My original fears of Nintendo balancing Smash are coming true.

[LancerStaff]

I just don't understand the logic behind wanting ATs. Not only if they were never there in the first place, people wouldn't want them, they wouldn't exactly be "advanced" anymore if they were intentional. The game is great without them, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place.

 

[Captain Norris]

I'll give you Palutena, but Rosalina? She already has one hell of an amazing defensive tool to keep the opponent out: the Luma. She doesn't need the roll on top of that. Especially since it ends up negating what's supposed to be her main weakness, whenever Luma dies she can just keep rolling until it respawns. She needs to be more vulnerable once that thing is down.

that is a fair point. But I mean it can be easily fixed. I was more referring to how she disappears momentarily. Just add some end lag on the rolls and that is fixed for the most part.

 

[RamenKing1]

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.

I miss my rush cancelling...as if MegaMan didn't already have ways to get screwed with his long smash cool downs :S

 

[Snowfin]

I just don't understand the logic behind wanting ATs.

We want more options, because the "intended options" are waaaaaaaaay tooooooooooooooo limited, and pretty bad at doing what they´re supposed to do. Thats the reason people love Melee... no1 cares about having to press a lot of buttons very fast to do something. For example, where is Dash Dancing? Why, why, WHY IN THE WORLD would they take dash dancing out? Its not even pressing buttons like super fast but... why do they take such an important movement and baiting option out? WHY didnt they give us like a "dedicated wavedash" button? Lets say wavedashing is weird and akward the way it works in Melee... well we are in 2014 and its clear that having access to your standing arsenal while dashing is IMPORTANT. Why dont they just make an official move for wavedashing with a dedicated button or something like that?

And before some idiot that doesnt play melee starts saying stupid stuff... NOOO people wouldnt only wavedash and not run anymore if they had done that. In Melee, depending on the situation / character, you sometimes wanted to run instead of WD.

TLDR: We want OPTIONS. In Smash, this ATs are what gives use options because Sakurai doesnt want us to have many of them (because the fewer options we have, the bigger of a chance lazy casual players have at standing a chance and not getting totally destroyed.) We wouldnt need this ATs if Sakurai gave us plenty of good movement options (the biggest problem for me is the lack of movement options, i dont even care that l-cancelling is gone... but no wavedash and dance dancing... MOVEMENT SUCKS in this game) but he didnt, as always, so we try to find some on our own through his ****ups.

The problem is, Sakurai is now patching his ****ups to keep the game as option-less as possible.

 

[MegaMissingno]

The game is great without them, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place.

Well quite a number of us feel that the game has some serious shortcomings that could hopefully be addressed with new tech. I'm here because I'm disappointed in the direction they've decided to go. Right now SSB4 is just way too defensive, and this is a big problem. And if they keep taking out anything people discover that might help overcome that, then it's just going to stay that way.

Conversely, I don't see why people are so opposed to keeping DACUS or other ATs like they're the worst thing in the world. What's wrong with DACUS? It was good for Brawl, so why is it suddenly a problem now? If it can make the game better and more aggressive, what's the harm in leaving it in? And before you say it, "because it's a glitch" is not a valid argument.

 

[RedEyesKirby]

We want more options, because the "intended options" are waaaaaaaaay tooooooooooooooo limited, and pretty bad at doing what they´re supposed to do. Thats the reason people love Melee... no1 cares about having to press a lot of buttons very fast to do something. For example, where is Dash Dancing? Why, why, WHY IN THE WORLD would they take dash dancing out? Its not even pressing buttons like super fast but... why do they take such an important movement and baiting option out? WHY didnt they give us like a "dedicated wavedash" button? Lets say wavedashing is weird and akward the way it works in Melee... well we are in 2014 and its clear that having access to your standing arsenal while dashing is IMPORTANT. Why dont they just make an official move for wavedashing with a dedicated button or something like that?

And before some idiot that doesnt play melee starts saying stupid stuff... NOOO people wouldnt only wavedash and not run anymore if they had done that. In Melee, depending on the situation / character, you sometimes wanted to run instead of WD.

TLDR: We want OPTIONS. In Smash, this ATs are what gives use options because Sakurai doesnt want us to have many of them (because the fewer options we have, the bigger of a chance lazy casual players have at standing a chance and not getting totally destroyed.) We wouldnt need this ATs if Sakurai gave us plenty of good movement options (the biggest problem for me is the lack of movement options, i dont even care that l-cancelling is gone... but no wavedash and dance dancing... MOVEMENT SUCKS in this game) but he didnt, as always, so we try to find some on our own through his ****ups.

The problem is, Sakurai is now patching his ****ups to keep the game as option-less as possible.

I don't think "options" is what you are trying to use as the argument here because if anything Melee limits the amount of options you can do. In order to play well you MUST L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance, which leaves only 3 things you can really do to approach. If you don't use any of these to approach then you are at a disadvantage. So that's not really an option. And by L-cancelling there really are limited options for the defensive player to do. Which is why so many characters are not viable in Melee. The only characters that can take advantage to L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance are the only ones who can play hence limited options.

In smash 4, there are much more options for approaching and defending because of different kind of move lag and move attributes and hitboxes for each character where non of the moves are dominant and full of weaknesses and holes. I think what you're looking for is just learning curve to access the best option. Because if you think about it, Melee really is all about learning techniques to be as dominant as possible leaving no room for the defender to defend if you execute the techniques in a very precise timing. So in a sense there is a powerful feeling for the user because the user was able to execute timely precision and is rewarded with dominant power much like UMvC. Where as in smash 4 is more about spacing, footsies, reading opponents, and making the right execution will gain you advantages. You have to cumulate theses advantages to get a win more like SF4. Although with USF4 it has become a bit more hybrid with dominant executions.

 

[MegaMissingno]

In order to play well you MUST L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance, which leaves only 3 things you can really do to approach.

That's not three. You have five different aerials to SHFFL, almost every single ground move out of a wavedash, and several more out of a dashdance with different ways to space them. That's why these techs are so great, they let you approach with almost your entire moveset. That's a lot of options at your disposal. Much more than three.

So that's not really an option. And by L-cancelling there really are limited options for the defensive player to do.

Good. Limiting the defending player makes so much more sense than limiting the attacking player. The biggest reason why Melee has endured for so long as one of the greatest competitive games ever made is its raw and unbridled sense of aggression, which all these mechanics help to promote.

 

[chainmaillekid]

Well quite a number of us feel that the game has some serious shortcomings that could hopefully be addressed with new tech. I'm here because I'm disappointed in the direction they've decided to go. Right now SSB4 is just way too defensive, and this is a big problem. And if they keep taking out anything people discover that might help overcome that, then it's just going to stay that way.

Conversely, I don't see why people are so opposed to keeping DACUS or other ATs like they're the worst thing in the world. What's wrong with DACUS? It was good for Brawl, so why is it suddenly a problem now? If it can make the game better and more aggressive, what's the harm in leaving it in? And before you say it, "because it's a glitch" is not a valid argument.

I say either implement it as a feature or take it out.

Currently QAC is in a weird state of limbo, and it makes its use as a tech super inconsistent.

QAC is in SSB4!
But only on sloped terrain.

Oh but you can do it off of ledges!
But that hardly does anything in For Glory mode...

Oh, and now there's an update, and QAC still works the same, except you can no longer use fair out of it!

I love QAC, I really do. But this is just frustrating. Either they need to make it so its fully in, or fully out.
None of this inbetween nonsense.

Same deal with DACUS.
I'd rather have it out of the game, then able to be performed and utilized on Wii U, but too difficult to perform on 3DS.

 

[Shaya]

Conversely, I don't see why people are so opposed to keeping DACUS or other ATs like they're the worst thing in the world. What's wrong with DACUS? It was good for Brawl, so why is it suddenly a problem now? If it can make the game better and more aggressive, what's the harm in leaving it in? And before you say it, "because it's a glitch" is not a valid argument.

It wasn't bad for Brawl, is what you mean. And because it's a glitch is a valid argument, considering we're playing a game that gets updates, the author isn't dead and far from it.
And having a mentality of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' is pretty sloppy professionally and in modern design. Accidents can be good, I agree; please don't bring that argument up. What if dashing up smashes were just as good as DACUS? Because guess what Dacus completely replaces if its available.
To me, that's very shallow. You want a flashy game of accidents that you can test 100,000,000 instances of to see how they apply in ways you may or may not expect. That's definitely an amazing part of games, the ability to explore. Perhaps that's why we have our game expanded with custom specials? An ever growing roster? More stages? I'm primarily over needless exploration, I like knowing what I'm capable of doing and mastering what I have (which I nor anyone else is remotely close to).
At the end of the day, I play every Smash game pretty well, I enjoy smash more for the puzzle aspect to it than the technical one (the notion of expecting and covering all enemy options); have a conversation with M2K, Armada or *plug* Tyrant about options, IN ANY OF THE SMASH GAMES, and see how rarely it's about technicalities at all, it's not what any of the Smash games are meant to be about, if you ask them how they 'do that' it's almost always a shrug off or "I just do this, that, this", a list of button presses you're expected to be able to replicate without too much effort [and you kinda have to just keep up]. Wave dashing can be nice (but it's hardly what 'makes' melee what it is), but when there is enough speed and variability in movement options, why do we need it? (people tend to down play how some of these things are just as good for defense as they are for aggression); dacus can be nice, but why can't running up smashes just be better? etc etc

 

[Kozmiic27]

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.

dude melee is great I have it on right now and play it to this day, imo its better than smash 4 and has a much higher skillcap with lots of ats

 

[chainmaillekid]

dude melee is great I have it on right now and play it to this day, imo its better than smash 4 and has a much higher skillcap with lots of ats

We don't know what the skillcap of SSB4 is at the moment. Not even close.

 

[Kozmiic27]

We don't know what the skillcap of SSB4 is at the moment. Not even close.

Well its never going to be as high as melee. Especially without all the exploitable glitches and ats

 

[chainmaillekid]

Well its never going to be as high as melee. Especially without all the exploitable glitches and ats

I don't know about that.

The potential for such a large roster of viable characters could heighten the skill cap significantly.

Particularly if matchups become more important, which I think is a reasonable expectation for a well balanced game.

The state of ATs is still not well understood yet either.

 

[otter]

I don't think "options" is what you are trying to use as the argument here because if anything Melee limits the amount of options you can do. In order to play well you MUST L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance, which leaves only 3 things you can really do to approach. If you don't use any of these to approach then you are at a disadvantage. So that's not really an option. And by L-cancelling there really are limited options for the defensive player to do. Which is why so many characters are not viable in Melee. The only characters that can take advantage to L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance are the only ones who can play hence limited options.

In smash 4, there are much more options for approaching and defending because of different kind of move lag and move attributes and hitboxes for each character where non of the moves are dominant and full of weaknesses and holes. I think what you're looking for is just learning curve to access the best option. Because if you think about it, Melee really is all about learning techniques to be as dominant as possible leaving no room for the defender to defend if you execute the techniques in a very precise timing. So in a sense there is a powerful feeling for the user because the user was able to execute timely precision and is rewarded with dominant power much like UMvC. Where as in smash 4 is more about spacing, footsies, reading opponents, and making the right execution will gain you advantages. You have to cumulate theses advantages to get a win more like SF4. Although with USF4 it has become a bit more hybrid with dominant executions.

I don't know if it's more sad that this post exists, or that people are liking it. I'm just going to accept that smash is ending.

 

[chainmaillekid]

I don't know if it's more sad that this post exists, or that people are liking it. I'm just going to accept that smash is ending.

You're going to need to have do say something to defend your point, or at least specify what exactly it is you're objecting to.

Otherwise you're just making a post even more worthless than the one you're criticizing.

 

[otter]

You're going to need to have do say something to defend your point.

Otherwise you're just making a post even more worthless than the one you're criticizing.

the universal techs in melee do wonders for balance. why do you think m2k can beat most tournaments players with random select in melee, but has to pick metaknight to beat average players in brawl?

but honestly the arguments have all been done hundreds of times. I can't see the smash 4 scene lasting long enough for the scrubs or nintendo to become competent.

 

[ewic]

dude melee is great I have it on right now and play it to this day, imo its better than smash 4 and has a much higher skillcap with lots of ats

I think your definition of "skill" is flawed.

I'm guessing what you mean is "technical skill" which may be true in the case of Melee. And that's fine.

However, what if I said having technical skill doesn't mean you outplayed your opponent?
Here's a prime example: Ice Climbers. In both Brawl and Melee the general way people play them is to fish for a chain-grab and 0-death their opponent with a series of practiced, memorized button presses. So in a 3 stock match, if they land 3 grabs on you, it's game over. I don't know about you, but I think having a match being so cut-throat is neither fun, nor does it encourage "skillful" play, as the opponent has to play the game scared for their life at all times in fear of a single grab.

Smash 4 has more than enough ways to outplay your opponent. There's a reason why in the few tournaments we've had for Smash 4, that the top players have placed consistently high. If they were being limited by "not having enough options" then tournament results would be a complete crap-shoot as to who would win.

Consider Chess. Chess has a mere 6 different types of pieces, and yet nobody questions its depth, strategy, and skill required to play it. Sometimes the number of options you have doesn't determine how good of player you are. Something to think about.

 

[Tagxy]

Its been addressed multiple times already, including with many interesting and insightful posts. Sadly the crowd promoting more options seem to ignore or not understand the point. More options does not equate to more depth, and in many cases can dilute it. I'm at a loss in how to move forward here as the concept isnt hard to understand, yet the past several pages some seem intent on not addressing this key point against their stance.

From a competitive point of view, a castrated version of smash could never be as good as a Nintendo themed chess set. 20 years from now, melee with be seen as a competitive masterpiece, as Street Fighter 2 is today.

This stance may pass freely with certain crowds, but melee cant get away praising itself as a "competitive masterpiece" by virtue of being mlee, such words hold no meaning unless you support it. In contrast there's more then enough criticism to push it far from "masterpiece" and into the hands of "cult classic". Overly technical requirements that make the real game inaccessible, high levels of complex mechanics that add minimal depth, the most imbalanced smash title at top level, more as needed.

I love melee but lets not keep referencing this fun but flawed title as something worth emulating outside "this is what Im used to".

The problem is that technical requirements are a huge part of what makes fighting games interesting. Maybe way more than that depending on how early video games are seen by society. This hypothetical smash with no tech barriers Is rock/paper/scissors with an element of spacing, how is that supposed to stay interesting as long as melee or starcraft? Nintendo only wants it to stay interesting until the trailer for the next game is ready, but it's unlikely to even last that long.

This is incorrect, there are plenty of successful competitive games that arent reliant on absurd technical prowess. Good competitive titles dont rely on complex mechanics but on the depth of the interaction amongst its players.

And yet top 8 at KTAR had no problem with rolling to the edge anyway in spite of its alleged significant drawbacks.

The only one I saw attempt to abuse rolling was M2K in grand finals. Its no surprise he was dominated in a diddy mirror by a player who did not.

 

[chainmaillekid]

I can't see the smash 4 scene lasting long enough for the new players or nintendo to start understanding.

With handheld, and console versions, as well as a functional online...

I would be very surprised if the smash 4 scene doesn't eclipse melee.

The accessibility to new players is just unprecedented, and the infrastructure is so much better to introduce players to competitive play.

 

[Snowfin]

I don't think "options" is what you are trying to use as the argument here because if anything Melee limits the amount of options you can do. In order to play well you MUST L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance, which leaves only 3 things you can really do to approach. If you don't use any of these to approach then you are at a disadvantage. So that's not really an option. And by L-cancelling there really are limited options for the defensive player to do. Which is why so many characters are not viable in Melee. The only characters that can take advantage to L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance are the only ones who can play hence limited options.

In smash 4, there are much more options for approaching and defending because of different kind of move lag and move attributes and hitboxes for each character where non of the moves are dominant and full of weaknesses and holes. I think what you're looking for is just learning curve to access the best option. Because if you think about it, Melee really is all about learning techniques to be as dominant as possible leaving no room for the defender to defend if you execute the techniques in a very precise timing. So in a sense there is a powerful feeling for the user because the user was able to execute timely precision and is rewarded with dominant power much like UMvC. Where as in smash 4 is more about spacing, footsies, reading opponents, and making the right execution will gain you advantages. You have to cumulate theses advantages to get a win more like SF4. Although with USF4 it has become a bit more hybrid with dominant executions.

Thanks for reading my post and writing an argument, even if i dont agree. Saying wavedashing, dashdancing, and l-canceling (although id like to leave l-canceling out of this, because i dont care about it, i care about movement options) limit your options isnt true... at all. They open of your options because you can do so much out of them. They also open up your options defensively... in Melee you have ALL THE OPTIONS defensively that you have in Smash 4, PLUS a lot more (Samus says hi with CC d-tilt/dsmash, and other stuff like that). You can defensively dash dance away from an agressive approach, and punish it... all of that is gone. The only thing you have im smash 4 that works a little bit like that is Dash away pivot f-smash/grab/insert pivot thing here. Its great that we can do pivot stuff in smash 4 to be able to get away from an attack and try to punish it but guess what... we also had that in Melee.

Smash 4 didnt give us more options, it took away a TON OF THEM and left us with very few... and the ones we find out through developer ***-ups which could make the game more interesting or at least give us more options, are getting patched out.

So yes, my argument is totally about options and how smash 4 and subsequent patches are taking them away from us.

L-Canceling wasnt, isnt, and will never be half as important as the movement options we had. And they are gone.

Melee was like Tekken in movement... Smash 4 is like Dead or Alive... hopefully some1 understands the comparison

 

[byebye]

deja vu. it's just like that smash 4 and melee thread. hmmmmm.

just adopt.
there's a high possibility of a new patch
there's a high possibility of a new game in a few years
smash 64 will get old, so does it's players
melee is old, so does its players
brawl too
younger players will play smash 4
even younger players will play smash 5
and then smash 6
64 players will die sometime
melee players will die sometime too
all time and effort invested on a certain game will go to waste
as people get old and new gamers play newer games
interests will shift
so just adopt
your games are not permanent
we are not in real sports where the games stay the same in hundreds of years

just adopt

no johns.

some maybe hoping for a Melee HD, to keep Melee alive going into the next generation.
maybe it'll happen. who knows. but I wouldn't count on that.

Smash 4 is here to stay
and when smash 5 comes, we should just adopt. again.

 

[Bames-Jond]

agreed with the op. it's great that they're taking out nonsense that breaks the game, but it's gonna suck if they also keep removing harmless ATs that give characters a little more spice. will really lessen the skill gap and dumb the game down. that's why i'm really on the fence about the patches.

i mean imagine how great brawl would've been if they gave mk some ending lag and fixed all the grab shenanigans. but then again it would've been ****ty if they took out not just standard stuff like dacus and glide tossing, but all the cool little character specific ATs. to me those were a big part of what made it fun to pick up characters.

as of now from what i can tell the roster seems pretty balanced--definitely more than melee or brawl--but the lack of ATs is a shame, especially since it's not even a necessary trade-off.

 

[Nobie]

I've said some of this before in the old pre-patch thread, but it's important for people to understand on all sides that people approach games differently, and want different things out of their games when playing competitively.

For some, a technical barrier is welcomed because it is a clear (albeit not easy) way to acquire a skill that will separate you from the pack. Through repeated practice (with the idea that time = devotion), or just sheer natural talent, one acquires this technical skill in order to access the next level of competition, be they combos or DACUS or whatever. It essentially rewards dedication, and treats games almost like physical sports. It doesn't matter if you're the greatest genius in the world if I'm just stronger and faster than you are.

For others, however, a technical barrier is seen as shallow because what is important is the mental interaction between two players. They see the physical side of games as something which merely prevents more people from playing. This leans more towards a pure, as in theoretical, conception of "games." For players who prefer less technical barrier, games are about putting one's planning and decision-making skills against another's, and while it doesn't reward focused practice like technical skills do, it does encourage a player to find a breadth of opponents to be prepare for anything.

Neither of these beliefs are inherently bad, but they come from different places, and it is possible for either type of game to succeed competitively given that "competition" can be interpreted so broadly. People compete in 1-player classic arcade games where there is no player interaction but the amount of knowledge required to handle any situation that comes their way is what makes it interesting: a game like Donkey Kong is somewhat randomized, meaning you can't just memorize everything perfectly but have to have the confidence in your technical ability to get through anything. Go is a board game where the "inputs" are as simple as can be, but partly because of the fact that it's a 1-on-1 game, that simple action opens up a ton of depth.

Fighting games occupy a tricky position because both types of players want to be able to succeed in them, and if you favor one side then the other could very well suffer as a result. It's not necessarily a dichotomy but it's a very tricky thing to balance. However, it is important to note that many game designers would likely prefer the latter approach, because they largely think of games in terms of elegance of design. In this respect, "more options" is not always viewed as a good thing because it has the potential for one or two options to stifle the others, which defeats the purpose of decision-making on some level.

I think I can explain the "more options automatically more depth!" fallacy with an analogy. Imagine you're playing a new game and that game is "kill the other guy," like literally. You and another person are thrown together and are told that your goal is to end the other guy's life.

There are two versions of this game. The first says you have access to any weapon that has ever been known to man: flint knives, swords, guns, tanks, atomic bombs. Look at all of the options! Look at all of the freedom! However, I think it's clear that, at a certain point, the less effective weapons would fall by the wayside because there's just too great a disparity. After a while, it would likely come to a point that there are certain superior weapons and weapons designed to deal with those superior options, but what it also meant is that a lot of those options were meaningless.

The second version of this game only has 10 different weapons, but each of these weapons have been chosen because they have very specific counterbalances with the other weapons. That limitation restricts all of the possible moves and decisions you can make, but at the same time because there are a select few tools available the interaction between them are more prominent and players can more quickly test out and grasp what works and what doesn't.

It is very possible for the 10-weapons game to also have some imbalances in favor of one tool over the other, and it is also possible that the first version of the game ends up being the same as the second version of the game. However, if the goal of a designer is that second type of game, it's easy to see why they wouldn't want to deal with the first type of game and just hope for the best. That's not to say that the first type of game necessarily makes for a bad experience or bad competition, but it is a shot in the dark, a confluence of various unpredictable factors, and while some games turn out well as a result, it's strange to expect this behavior out of all games.

 

[Kozmiic27]

I don't know about that.

The potential for such a large roster of viable characters could heighten the skill cap significantly.

Particularly if matchups become more important, which I think is a reasonable expectation for a well balanced game.

The state of ATs is still not well understood yet either.

Yeh but still, watch the how fast is melee video and melee impossible and youll see where im coming from

 

[Kozmiic27]

I think your definition of "skill" is flawed.

I'm guessing what you mean is "technical skill" which may be true in the case of Melee. And that's fine.

However, what if I said having technical skill doesn't mean you outplayed your opponent?
Here's a prime example: Ice Climbers. In both Brawl and Melee the general way people play them is to fish for a chain-grab and 0-death their opponent with a series of practiced, memorized button presses. So in a 3 stock match, if they land 3 grabs on you, it's game over. I don't know about you, but I think having a match being so cut-throat is neither fun, nor does it encourage "skillful" play, as the opponent has to play the game scared for their life at all times in fear of a single grab.

Smash 4 has more than enough ways to outplay your opponent. There's a reason why in the few tournaments we've had for Smash 4, that the top players have placed consistently high. If they were being limited by "not having enough options" then tournament results would be a complete crap-shoot as to who would win.

Consider Chess. Chess has a mere 6 different types of pieces, and yet nobody questions its depth, strategy, and skill required to play it. Sometimes the number of options you have doesn't determine how good of player you are. Something to think about.

I think your definition of "skill" is flawed.

I'm guessing what you mean is "technical skill" which may be true in the case of Melee. And that's fine.

However, what if I said having technical skill doesn't mean you outplayed your opponent?
Here's a prime example: Ice Climbers. In both Brawl and Melee the general way people play them is to fish for a chain-grab and 0-death their opponent with a series of practiced, memorized button presses. So in a 3 stock match, if they land 3 grabs on you, it's game over. I don't know about you, but I think having a match being so cut-throat is neither fun, nor does it encourage "skillful" play, as the opponent has to play the game scared for their life at all times in fear of a single grab.

Smash 4 has more than enough ways to outplay your opponent. There's a reason why in the few tournaments we've had for Smash 4, that the top players have placed consistently high. If they were being limited by "not having enough options" then tournament results would be a complete crap-shoot as to who would win.

Consider Chess. Chess has a mere 6 different types of pieces, and yet nobody questions its depth, strategy, and skill required to play it. Sometimes the number of options you have doesn't determine how good of player you are. Something to think about.

Yeh youre right.

 

[otter]

this is incorrect, there are plenty of successful competitive games that arent reliant on absurd technical prowess. Good competitive titles dont rely on complex mechanics but on the depth of the interaction amongst its players.

That was my point. Diet smash cant compete with any of them. A Nintendo themed chess set will always be a better competitive game. Fighting games (a fast paced arcade mix of tech and decision making) have a legit chance of becoming classic games. Is smash no longer a fighting game? Maybe not, and that's the developer's prerogative, but I don't care enough about seeing a different model of Nintendo characters to keep playing when there are so many better competitive games or there.

With handheld, and console versions, as well as a functional online...

I would be very surprised if the smash 4 scene doesn't eclipse melee.

The accessibility to new players is just unprecedented, and the infrastructure is so much better to introduce players to competitive play.

Obviously, bringing in newer players is great, but it can't be the only focus. Unless your opinion is.....

no johns.

some maybe hoping for a Melee HD, to keep Melee alive going into the next generation.
maybe it'll happen. who knows. but I wouldn't count on that.

Smash 4 is here to stay
and when smash 5 comes, we should just adopt. again.

Someone better tell FIDE that Chess 2 is out!

As a responsible consumer, I'm never going to get on board with this. It completely takes the incentive away to make good games, especially with how great Nintendo is at making games that will be remembered as classics.

 

[Tagxy]

That was my point. Diet smash cant compete with any of them. A Nintendo themed chess set will always be a better competitive game. Fighting games (a fast paced arcade mix of tech and decision making) have a legit chance of becoming classic games. Is smash no longer a fighting game? Maybe not, and that's the developer's prerogative, but I don't care enough about seeing a different model of Nintendo characters to keep playing when there are so many better competitive games or there.

"Diet smash" aka "give me my options". Feel free to correct that perception if its a misconception. Otherwise once again the post fails to address the crucial criticism against such a stance: that more options does not equate to more depth, and can essentially remove it. Nobie did us a favor by making yet another brilliant write-up on the subject, hopefully this time it receives more attention from the lots-of-options crowd.

You have a very narrow and subjective view of what a fighting game should be. Better competitive game you say? You seem to toss that phrase around pretty easily, seems to be a high brow opinion for having no solid criteria. Even moreso considering many theorists who would judge a games competitive value tend to do so entirely on its depth. But that is neither here nor there, in reality its possible for many different types of competitions to test many different types of skills in many diffferent ways, all of which can be considered equally competitive. But instead you wish for all of us to accept a personal criteria that appears to be "skills that I enjoy being tested in the way I enjoy" as some certifiable truth. If you want to complain that this isnt the smash you wanted I will understand. If you wish to show support for gameplay that you prefer, I will point you to many other games that already exist. But if you want to judge games beyond personal opinion through a subjective position on what you deem "more competitive" or "classic value" then im lead to inform you of your mistaken understanding.

 

[hariooo]

Dude you keep talking about how no one on these boards has any credibility because they're not top players but M2K "only" gets second by spamming rolls and that still somehow supports your side?

And no matter how much you repeat or make bold "more options does not equal more depth", it won't make it more persuasive.

To Nobie's point: it's an interesting analogy but it implies that Smash 4 still has a lot of options. It doesn't. If someone is shielding on a platform above you, you can use a fadeaway aerial, wait it out, or use a command grab if your character is lucky to have one. In Melee you have the exact same options plus waveland to grab, shffl'd aerial that allows you to continue the shield pressure, shieldstab opportunities based on how the shield is angled, etc. And the grab option here is particularly significant because there's an actual punish game off grab as opposed to Smash 4. So I'd say it's more like Melee has 10 weapons, a few of which are less useful because they're very situational, and Smash 4 has 2 weapons. Yeah they're both useful but you still only get to have 2 weapons.

And once again by virtue of being a fighting game there's going to be a technical barrier. The standard response of the same people to anyone who has a shred of criticism against rolls ("even if i predict a roll it's hard to reliably punish it") is to "get better". Which would be okay if it wasn't so completely contradictory to this "fighting games should be a mental battle only". I mean, go actually play chess if that's what you really believe. But I think most of us on smashboards find videogames more fun than chess for some reason, even though the mental game of chess is much deeper than anything smash can provide. I wonder why?

 

[chainmaillekid]

Obviously, bringing in newer players is great, but it can't be the only focus. Unless your opinion is.....

Unless my opinion is what?

And it shouldn't be the only focus ( which I wasn't claiming in the first place ), but it practically can be.
Do you really think these traits which people argue as being more or less competitive are objective measures of skill, and not just subjective preference?

If more competitive players develop a taste for the flavor of SSB4, it can certainly result in a huge competitive capacity, even without the support of the traditional pros.

 

[LancerStaff]

We want more options, because the "intended options" are waaaaaaaaay tooooooooooooooo limited, and pretty bad at doing what they´re supposed to do. Thats the reason people love Melee... no1 cares about having to press a lot of buttons very fast to do something. For example, where is Dash Dancing? Why, why, WHY IN THE WORLD would they take dash dancing out? Its not even pressing buttons like super fast but... why do they take such an important movement and baiting option out? WHY didnt they give us like a "dedicated wavedash" button? Lets say wavedashing is weird and akward the way it works in Melee... well we are in 2014 and its clear that having access to your standing arsenal while dashing is IMPORTANT. Why dont they just make an official move for wavedashing with a dedicated button or something like that?

And before some idiot that doesnt play melee starts saying stupid stuff... NOOO people wouldnt only wavedash and not run anymore if they had done that. In Melee, depending on the situation / character, you sometimes wanted to run instead of WD.

TLDR: We want OPTIONS. In Smash, this ATs are what gives use options because Sakurai doesnt want us to have many of them (because the fewer options we have, the bigger of a chance lazy casual players have at standing a chance and not getting totally destroyed.) We wouldnt need this ATs if Sakurai gave us plenty of good movement options (the biggest problem for me is the lack of movement options, i dont even care that l-cancelling is gone... but no wavedash and dance dancing... MOVEMENT SUCKS in this game) but he didnt, as always, so we try to find some on our own through his ****ups.

The problem is, Sakurai is now patching his ****ups to keep the game as option-less as possible.

Too limited? In your opinion. It's fine to me and most others. You're in the minority here.

People don't care about pressing alot of buttons? Yes, they do. I don't want to end up with arthritis after playing the game for years.

The debate is still out on wether dashdancing was a useful mindgame in the first place, if I remember correctly.

A Wavedash button would ruin SSB's signature three button gameplay, and otherwise make it more complicated then needed to be. What's wrong with walking?

You're afraid of getting beaten by a casual? Says alot about your skill level.

Once again, we disagree. I'd rather have DACUSing completely gone instead of having a good one. Why? Because it's one of those imputs that kills people's hands. The gae shouldn't be painful to play.

Well quite a number of us feel that the game has some serious shortcomings that could hopefully be addressed with new tech. I'm here because I'm disappointed in the direction they've decided to go. Right now SSB4 is just way too defensive, and this is a big problem. And if they keep taking out anything people discover that might help overcome that, then it's just going to stay that way.

Conversely, I don't see why people are so opposed to keeping DACUS or other ATs like they're the worst thing in the world. What's wrong with DACUS? It was good for Brawl, so why is it suddenly a problem now? If it can make the game better and more aggressive, what's the harm in leaving it in? And before you say it, "because it's a glitch" is not a valid argument.

The Wii U game with smaller Blastzones and a nerfed/rehauled DI system has been out for less then a week. You're making too quick a judgement.

 

[hariooo]

"The debate is still out on wether dashdancing was a useful mindgame in the first place, if I remember correctly."

No it's not and you're not remembering correctly. In fact you probably haven't played Melee much if you think that so you would have nothing to remember in the first place.

If everyone is so eager to win games based on their mental strength alone you'd think Smash 4 was a turn based game or something.

 

[Browny]

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.

I for one welcome the new direction smash is taking with balancing and patching it.

And you know why? Because its THEIR GAME. NINTENDO OWES YOU NOTHING.

You want to keep minor glitch AT's in the game? Go make your own game.
You want to keep all AT's vanilla 1.0? Go make your own game.
You want to allow players to play their way, and not the way that Sakurai wants? Go make your own game.

All of your points are shut down with 'go make your own game' because whether you like it or not, Nintendo owes you, and the competitive smash scene, exactly nothing.

Honestly nintendo makes an amazing game with an unprecedented amount of series being represented in it, 8 player and more music than you know what to do with and all people do is complain about making the game more balanced which a VERY SIGNIFICANT amount of their customers want.

Youre perfectly allowed to be upset with what they are doing. But please, instead of complaining and acting like Nintendo is doing a bad thing, go and make your own game.

 

[BoldFish]

Yes, and? Even with no ATs at all (ATs being defined as unintentional aspects, so b-reversals, shorthops, combo strings, pivots and clever usage of established concepts are not included), a player that is more technical can still be more technical. If your worry is that people that are good because of sheer reflex and understanding where to use particular techniques won't be able to, then you shouldn't be.

This entire discussion is about Nintendo taking that stuff out. Why are you even arguing if you don't know what you're arguing about?

I don't think "options" is what you are trying to use as the argument here because if anything Melee limits the amount of options you can do. In order to play well you MUST L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance, which leaves only 3 things you can really do to approach. If you don't use any of these to approach then you are at a disadvantage. So that's not really an option. And by L-cancelling there really are limited options for the defensive player to do. Which is why so many characters are not viable in Melee. The only characters that can take advantage to L-cancel, wavedash and dashdance are the only ones who can play hence limited options.

In smash 4, there are much more options for approaching and defending because of different kind of move lag and move attributes and hitboxes for each character where non of the moves are dominant and full of weaknesses and holes. I think what you're looking for is just learning curve to access the best option. Because if you think about it, Melee really is all about learning techniques to be as dominant as possible leaving no room for the defender to defend if you execute the techniques in a very precise timing. So in a sense there is a powerful feeling for the user because the user was able to execute timely precision and is rewarded with dominant power much like UMvC. Where as in smash 4 is more about spacing, footsies, reading opponents, and making the right execution will gain you advantages. You have to cumulate theses advantages to get a win more like SF4. Although with USF4 it has become a bit more hybrid with dominant executions.

You're showing that you have no idea how melee works.

I for one welcome the new direction smash is taking with balancing and patching it.

And you know why? Because its THEIR GAME. NINTENDO OWES YOU NOTHING.

You want to keep minor glitch AT's in the game? Go make your own game.
You want to keep all AT's vanilla 1.0? Go make your own game.
You want to allow players to play their way, and not the way that Sakurai wants? Go make your own game.

All of your points are shut down with 'go make your own game' because whether you like it or not, Nintendo owes you, and the competitive smash scene, exactly nothing.

Honestly nintendo makes an amazing game with an unprecedented amount of series being represented in it, 8 player and more music than you know what to do with and all people do is complain about making the game more balanced which a VERY SIGNIFICANT amount of their customers want.

Youre perfectly allowed to be upset with what they are doing. But please, instead of complaining and acting like Nintendo is doing a bad thing, go and make your own game.

Did you just advise us to stop criticizing the game? You do know what a consumer is...right?

 

[Nyhte]

snip

Two things with your post

Firstly, the idea of 'more options does not = more depth'. You're going to have to do a better job with explaining that more options actually is counterproductive. You gesture towards a lot of options with a few known best options, which would mean the extra options don't actually increase the depth, they don't add anything, they're just there, anyone coming into the situation would have a false perception of depth, because really there's limited options, there's only 10 good ones. That doesn't mean that more options = less depth though. If those other guns were set to be situationally different, then there would be cases of them being better, at least in circumstance than the other guns. More options doesn't = 'things added that don't make a difference because they're inferior in every way'

Take Smash and rock paper scissors. The number of ways to approach someone on stage or off stage you can say is just like rock paper scissors. "Well, things tend to be countered by things, which are countered by other things" While mix-up and changing abilities to be unpredictable is no doubt important, options = depth is transparent here.

If currently in smash 4 the number of ways to approach rock paper scissors + 1, or a total of 4 options, then that's 4 options people are going to be learning to play at a high level. With more 'depth' it'd be rock paper scissors + x. How many options are enough? I don't know. There is such a a thing as too many. But you can't argue that more options of approach, say 10, wouldn't add more depth to the game without saying something else about it, because that's not how depth works. Sure, people would take longer to learn that or the ceiling could be set so high that the game would be labeled as 'absurd' but more options = more depth.

Rock paper scissors = 3 things, simplicity

Rock paper scissors + factors or other things = more depth, that's just how it works

Secondly, the options would have to be quantified as 'meaningless' to fit the criteria of shallow depth, false depth or meaningless not-really depth. When people are saying they want more options, they want more options, not an option which is objectively worse in every way than the other few top counterparts.

Even if something isn't used often it can be used occasionally as a circumstantial ability which can add to depth. As example; Marth's down air is not the same as his forward air, so even if his down air is bad in every category, from reaction, to mind games, to prediction, to recovery, to speed, compared to his forward air, if his down air was different or behaved differently, there are a few, even if it's only one situation, where Marth's down air is good, either because it's good in that situation, or because it's just generally good for that one certain thing.

The thing that has always impressed me with players was their speed. It's a combination of accuracy, prediction, reaction decision making and mind games. Games have more or less of that depending on how it's made. I like options, I like depth. There doesn't need to be an astronomical mechanical requirement to play adequately, but I still like options. I like complexity so everything isn't so simple , I enjoy nice flow and play. That's transparent in a lot of games. The meta changing is a nice thing, the meta stagnating due to a lack of options or depth, while also being boring to watch or play is the worst outcome for any game. A game should be really fun to play and watch. Nothing is for everybody, but games can put their best foot forward.

 

[LancerStaff]

"The debate is still out on wether dashdancing was a useful mindgame in the first place, if I remember correctly."

No it's not and you're not remembering correctly. In fact you probably haven't played Melee much if you think that so you would have nothing to remember in the first place.

If everyone is so eager to win games based on their mental strength alone you'd think Smash 4 was a turn based game or something.

I've played Melee. Not nearly as much as some, but I've played good players. I just don't see the point in doing it for the mindgaming. I believe I've seen people such as Amazing Ampharos and Thinkaman say things to that effect.

 

[Cyre]

I just don't understand the logic behind wanting ATs. Not only if they were never there in the first place, people wouldn't want them, they wouldn't exactly be "advanced" anymore if they were intentional. The game is great without them, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place.

Have you ever played any kind of fighting game before? Ats, techs, glitches, or whatever you want to call them, have been a part of fighting games for years.

If they are found in a fighting game, the general consensus is to leave it, as it is, if it is not gamebreaking and/or over centralizes the meta. That is when bans or patches are required.

Ats being removed doesn't make me happy, but it doesn't kill the game for me either. Though, I hope that competitive play just doesn't turn into frame traps. Right now, I'm more concerned about Nintendo's way of patching the game. It annoys me greatly that the community has to dig into the game and make their own patch notes. That's not cool and I find it unacceptable in a fighting game or any game really. What if Blizzard just started making changes to Starcraft 2 without any notes. What if Street fighter did that? Also, can we see an official forum from nintendo that discusses patch changes. Hell, I honestly wish they just looked here. This place has some great knowledge, but it doesn't seem like they give much of a damn about that. Seems like stubbornness to me.

 

[hariooo]

You dash in, your opponent is baited into committing a move, you dash out of the way, you dash back in during recovery frames and get a grab/smash/whatever. This has been standard for over a decade. It's the length of the dashes creating space that allows you to do this mindgame.

What you're thinking about is almost certainly just quickly wiggling the control stick back in forth such that your character doesn't move from one spot essentially.

 

[LancerStaff]

Have you ever played any kind of fighting game before? Ats, techs, glitches, or whatever you want to call them, have been a part of fighting games for years.

If they are found in a fighting game, the general consensus is to leave it, as it is, if it is not gamebreaking and/or over centralizes the meta. That is when bans or patches are required.

Ats being removed doesn't make me happy, but it doesn't kill the game for me either. Though, I hope that competitive play just doesn't turn into frame traps. Right now, I'm more concerned about Nintendo's way of patching the game. It annoys me greatly that the community has to dig into the game and make their own patch notes. That's not cool and I find it unacceptable in a fighting game or any game really. What if Blizzard just started making changes to Starcraft 2 without any notes. What if Street fighter did that? Also, can we see an official forum from nintendo that discusses patch changes. Hell, I honestly wish they just looked here. This place has some great knowledge, but it doesn't seem like they give much of a damn about that. Seems like stubbornness to me.

Of course I know, I just don't see how it makes so much of a difference. Like I've said 1000 times, it's in Nintendo's best interests to remove ATs when possible, and to not release patch notes.

 

[Alus]

I for one welcome the new direction smash is taking with balancing and patching it.

And you know why? Because its THEIR GAME. NINTENDO OWES YOU NOTHING.

You want to keep minor glitch AT's in the game? Go make your own game.
You want to keep all AT's vanilla 1.0? Go make your own game.
You want to allow players to play their way, and not the way that Sakurai wants? Go make your own game.

All of your points are shut down with 'go make your own game' because whether you like it or not, Nintendo owes you, and the competitive smash scene, exactly nothing.

Honestly nintendo makes an amazing game with an unprecedented amount of series being represented in it, 8 player and more music than you know what to do with and all people do is complain about making the game more balanced which a VERY SIGNIFICANT amount of their customers want.

Youre perfectly allowed to be upset with what they are doing. But please, instead of complaining and acting like Nintendo is doing a bad thing, go and make your own game.

I assume you make your own games right? Because I'm pretty sure you've complained about games before...

Also at $60 Nintendo owes me a game I like.

Or are you one of those people that keep throwing trash at Steam?

I just don't understand the logic behind wanting ATs. Not only if they were never there in the first place, people wouldn't want them, they wouldn't exactly be "advanced" anymore if they were intentional. The game is great without them, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place.

1. If its intentional it can still be advanced. I mean, why wouldn't it be?

2. The problem isn't that the game isn't great without them. Its that great potential can be lost with it.

Fighting games were not that great until something unintentional happened.

Street Fighter 2 had the 2-in-1, Which defined how games were played for generations. Could you imagine what would have been if combos were patched? And for a lot of people who think so, I'm not saying patches shouldn't exist, because balance is good. It's better to not train for hundreds of hours with a character to find out that they are not viable. Its better to not have game breaking bugs. Its better to have things switch up once in awhile. But if this game becomes a flowchart because people are too paranoid to have something that wasn't intended then its not for me. That's just how it is.

 

[byebye]

side note to these technical barriers discussion, I think not much ATs are better.

as the others have said, people need so much time to master the difficult ATs. and everyone has a different value of time. some are so rich that they don't need day jobs. some are just going to school, some do this for money. of course they'll have lots of time and lots of advantages.

i still want to think that one needs to outsmart the other to win, not to out lab'ed. if i out smarted another in 50 out 80 decision points, i would expect to win. but there's a good chance that i would lose if my opponent did an 80% combo on those 30 decision moments.

just like i was saying, melee will not be there forever, and so do smash4. so there's not just enough payoff for the investment on mastering ATs. mainly because it doesn't transcend games. e.g. mario kart DS. i've spent heaps of time mastering snaking, finding the best kart, and mastering the tracks. but snaking got removed in succeeding games. honestly i should have put time on other things instead like improving my knack of item usage, improving on how to look for the best lines.

in smash, wavedashing is out. deal with it. in smash 5, other ATs maybe gone too. it would be wise focus less on ATs and focus more on improving your natural sense of the game. improving setups, improving reads, improving footsies are skills that trancends smash games and other fighting games.

given that not all have heaps of time, time should be well spent.