My original fears of Nintendo balancing Smash are coming true.

[RedrappeR]

Dear Everybody in this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqz53d-fYL8

Thanks...

 

[MegaMissingno]

Do you also complain about combos in Street Fighter II? Rocket jumps and bunny hopping in Quake? T-spins in Tetris? Mutalisk stacking in Starcraft? Plinking in Street Fighter IV? You've written all these words about how all glitches are bad no matter what, but you've yet to explain why that is. Why can't bugs ever turn out to be a good thing? What about the numerous example of exactly this happening over the years? Hell, what about DACUS in Brawl?

 

[Quillion]

Wii U hacking is in its beginning stages.

Just wait for Project M4 where you'll be able to utilize all the removed ATs and even combine it with wavedashing.

 

[LightLV]

Wii U hacking is in its beginning stages.

Just wait for Project M4 where you'll be able to utilize all the removed ATs and even combine it with wavedashing.

If Project M is a thing for Smash4, there will be no need for ATs, since the PM team can just implement it the character itself.

 

[SmashWolf]

If you're going to "balance" the game, at least admit your own obvious mistakes and change stuff like:

-Slowing down when you jump during a dash
-The blast zones being so incredibly huge
-Maximum amount of projectiles you can have on the field(missiles or bombs, for example)

If you're just going to remove depth from the game rather than actually help the community, get lost.

 

[ToadsterOven]

Wii U hacking is in its beginning stages.

Just wait for Project M4 where you'll be able to utilize all the removed ATs and even combine it with wavedashing.

Pretty darn sure the PM dev team have said on numerous occasions they ain't touching smash 4 out of respect for Nintendo or something along those lines!

 

[PersonPlayz]

Personally, I feel like it is the way it should be. Enough good charcters to let competitve players be diverse i character selection. Not just one or two characters that eeryone plays. AKA; . Tournament style will be different, probably more hands on than Technical. Overall, I feel like it is one of the better games to play competitively, and offers a lot of characters to fit a lot of different game styles.

 

[Tagxy]

Do you also complain about combos in Street Fighter II? Rocket jumps and bunny hopping in Quake? T-spins in Tetris? Mutalisk stacking in Starcraft? Plinking in Street Fighter IV? You've written all these words about how all glitches are bad no matter what, but you've yet to explain why that is. Why can't bugs ever turn out to be a good thing? What about the numerous example of exactly this happening over the years? Hell, what about DACUS in Brawl?

Again comes down to the difference between games that are patched and those that aren't. Things like kara throws etc. should be patched out or rebalanced from a design perspective. Its funny you mention that because that podcast by Sirling I keep referring to mentions exactly that, using kara throws precisely as an example. Starts at 10:45 but its worth listening to the earlier part as well (and the later, its a really good podcast that covers this exact topic).
http://www.sirlin.net/posts/podcast-sirlin-on-game-design

If you're going to "balance" the game, at least admit your own obvious mistakes and change stuff like:

-Slowing down when you jump during a dash
-The blast zones being so incredibly huge
-Maximum amount of projectiles you can have on the field(missiles or bombs, for example)

If you're just going to remove depth from the game rather than actually help the community, get lost.

I think you dont understand balance and depth. If youre looking for help on this reread some of the earlier posts the last few pages. Thinkaman and Shaya had some good thoughts on it.

Glitches need to be removed. All of them. Even in fighting games, this is never a good thing. Technical skill is one thing, but silver lining bad programming is something else entirely. (*stares at GunZ*)

I agree with most of the stuff in this post. Alot of the things people complain about are just shortsightedness in the scope of a few moves that proved good enough to create an entire playstyle (1-frame shine). While i'm indeed someone who wishes the game had more technical skill to it GLITCHES are not something to be proud of in a competitive game. While they may take technical skill to execute, they stem from a different place. People can complain about melee all they want, but the amount of actual glitches abused in high level play was very, very low, if there were any at all. The game was fast, there was tons of freedom of input -- it didn't NEED any glitches, the game provided enough player control to have the physics of the game be sufficient enough to provide technical freedom.

DACUS is something that really baffles me, it's essentially a kara cancel, but i don't really understand why its possible to cancel dash attack state frames and not others, unless they planned for you to be able to execute attacks out of dashing anyway.


On the subject of removing glitches? The only reason glitches are so prevalent in smash bros now is because the system mechanics were nerfed so incredibly hard (hitstun, gravity, movement physics) that abusing glitches is one of the few ways players can break the mold anymore. Either way, I wholeheartedly disagree with building a character's meta off the strength of a non-intuitive glitch.

Beautiful post, agree with everything but, understandably, the full last paragraph (more likely intended mechanics become a comparative thing within the series but-not-necessarily-bad in terms of change IMO, in any case not the subject at hand). I think there's a separate word for pushing a mechanic to its limits, such as directional air dodge, but its certainly not a glitch.

 

[deepseadiva]

If they all combine together to make a strong, fun character and the game still takes skill to succeed and rewards the best player (WE STILL HAVE POWER SHIELDING) shouldn't this be more than enough?

LOVED this post. This last part is also what I've been uncomfortable reading about in this thread: entitlement.

"How can WE LET Nintendo do this to OUR game?"

Maaannnnn whatttttt???????

 

[LightLV]

LOVED this post. This last part is also what I've been uncomfortable reading about in this thread: entitlement.

"How can WE LET Nintendo do this to OUR game?"

Maaannnnn whatttttt???????

Honestly though? What game company makes a game for themselves. Who's game is it, if not the collective fans'?

Power Shielding hardly does anything for this game's issues...in case you haven't been reading, dodge rolling and shielding are the most egregious things in this game. There's barely anything power shielding does in this game that regular shielding doesn't already do, and dodge rolling is so good there are only a handful of characters that can reliably punish it.


If powershield still reflected projectiles, that'd be something interesting...but of course it doesn't

 

[Tagxy]

Power Shielding hardly does anything for this game's issues...in case you haven't been reading, dodge rolling and shielding are the most egregious things in this game. There's barely anything power shielding does in this game that regular shielding doesn't already do, and dodge rolling is so good there are only a handful of characters that can reliably punish it.

If powershield still reflected projectiles, that'd be something interesting...but of course it doesn't

Everyone paying attention has been reading, we just understand that the issues you've listed arent really issues, just grumblings from people who arent familiar with the games mechanics, in particular mostly from people too familiar with mechanics from a previous game.

i.e. Projectiles in this game are BY FAR the most tame theyve been since 64, maybe even better then that.

 

[LightLV]

Everyone paying attention has been reading, we just understand that the issues you've listed arent really issues, just grumblings from people who arent familiar with the games mechanics, in particular mostly from people too familiar with mechanics from a previous game.

i.e. Projectiles in this game are BY FAR the most tame theyve been since 64, maybe even better then that.

Well, i've been discussing this game's mechanics from the standpoint of a competitive game at large. Smash is a different type of fighter, but all the same concepts apply, there's really nothing too unique about it at it's core. So, just because a mechanic change makes the game different (naturally), it doesn't mean it's safe from criticism, or being compared to previous games in the series. Especially when mechanics are changed/removed, but none are added in its absence, essentially making it a different version of the same game.

64 to Melee couldnt have those comparisons drawn, far too much was added and changed. But Brawl and Smash 4 are both games built pretty much entirely off mechanics introduced in melee, removed and altered. There are very few relevant mechanics added in Brawl/Smash 4 that didn't already exist in Melee. Not to make it about Melee, but that's why the comparisons keep coming and wont stop coming.

This is why I mentioned, I think Smash 4 really should have just added something NEW to the game, to make it a real new entity in the series, and use THAT freedom to build a happy medium between competitive and casual... instead of describing the game as "between Brawl and Melee" and dancing around that concept, which is inevitably going to cause issues.

 

[|RK|]

The fact that the games are so fundamentally different makes analogies to chess I relevant by nature.


It's mostly compounded by the fear that every time the community develops a stable and understood metagame, patches will come in that intentionally stifle the established playstyles until there is literally a shell of a game at the end. But yeah we'll see I guess.


I'm a nutshell, yes, absolutely. It's pretty much what 90% of people mean when they say something along those lines. It's good that you don't mean it like that, but trust me, most do and it's really annoying, especially since my first course of action in improving Melee (yes it can be done *gasp*) would be to decrease the difficulty of the mechanical execution.

All fair points.

 

[leeray666]

I really like the chess analogy that someone gave earlier.

The chess analogy doesn't really work. I mean, chess is a turn-based strategy game. I'd liken Advance Wars more to chess than Smash Bros.
To be honest, I don't like the idea of nerfing ATs out of the game, it stifles competitive play and reduces the skill range between players. Reducing the options available and the depth will also reduce the interest and lifespan of the game. The ONLY patches I would be in favor of are fixes to truly game-breaking bugs and exploits.

 

[Zork]

To those that think all glitches should be removed from every fighter, fine. We can start by removing every single combo in every single fighting game ever because that's bad game design right? Why? Because the very concept of combos was due to a glitch they left in SF2 they figured gamers wouldn't care enough to exploit.

But instead of throwing a hissy fit when people did, Capcom decided to make it a standard feature in later titles and now there's no such thing as a fighter without combos. But nah Capcom should have listened to entitled people like in this topic that clearly believe if they can't do something or fail to see the merit of it, it should be removed on the grounds that it wasn't intentional.

In regards to Kara cancelling being removed it can be pivotal to a certain character's options. Try telling Sagat players in SF4 that Kara cancelling should be removed. Capcom had numerous chances to remove it but never did. The same goes for plinking. If they WERE to remove say plinking now, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot as the community backlash would be so severe. Both Capcom and community have accepted it as part of the game. Imagine if Nintendo had done the same for wavedashing (not a glitch but an unintentional exploit and side effect) and how much more exciting Smash 4's neutral game could have been as a result.

Btw you know what else wasn't intentional? Competitive play. This was meant to be a party fighter. Nintendo acknowledging the competitive scene now doesn't change what the original intent was. Think about that long and hard and start to realize just how foolish a "everything that isn't intentional shouldn't exist" argument really is. This very board section is a result of unintentional game design.

It really amazes me the lengths fanboys will go to defend Nintendo's poor decision making. An option like DACUS is just that, just another option some characters used to have. It doesn't break the game, it's not OP and is only occasionally useful thus adding depth to competitive play. Casuals will never do it so it doesn't affect them either. So why remove it? Decisions like these serves no purpose but to make the game much more shallow than it has to be.

OP made a lot of excellent points. One of them was about how Brawl despite what you might not like about it had a lot of hidden goodies and character specific tech. This partially contributed to incredibly unique playstyles in the game. Do you guys really prefer a game with less options (because anything remotely interesting tech that is discovered is automatically removed by Nintendo) and a whole lot of standard generic neutral game heavily involving rolling and camping?

Obviously I'm all for removing broken things and objectively bad exploits like Peach's infinite, it's very good these things can be patched now. But that doesn't mean Nintendo has to remove literally every piece of tech they see people using.

 

[Nobie]

I think it's short-sighted to assume that increasing a game's depth and complexity necessarily comes from gradually finding "advanced techniques" whether they be universal or character-specific. Yes, many games have become accidentally better and/or more interesting through the discovery of something unintended by the creators, and often times it has to be this way because there's no way a creator can devote as much time to exploring his game on a competitive level compared to someone dedicated to that very thing, but it doesn't have to come from finding out some "new ability that changes everything." With glitches and oversights removed, what's generally left is a core game, and that core game still has the potential to be dynamic and interesting in a lot of ways, particularly in terms of games as a series of decisions.

People are wondering where the depth will be if there are no techs, no unforeseen character quirks that remove or eliminate some of their weaknesses, but take a look at this roster for Smash 4 and just think about how diverse and divergent character playstyles are, and how much they were clearly designed to be competitive without needing to make them super difficult on a physical level. Duck Hunt has a crazy projectile and zoning game that's less reliant on finger speed and more on both you and your opponent's ability to keep track of your environment as you're controlling space with the can.

Ganondorf doesn't have very many ways to advance on the opponent reliably (and even Wizard's Dropkick is mainly there as a punish for people who think that projecitles mean they're safe), but his punish game is through the roof. This also doesn't require you or your opponent to be super technical, but you have a new gameplay experience when you're using a speedy keep-away character and have to be cognizant of the fact that Ganondorf only needs two or three good reads to turn the match around.

Palutena, even putting aside the fact that people seem to find some new tech with her every other day, is at her core still a strong playstyle that focuses on patience and focusing on catching the opponent at vulnerable times due to her ability to power through a lot of attacks and the huge hitboxes she brings out.

And if you still want more speedy, technical characters like in Melee, they're still around to a fair extent. Only, instead of depth coming from mastering some difficult sequence that may or may not open up a game to more options, you're refining the options you already have, making it so that you know precisely how fast, how strong, and how reliable your character is at all times.

Smash 4, in its effort to make more playstyles viable and doing a much better job of it, allows for more scenarios to consider, more matchups to learn, and more different gameplay interactions as a result of how different these characters are. Even without advanced techniques, there's still a huge amount of game to explore.

 

[yume_nikki]

-“Glitches and exploits that are unintuitive and only replace already existing options by making them suboptimal should be removed”

-“Combos were glitches. Do you want a shallow fighter without combos?”


Strawmanning 101.

 

[Elessar]

A fact that we should remember is that smash 4 was developed by Namco this time around, and that the Tekken Team was behind the balancing aspect of the game. Tekken is a highly competitive game, well balanced all around, and that has little to no glitches. The game is very cut and clear about the tools available for play and the community loves it and it's a highly popular game. Do you think that maybe that's what will happen here, it's just that we smash players have had such a bad history with our devs that we don't trust them, at all so we're ready to attack every decision made. Only that, this time, it's not the usual Smash devs behind this aspect of the game, but other more experienced and proven competitive dev team.

Let's just wait and see how the game evolves. I mean, Ninty is new with this competitive and balance things, but Namco isn't, so let's have some faith in light of it.

 

[LightLV]

A fact that we should remember is that smash 4 was developed by Namco this time around, and that the Tekken Team was behind the balancing aspect of the game. Tekken is a highly competitive game, well balanced all around, and that has little to no glitches. The game is very cut and clear about the tools available for play and the community loves it and it's a highly popular game. Do you think that maybe that's what will happen here, it's just that we smash players have had such a bad history with our devs that we don't trust them, at all so we're ready to attack every decision made. Only that, this time, it's not the usual Smash devs behind this aspect of the game, but other more experienced and proven competitive dev team.

Let's just wait and see how the game evolves. I mean, Ninty is new with this competitive and balance things, but Namco isn't, so let's have some faith in light of it.

By all indications, Namco had very, very, very little to do with this game's balancing decisions. The state of the clones alone is kind of an indication.

Lol not to mention, Nintendo just released a self-described "balance patch" and provided no patch notes. In an age of fighters where western games are including frame data in training mode, what kind of douchebag developer does that to their fighting game? One who either a) enjoys watching the scene stumble over itself pointlessly, or b) doesn't know how aggravating it is to be learning a game only to have mechanics maaagiically shift around. Something the Tekken team of all peoples wouldn't condone.

I myself was very hype for Namco's inclusion in the development process, but i really can't see their influence anywhere. Except maybe in the Wii-U's visuals, because the game looks way better in motion than i thought it would.

 

[Elessar]

By all indications, Namco had very, very, very little to do with this game's balancing decisions. The state of the clones alone is kind of an indication.

Lol not to mention, Nintendo just released a self-described "balance patch" and provided no patch notes. In an age of fighters where western games are including frame data in training mode, what kind of douchebag developer does that to their fighting game? One who either a) enjoys watching the scene stumble over itself pointlessly, or b) doesn't know how aggravating it is to be learning a game only to have mechanics maaagiically shift around. Something the Tekken team of all peoples wouldn't condone.

I myself was very hype for Namco's inclusion in the development process, but i really can't see their influence anywhere. Except maybe in the Wii-U's visuals, because the game looks way better in motion than i thought it would.

Maybe they balanced the game during development, but once that the game shipped they stopped and gave it back to Sora. That would make sense, since it's Sora's game anyways and Tekken's team must go back to working on Tekken and the new Tekken. It is a possibility, though I'm not sure. And yeah I was super hyped over their inclusion as well.

Also, I agree on the patch note issue. I think that everyone does. I mean, it's completely inexcusable and it just shows how out of touch Nintendo is and how clueless they are with anything competitive. Hopefully, if we create enough viral backlash, they'll fix that and start releasing patch notes for future patches.

 

[lordvaati]

.....so If I said that I actually told some Nintendo staff about the Teleggporting glitch in Smash 3DS and showed them, would you hate me?

 

[Mykelism]

From a game design perspective it is in Nintendos best interest to remove ALL unintended glitches (unintended is implied). A key principle of game design is predictability. The game should work in some way and the player should know what is going to happen before they perform an action because the rules of the game imply it. Glitches remove this predictability and destroy the intended balance of the game as well as the UX that was intended.

 

[Shaya]

*hypothetical*
Character has DACUS and an aerial landing lag cancel removed!
"Oh no, mah character just got less technical, hence less skill to use, and ALSO they're weaker now without those options, **** you Sakurai!"

Character then has some frame data buffs, an extra 1% on several moves, possibly other changes that make them better/more consistent with original intentions in mind.
"My character is better/more viable than before, but **** you Sakurai you prick, I can't side-b on landing and I cannot dacus anymore! ITS ALL WORTHLESS, I'M QUITTING THE GAME AND CANCELLING MY SMASH 4 WIIU PRE-ORDER"

These are almost literal analogies to this thread, people in either camp (or more so on that side of design extremities) should see a problem/imbalance in logic.

Seriously, as long as the character is strong without unintended techniques - that's Sakura/Namco's intentions with the game. Wanting something else, wanting a discovery that's more so an unknown/buggy interaction (DACUS) rather than the development of intended mechanics (wavedashing) and mechanics/engine specifics tuned to make things better (removal of vectoring suddenly giving everyone combo throws, not just diddy kong!!) is just bizarre.

GAH.

I'm probably rambling at that stage. But I just really struggle to understand the true degree of people being upset beyond them just wanting something "crazy" and "wow how did the engine produce that" affect of finding glitches/bugs/advanced techniques. You know how much depth/options have been added to dashes in this game? Why isn't anyone interested or willing to explore that to their full? Because it was intended, hence not cool enough for 'mah advanced technique wet dream game!".


tl;dr hypocrisy.

 

[otter]

.....so If I said that I actually told some Nintendo staff about the Teleggporting glitch in Smash 3DS and showed them, would you hate me?

they definitely know about it anyway.

 

[Nyhte]

I originally wanted a 'advanced' mode toggle in Smash 4, where the option to play either with a brawl engine or a melee one was really easy, but then I suspect that besides reasons of more work, that this didn't got through because it'd be a divide between the 'casual mode' players and 'hardcore mode' players which Nintendo didn't want.

I'm ambivalent about glitches and exploits. On one hand they can be really fun or increase depth, but they can also be argued to be unbalanced or unfun/unnecessary. Which gets into really subjective territory, especially when so much can be said when providing evidence to a theory or argument

 

[Freezie KO]

Honestly, if they fix Sonic, nerf the other Fast Four (Diddy, Yoshi, Sheik, ZSS), and balance Rosalina, they can take out every single AT for all I care.

 

[Ninpalk]

I feel balancing it could be a good thing.

 

[PCHU]

I'm mainly upset at the removal of Wectoring.
That was uncalled for.

As far as Nintendo balancing things and making people play the game "the way it's meant to be played", I think people forget that while we do like Nintendo and some of the stuff they've done for us, we're still the consumers -- it's okay to have your own opinion about something.
All too often I hear people parroting the same arguments using the word "arbitrary" like it's the only thing they know.
I can't say I'm too thrilled with Smash 4 and the way it's turned out, but some of these complaints I'm hearing are a little surprising; I didn't think the game needed to hold anyone's hand tighter than Brawl did.
With the new ledge mechanics and jab combos, it just feels like the game is encouraging you to pick a relatively quick character with projectiles and kinda autopilot with your camp game, but I will not deny that Smash has been campy before.
Still, people are being overly happy about the removal of techs, and it's a little confusing because I don't recall having to grind hours for anything technical that was absolutely necessary -- all the Fox and Falco junk was optional; anyone can pick them and hang back in shield and punish approaches with jabs/fsmash.
It really isn't that hard, and actually, it's effective -- I almost always stumble in approaching casual players because they have strong fundamentals and aren't working with a gameplan similar to my own, so, at first, a lot of what I do is punished by really simple things.
Even so, tech isn't what gets me the win, it's spacing and reads in combination with techs, but that's Melee -- in Brawl and Smash 4, even if I do get in a glide toss or a DACUS, tech is not and never will be the driving force behind my success.
Unless you see someone who perfects multishining (frame-perfect timing with consistency, which I'm pretty sure could still be punished with an aerial disjoint or something), tech is not how they win, even if Fox is absolutely ridiculous in comparison to almost any other character.

What they've done with Smash 4 (balance-wise) is pretty good, but I think there are some areas that could be improved upon.
Still, it's a relatively fun game and I hope the scene for it thrives.
However, I really think that people should look into what constitutes as tech skill and what constitutes as character skill -- I'd consider PM's two-frame DACUS quite possibly the most useful of the difficult techs, and nothing in Smash 4 or Brawl even really comes close to that besides the frame 1 hitstun canceling that hardly anybody did even semi-consistently; most of it is character knowledge and understanding the options they've been given.
So long as it isn't a completely unfair advantage/disadvantage that's evidently ruining the experience of numerous parties (Peach's crazy combo [which was cool, but I definitely see why that was patched], Diddy's popgun hitstun canceling, King Dedede's gordo glitch, are you freaking kidding me), I think they should just leave it alone.
Kinda like Mario's dtilt -- it hasn't really been a good option ever, but why remove it?
I never had trouble vs Wectoring and Greninja was too busy giving me trouble with the rest of his moveset for me to care about the few times he DID sideB me and I got a free punish, but I can't speak for everyone.

And firehopping is fun.
I hope they never take it out because it's enjoyable and useful (and totally not overpowered in your average item-filled race), not to mention there's nothing funnier than watching a heavy hopping around in a small kart for the win (but the weight advantage balance is awful; they should've kept the general system they used to operate on).

 

[LightlyToasted]

Question. Of the Techs they have removed, have they been techs that ONLY specific characters have had? I mean obviously vectoring is gone and apparently replaced with DI. But I have played several games at a reasonably high level(never pro) and not necessarily competitive genre for all of them. if their is something that gives a particular character options, but makes it so that character is close to a must pick it can warp the game. League of legends is a very different game, but Riot has done(in my opinion) a good job of keeping things fairly balanced. Though if a champion or an item becomes so strong or polarizing that it is a MUST pick, then it needs to be toned back.(See: "the Black Cleaver Stacking Massacre of Season 3")

*a Must pick being that you are hurting your chances for victory by not picking it


I want to think that this is what Nintendo is doing, though it's hard to tell since we didn't really get to play around with things like DACUS that much to see if all characters could do it effectively. While it WILL always happen, I feel game designers don't wants players to make choices based on what is the strongest or most competitive. The more they can do to increase the roster of viable options, and have players pick characters(or races in the realm or RTS) The happier they will see to witness their hard work, and the multiple options they have laid out for players to make for a fantastic gaming experience.

 

[Elessar]

The problem, imo, is that we smash payers have come to accept glitches as a part of our game to the point that the exploit of glitches or the abuse of mechanics is what we call AT or tech skill and thus decide who is a good player or not. These things have in the past defined our meta; we playing the game our way because the devs hated the fact that we were competitive so they didn't make the game with us in mind. But this time around it's different. I mean, they brought in Namco for this so I think that we should understand that the game is now different. It might not require as much "tech skill" as melee, but I would call that a fair trade if in return we get a well designed, well balanced competitive game, which so far it seems to be the case and intent.

Allowing exploits in general feels like wanting to favor an imbalance, even if it's for a supposed "low tier" character.

 

[|RK|]

The tips section tells me that Nintendo is pretty aware of the decisions that they make.

I've seen a tip saying that Samus's jab can be blocked within the first and second hits, so it's better to use the first and then run away. So they know that Samus has a **** jab at least. Also, Smash Tour tips dealing with Lucario's Aura, and how starting at 100% sucks for everyone but Lucario.

Random thought.

 

[Ticker]

Question. Of the Techs they have removed, have they been techs that ONLY specific characters have had?

Tink, Link and Peach had Bomb lag cancelling or a varioation of this which was rather important to Toon link and Peach.

 

[Xcano]

I'm 100% sure that not every AT is going to be fixed. Some will just become so commonly used and/or unnoticed that nobody will care, others will just be so popular that Nintendo wouldn't dare.

 

[hariooo]

Balance doesn't make a good competitive game. It should never be the priority over making a game that's fun to play. Removing cool and interesting options in return for slightly better stats on moves might keep a character at relatively the same power level but the character has now become less fun to play.

The longest lasting competitive games in history have never set "every character/race should be viable in every matchup" as a goal. It's unrealistic.

Especially when you try to balance the game across all skill levels it gets even more ridiculous. And if that was really the case, rolling wouldn't be as strong as it is.

 

[-LzR-]

Balance doesn't make a good competitive game. It should never be the priority over making a game that's fun to play. Removing cool and interesting options in return for slightly better stats on moves might keep a character at relatively the same power level but the character has now become less fun to play.

A good example is Melee.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Balance has a lot to adding life to a game. Saying it doesn't is foolhardy. That can kill a game fast.

Bug fixes and cleaning up a character on every way can make characters more fun, unless people think Ike wasn't improved in that regard.

 

[Thinkaman]

I don't mean to be rude or confrontational, but saying balance is not tied to the quality of competitive play is the most absurd post I've ever seen on Smashboards.

Literally every eSport that has survived has done so by virtue of its balance.

• Starcraft originated this idea
• LoL, the biggest eSport, has the biggest balance design team of any game in history
• DotA, Smite, Hearthstone, and other successful games all place a huge emphasis on balance
• Modern fighting games have survived significantly better due to balance patches (SF4 being the most successful example)
• Even Melee continues to thrive because of the tight matchups between its top 7 characters

The idea that a level-playing field is anything but a top priority for competitive game design is mind-boggling.

Of course, it's possible to throw the baby out with the bath water and sabotage what makes a game fun in pursuit of balance--like any design goal taken to a zealous extreme. But that's not what's happening or being discussed here.

 

[Elessar]

Balance doesn't make a good competitive game. It should never be the priority over making a game that's fun to play.

I don't mean to be rude or confrontational, but saying balance is not tied to the quality of competitive play is the most absurd post I've ever seen on Smashboards.

Literally every eSport that has survived has done so by virtue of its balance.

• Starcraft originated this idea
• LoL, the biggest eSport, has the biggest balance design team of any game in history
• DotA, Smite, Hearthstone, and other successful games all place a huge emphasis on balance
• Modern fighting games have survived significantly better due to balance patches (SF4 being the most successful example)
• Even Melee continues to thrive because of the tight matchups between its top 7 characters

The idea that a level-playing field is anything but a top priority for competitive game design is mind-boggling.

Of course, it's possible to throw the baby out with the bath water and sabotage what makes a game fun in pursuit of balance--like any design goal taken to a zealous extreme. But that's not what's happening or being discussed here.

You took the words straight out of my mouth. A game that isn't balanced in essence can never be truly competitive, and balance is a priority over making a game "fun" since fun is not an universal concept. What you find fun, may not be what I find fun and so on. I mean, for me it's not fun to be told that my char of choice is horrible, non tourney viable and that if I want to win I need to repick. That's not fun, I want to play with the char I enjoy. So balance in this case will make the game better.

Balance is objective and universal, fun isn't. As such, "fun" cannot be your guiding force for a competitive game.

 

[Thinkaman]

Balance is a subtractive design element: The combined removal of unfairness, polarization, and homogenization.

Like most subtractive design elements, it is strictly and objectively good, but can never make a game good or fun by itself.

It only preserves the fun added by other elements (in this case content variety) from degenerating.

 

[TimeSmash]

This can go in two very different ways.

So far, Nintendo has removed anything deemed glitchy, like Toss Lag Cancelling and even exploity things that aren't even glitchy. Moreover, they even deemed to change things that were odd, like WFT's abnormally low airdodge landing lag to normalize it. However, pivot cancelling wasn't removed. So Nintendo could remove most glitchy things that we deem ATs, and possibly keep really small things like pivot cancelling in, leaving Smash 4 quite vanilla. However, we could see alterations to knockback damage, and move properties which we've seen already. However, Smash 4 will stay in a vanilla state, and a metagame will develop based more on general character playstyle unreliant on AT usage (I don't say "tech skill" here because tech skill and [usage of] ATs are not mutually exclusive, albeit similar). It's way too early to tell what this would result in.
On the other hand, Nintendo could be selective about what glitches and exploits are allowed to stay in the game. While there are some things that are just way too glitchy to exist, like Yoshi's Teleggporting and Bowser Jr. teleporting, there may be other things deemed glitchy/exploit but mild enough to stay in the game, along the lines of Toss Lag Cancelling or Peach's non-staled aerials (not the best examples, but things that the game didn't necessarily intend, but aren't as vexing as something like teleporting
This would arise in the development of character specific and universal ATs, and lead to a meta more reliant on those.