point you spammed fsmash 5-6 times, hitting each one. That speaks volumes about the speed and coverage of that move. After that, he's cornered regularly shielding, but fsmash is so quick and good on shields that his only option is to try and PS again or roll behind you, which he does.

At worst, this video cant prove PSing is reliable or easy. You are playing an online match (as is evident with your taunt), and the built in lag would mean no one could execute this properly and abuse you into not using fsmashes or multihit moves. He got lucky, thats really that.

 

[otheusrex]

Scenario 1:
A Zelda playing defensive/campy dins fire traps, a shiek runs in and nairs, a zelda spot dodges and fsmashes, shiek powershields, Zelda has enough time to fsmash again, Shiek gets hit.

Result: Powershielding is useless. Fsmash applies free pressure and is a great tool.

Scenario 2:
A Zelda playing defensive/campy dins fire traps, a shiek runs in and nairs, a zelda spot dodges and fsmashes, shiek powershields, Zelda is in lag, Shiek dash attacks/grabs

Result: Powershield is useful, Fsmash is still useful, in case he didn't PS, but is better punished in this instance

I think more options is good, and in this case I like seeing PS set up as a global counter rather than Multihits being set as a counter to PS.

My problem with this scenario is that it assumes zelda and sheik have equal capabilities. If Zelda and Sheik were equally good in smash AND sheik had no other option but to ps in that circumstance, then possibly her fsmash being better than ps would be a problem, but that just isn't the case.

First of all, zelda's fsmash has slow start up and would be very risky in close quarters so sheik could just dsmash or dash away without having to ps, or just roll behind and grab her. I'm not an expert on frame data by any case, but as a zelda main, I KNOW I wouldn't be trying to fsmash if sheik naired on top of my shield, or rely on fsmash for a quick counterstrike, lol. That brings me to

Secondly, fsmash's design is specifically intended to be good against shields. It has little end lag on the move, so decent frame advantage, and it's mutlihits push back the shielding opponent, creating space to keep zelda safe, but to COMPENSATE, it has a longer start up so you can't just spam it anytime someone is near, not to mention if someone rolls behind you before the move, they have all the time in the world to grab you or do whatever. So how is it fair to complain about a move's benefits against shields when it was specifically designed with compensation?

Thirdly, about the video that zhime posted where zelda spams fsmash against mk, look at the context. How often is it going to happen where an opponent is completely trapped against 2 walls and another opponent who's spamming an attack. That's only gonna happen on Pokemon Stadium 1, and pretty much every character could have spammed a move over and over to the same effect. Normally, fsmash would blow the opponent way out of range for a followup on a hit.

Last and most imporant-ly, it's ZELDA versus sheik. Come on. I know pm zelda is better than any previous incarnation, but really. vs SHEIK? Do you really think her fsmash is going to tip the scales unfairly in her favor? In the broader context of the mu, sheik (and many other characters) have so many options to deal with zelda that taking 1 option (that wasn't even available before 2.6) away is trivial. Zelda needs every advantage she can get just to compete in high level play, so anything that nerfs her directly or indirectly is a big deal for her.


The point I'm illustrating here is that the new PS mechanic hurts zelda and other multihit moves more than it helps everyone else

 

[RyokoYaksa]

What moves aren't superior to powershield and instead should be regularly shielded?

Attacks that frame trap and give advantage on block are better off shielded regularly than powershielded. Powershield does not reduce shieldstun, so the pushback negation of powershield does little but make it easier for the attacker to pressure you and harder for you to escape. Attacks that do this are as common a phenomenon as attacks that pushed back on PS previously. If you want to draw a comparison with a popular contemporary fighter, think of UMvC3 where you use advancing guard to push foes away when defending instead of not, because you're still open to crossups as they string moves on your defenses if no pushback is involved.

Just to be clear, your mad that in 2.6, if someone powershields the first hit of Zelda's usmash/fsmash, they have X+a number of frames to respond with, which is marginally superior to the X frames of response time one would get from powershielding any other move in the game.

Going from an unconfirmable amount of reactable frames (I have to wing a punish attempt, if any, for which I might make an incorrect choice) to a confirmable amount (I know I can punish with an ideal X option) is a huge difference, even if the amount seems "marginal" to you. If quick pokes that have "unsafe" frame disadvantage suddenly had 3x hitlag when shielded/PS'd but still had the same amount of punishable frames, they would be punished a lot more and be worse off for it. If two moves are -10 on block and thus both shieldgrabbable, but one has next to no blockstun while the other has just a bit more blockstun, enough to be reactable, the one with reactable blockstun is going to be easily punished just about each and every time. The importance of a setup being reactable on defense as opposed to not is standard fighter 101, and anyone who plays fighters will tell you the importance of being able to react to the frames you're given.

To keep things in mind, in PM, multihit moves were buffed to be more reliable and less SDIable. AND (correct me if I'm wrong), they do superior shield damage on average compared to many other smash attacks.

Very few multihit moves actually do more shield damage than "many other attacks." That only applies to multihits where the upfront hits do full KB and any additional hits are just gravy (Peach's Dsmash, GW's ******** Fsmash, Ganon's Usmash). These are actually a very small subset of already uncommon moves. Multihits that require all of the hits or at least the last one to have any real effect do just as much damage and thus shield damage as any other attack. This comprises most of those attacks. Zelda's Fsmash does 17% if all 5 hits connect. Mario's Fsmash does 19% for hitting once. It's important for (ground) multihit moves to be reliable because they aren't designed to actually to be safe or otherwise do anything to the opponent otherwise. The vast majority are also still terrible on block before and after the change.

Just to be clear, you are saying choosing to hit the shield button within 4 or less frames (I don't know the real number but thats the brawl number) when an incoming attack connects with your character in a fast paced game like PM is not risky because in other fighters, parry is assigned to a separate button!? You do realize that these other staples of blocking exist in fighters too, right:

1. Retreating and blocking are the same button, allowing you to zone and block at the same time

2. In Smash, you have a health bar for your shield, while other fighting games are way more lenient in this regard

3. Getting hit in smash can lead to a major positional disadvantage in a unique way (true of some fighters)

4.. Parrying/advanced guarding can sometimes be done at the same time as blocking in traditional fighters, as is the case of Umvc3. This actually makes blocking significantly easier, which disproves your whole argument. When you distill WHY its so easy, its largely because in MvC, every hit can lead to a MAJOR disadvantage (whereas this isn't true in streetfighter). Therefore, they made parrying easier in response.

Where in the spectrum does Smash fall? I'd say a major hit in smash could lead to a combo shaving off 40% in addition to putting you in a disadvantageous position (roll, off stage, edgeguard) and sometimes even a kill move. **** yes, powershielding in a game like that is highly risky, and **** yes it should give you a reward.

I never said it wasn't risky. What I am saying is that being on a nonconflicting blocking input very much underplays the risk that people say is attributed to it. As I said already, powershielding happens fairly often in the normal course of play with no actual intent to go out of your way to do it. Where's the risk there? How can one justify powershielding being some kind of smart, techical play when it's also described as lucky at the same time by people in this thread because it's also a double input for simply blocking? Undershooting a block attempt at any time in any game will result in you getting hit. There's no point in mentioning this unless you want to be Captain Obvious. Overshooting the timing will still keep you safe in Smash, but not other games with separate parry functions, hence the risk entailed there as opposed to Smash.

1. Yes, and you can retreat or advance in Smash while still being able to block freely. A block button is more powerful and safer for being a nonconflicting input with movement.

2. Most players will tell you that shield health is mostly a nonissue except in very specific situations such as being up against certain (slow, easily zoned) characters who have shield damage modifiers on their core moves. Shield stabbing exists to a relatively small but it's not a constant threat like chip damage because the shield regenerates fairly quickly within seconds whereas your HP in other games, the thing that actually keeps you ticking, does not.

3. ?

4. UMvC3 does not have an "advanced" blocking move in the sense that the fighters we are talking about do. It is done entirely reactively and not at all preemptively, and it serves a very different purpose. It *causes* pushback instead of negating it, which carries its stated purpose of getting an attacker off you. Its purpose is to reset the situation, not make it easier for the defender to counterattack. It's that kind of game where creating space away from the corner is important. Advancing Guard also cuts chip damage in half, which is important when dealing with genuinely unavoidable specials/supers which are rampant in that game. AG was designed to be easy to perform and used liberally in this game given its flow. Bear in mind this game and others that incorporate block into the back input also have high and low blocking + overhead attacks which means that the very act of blocking itself is riskier and more "advanced" than bringing up a shield encompassing more or less your whole body.

Seems like the BR is trying to find where they want to fit the identity of Multihit moves and you are arguing

1. these changes weren't observed carefully

2. Because melee

3. Heavy nerf to Zelda/Peach who didn't need nerfs.

I would personally like to see a world where powershielding was very powerful, and I think they are getting to a place where they are working to improve it (it is easier to execute, universal multihit PSing, etc.). Now, on our way there, somethings going to bite: Either powershielding Multihits is going to be worse (as in not seen at all) or its going to be superior to powershielding a regular move. When I examine that idea, I don't see why I should reward a defensive character using a defensive multihit move over someone who is aggressive and lands a difficult to land power shield. My reasons for that involve depth of gameplay design. Consider the following two interactions.

Scenario 1:

A Zelda playing defensive/campy dins fire traps, a shiek runs in and nairs, a zelda spot dodges and fsmashes, shiek powershields, Zelda has enough time to fsmash again, Shiek gets hit.

Result: Powershielding is useless. Fsmash is still useful if he didn't PS.

Scenario 2:

A Zelda playing defensive/campy dins fire traps, a shiek runs in and nairs, a zelda spot dodges and fsmashes, shiek powershields, Zelda is in lag, Shiek dash attacks/grabs

Result: Powershield is useful, Fsmash is still useful if he didn't PS.

The flow chart is an oversimplification that I already spoke of before, one of which is that Zelda's Fsmash cannot actually be used that way due to its slow startup. Furthermore, powershielding in Melee has a reward, a negation of shield damage for the initial hit you PS'd, and being able to interrupt shield drop immediately into any standing attack even through multiple hits of a shieldlock. Without pushback negation its value was less readily apparent, but this was offset by shield SDI, and pulling off a counter was rewarding whenever it came up against moves that you knew were susceptible to it. That was for the player to employ and not something forced upon by the devs. Stop saying that powershield "isn't useful" without pushback negation or that "there was previously 'no reward' vs. multihits." There has always been some sort of reward for powershielding in Melee. Its primary purpose from Melee was retained, and before the change its interaction with multihits was actually very close to how it worked in Melee. We are not arguing that powershield should or shouldn't have a reward, but the extent of what it should be for the execution involved. Considering that powershielding was still useful in Melee for the execution without actually being obnoxious, I feel the reward there was fine.

My problem remains that despite MHPS being reasoned with a straight face as something that is supposed to "equalize reward" for the new moves it affects, it actually fails at that purpose. Aiming for consistency begets more inconsistency here, with this new mechanic pretty much just thrown in with hopes that it would work out better. PS'ing stronger multihits now creates a stacked effect that hasn't happened to them in any official release of Smash prior to this change. In the most obnoxious case, that would negating 65+ damage worth of pushback on Peach's Dsmash but still creating that much hitlag for all 5 hits on a shield or, if it existed, potentially a 999+ damage multihit spread for just pressing one button because the mechanics allow that potential. Instead of equalizing a net reward against those moves consistent with the rest of the movepool, it shifts them to the polar opposite end of the scale where powershielding is suddenly very effective against them instead of some middle ground like how it works against most moves, because the powershield mechanic targets the only thing that makes them safe on block, pushback, while also creating a highly reactable situation to properly take the punishment opportunity with. For what people say as far as it "not being a big deal" it's a huge difference to powershielding those attacks now which isn't seen with conventional moves, and is a very large departure from the powershield mechanics in Melee and even Brawl instead of making them closer to Melee. It's still a broken mechanic as is as it only affects shieldpush which is the crux of what makes these select few moves safe on normal block. Powershield still doesn't do anything about shieldstun, which is what makes many other commonly thrown out moves still workable on any form of block.

It would warrant making the multihit moves designed to push have safer frames in case of powershield so that these moves keep up with their purpose. This is in comparison to other moves that have exceptional frames and don't care about powershield regardless (some just call those good characters) but doing that would be stupid. Another silly thing to truly "equalize reward" would be to artificially increase hitlag on all powershielded hits that aren't just multihits. Peach's Dsmash does not ever hit a shield all 5 times in any circumstance prior to this change, but now creates that much hitlag and a much reactable situation than normal blocking which otherwise pushes you away after 1-3 hits worth of hitlag. You might as well spread that love of artifically increased hitlag for more reactable punishes to all attacks because that would actually be equalizing reward in that case, but that's stupid, too.

 

[HMWii22]

Wait so what's the overall opinion on 2.6b Zelda?

 

[The_NZA]

My problem with this scenario is that it assumes zelda and sheik have equal capabilities. If Zelda and Sheik were equally good in smash AND sheik had no other option but to ps in that circumstance, then possibly her fsmash being better than ps would be a problem, but that just isn't the case.

First of all, zelda's fsmash has slow start up and would be very risky in close quarters so sheik could just dsmash or dash away without having to ps, or just roll behind and grab her. I'm not an expert on frame data by any case, but as a zelda main, I KNOW I wouldn't be trying to fsmash if sheik naired on top of my shield, or rely on fsmash for a quick counterstrike, lol. That brings me to

Secondly, fsmash's design is specifically intended to be good against shields. It has little end lag on the move, so decent frame advantage, and it's mutlihits push back the shielding opponent, creating space to keep zelda safe, but to COMPENSATE, it has a longer start up so you can't just spam it anytime someone is near, not to mention if someone rolls behind you before the move, they have all the time in the world to grab you or do whatever. So how is it fair to complain about a move's benefits against shields when it was specifically designed with compensation?

Thirdly, about the video that zhime posted where zelda spams fsmash against mk, look at the context. How often is it going to happen where an opponent is completely trapped against 2 walls and another opponent who's spamming an attack. That's only gonna happen on Pokemon Stadium 1, and pretty much every character could have spammed a move over and over to the same effect. Normally, fsmash would blow the opponent way out of range for a followup on a hit.

Last and most imporant-ly, it's ZELDA versus sheik. Come on. I know pm zelda is better than any previous incarnation, but really. vs SHEIK? Do you really think her fsmash is going to tip the scales unfairly in her favor? In the broader context of the mu, sheik (and many other characters) have so many options to deal with zelda that taking 1 option (that wasn't even available before 2.6) away is trivial. Zelda needs every advantage she can get just to compete in high level play, so anything that nerfs her directly or indirectly is a big deal for her.


The point I'm illustrating here is that the new PS mechanic hurts zelda and other multihit moves more than it helps everyone else

I think you missed the point of a hypothetical. It's a narrative tool used to paint a set of events so that the individual events can be leveraged to prove a point. Usually, the hypothetical is designed to focus on a specific point (in this case, is multi-hit Powershielding a good "design"). It wasn't about balance, it wasn't about optimal options, spammability, or the matchup. It was about "when x happens, it leads to y" and "when z happens, it leads to no y". "Which is better".

 

[otheusrex]

I think you missed the point of a hypothetical. It's a narrative tool used to paint a set of events so that the individual events can be leveraged to prove a point. Usually, the hypothetical is designed to focus on a specific point (in this case, is multi-hit Powershielding a good "design"). It wasn't about balance, it wasn't about optimal options, spammability, or the matchup. It was about "when x happens, it leads to y" and "when z happens, it leads to no y". "Which is better".

You can't just dismiss what i'm trying to argue because it doesn't fit what you were talking about.

 

[The_NZA]

Can you explain something basic to me, because I think I'm failing to understand something. If you powerssjielded the first hit of Zelda's fsmash or peaches dsmash in melee and dropped your shield, wouldn't you get hit by the other hits?

 

[Player -0]

Can you explain something basic to me, because I think I'm failing to understand something. If you powerssjielded the first hit of Zelda's fsmash or peaches dsmash in melee and dropped your shield, wouldn't you get hit by the other hits?

I think it locks you into shield into all the hits end?
____________________________________
Anyway:
I really don't see this as a MAJOR problem to Zelda or multi hit move people, we've gave reasons for why we think it's fine and I'm seeing "But multihit moves are supposed to be good on shield D:". The multihit moves still are good on shields, just not powershields and it's semi doubtful you'll get a powershield by just throwing out your shield randomly. A person has to be looking for the multihit move to ATTEMPT for the powershield which then means that the person pretty much just read the multihit guy. It seems that you guys are just concerned that your safe option became a tiny bit less safe even though the means of making the move "unsafe" is acquired through precision.
___________________
Edit Yo:

You can't just dismiss what i'm trying to argue because it doesn't fit what you were talking about.

1. Yeah, the point is that you can get a free move off even if the move is shielded correctly.
2. I talked bout dis yo.
3. Fireballz, yum.
4. Uhh, that's just match up stuff, other characters have the same problems...?

 

[otheusrex]

I think it locks you into shield into all the hits end?
____________________________________
Anyway:
I really don't see this as a MAJOR problem to Zelda or multi hit move people, we've gave reasons for why we think it's fine and I'm seeing "But multihit moves are supposed to be good on shield D:". The multihit moves still are good on shields, just not powershields and it's semi doubtful you'll get a powershield by just throwing out your shield randomly. A person has to be looking for the multihit move to ATTEMPT for the powershield which then means that the person pretty much just read the multihit guy. It seems that you guys are just concerned that your safe option became a tiny bit less safe even though the means of making the move "unsafe" is acquired through precision.​

I like your thinking, however, you're wrong about powershields being something that you need to do intentionally. I play PM a lot, like way more than I should, lol, and I powershield about 25% of my shileds and it's never on purpose. I'm not that good so when I saw myself getting so many powershields I realized it must be pretty easy in PM. Also, you know it's a drastic change to multihit moves when you can shield grab peach's dsmash, lol.

​

 

[Player -0]

I like your thinking, however, you're wrong about powershields being something that you need to do intentionally. I play PM a lot, like way more than I should, lol, and I powershield about 25% of my shileds and it's never on purpose. I'm not that good so when I saw myself getting so many powershields I realized it must be pretty easy in PM. Also, you know it's a drastic change to multihit moves when you can shield grab peach's dsmash, lol.

But maybe that's what we need

 

[Calabrel]

I like your thinking, however, you're wrong about powershields being something that you need to do intentionally. I play PM a lot, like way more than I should, lol, and I powershield about 25% of my shileds and it's never on purpose. I'm not that good so when I saw myself getting so many powershields I realized it must be pretty easy in PM. Also, you know it's a drastic change to multihit moves when you can shield grab peach's dsmash, lol.

​

Show me one match across any of the smash games that 1/4 of the shields are powershields, just one match.

 

[Viceversa96]

My god. Please someone close this thread I think everyone made there point. If you don't like such a minor change that it bothers you and infuriates you then don't play P:M anymore. There are plenty of changes I can't stand that P:M makes but instead of ******** about it for an extended period of time I ADAPT to it.
Seriously if it bothers you that much then just don't play it anymore.

 

[ItalianStallion]

Show me one match across any of the smash games that 1/4 of the shields are powershields, just one match.

All you have to do to find a match like that is boot up PM and play against a level 9 computer.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Show me one match across any of the smash games that 1/4 of the shields are powershields, just one match.

Actually, that's not entirely unheard of in Brawl. Powershields are very common occurrences in the right matchups. It's still on the high end overall, but, it happens.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Also, you know it's a drastic change to multihit moves when you can shield grab peach's dsmash, lol.

​

If Peach's D-smash were any more powerful it would play the rest of the match for you while you walk away to go make a sandwich.

It having a weakness that has roots in prediction and execution on that prediction is perfectly good game design.

 

[The_NZA]

Attacks that frame trap and give advantage on block are better off shielded regularly than powershielded. Powershield does not reduce shieldstun, so the pushback negation of powershield does little but make it easier for the attacker to pressure you and harder for you to escape. Attacks that do this are as common a phenomenon as attacks that pushed back on PS previously. If you want to draw a comparison with a popular contemporary fighter, think of UMvC3 where you use advancing guard to push foes away when defending instead of not, because you're still open to crossups as they string moves on your defenses if no pushback is involved.

Finally got around to parsing this out. I'm sorry, but being better on attacks that offer a frame trap advantage on block can not be argued as a significant enough advantage––especially if you consider that the whole point of frame traps/frame advantages is that you as the defender don't know when the frame advantageous attack is coming. When you consider that, after a PS you could just Shield again when you wait for frame advantage, or simply jab with most characters to apply counter pressure.

If you were hit in this situation, it might be better for you to have stayed in shield, but it's a guessing game and you still end up with more advantages and openings and the odds in your favor if you PS and try to apply counter pressure or keep shielding.

Either way, if this topic is addressing a concern over an unlikely game deciding event, your example of situations is even rarer––moves that are more advantageous on shield is a complete improbability almost not even worth discussing.

Going from an unconfirmable amount of reactable frames (I have to wing a punish attempt, if any, for which I might make an incorrect choice) to a confirmable amount (I know I can punish with an ideal X option) is a huge difference, even if the amount seems "marginal" to you.

I feel like this uncertainty you are speaking about is how the opponent feels when he powershielded a fsmash in 2.5 and then tried to punish Zelda afterwards. "Why don't I have the reactable frames to truly punish after a PS. wtf".

The importance of a setup being reactable on defense as opposed to not is standard fighter 101, and anyone who plays fighters will tell you the importance of being able to react to the frames you're given.

Again, I feel like this whole philosophy favors the defender needing a bigger advantage on a perfect powershield.

1. Yes, and you can retreat or advance in Smash while still being able to block freely. A block button is more powerful and safer for being a nonconflicting input with movement.

First off: don't treat me like I'm an idiot by telling me something thats so blatantly false when we are having a discussion. If you are trying to win an argument just to win an argument, thats something else and I'll leave here. But if you want to genuinely talk mechanics, let's do that.

The reason I'm mad is because you are trying to legitimately tell me that in Smash you can retreat while blocking, which ISNT the same thing at ALL as a typical 2d fighter. Retreating is a catch all response in a fighter: the same tool you use to space automatically blocks for you and if you hold down, you are protected against the other options your opponent has. There's a control functionality to block/retreating in a 2d fighter, but that doesn't make it any less useful or easy to do. This point is not yours to "win".

2. Most players will tell you that shield health is mostly a nonissue except in very specific situations such as being up against certain (slow, easily zoned) characters who have shield damage modifiers on their core moves. Shield stabbing exists to a relatively small but it's not a constant threat like chip damage because the shield regenerates fairly quickly within seconds whereas your HP in other games, the thing that actually keeps you ticking, does not.

Shield health is a nonissue? How hilarious––for someone so focused on a core issue like punish frames available to someone perfectly powershielding Zelda's forward smash, how consistent of you to also dismiss this point.

And yeah, shield chip is a thing but what I was trying to prove is that other fighting games handle blocking in a complete different way so saying a "second button parry" in other fighters has NO SWAY in an argument about the ease/difficulty/risk of powershielding in smash. In smash, if my shield health is low, my choice to shield will lead to a combo anyways OR will put me closer to breaking, which is frequently a free stock.

4. UMvC3 does not have an "advanced" blocking move in the sense that the fighters we are talking about do. It is done entirely reactively and not at all preemptively, and it serves a very different purpose. It *causes* pushback instead of negating it, which carries its stated purpose of getting an attacker off you. Its purpose is to reset the situation, not make it easier for the defender to counterattack. It's that kind of game where creating space away from the corner is important. Advancing Guard also cuts chip damage in half, which is important when dealing with genuinely unavoidable specials/supers which are rampant in that game. AG was designed to be easy to perform and used liberally in this game given its flow. Bear in mind this game and others that incorporate block into the back input also have high and low blocking + overhead attacks which means that the very act of blocking itself is riskier and more "advanced" than bringing up a shield encompassing more or less your whole body.

Wait, your telling me that AG was designed to be performed and used liberally in MvC because the designers of MvC have their own concept of its game flow? Well how about that.

Just because Smash uses the same button to AG or block with does not make an argument about the difficulty of execution. We have now heard you multiple times allude to different games being designed differently and I'm asking you to stop making this incredibly flawed argument. What other fighters do should not be some reflection of what Smash should do, in terms of frame advantages on blocks, especially when there is a diversity of methods of handling defenses across third strike, SF4, MvC3, etc. There is no Fighting game design Bible.

Powershielding is difficult to do with any consistency in Melee/PM and how other fighters handle their parrying systems is marginally related. Ultimately, the PM and the community has their own ideas on what purpose defenses should serve, as it is all of our games. I personally, like PS getting buffed.


I'm not replying anymore in this topic. I, and it appears, the rest of this community have a strong idea of game design/philosophy, and you are obsessed with nitty gritty frame execution advantages that I know with full certainty will never be a problem. Peach's dsmash will still be good, Zelda's Fsmash will still be good, I recommend you get so good at PSing both of these that in actual combat, you can make a name for yourself on how stupidly broken Multiple PS is on this stuff. If the final version isn't out by then, you have a good shot at fixing this issue.

But right now, the only evidence we have is a wifi game where a MK powershielded your charged sixth consecutive fsmash, and then failed to punish you anyways.

 

[Calabrel]

Actually, that's not entirely unheard of in Brawl. Powershields are very common occurrences in the right matchups. It's still on the high end overall, but, it happens.

D*mnit Brawl, you ruin everything!

 

[Zerudahime]

That was MY charged fsmash not Ryoko's thank you very much.
Unless you are replying to me from numerous posts back.

The fsmash spam was for comedic effect obviously.
Regardless of the match, it's a possibility.
The argument isn't how often it happens but why should it ''be able'' to happen.

This thread is too much for me.

 

[Player -0]

I think it SHOULD be able to happen for the various reasons I have posted,
and honestly if you're getting PSed that much....

LOLNUBSCRUB :D

Anyway, I think there really isn't any other reason to post here...

That was MY charged fsmash not Ryoko's thank you very much.
Unless you are replying to me from numerous posts back.

The fsmash spam was for comedic effect obviously.
Regardless of the match, it's a possibility.
The argument isn't how often it happens but why should it ''be able'' to happen.

This thread is too much for me.

Why should it be able to happen:
I think we can agree that multi hit moves are typically better on shield. I think we can also agree that it's very difficult to punish multi hit moves from a shield or in any way if the multihit move is between you and your opponent. Therefore the PMBR gave a means to use the shield against multi hit moves. YES, I get that multihit moves are supposed to be good against shields but the shield didn't get an overall resistance to multihit moves, just a small bonus if blocked CORRECTLY.
So:
- Difficult to punish multihit moves sometimes
- PMBR gave shields a buff against multi hit moves
- This buff wasn't an overall resistance buff
- Opponent can't expect to be able to punish multihit moves by just pressing shield.
- The attacker (Multi-Hit user) can still:
- Space
- Charge up smash


OMG GOTTA GO

 

[RyokoYaksa]

stuff

When at any point have I actually been disrespectful to you in any of my replies? The only animosity I have towards you was imagined. I'm not even on a ph00tbag level here.

I would also be able to take you more seriously if you could tell that zhime and I are not the same person, and that we are not talking about the same things.

I could still go on about this for the sake of debate... so I will.

I'm sorry, but being better on attacks that offer a frame trap advantage on block can not be argued as a significant enough advantage––especially if you consider that the whole point of frame traps/frame advantages is that you as the defender don't know when the frame advantageous attack is coming. When you consider that, after a PS you could just Shield again when you wait for frame advantage, or simply jab with most characters to apply counter pressure.

If you were hit in this situation, it might be better for you to have stayed in shield, but it's a guessing game and you still end up with more advantages and openings and the odds in your favor if you PS and try to apply counter pressure or keep shielding.

Either way, if this topic is addressing a concern over an unlikely game deciding event, your example of situations is even rarer––moves that are more advantageous on shield is a complete improbability almost not even worth discussing.

That's not how anyone will tell you frame advantage on block in any fighter works. Being forced to wait in shield because you don't have frame advantage waiting for them to do something negative on block is still a disadvantage any way you slice it simply because grabs exist. It's a guessing game that's already not in your favor instead of a neutral game and you're devaluing how significant that is. You only wind up with advantage again if the attacker makes a wrong call, but the fact remains that they wind up in this advantageous situation for doing what they should be doing anyway - applying pressure that can damage you, while most characters cannot get away with attacking this way without much fear of being countered on block. These setups stand out for that reason. You're pretty much saying exactly why frame advantage on block is a bad for the defender, and not creating distance on block via PS only makes that worse for them. You're not even in a position to apply *good* counter pressure with jabs because the opponent can still attack faster, jabs are expected in this case and very easily ASDI CCd, and lightning fast yet meaty moves like Fortress or Shine to break those have very limited distribution.

I feel like this uncertainty you are speaking about is how the opponent feels when he powershielded a fsmash in 2.5 and then tried to punish Zelda afterwards. "Why don't I have the reactable frames to truly punish after a PS. wtf".

I had explained that this change did not affect actual frame data or reactable hitlag to any moves on PS, except for moves that should have never been able to hit a shield with all possible hits to begin with (Peach's Dsmash, or a potentially infinitely damaging multihit move). Being able to punish Zelda's Fsmash on block was always an issue of spacing, not reaction time.

Again, I feel like this whole philosophy favors the defender needing a bigger advantage on a perfect powershield.

I've been saying that the change has ultimately been unequal this whole time despite its stated purpose. It wouldn't be the first time stuff was thrown into the public build without thought of all the ramifications, hoping it would just work out in the end. Buffing PS is one thing, but the way it is now only shifted imbalances to the other side of the fence.

Wait, your telling me that AG was designed to be performed and used liberally in MvC because the designers of MvC have their own concept of its game flow? Well how about that.

You were trying to tell me how MvC3's AG somehow disproves my whole argument about execution barriers leading to reward in the form of actual punishment, while ignoring the fact that AG is executed entirely differently and serves a completely opposite intent which is why I excluded it from any comparisons until you decided to bring it into the mix. Advancing Guard is advanced only in name.

The reason I'm mad is because you are trying to legitimately tell me that in Smash you can retreat while blocking, which ISNT the same thing at ALL as a typical 2d fighter. Retreating is a catch all response in a fighter: the same tool you use to space automatically blocks for you and if you hold down, you are protected against the other options your opponent has. There's a control functionality to block/retreating in a 2d fighter, but that doesn't make it any less useful or easy to do. This point is not yours to "win".

And yeah, shield chip is a thing but what I was trying to prove is that other fighting games handle blocking in a complete different way so saying a "second button parry" in other fighters has NO SWAY in an argument about the ease/difficulty/risk of powershielding in smash. In smash, if my shield health is low, my choice to shield will lead to a combo anyways OR will put me closer to breaking, which is frequently a free stock.

Just because Smash uses the same button to AG or block with does not make an argument about the difficulty of execution. We have now heard you multiple times allude to different games being designed differently and I'm asking you to stop making this incredibly flawed argument. What other fighters do should not be some reflection of what Smash should do, in terms of frame advantages on blocks, especially when there is a diversity of methods of handling defenses across third strike, SF4, MvC3, etc. There is no Fighting game design Bible.

Powershielding is difficult to do with any consistency in Melee/PM and how other fighters handle their parrying systems is marginally related. Ultimately, the PM and the community has their own ideas on what purpose defenses should serve, as it is all of our games. I personally, like PS getting buffed.

You were trying to tell me other fighters have it "more lenient" in that regard. For that I disagree depending on the game. For all the crossups, high/low attacks that need to be blocked a certain way, the danger of continuous retreat landing you in the corner, chip damage that will kill you outright, etc. that other fighters throw at you, blocking in Smash is noticeably trivial in comparison. It's exceedingly easy to avoid being shield broken without being forced to tank damage unless you're up against a select few moves that deal ******** shield damage. Easy extends to the "parry" mechanic and a reason why strengthening it in only one way is inelegant, even dangerous. If you won't take that at face value then try to rationalize how often powershields happen without any actual intent to do them, somehow not undermining any part of its supposed difficulty or risk, for how much more rewarding it is against certain attacks now compared to others (lucky powershields). Even on its own merits, the change is flawed. Comparing it to other games only adds additional fuel for why it's weird, being just one of the things leading me to appreciate other fighters more and wean myself off P:M.