My original fears of Nintendo balancing Smash are coming true.

[Dragoomba]

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.

This might be the most ****ing hilarious logic I've read on Smashboards. Yeah man, a game company making a game to appease the consumers and not themselves? Who thought of that?

I'm not even on the topic of Nintendo balancing the game right now because of how astounded I am by the stupidity of this post. You're literally implying that game developers make games not for the consumers, but for themselves. Do you even have the slightest elementary idea of how consumerism works?

I can assume you always defend game design decisions by any company with "go make your own game".

 

[Snowfin]

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.



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.

What the hell? Dude you didnt even read my post...

I said Melee players dont care about having to press to press too many buttons as in THATS NOT WHAT THEY LIKE ABOUT MELEE...

When the hell did i say im afraid of getting beat by a casual?

Whats wrong with walking? If you cant answer by yourself whats the problem with walking in comparison to wavedashing, then theres really no reason to even continue the argument.

When the hell was Dash Dancing effectiveness in mind games up to debate? Have you ever had a half competent fox dash-dancing 2 character lengths away from you in melee? Probably not cuz youd know how much preassure that creates.

And one more thing... who cares about being in the minority? It was just like this when brawl came out, and we all know how that ended.

Brawl all over again, people coming in, acting like they know theyre ****, talking about melee as if they knew something, saying wavedashing and l-canceling were glitches (l-canceling is the evolution of z-canceling, which was explained in the manual of smash64), and thinking they are right cuz they are the majority.

 

[byebye]

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

to be fair, you got heaps of gameplay videos, previews, a demo, daily update, reviews for the game. you know what you're getting before shelling out that 60.

return them if you're not happy. we should be grateful that sometimes nintendo listens now. because really, "we" as a group is just a teenie weenie percent of the whole number of buyers. they don't have to do anything special for "us" to make money.

 

[Alus]

to be fair, you got heaps of gameplay videos, previews, a demo, daily update, reviews for the game. you know what you're getting before shelling out that 60.

return them if you're not happy. we should be grateful that sometimes nintendo listens now. because really, "we" as a group is just a teenie weenie percent of the whole number of buyers. they don't have to do anything special for "us" to make money.

So if game breaking bugs suddenly appear, and Nintendo chooses not to patch them (which is unlikely, let's be fair but humor me for a moment.) You are saying you KNEW this would happen?

So if the game turns out to be more shallow than brawl, you knew this would happen?

Not saying you're wrong. It's just the game can have issues waaaaaaay down the line. Right now I don't have much of a problem other than a few peeves.

This might be the most ****ing hilarious logic I've read on Smashboards. Yeah man, a game company making a game to appease the consumers and not themselves? Who thought of that?

I'm not even on the topic of Nintendo balancing the game right now because of how astounded I am by the ****ing stupidity of this post You're literally implying that game developers make games not for the consumers, but for themselves. Do you even have the slightest elementary idea of how consumerism works?

I can assume you always defend game design decisions by any company with "go make your own game".

Not to be a poopy diaper.

Can you tone it down on the insults please. Browny is actually a pretty cool guy.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

I'm glad that they're patching the game. A lot of companies simply abandon games after they release them.

Let's face reality here folks: the goal of these games is to be easy to get into fun.

Having techniques you have to spend hours practicing to even perform goes against that. SSBM suffers greatly for it.

The idea that wavedashing isn't a glitch is somewhat laughable; yeah, it is a natural part of the game mechanics, but the impact it had on gameplay is absolutely enormous and it completely changes how the game works for most characters. They didn't intend for it to do that, and it was really, really important and took hours to learn how to do well. The game is vastly less accessible for it, along with L-cancelling, which was just plain old bad design - unnecessary button presses are bad.

People make fun of the "Fox only Final Destination" crowd for a reason. The sheer number of banned stages for, quite honestly, fairly arbitrary reasons in some cases really only reinforces that point, and the complete ban on all items ever has been questionable since SSBB. "How the game should be played" isn't really your call; ultimately, it relies upon the game designers.

It is true that they screw up. And the fact that they can actually fix their mistakes is pretty cool.

The fact that the characters may shift around is actually a good thing; it keeps the meta fresh and prevents stagnation. It lets characters who were previously underappreciated rise and allows us to prevent a repeat of the Metaknight nonsense from SSBB. Nothing being over or underpowered is a good thing, and their ability to contract the tier lists over time by making the worst characters better and make character matchups less assymetric is a good thing.

And really, with such a huge cast of characters, patching the game repeatedly will give us all much more diversity in what we can play and face off against. Realistically speaking, a lot of the characters are probably way over or underpowered simply because extensive testing with such a large cast is impossible.

 

[LancerStaff]

What the hell? Dude you didnt even read my post...

I said Melee players dont care about having to press to press too many buttons as in THATS NOT WHAT THEY LIKE ABOUT MELEE...

When the hell did i say im afraid of getting beat by a casual?

Whats wrong with walking? If you cant answer by yourself whats the problem with walking in comparison to wavedashing, then theres really no reason to even continue the argument.

When the hell was Dash Dancing effectiveness in mind games up to debate? Have you ever had a half competent fox dash-dancing 2 character lengths away from you in melee? Probably not cuz youd know how much preassure that creates.

And one more thing... who cares about being in the minority? It was just like this when brawl came out, and we all know how that ended.

Brawl all over again, people coming in, acting like they know theyre ****, talking about melee as if they knew something, saying wavedashing and l-canceling were glitches (l-canceling is the evolution of z-canceling, which was explained in the manual of smash64), and thinking they are right cuz they are the majority.

Sure did.

Was I talking about Melee players? No. I was saying that most people would rather play a game that doesn't have arthritis as a gameplay requirement.

When you said a competitive player could get beaten by a casual. They won't if they're actually that good once the "techs" are destroyed.

Wavedashing at large replaces much of the standard close quarters movement. And now walking and running are better across the board.

What's the difference between a standing opponent and a dash dancing one?

The difference being that SSB4 doesn't have horrible problems like Brawl or Melee did. We have a game with a semblance of balance without tons of crippling glitches/"techs" getting in the way.

You want to know why SSB4 isn't more like Melee? Because Melee's mechanics strongly support one type of character over the rest. This is a death sentence for a game focusing on character variety. Case in point, Little Mac. Could he ever work in both competitive and casual Melee at the same time? Nope.

 

[Nobie]

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.

Generally, I don't think anyone comes into a discussion about a game or franchise that they love to go, "You know, I think this game is actually too good! I feel like it can use some garbage to make it a more terrible experience." I understand that, implied within the desire for "more advanced techniques" and "more options" is the assumption that these options would make both playing and decision-making more complex and thus more competitive. A game that is too simplistic is also very possible (tic-tac-toe for example), but as you mention there is also such a thing as too many and game design, and perhaps more importantly what makes a game fun, is much more complex than my analogy was intended to cover. The issue comes from the idea that people assume that the patching of techniques is an automatic minus, that it is taking away choices and thus reducing depth of gameplay, when it's possible to argue that it was the "advanced techniques themselves" that risked this issue. There's not really a right or wrong in this case, though based on how communities have formed around games that have been both patched and unpatched, there are different perceptions of these, both of which can be problematic (not patching forces people away who cannot overlook a game's shortcomings, patching encourages players to whine in the hopes of having the game change around them instead of changing themselves).

While I am certainly no Melee master (I only attended a couple of school tournaments for fun back in the day with a friend), I understand well the concept of a game that is made more beautiful by a strange alchemy of happy accidents and a lack of "patches." I play Japanese-style mahjong, and if you think Melee might make not make sense sometimes, mahjong is just piles and piles of weird and obtuse rules grandfathered in over the years to form a bizarre chimera of a game that is nevertheless super fun, really intense, and competitively intriguing. However, it is much harder and more unlikely for a game like this to exist and succeed than it is for a game that is continously changed and renewed. Neither is a "right" or "wrong" approach inherently, and it's important I think to keep that in mind.

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.

What I like especially about Smash 4 in regards to this is that I feel that the game has characters that can appeal to both those who desire something more physical in their gameplay, such as speed, as well as characters who might appeal to people who prefer slower, more cerebral characters. If you want the former, go with Pikachu or Sheik. If you want the latter, something like Duck Hunt or Palutena (putting aside custom moves). I just hope that when people who prefer fast characters see slow characters doing well, they don't just assume that the game is "boring."

 

[DavemanCozy]

I like Melee and Smash Wii U. I think both are beautiful games that appeal to different audiences. I also like how I have the option to play both, and that both are still here. Melee is being supported big time by sponsors adding bonuses as big as $500 to the prize pools. Smash 4 is growing and is looking more and more beautiful every time I play it and see game-play of it.

I agree some of the changes made in 1.0.4 were bleh, but it's the first major patch that's been made: this isn't the beginning of the end of all options. Many of the changes - such as removal of Vectoring, and the 0-death ZSS had on Robin - have also been good. And many of the current AT's, such as pivot smashes / tilts, or character specific AT's like Sonic's Spin Dash cancels or Shulk's Monado lag cancels / momentum bounce, were left untouched. We still have options.

 

[Alus]

Maybe you're right.

Maybe my fear of having the game become one big flowchart is irrational.

But I feel like so much can come from a accident too.

 

[|RK|]

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?

...Obviously I'm saying that I don't think numerous ATs are that necessary. Please read my posts before you respond.

In addition, I defined ATs as unintentional aspects. All of the things that I listed ARE NOT INCLUDED. They are in the tips section, and so they are intentional. Geez.

 

[hariooo]

Melee hasn't suffered at all from AT. I would posit that more players became interested in the competitive scene by seeing these cool moves and mechanics they didn't even know were possible than were turned away by being too lazy to practice the tech. That is strictly anecdotal of course.

Deliberate balance patching of anything except nerfing the most egregiously overpowered things or buffing the absolute trash tier characters is a pointless exercise. The game evolves with the players. What's mid tier today can be top tier in a year with no patching whatsoever. Excessive patching just dilutes the natural progression of the metagame. And even if Nintendo releases a patch every month for 5 years, the game still won't be balanced. All it will have done is lead to an incredibly unstable metagame where the top players will be derided for picking "OP" characters.

How the competitive community plays the game is absolutely their call, otherwise we'd still be playing timed matches.

Just because wavedashing had a big impact on the metagame doesn't make it a glitch. You already called it a natural part of the game mechanics. It's not a glitch by definition. It's okay that emergent gameplay becomes part of the meta. That's how a competitive game develops. Even without wavedashing, do you really think Melee would look like the "How to Play" tutorial video after a decade? Shold anything not mentioned in that video be removed because it's not in the developer's "vision"?

 

[Tagxy]

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?

Incorrect, I only state that people need to support their positions unless theyre in a position thats able to support their stance inherently.

Persuasive or not it's a reality of game design that has been explained many times by others. This post seeminly agrees with Nobies point, but hopes to push the notion that melee hits on some golden number of just enough options while smash 4 does not. This is a bit mistaken since there isnt a golden number, but also isnt really supported by anything but personal opinion. Ditto to fighting games requiring that technical skill be a very significant measurable skill. If thats what you enjoy fine, but don't impress this onto others who prefer such skills not be as prominent.

Deliberate balance patching of anything except nerfing the most egregiously overpowered things or buffing the absolute trash tier characters is a pointless exercise. The game evolves with the players. What's mid tier today can be top tier in a year with no patching whatsoever. Excessive patching just dilutes the natural progression of the metagame. And even if Nintendo releases a patch every month for 5 years, the game still won't be balanced. All it will have done is lead to an incredibly unstable metagame where the top players will be derided for picking "OP" characters.

This is also preference based, and Nobie once again made an excellent point on this subject thats better then what Id wish to explain here. Theres nothing wrong with the general idea of this position, but theres nothing wrong with the alternative either. If this isnt your preference and you dont wish to try it out ok, its ok for people to not like things. But dont trash on the way others enjoy their experiences.

 

[Zelder]

So what are people's responses to Street Fighter 4, a game that has received multiple patches, updates, and iterations over the years, that is still beloved by tournament players the world over? Over the years of that game we've seen top tier characters go to bottom tier (E. Honda), bottom tier characters go to top (Dudley), and some stay the same (Hakan). We've seen them remove some glitches, while polishing the core gameplay, and I'd say the meta for that game is still evolving, despite all the patches. Why do we presume that this game will be different?

 

[Dragoomba]

Can you tone it down on the insults please. Browny is actually a pretty cool guy.

He may be a cool guy, a cool guy with absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Also note that I never directly insulted him, but I did say his post and logic was hilariously stupid.

 

[Tagxy]

He may be a cool guy, a cool guy with absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Also note that I never directly insulted him, but I did say his post and logic was hilariously stupid.

For the record he wasnt incorrect. Innovation generally means having a vision that extends beyond what consumers request, if Nintendo asked its consumers for input on a fighter using its IPs before smash they wouldve requested something like street fighter. As it stands the series has received a lot of criticism in the past for not following this model.

Im not really in line with the hardline position of playing the way the "developers intended", but then again I dont think the developers really have a hard stance on that either. Removing glitches is not forcing people to play the way they intended, its glitch removal that people read too far into.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

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?

Tbh I trust tagxy more because he is good at both PM and Brawl, dunno about Melee though.

People keep insisting they know this game better from the Melee side than the Brawl side despite this being "Brawl 2.0"

Someone holding shield on a platform is going to have their shield get poked or break. Shields might not deteriorate as fast from just holding it but they don't take hits as easily anymore.

 

[chainmaillekid]

He may be a cool guy, a cool guy with absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Also note that I never directly insulted him, but I did say his post and logic was hilariously stupid.

Then you are sure not to complain when we say the same about all your posts.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Not that you should stop or anything, the hilarity is quite nice.

/s


Nintendo has other customers to appease to be frank.
Spending $60 doesn't entitle your viewpoint to be the one they cater to.

 

[otter]

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.

I appreciate your sentiment, but I would say that learning ATs does transend between games. I started with MvC2, and that's probably why i have trouble sympathizing with people who think smash is hard. The game is moving towards skill being defined less by fundementals, and more by memorizing characters and custom moves, which is WAY more time consuming IMO. And since the hitboxes are so unintuitive now you pretty much just have to lose every time you see a new character and hope you learned something. "Oh villiager plants a tree and chops it down to kill you, that's cool. oh i just dies because the tree slowly growing is a kill move and the hitbox is about 4 times bigger than the tree good game."

People keep insisting they know this game better from the Melee side than the Brawl side despite this being "Brawl 2.0"

one side is drastically more knowledgable than the other. most melee players have played brawl extensively, the opposite is not true.

 

[Zelder]

I appreciate your sentiment, but I would say that learning ATs does transend between games. I started with MvC2, and that's probably why i have trouble sympathizing with people who think smash is hard. The game is moving towards skill being defined less by fundementals, and more by memorizing characters and custom moves, which is WAY more time consuming IMO. And since the hitboxes are so unintuitive now you pretty much just have to lose every time you see a new character and hope you learned something. "Oh villiager plants a tree and chops it down to kill you, that's cool. oh i just dies because the tree slowly growing is a kill move and the hitbox is about 4 times bigger than the tree good game."

So wait would it be better if all the characters were more homogenous and less unique? Or are you actually complaining about learning character differences in a fighting game, the thing that actually makes fighting games fun?

 

[otter]

So wait would it be better if all the characters were more homogenous and less unique? Or are you actually complaining about learning character differences in a fighting game, the thing that actually makes fighting games fun?

It's one aspect, I'd prefer if I didn't spend most of my playtime on it. It literally causes you to lose to lesser players because you have less free time than them, unlike ATs.

So what are people's responses to Street Fighter 4, a game that has received multiple patches, updates, and iterations over the years, that is still beloved by tournament players the world over? Over the years of that game we've seen top tier characters go to bottom tier (E. Honda), bottom tier characters go to top (Dudley), and some stay the same (Hakan). We've seen them remove some glitches, while polishing the core gameplay, and I'd say the meta for that game is still evolving, despite all the patches. Why do we presume that this game will be different?

Street Fighter's developers invented player vs player gaming and started the first non-score based gaming tournaments, that's the point of the whole franchise. Nintendo is clear that it's a small part of their goal, and they are mostly balancing for FFA matches. They nerfed Charizard for ****s sake.

 

[byebye]

I appreciate your sentiment, but I would say that learning ATs does transend between games. I started with MvC2, and that's probably why i have trouble sympathizing with people who think smash is hard. The game is moving towards skill being defined less by fundementals, and more by memorizing characters and custom moves, which is WAY more time consuming IMO. And since the hitboxes are so unintuitive now you pretty much just have to lose every time you see a new character and hope you learned something. "Oh villiager plants a tree and chops it down to kill you, that's cool. oh i just dies because the tree slowly growing is a kill move and the hitbox is about 4 times bigger than the tree good game."

not if we are agreeing or not. but exactly my point. the point in fighting games is to outsmart your opponent, and part of that is knowing a matchup. just like some other poster said, in 1 ice climbers grab, you're dead. because that 1 ice climbers player mastered the AT of that infinite grabs. now even if I out smarted that player a hundred times because I am good at setups and mind games and baiting, I can still lose badly on a single time that the IC player outsmarted me. and that was to chain grab me to death.

and poof. true enough in smash 4, IC is no more. no more chain grabs (so far) so. me being good in mind games and setups and baits can now win vs a player who is not good at baits and mind games since they have no AT like that anymore. which really just makes sense.

See, in these boards, what do others say when someone asks for advise on how to get better?
almost always the answer is "fight good players" or "go to tournaments" and not "spend your hours in the lab, mastering these ATs".
Those are good advices. ATs might be gone in the next patch. so fighting a lot will teach which works and which doesn't work. which are effective. how to react properly. how to bait people. and those skills that you learn from that will be useful in the next patch or next games.

 

[chainmaillekid]

It's one aspect, I'd prefer if I didn't spend most of my playtime on it. It literally causes you to lose to lesser players because you have less free time than them, unlike ATs.

Maybe you're the lesser player then.

 

[byebye]

and they are mostly balancing for FFA matches. They nerfed Charizard for ****s sake.

This is what I am expecting. and for me, that is acceptable.
It's just a bonus that they've put in some balance patches for the "competitive" community.

example:
imagine Rosaluma in 8 player smash. I don't think luma would survive well in that situation. so the original 8 sec respawn MIGHT be because of that. 8 secs luma spawn time is "balanced" in FFA. but it is a bit OP in For Glory.

same point in ZSS final smash. it is OP in 1 v 1, FD. but in 8 player smash, with a big stage and all. I am not too sure.

 

[Alus]

For the record he wasnt incorrect. Innovation generally means having a vision that extends beyond what consumers request, if Nintendo asked its consumers for input on a fighter using its IPs before smash they wouldve requested something like street fighter. As it stands the series has received a lot of criticism in the past for not following this model.

Don't forget that we STILL aren't playing this game as intended back then.

 

[Dragoomba]

For the record he wasnt incorrect. Innovation generally means having a vision that extends beyond what consumers request, if Nintendo asked its consumers for input on a fighter using its IPs before smash they wouldve requested something like street fighter. As it stands the series has received a lot of criticism in the past for not following this model.

You're absolutely correct, but I believe this is a different argument. I'm sure that Nintendo still developed Smash Bros with the consumer in mind (I mean, I assume they wanted it to sell well considering them being a company and all). His blunt mentality of "If you (the consumer) have a problem, make your own game!" isn't sound.

Then you are sure not to complain when we say the same about all your posts.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Not that you should stop or anything, the hilarity is quite nice.

/s

Except I actually explained why his post was stupid.

 

[hariooo]

If you really want to play the game as the developers intended we should be playing 5 minute 2-stock Omega stages only.

So what are people's responses to Street Fighter 4, a game that has received multiple patches, updates, and iterations over the years, that is still beloved by tournament players the world over? Over the years of that game we've seen top tier characters go to bottom tier (E. Honda), bottom tier characters go to top (Dudley), and some stay the same (Hakan). We've seen them remove some glitches, while polishing the core gameplay, and I'd say the meta for that game is still evolving, despite all the patches. Why do we presume that this game will be different?

Because SF4 has a pedigree as a competitive fighter. Capcom has been making games for competitive players for years. The argument for Nintendo here has been "they make games to be inclusive of as many people as possible" so it's fairly reasonable to assume that their patches may not be great in competitive terms.

 

[byebye]

If you really want to play the game as the developers intended we should be playing 5 minute 2-stock Omega stages only.

or maybe, the real smash! FFA, all items, all stages! chaos awaits.

 

[MegaMissingno]

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

Well I'd say there isn't enough speed and variability in movement options. And I don't know, why can't running up smashes be better? Ask Sakurai, because they're still mediocre pre- and post-patch. So that's beside the point - if they were buffed, yeah that'd be nice, but they weren't. That's why DACUS was good, because it made them better.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It's one aspect, I'd prefer if I didn't spend most of my playtime on it. It literally causes you to lose to lesser players because you have less free time than them, unlike ATs.



Street Fighter's developers invented player vs player gaming and started the first non-score based gaming tournaments, that's the point of the whole franchise. Nintendo is clear that it's a small part of their goal, and they are mostly balancing for FFA matches. They nerfed Charizard for ****s sake.

They nerfed Dragon Rush because it would have been his go to custom side B. 15% and no recoil? Slightly slower and less KO power but far far safer and better utility?

They cut 4% off because it if wasn't, it would have been better than has his other side Bs.

Maybe not the first thing to focus on but it would have happened at some point.

 

[CodeBlue_]

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.

Do you understand what an approach option is? Melee doesn't take approach options away it gives players more approach options. L-canceling allows you to decrease landing lag in your aerials, allowing them to become significantly safer in neutral when approaching. Wavedashing allows characters like Luigi to approach significantly easier than in Smash 4 and can also be used to retreat from a dash approach. Dash-dancing allows you to mix-up your approach by weaving in and out of an opponent's range without being forced to commit to a dash.

In Smash 4, your only option of of a dash are shield (and all options out of it) and jump. You do not have dash-dancing or wavedashing to work around this forced committal and you do not have l-canceling to negate the risk of using an aerial out of a dash. It's not like having these options removes the base method of approaching.

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.

It appears to me that you don't understand how top level Melee works.

First off, five of the top eight characters in Melee can be played defensively, one of which (Sheik) can be played without an extreme amount of technical skill. A local sheik in the Melee scene, Borp, is famous for his lack of technical ability and is able to take stocks off of mid and high level Melee players. Defensive play is still present in Melee, it just takes adapting. It's the same idea as offensive play being present in Smash 4 (an idea notorious for being vehemently defended on this board).

All characters (except g&w, but it wouldn't help his viability) benefit from l-canceling; it decreases their landing lag and makes aerials safer. All character benefit from wavedashing; it helps them to approach, to continue follow ups, to land from the air and to space. All characters benefit from dash dancing, as it allows them to avoid being committed to their dash approach.

Balance is not centralized on these three ATs. Unviable characters aren't bad because they can "abuse tech", they are bad because they have limited options, issues with recovery, bad matchups etc.

You can say it affects balance by giving skewed advantages to certain characters, but the cast in Melee in fairly balanced (just as much as Brawl/64/Smash 4 if not even moreso). If there is a problem (if said mechanics were in Smash 4, for example), a broken character/technique could be modified in a specific area. This anti-tech mentality is just fear of the unknown.

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 see the problem here. You are used to Brawl's way of play: the neutral game. Because of the overall mechanics in Brawl (and by extension Smash 4), the sense of pressure and heed for a severe punish is not present.

The game is centralized on the neutral game or moreover stage control. You are used to staying in your zone (which shows spacing) and punishing a player for their holes in frame data. The punishment for a missed read only entails a loss in stage control and can be some-what easily be negated once you maintain stage control once again. Staying in one place and throwing projectiles or approaching with spaced moves seem familiar and allows you to have complete control of the match as long as you don't mess up.

However two things are missing from this equation. A game that allows you to rush down opponents (Smash 4 is rather lacking in this department) and a game that allows significant punishes for mistakes. A character like Melee Fox abhors you because you can't punish their sh nairs out of shield, you are helpless to do anything as a Fox waveshines you off the stage and you are helpless as the Fox continuously reads your recovery and ultimately sends you to your doom. And then once you get off the revival platform you are faced with the Fox dash dancing center stage .

When you try to fair him with Sheik your fair ultimately misses. He dashed right out of your range, and then comes in to grab you for an up-throw up air BnB. You try to punish him for trying to dash up to you as Marth with an Fsmash and he crouch cancels it. He's at 30%, so he can immediately punish you with a shine. You try it again, and he wavedashes backwards and sh nairs you, punishing your ending lag. Ironically enough, the same options you deem to be offensive can be used defensively and can actually aid their approach.

Reading opponents in Melee is just as effective as in Smash 4. Top level players in Melee do not win tournaments by going rush-down 100% of the time. They can use defensive options to open holes just like Smash 4. It is just that offensive play is rewarded much more in Melee, and at low levels it seems like you can't punish anything OoS or even in neutral. But at higher levels, the ATs actually help neuter the extreme offensive tendencies of Melee's high shield stun and punish game.

Without them, we would have a situation like Smash 64 where you can't even DI combos. But I don't see you complaining about that game, do I?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

one side is drastically more knowledgable than the other. most melee players have played brawl extensively, the opposite is not true.

They really aren't.

And with Smash 4 it's even worse in terms what people know.

 

[MegaMissingno]

All characters (except g&w, but it wouldn't help his viability) benefit from l-canceling; it decreases their landing lag and makes aerials safer. All character benefit from wavedashing; it helps them to approach, to continue follow ups, to land from the air and to space. All characters benefit from dash dancing, as it allows them to avoid being committed to their dash approach.

Slight nitpick, Game & Watch does benefit from it on his fair and dair, it's only his other aerials that are bugged. And I would argue that there are three charactes who don't really benefit much or at all from wavedashing: Puff, Peach, and Zelda. Of course, two of those three can quite clearly demonstrate that they don't need it! So yeah, so stupid when idiots try to say these things are somehow the reason why Melee isn't balanced.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Slight nitpick, Game & Watch does benefit from it on his fair and dair, it's only his other aerials that are bugged. And I would argue that there are three charactes who don't really benefit much or at all from wavedashing: Puff, Peach, and Zelda. Of course, two of those three can quite clearly demonstrate that they don't need it! So yeah, so stupid when idiots try to say these things are somehow the reason why Melee isn't balanced.

Melee has a better balanced top than most smash games, not saying that fir smash 4 either given a patch and potential atm, but Doesn't smooth out after a point.

 

[Shaya]

Late (but as someone else also said something about how dashing is only jump and shield, lol)

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.

You can roll at any point of your run or dash too. You can bait attacks with with dash back roll (or more aggressively [read/character dependent]) forward roll) achieving similar things. Not necessarily being better, mind you, but still.

Let's go over dash runs, shall we?

Dash is the initial state, in Brawl it was 5 frames for all/most characters, it may be slightly longer here. In this state you can Forward Smash, or true pivot putting yourself in neutral and able to use any action, you can technically dash dance within this animation as well (hard to time maximum 'range' of it though); I believe with a bit of hocus pocus pivot grabbing in the dash is possible.
You transition into run, at this point you can do a turn pivot, which you can cancel into pivot grab, ftilt, or if you reset the stick to neutral first, Forward Smash.
There's a "dash run" length that people consider, it's a minimum length of time you have to travel before you can shield. You can fox trot again at this stage, bringing in the whole initial dash state thing again, you may also freely forward smash and use down and neutral specials.

At any time during dashruns you can roll, jump (and all jump cancel actions), dash attack, dash grab, side b. Am I missing something? Probably.

 

[CodeBlue_]

Slight nitpick, Game & Watch does benefit from it on his fair and dair, it's only his other aerials that are bugged. And I would argue that there are three charactes who don't really benefit much or at all from wavedashing: Puff, Peach, and Zelda. Of course, two of those three can quite clearly demonstrate that they don't need it! So yeah, so stupid when idiots try to say these things are somehow the reason why Melee isn't balanced.

Eh my point wasn't whether Melee was balanced or not, it was that the ATs don't cause imbalance. But thanks for the clarification.

Late (but as someone else also said something about how dashing is only jump and shield, lol)



You can roll at any point of your run or dash too. You can bait attacks with with dash back roll (or more aggressively [read/character dependent]) forward roll) achieving similar things. Not necessarily being better, mind you, but still.

Let's go over dash runs, shall we?

Dash is the initial state, in Brawl it was 5 frames for all/most characters, it may be slightly longer here. In this state you can Forward Smash, or true pivot putting yourself in neutral and able to use any action, you can technically dash dance within this animation as well (hard to time maximum 'range' of it though); I believe with a bit of hocus pocus pivot grabbing in the dash is possible.
You transition into run, at this point you can do a turn pivot, which you can cancel into pivot grab, ftilt, or if you reset the stick to neutral first, Forward Smash.
There's a "dash run" length that people consider, it's a minimum length of time you have to travel before you can shield. You can fox trot again at this stage, bringing in the whole initial dash state thing again, you may also freely forward smash and use down and neutral specials.

At any time during dashruns you can roll, jump (and all jump cancel actions), dash attack, dash grab, side b. Am I missing something? Probably.

Ok our options are:
Initial Dash:
*FSmash
*True Pivot (which I cannot test as I'm limited to the 3ds version. What exactly is the frame window for this?)
Running animation:
*Pivot grab
*Pivot ftilt
*Pivot Fsmash
Dash Run:
*Fsmash
*Down and neutral specials

How optimal are these options in neutral? Aren't these situational moves?

I need to look into Perfect Pivot. But most of the pivot moves are not safe in neutral. Ftilts are generally hit/miss when it comes to usefulness for characters and Fsmashes are unsafe in general. Pivot grabs are generally as safe as dash grabs (which are fairly lackluster).

I know my statement was an oversimplification, but the options given to us are fairly weak.

Foxtrotting is also slower than dashing, which causes slower play. Apparently "patience is a virtue" (Sakurai actually put a hint about Walking being safer than Running. This is part of his quote. I don't like the unnecessary slowing down of the game).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Eh my point wasn't whether Melee was balanced or not, it was that the ATs don't cause imbalance. But thanks for the clarification.

They can actually.

Some techs benefit some character more than others or can cause some characters to be worse.

Roy will never be top tier in Melee but crouch Cancelling existing destroys him.

 

[hariooo]

Luigi will never be top tier in Melee but wavedashing makes him viable. Anything can affect balance. Does it make the game more competitive? Most people (who actually play the game competitively) would answer yes to that question for wavedashing and crouch cancelling.

 

[CodeBlue_]

They can actually.

Some techs benefit some character more than others or can cause some characters to be worse.

Roy will never be top tier in Melee but crouch Cancelling existing destroys him.

It's not like Roy has other problems that hinder him. Like an anti-tipper that makes it hard for him to combo with non-spaced and to ko with spaced moves. Or fast-falling speed and poor recovery that leads to 0 to death chain throws. Or being completely outclassed by Marth?

I see that ATs can affect balance (which really isn't the sole case for Roy), but it doesn't mean that they should be removed.

 

[LancerStaff]

Luigi will never be top tier in Melee but wavedashing makes him viable. Anything can affect balance. Does it make the game more competitive? Most people (who actually play the game competitively) would answer yes to that question for wavedashing and crouch cancelling.

Vectoring didn't exactly help much from what I heard. Or hitstun canceling.

 

[Shaya]

Eh my point wasn't whether Melee was balanced or not, it was that the ATs don't cause imbalance. But thanks for the clarification.

Ok our options are:
Initial Dash:
*FSmash
*True Pivot (which I cannot test as I'm limited to the 3ds version. What exactly is the frame window for this?)
Running animation:
*Pivot grab
*Pivot ftilt
*Pivot Fsmash
Dash Run:
*Fsmash
*Down and neutral specials

How optimal are these options in neutral? Aren't these situational moves?

I need to look into Perfect Pivot. But most of the pivot moves are not safe in neutral. Ftilts are generally hit/miss when it comes to usefulness for characters and Fsmashes are unsafe in general. Pivot grabs are generally as safe as dash grabs (which are fairly lackluster).

I know my statement was an oversimplification, but the options given to us are fairly weak.

Foxtrotting is also slower than dashing, which causes slower play. Apparently "patience is a virtue" (Sakurai actually put a hint about Walking being safer than Running. This is part of his quote. I don't like the unnecessary slowing down of the game).

Well, there may be an imbalance between how safe one can make those options, but they're faster than reaction speed options nevertheless that can cover mid range distances. You shouldn't underplay the 'always available' options in that scenario. Jumping, rolling (NEW NEW NEW NEW) and side-bing is a pretty good range of options every character has.
In a round about way, there is inherent risk in doing these things and you cannot do limitless 'stalling' (baiting/etc) to force different timings on people (dash dancing or WDing at variable speeds). But there's no way a player can cover all of those options at the same time.

An easier way to explain true pivots would be that you can freely dash in the opposite direction during the initial dash ("dash dance"), If you return the stick to neutral in the turning animation (1 to 2 frame window) you'll turn around and have cancelled your dash.

So

(up to X (5?) frames) -> -> -> Any action you want.

This was mildly touched upon by the top level Brawl players (it exists in Melee too obviously, but there's just easier options that exist in that game that replace that technical barrier; 64 players still have to rely on it though). It's very hard to do things with it, most people can practise and get true pivot jabs to a reasonable consistency. With c-stick set to tilts/specials you could do things easier, but most characters relied on C-stick smashes for buffering actions.

We've got a different engine with different buffering, reliance on c-stick smashes for fast/optimal play may be over.