My original fears of Nintendo balancing Smash are coming true.

[Dragoomba]

Judging from the current community documented patch notes, Smash 4 is going the way I had expected balance-wise, and it's not good.

The overall balance changes so far seem legit, slightly nerfing some top tier gimmicks, while giving lower tier characters things that they really need. However, something else this patch has showed us was how stifled we are on our creativity.

Link's Bomb Canceling and Peach's Turnip Cancelling weren't removed to make the game more balanced, they were removed just because they were minor glitches. Wario's vectoring nonsense somewhat broke the game and needed to go, but small little ATs like this?

Removing things such as Greninja's Shadow Sneak aerial cancels were unnecessary as well, considering it's a 50/50 mixup that's heavily punishable both ways. Nintendo is not only balancing the game with these updates, but they're taking away options.

If this is the beginning of a trend, not even a couple months before finding new ATs for specific characters will pass before they're patched out. This is turning out to be the most shallow Smash game in the series if this is true, with the mentality of the developers being "play the characters EXACTLY how we want them to be played".

The argument of "Not all of the changes are found yet, you should wait until you jump to these conclusions" is irrelevant, because we already know they're removing ATs that made the game more interesting.

 

[SmashBro99]

If you want a broken game that will never be fixed...

I'm glad they are fixing the game to how they (the creators) meant for it to be played.

I see where you are coming from, I just disagree.

 

[LancerStaff]

I'd much rather play the game it was ment to be played. Players need to have these potentially degenerate options taken away before they'll stop using them. *coughMKDSsnakingcough* Even if they're not that big, how do you think somebody who didn't know about the glitch would feel if he lost because of it? In case you haven't noticed, there's typically a strong aversion to glitches that give players an advantage. Firehopping in MK8 anyone? It barely makes a difference unless you're playing mushrooms only or something, and yet there was a pretty big comotion about it. Nintendo, a largely casual focused company, is interested in keeping the average Joe player happy over a hardcore one.

 

[Dragoomba]

I see where you are coming from, I just disagree.

I respect your opinion, but any other Smash game could be used as an example, not just Melee.

Brawl, a game with generally many, many more problems than Smash 4, also had a lot of character creativity. Upon playing Smash 4, I was also really disappointed that 90% of the ATs from Brawl were removed from this game despite it being a modified Brawl engine. Now I'm a tad disappointed they're removing what little ATs have been found so far.

Firehopping in MK8 anyone? It barely makes a difference unless you're playing mushrooms only or something, and yet there was a pretty big comotion about it. Nintendo, a largely casual focused company, is interested in keeping the average Joe player happy over a hardcore one.

I actually think firehopping is an amazing "exploit" and respect Nintendo a lot for not having touched it at all via MK8 patches. It's subtle and makes a small difference in gameplay (sans Time Trials where it's necessary), unlike snaking which was absolutely tedious and required to do remotely well online.

That's how I feel with the subtle ATs such as Link/TL's bomb cancels and Peach's edge-cancel turnip plucks. They're not absolutely necessary, but they at least give your character more options and make them slightly more interesting.

 

[LancerStaff]

I actually think firehopping is an amazing "exploit" and respect Nintendo a lot for not having touched it at all via MK8 patches. It's subtle and makes a small difference in gameplay (sans Time Trials where it's necessary), unlike snaking which was absolutely tedious and required to do remotely well online.

That's how I feel with the subtle ATs such as Link/TL's bomb cancels and Peach's edge-cancel turnip plucks. They're not absolutely necessary, but they at least give your character more options and make them slightly more interesting.

Firehopping is just a glitch that adds another arbitrary imput to MK, not that it's a bad thing itself in a game like that. Only reason they haven't patched it is because it'd kill every TT ghost ever and it really does that little in an average race.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If they didn't remove certain things from Peach she would have still had a 0-death on a lot of the cast.

That's not healthy no matter ow unlikely I thought it was for her to pull that off.

 

[RespawningJesus]

Eh, I am indifferent to this. If anything, this just closes the gap between a good player and an average player. Of course, the good player will always have the better chance at winning, due to them having a better understanding of the game. Not only that, but it makes the barrier of entry to the world of competitive smash lower than normal.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Just thought I would say vaugue use of the word "meant" isn't grounds for accepting deliberate assault against a player base.

Developer intent as a reason sounds like a narcissistic ideal, that even after purchase I cannot enjoy a product.

Two things, smash is not "meant" to be played in anyway, and even it it was, it shouldn't matter so long as it's enjoyable. Just because somethings meant to be technical or not doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to enjoy it if what I do isn't to the creators "satisfaction". That's bull****.

With that said, the fact that things like Pivot canceling weren't remove means that there is a solid foundation in which the game can improve upon with intuitive and concise technical applications. There is a reason why some moves like Links Dair and Peach Fair aren't instantly safe. The Greninja shadow cancel removal hurt me, but he is still a good character , and there is always room for improvement.

 

[Epok]

I think what we are seeing here is a major dynamic shift from how we view the game. In my opinion, I feel as if Nintendo is trying to shift from an experience that was PLAYER vs GAME, to PLAYER vs PLAYER.

To me the technical depth of Melee and P:M forced the player to think about mastering mechanics more than mastering strategies against your opponents. Of course at higher level play both are important.

Where as in Smash 4, you start to see less ans less technical depth witch means the strategy of how you use your tools in a very "vanilla" state is where the depth lies.

Figuring out play styles, patterns, and options is more important here. Which to me is good. I would rather learn how to read peoples play styles, and adapt than grind technical skill for hours. But that's just me.

Chess is not deep because of mechanics. For the most part it takes a few games to understand what each piece does or how they move. Of course there are a couple underline nuances, but for the most part the depth of chess does not lie in mechanics but the strategy. And this game has stood the test of time with out any need to change these rules.

Nintendo intentionally made the button commands of the characters simple for a reason. everyone has an up, down, side, and standard B attack. Could you imagine if every time you wanted to do Mario's Fire ball you hand to hit down, forward, B? It would be a whole different game.

 

[Crescent_Sun]

More than that, it's unprofessional, something Nintendo of all companies is much more concerned with than you'd think. When this game is supposed to be a low barrier to entry fighting game and the most important mechanics are through clear button presses, anything else just being made of combinations of moves rather than abusing of obscure techniques based on glitches, it deviates from their clear goal, and it would be much less of a problem for them if these things weren't caused by glitches.

Even if the glitches are great for competition, they're a stain on their reputation, and now that Nintendo's been hosting invitational tournaments and such, I doubt they want to deal with the potential industry embarrassment of someone winning through fights because of a glitch no one knew about. I don't blame them at all.

 

[Darklink401]

So here's the thing.

Aight?

So if there's ATs, people will use them.

Whether ATs exist or not, people will play the character their own way. This IS a fact.

I LIKE the exploitable glitches and mechanics that DON'T break the game, but rather, create a niche for characters, but I mean, can you blame Sakurai for wanting this to be perfect to his vision?

 

[xTeru]

I think the glitches were only removed because sakurai fixed them in time for the Wii U version, I highly doubt hes going to fix all ATs that are discovered from now on

 

[Bearbuddy4]

I understand what you're saying, its fun when someone comes up with a cool trick to use with a character. But i'd rather have it this way. The best way for a roster to be balanced is for nintendo to be able to make changes after the fact. If we all figure out that lucina for example is incredibly good and half of the online matches involve her, i'd want Nintendo to nerf her, probably because i would be tired of fighting her all the time.

there are many players who play "top tier" just because they want to win easier. I just wana play chubbyzard.

 

[SaltyKracka]

We knew this was going to happen anyways. The Wii U version was under continuing development, and we knew that there would be a patch to bring the two versions into line with each other.

It's not a terrible surprise that they would have continued balancing on the WiiU version and changed the balance of the 3DS version as a consequence.

As for the future...who knows?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

What needs to be patches is rolling,

 

[otter]

It will take longer than this games life cycle to for Nintendo to get any grasp of balancing a fighting game, and by then only melee will have a community.

 

[otter]

I understand what you're saying, its fun when someone comes up with a cool trick to use with a character. But i'd rather have it this way. The best way for a roster to be balanced is for nintendo to be able to make changes after the fact. If we all figure out that lucina for example is incredibly good and half of the online matches involve her, i'd want Nintendo to nerf her, probably because i would be tired of fighting her all the time.

there are many players who play "top tier" just because they want to win easier. I just wana play chubbyzard.

Chubbyzard got nerfed while being far below average.

 

[GeZ]

I agree with OP. Fighting games, as a genre, are built upon being released and letting the community take it from there. The exploits have often pioneered the games (see Street Fighter 2). And the best old fighting games have been the ones that just let their varying exploits rock, and their meta develop off that.

Like, it still blows my mind that people think Melee isn't the most competitive Smash game, or that it is because its playerbase is against change, rather than that it has the most technical depth.

 

[Bearbuddy4]

Chubbyzard got nerfed while being far below average.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not my chubbyzard!

 

[neohopeSTF]

Honestly it just seems that this patch was made to make the game the same to the WiiU version which was in development longer, and had more bug testing.

 

[lijero13ss]

TLink was my main... ;'(

 

[Balgorxz]

the problem is that people report techs as bugs so they just remove them like they were bugs, I've seen people tweet videos to nintendo what's their opinion on this "bugs".
be open about it nintendo is listening but people actually have to be vocal about how they are supposed to know which are good and bad exploits

 

[Indigo Jeans]

When a developer decides that a game should ONLY be played in the way THEY THINK it should be played, it essentially makes releasing the game to the public a moot point. I mean whats the point in giving people the illusion of "freedom" and "individual playstyles" if youre going to nerf for the purpose of removing options, rather than for balance? Most of the changes were not balance patches. The few that are are the nerf to Hydro Pump's pushbox and Luma's increased spawn time (AHAHAHAH). Aside from that most nerfs are, like I said, detrimental, because they aim to remove options from one party in a way that doesnt open up more options to another party that was in need of them.

Nerfing Hydro Pump opened up the very vital option of recovery to various characters, in the sense that things like Super Dedede Jump and Balloon Trip are basically struck out due to being guaranteed stock losses against Hydro Pump. You were put in a fundamentally broken disadvantage in that situation.

Meanwhile removing shadow sneak cancelled aerials did NOT open up any significant (amount) of options for any character. There were definitely ways to handily deal with them. They did not unbalance any situations. This change was not a balance change, it was a "play how we want you to play" change.

Changing hydrant to no longer be a reliable projectile option for Pac-Man did NOT open up any significant (amount) of options for any character. There were definitely ways to handily deal with it It did not unbalance any situations. This change was not a balance change, it was a "play how we want you to play" change.

Changing multihit aerials to longer drag opponents with them did NOT open up any significant (amount) of options for any character. There were definitely ways to handily deal with them. They did not unbalance any situations. This change was not a balance change, it was a "play how we want you to play" change.

This sort of mentality on the developers' side is honestly just saddening and I'm appalled that so many of you seem to be perfectly fine with basically being told how you should enjoy and how you should play a game.

 

[TTTTTsd]

I'm indifferent to it. I like seeing hilarious glitches like Wario's vectoring but I understand why it has to be fixed, not that I appreciate it.
Keep in mind this update also fixes a lot of toxic ****, like Wario's grab release, Diddy's hitstun cancels...it's a double edged sword, and it's important to know that.
This community confuses me. You want balance patches until it actually happens? Of COURSE they're going to universally fix bugs, regardless of ATs or anything, if it's not intended by the developer they're going to patch it. I don't disrespect your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

 

[SonicZeroX]

Man if you really love these glitches so much you know you can just uninstall the patch and play the older version whenever you like right?

 

[GeZ]

Man if you really love these glitches so much you know you can just uninstall the patch and play the older version whenever you like right?

How do you make a post like that after 1,527 posts?
What have they all been, just social thread dross?
Jesus christ.

 

[TTTTTsd]

I also think people are ignoring more intuitive changes that promote better options.

For instance, Dr. Mario's new Dair is amazing for low % combo utility and it sucked at that before, so I appreciate this patch quite a bit.

Or what about every Ike change period?

 

[Crescent_Sun]

Glitches tend to be specific instances unless they become a massive deal like wavedashing and the developer is not telling you "you should play this way" with update fixes but rather "oh, that was a mistake, playing that way is not within the design balancing we intended and may badly affect future balancing." Further, there are so many ways to play that don't involve all this. Removing that shadow sneak cancel is not completely removing a playstyle, it was a technique, and a technique is not a playstyle. You can still play however the hell you want, they're just barring off technique that end up honestly coming off as smears on their coding.

 

[SonicZeroX]

How do you make a post like that after 1,527 posts?
What have they all been, just social thread dross?
Jesus christ.

Yes that's literally all I do.

 

[Nobie]

I think there's this ongoing "arms race" between game developers and competitive players, where the game developers try to give each of their characters (or races or whatever) a certain set of strengths and weaknesses, but the players constantly try to find ways to eliminate all weaknesses. It makes sense on both sides: the developers want to present a game as a series of intricate paths of decision-making, while the players want to have as fool-proof and water-tight a plan as possible so that they can never lose. When an exploit or "advanced technique" is discovered, it exposes this issue. The competitive players like it because it transforms the character into something they likely weren't before, like how Fox took what was supposed to be a defensive tool in Reflector in Melee and made it the backbone of his offense. However, game developers dislike it because it transforms that character into something they weren't.

You can see this in how 1.0.4 has tried to balance things out. Instead of giving Ganondorf a new technique that allows him to instantly teleport or something, he just got some slight improvements to landing lag. He's still designed to be the slow, plodding punish-based character he always was, only now he can take a few more chances when going for reads. Meta Knight is supposed to be a quick and relentless fighter with tons of multi-hit moves balanced out by his light weight, lack of range, and need to commit to attacks, but they decided he didn't have the necessary KO power to back this up, so they improved his power on certain moves.

 

[Darklink401]

I feel sorry for Greninja, but happy none of my characters got nerfed.....cept Sheik, but she deserved it, frankly.

 

[GeZ]

I think there's this ongoing "arms race" between game developers and competitive players, where the game developers try to give each of their characters (or races or whatever) a certain set of strengths and weaknesses, but the players constantly try to find ways to eliminate all weaknesses. It makes sense on both sides: the developers want to present a game as a series of intricate paths of decision-making, while the players want to have as fool-proof and water-tight a plan as possible so that they can never lose. When an exploit or "advanced technique" is discovered, it exposes this issue. The competitive players like it because it transforms the character into something they likely weren't before, like how Fox took what was supposed to be a defensive tool in Reflector in Melee and made it the backbone of his offense. However, game developers dislike it because it transforms that character into something they weren't.

Not true. Smash developers are constantly at war with its fans in one way or another but the standard developers just create there game to be balanced and then leave it to the competitive community to mold it as they will. They'll take out things that are broken and balance as best they can, just as competitive players will strive to play their character to the best of their ability, but that only loosely fits what you said.

You should check out other fighting game communities and their relationships with their developers. They're much more harmonious than this one.

 

[GdspdUblkprzdnt]

Honestly it just seems that this patch was made to make the game the same to the WiiU version which was in development longer, and had more bug testing.

This is a point I don't see a lot of people making. So far I haven't heard of really important tech being MIA such DACUS, crouch canceling, RAR etc. Just things that were more character specific. It might be a little too early for judgement but the fact that Nintendo is patching things at all makes me nervous and uneasy. I feel we have to reserve any judgment until the next patch but it does feel likely this is only the beginning.

Addendum: ALSO NINTENDO PROBABLY MONITORS THESE VERY BOARDS IN SEARCH OF THINGS TO PATCH SO LET'S ALL KEEP DISCOVERED TECH TO OURSELVES KAY? OR JUST PASS THEM ORALLY AT TOURNAMENTS OR IN ANALOG FORMATS SUCH AS CASSETTES AND FLOPPY DRIVES.

 

[GLStephen]

Not true. Smash developers are constantly at war with its fans in one way or another but the standard developers just create there game to be balanced and then leave it to the competitive community to mold it as they will. They'll take out things that are broken and balance as best they can, just as competitive players will strive to play their character to the best of their ability, but that only loosely fits what you said.

You should check out other fighting game communities and their relationships with their developers. They're much more harmonious than this one.

So are there glitches that were pressent in SF IV still present in USF IV? I honestly do not know. Just curious.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

I dont see a problem.
They're polishing the game. That's all it is. If you don't like what the game is supposed to be then that is unfortunate for you, feel me?
Like what the game is supposed to be and what it may actually be are two different things and it seems they're trying to make their vision a reality.
There is no problem with that, that's how you initially make the game anyways.
You have a goal you try to bring it to fruition on the way there are things you overlooked and glitches/bugs that occur. They don't have to keep those in however, and they aren't. I don't see the qualm.
Infact I think I quite like it.

Now if rolls got a reasonable nerf I'd be quite pleased.

 

[GeZ]

So are there glitches that were pressent in SF IV still present in USF IV? I honestly do not know. Just curious.

There are, though that's not because the team left them in. SFIV is kind of rare because its developer team is so entrenched in the fighting game community that their balancing is widely accepted as thoughtful and understandingly infrequent.

 

[Dragoomba]

So are there glitches that were pressent in SF IV still present in USF IV? I honestly do not know. Just curious.

Yes. Things like Sagat's "kara" uppercut and fireballs, in which he cancels the startup frames of his forward medium kick into a Tiger Uppercut or Tiger Shot for extra distance remained in the game since SF4, whether it was intentional or not. It made the character unique with things such as forward advancing projectiles, and gave him more options.

 

[Crescent_Sun]

A big difference between this fighting game and others that likely results in some of these issues is that the competitive community makes up a larger portion of the other fight games audiences. It's a niche and the Smash series takes that and wants to bring it to a bigger audience, hence the simpler control scheme inputs compared to traditional fighters. They don't want this weird **** in the game because they want anyone to be able to pick up the game and not be blindsided by techniques that goes against the principles of the game. They want a lower barrier to entry because they are targeting a wider audience.

 

[GeZ]

A big difference between this fighting game and others that likely results in some of these issues is that the competitive community makes up a larger portion of the other fight games audiences. It's a niche and the Smash series takes that and wants to bring it to a bigger audience, hence the simpler control scheme inputs compared to traditional fighters. They don't want this weird **** in the game because they want anyone to be able to pick up the game and not be blindsided by techniques that goes against the principles of the game. They want a lower barrier to entry because they are targeting a wider audience.

Smash's identity as a fighting game is pretty jank. I think of the games Melee and Project M are the only really respectably competitive games of the series. Not that the others can't have their own scenes and competition, but the aforementioned two are the ones that most fit the usual fighting game level of meta/ mindgames/ and dedication.

 

[Crescent_Sun]

I still think Smash 4 can prove itself as respectively competitive, it'll just be very different in approach. i can't measure level of dedication compared to other fighting games, but as a whole as someone who's always been pretty turned off by fighting game communities and fighting games in general, if it's so separated from others and isn't respected for what it is, I don't really see it as a bad thing. I think Brawl was not a good situation competitively, but I think Smash 4 will be great in the long run. This is just the kind of scene I much prefer to the likes of melee and project M, even though I like those too. Smash has always been weird and I don't quite like the idea of trying to think of it in comparison to other fighting games that are so radically different.

So I guess I won't debate your last remark, since that's not something that I think matters quite as much. I just understand why it is that Nintendo is balancing the way it is and removing what it is, and think that that makes sense because of what Smash is: Weird and different but still a fighting game somehow.