My original fears of Nintendo balancing Smash are coming true.

[hariooo]

Starcraft has never been balanced. In BW, Zerg didn't win any majors for the first several years, then Protoss had a 3-4 streak where no OSLs/MSLs were won. The balance in BW was T>Z>>P>T. And SC2? Lol SC2 is dead because the balance team took everything fun about the game and nerfed it into mediocrity.

LoL is continuously readjusts its "balance" but it isn't balanced around the concept that every character should be viable in every situation. You can't just play the "character you enjoy" and have a good shot at winning any game. Yet people think having 50! matchups in Smash4 being balanced is a realistic goal.

DOTA is about the most unbalanced competitive game out there. Every character has at least one ability that in a vacuum seems OP as hell but are precariously balanced against different OP strengths of other heroes. Yet I hear things on this board like "Diddy has a kill setup off a grab so we have to nerf him guys". No, having a punish game off a grab is actually fun. Just try to buff other characters to that point instead.

Modern fighting games have survived? SF4 is the best example but that's by a company that puts a lot of effort into the competitive community in the first place. And what about MvC3 by the same company? That game had a shorter life than its predecessor regardless of how well balanced it is because it wasn't as fun of a game. Brawl is arguably more "balanced" than Melee (in the context of how many different characters have won a national) but hey, it's dead because it's less fun.

None of those games thrived because they were well-balanced. Go to any of the fan communities for those games and ask if the game is "well-balanced". Balance doesn't mean **** if the game isn't any good but "unbalanced" games can be absurdly popular as long as they're fun. No Melee is not balanced at all lol but it allows for such a freedom of control and expression by the player that at the top level, players transcend the basic balance set by the characters. I don't think you can reasonably say that Brawl/Smash4 gives the player as much control over their character as Melee and that's a big part of why competitively they're weaker.

And by the way I'm describing fun in the way that the NBA is more fun than the WNBA. Yeah the latter can still be great and you can focus on spacing and the "fundamentals" or whatever but speed, finesse, and power still make a game more fun.

 

[-LzR-]

With balance it's not important that all 50 characters are equal, but that at least enough characters are competitively viable to have a healthy and competitive environment. Come on just look at Melee! Or even MvC2.

 

[hariooo]

With balance it's not important that all 50 characters are equal, but that at least enough characters are competitively viable to have a healthy and competitive environment. Come on just look at Melee! Or even MvC2.

Yep both Melee and MvC2 had less than 10 viable characters each but those characters had so much depth and potential that they sustained their competitive communities for over a decade.

I heard the same thing in 08 about how Brawl was going to be able to convert a whole new casual crowd to the competitive side but where is that game now? At the end of the day it was a slow, defensive, boring game to enough people that not many wanted to watch it. It was the WNBA of smash.

 

[Elessar]

Starcraft has never been balanced. In BW, Zerg didn't win any majors for the first several years, then Protoss had a 3-4 streak where no OSLs/MSLs were won. The balance in BW was T>Z>>P>T. And SC2? Lol SC2 is dead because the balance team took everything fun about the game and nerfed it into mediocrity.

LoL is continuously readjusts its "balance" but it isn't balanced around the concept that every character should be viable in every situation. You can't just play the "character you enjoy" and have a good shot at winning any game. Yet people think having 50! matchups in Smash4 being balanced is a realistic goal.

DOTA is about the most unbalanced competitive game out there. Every character has at least one ability that in a vacuum seems OP as hell but are precariously balanced against different OP strengths of other heroes. Yet I hear things on this board like "Diddy has a kill setup off a grab so we have to nerf him guys". No, having a punish game off a grab is actually fun. Just try to buff other characters to that point instead.

Modern fighting games have survived? SF4 is the best example but that's by a company that puts a lot of effort into the competitive community in the first place. And what about MvC3 by the same company? That game had a shorter life than its predecessor regardless of how well balanced it is because it wasn't as fun of a game. Brawl is arguably more "balanced" than Melee (in the context of how many different characters have won a national) but hey, it's dead because it's less fun.

None of those games thrived because they were well-balanced. Go to any of the fan communities for those games and ask if the game is "well-balanced". Balance doesn't mean **** if the game isn't any good but "unbalanced" games can be absurdly popular as long as they're fun. No Melee is not balanced at all lol but it allows for such a freedom of control and expression by the player that at the top level, players transcend the basic balance set by the characters. I don't think you can reasonably say that Brawl/Smash4 gives the player as much control over their character as Melee and that's a big part of why competitively they're weaker.

And by the way I'm describing fun in the way that the NBA is more fun than the WNBA. Yeah the latter can still be great and you can focus on spacing and the "fundamentals" or whatever but speed, finesse, and power still make a game more fun.

You examples of LoL and Dota don't apply necessarily since those are team based games, where you have class characters meant to fulfill a specific role. Your Tank won't be able to deal massive dmg, it's supposed to only absorb massive dmg, that's his role, and so he's balanced in that way. Having a character that could deal massive dmg and sustain it would be inbalanced, and would get fixed. In a fighting game, however, while you will always have low tiers and high tiers, good Mus and bad ones based on the meta, what you get is a wide array of chars that are all useful stand alone. You cannot have what we had in Brawl, that over half the roster was garbage and non tourney viable by any means.

Your Starcraft point is also moot since it's simply not true, the numbers don't back it up. Starcraft 2 is still the biggest esport game out there (with DotA and LoL close second or even tied), and BW is still a reference when talking about balance. They took a long time to get there, but they did. And that's what we have to understand, that balancing a game is a process, not something that already comes in the box.

Also, going to a community forum and asking whether a game is balanced or not is bound to get a load of ignorant replies. Communities aren't only comprised of the pros and knowledgeable, but of everyone. This includes the bad and the mediocre, and statistically speaking the majority will always be mediocre and as such might constitute a loud minority thus skewing your perception. Granted, this might not always be the case, but it is a high probability and as such cannot be taken as a defining method to determine whether it's balanced or not.

Yep both Melee and MvC2 had less than 10 viable characters each but those characters had so much depth and potential that they sustained their competitive communities for over a decade.

I heard the same thing in 08 about how Brawl was going to be able to convert a whole new casual crowd to the competitive side but where is that game now? At the end of the day it was a slow, defensive, boring game to enough people that not many peopled wanted to watch it. It was the WNBA of smash.

What killed Brawl was precisely the lack of balance, not the fact that is slow and defensive. In fact, the game became slow and defensive due to the lack of balance, since you couldn't open yourself too much because one punish could mean a stock against some chars (IC come to mind). Had that CG been removed it would allow for more a slightly more aggresive gameplay since one mistake wouldn't mean a stock. Again, think of Tekken (becasue Namco and sm4sh's balance team). Tekken is a very defensive game to the point where the idle stance of all chars is block. If you put your controller on the ground your char will continue to block. The game revolves around defensiveness and punishes, and each punish hurts since it can lead to massive combos. But, there are no 0 death combos because there are ways to break them, so you have a highly defensive game based around punishes with big pay offs. Sounds a bit like what they were going for in sm4sh. True, the game isn't there yet, but that's why I said that balance is a process. It'll take time, certainly more than a couple of months which is how long the game has been out.

People are too eager to find faults in the game because it doesn't play like we want it to. No offense, but that's childish and spoiled. Instead of complaining ahead of time we should be focusing on learning to play the game we have and developing a good meta so the facts can talk for themselves.

 

[hariooo]

Um if you really think Starcraft 2 is the biggest esport while Dota and LoL are tied for second... I don't even know where to start with you.

 

[Elessar]

Um if you really think Starcraft 2 is the biggest esport while Dota and LoL are tied for second... I don't even know where to start with you.

You could start by either proving me wrong with numbers, or replying to any of the other points I made. Also, how do measure you "biggest"? Big is also a subjective term by itself. If you're only talking about tournament payings, then DotA is the biggest thanks to The International 2014, followed by DotA again and the LoL.

Also, think globally, not only the US scene.

 

[Thinkaman]

There are a lot of criteria that could be used:

Player base: LoL
Ladder size: LoL
Peak concurrency: LoL
Ranked games played: LoL
Overall payouts: LoL
Stream funding: LoL
Single tourney payout: DotA

But either way, the MOBA competitive scene is a magnitude bigger than StarCraft's, which is a magnitude bigger than Brawl or Melee's, which is a (small) magnitude bigger than any other fighting game.

Also I have no idea why this guy is here, on the Smash 4 boards, yelling at us about how balance is bad and rolling is overpowered.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Starcraft has never been balanced. In BW, Zerg didn't win any majors for the first several years, then Protoss had a 3-4 streak where no OSLs/MSLs were won. The balance in BW was T>Z>>P>T. And SC2? Lol SC2 is dead because the balance team took everything fun about the game and nerfed it into mediocrity.

LoL is continuously readjusts its "balance" but it isn't balanced around the concept that every character should be viable in every situation. You can't just play the "character you enjoy" and have a good shot at winning any game. Yet people think having 50! matchups in Smash4 being balanced is a realistic goal.

DOTA is about the most unbalanced competitive game out there. Every character has at least one ability that in a vacuum seems OP as hell but are precariously balanced against different OP strengths of other heroes. Yet I hear things on this board like "Diddy has a kill setup off a grab so we have to nerf him guys". No, having a punish game off a grab is actually fun. Just try to buff other characters to that point instead.

Modern fighting games have survived? SF4 is the best example but that's by a company that puts a lot of effort into the competitive community in the first place. And what about MvC3 by the same company? That game had a shorter life than its predecessor regardless of how well balanced it is because it wasn't as fun of a game. Brawl is arguably more "balanced" than Melee (in the context of how many different characters have won a national) but hey, it's dead because it's less fun.

None of those games thrived because they were well-balanced. Go to any of the fan communities for those games and ask if the game is "well-balanced". Balance doesn't mean **** if the game isn't any good but "unbalanced" games can be absurdly popular as long as they're fun. No Melee is not balanced at all lol but it allows for such a freedom of control and expression by the player that at the top level, players transcend the basic balance set by the characters. I don't think you can reasonably say that Brawl/Smash4 gives the player as much control over their character as Melee and that's a big part of why competitively they're weaker.

And by the way I'm describing fun in the way that the NBA is more fun than the WNBA. Yeah the latter can still be great and you can focus on spacing and the "fundamentals" or whatever but speed, finesse, and power still make a game more fun.

You reference League, yet they perform the same approach of trying to balance around low levels of play as well to stop purbstompers from being a thing that Smash 4 also looks at.

And they also remove unintended ATs like Kha'Zix being about to shoot Void spikes mid leap, they also keep some admittedly but mostly because they wanted to make the move interact around some of the stuff they found.

~

Balance is still an important aspect and is one of the main criticisms pointed at MvC2 that a lot of people actually hate about it, 50+ characters and the top 4 pretty much dominate everyone else to ridiculous levels.

 

[Thinkaman]

You reference League, yet they perform the same approach of trying to balance around low levels of play as well to stop purbstompers from being a thing that Smash 4 also looks at.

And they also remove unintended ATs like Kha'Zix being about to shoot Void spikes mid leap, they also keep some admittedly but mostly because they wanted to make the move interact around some of the stuff they found.

There are lots of other classic examples. The most egregious was TF double gold card and Lee Sin double E, where pushing your buttons in a special way gave you the attack damage twice.

Obviously people complained when this cocaine was removed, like they always do. But a competitive game should be about skills with depth, not who can push the secret button combinations the best.

 

[Elessar]

When I said biggest I was talking only about how much of a mainstream impact is has caused, and for that I thought globally (as I said not only the US) and as such took S. Korea into account. Anyways, the point is that the scenes aren't as bleak as he says. In fact, he sounds like if he's just desperately trying to prove a point to "not lose".

And yeah, no idea why he's here either, specially with those ideas which are so obviously non competitive.

 

[Flamecircle]

Bit off topic, but are the pivot related techs intentional? I know pivot grabbing is because it has an obvious animation, but what about tilts and smashes?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Bit off topic, but are the pivot related techs intentional? I know pivot grabbing is because it has an obvious animation, but what about tilts and smashes?

The Tekken team helped with this game which screams intentional on that Alone.

 

[Thinkaman]

Bit off topic, but are the pivot related techs intentional? I know pivot grabbing is because it has an obvious animation, but what about tilts and smashes?

The Tekken team helped with this game which screams intentional on that Alone.

Yeah, it seems like suuuch an implicitly hard-coded state, like u-smash out of running. I'm really at a loss for coming up with any explanation on how this could be a bug.

 

[hariooo]

LoL has been bigger than SC2 in SK for several years. Not hard to understand why it's hard to take you seriously if you don't know that.

I just want Nintendo to make a decent competitive game. Balance is nice but balance in lasting competitive games has always been effected by the community. Maps in SC, obscure rulesets in Smash (Melee and Brawl, LGL anyone), etc. I trust that Nintendo can make a fun game that can be competitive. I don't think they have any idea how to balance a game and I don't think they should even try. Their first goal should be to make every character fun to play. Nerfing speed and mechanics to force some arbitrary balance while making the game less fun to play is detrimental to competitiveness.

Tekken has an infamous move, the Electric God Wind Fist, where it must be done with a 1-frame link otherwise you get an inferior version of the move in every way. How's that for a super l-cancel. Namco isn't your savior, guys.

 

[Flamecircle]

Alright cool, that's pretty reassuring.

I'd hope pivot smashing and tilting was mentioned in game though, as I doubt most people would even remotely know how to do it without being taught.

Hariooo, I'm confused. What's your point with the EGWF? I thought you liked L-cancelling?

 

[hariooo]

Alright cool, that's pretty reassuring.

I'd hope pivot smashing and tilting was mentioned in game though, as I doubt most people would even remotely know how to do it without being taught.

Hariooo, I'm confused. What's your point with the EGWF? I thought you liked L-cancelling?

Some people think Namco has street cred in terms of making competitive games but I never really shared that sentiment. That's all. Especially when they come from the traditional fighter background where tech skill is a real barrier to entry to even casual play. I wouldn't necessarily thank Namco for any of the good decisions of Smash 4.

I like l-cancel in the context of Melee but that's because it keeps space animals in check. I don't think it's necessary at all for a good smash game anyway. I'll defend directional airdodge forever though.

 

[Tagxy]

Obviously balance alone doesnt make a good game, but arguing that balance is bad is crazy. You can argue that MOBA's and other games that achieved patches arent perfectly balanced, but compared to older fighting games without patches they are leagues ahead in addition to being widely more popular. People put up with heavy imbalance because they didnt have a choice and because it took awhile for games to centralize around its limited good characters. However MvC2 is turned into an niche and if Melees fox trend continues itll follow the same route.

 

[hariooo]

Well I wouldn't compare MOBAS to fighting games at all. They're so different in terms of their reach.

And in terms of fighting games I did already talk about it. SFIV is considered to have relatively well-received patches (well, paid editions, right lol) and it still has a pretty strong community. UMVC3 is actually dead because every single interesting glitch got removed as well as the approach to balance being to nerf things into a generic bland mess where almost every character played the same while the few unique characters had such degenerate playstyles (morrigan souuuuul fist) that no one wanted to watch or play anymore. I can see that happening to Smash 4 where every character has only a few standard movement options and the rest of the characters just play runaway and spam you out with superior range/disjointed hitboxes, etc.

 

[Elessar]

Bit off topic, but are the pivot related techs intentional? I know pivot grabbing is because it has an obvious animation, but what about tilts and smashes?

Alright cool, that's pretty reassuring.

I'd hope pivot smashing and tilting was mentioned in game though, as I doubt most people would even remotely know how to do it without being taught.

Hariooo, I'm confused. What's your point with the EGWF? I thought you liked L-cancelling?

Pivot grab's are actually mentioned in a in game tip iirc, so yes, they are pretty intentional.

LoL has been bigger than SC2 in SK for several years. Not hard to understand why it's hard to take you seriously if you don't know that.

Yes, because that fact alone renders my entire post and reasoning invalid.

Their first goal should be to make every character fun to play.

Again, you can't take that as a guiding force because fun isn't universal. What you find fun is not what I find fun, so how will they patch a game to make it more "fun"?

 

[hariooo]

Because that's a false dichotomy of the world consisting of only people who share your and my tastes. Proportionally (people who are interested divided by people who bought the game), more people found Melee competitively fun than they found Brawl fun. Maybe a faster game speed, more hitstun, and combo potential is more "fun", generally speaking.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Speed went up in Smash 4.

Brawl for a time was bigger than Melee til Evo, the documentary and Project M became a thing.

I can see through what you are posting. You don't know what you are talking about for Smash 4 and are pretending to have deep knowledge of it's gameplay since you think there is only one way to make Smash function.

The game has improved and it's clear not every tech needs to be there or actually is going to help with balance. Peach would have gone down the road with turnips Cancelling lag lead to sonething defenerative.

Balance helps a game stay fresh and adds new things to improve, Ike feels a hell of a lot better now. Rolling backwards makes you run out if space and you eventually got nowhere to go but your back to the ledge.

I'd like to see it develop first then see what is possible. This game is not going to be that same road with the improvements from Brawl.

 

[Tagxy]

Well I wouldn't compare MOBAS to fighting games at all. They're so different in terms of their reach.

And in terms of fighting games I did already talk about it. SFIV is considered to have relatively well-received patches (well, paid editions, right lol) and it still has a pretty strong community. UMVC3 is actually dead because every single interesting glitch got removed as well as the approach to balance being to nerf things into a generic bland mess where almost every character played the same while the few unique characters had such degenerate playstyles (morrigan souuuuul fist) that no one wanted to watch or play anymore. I can see that happening to Smash 4 where every character has only a few standard movement options and the rest of the characters just play runaway and spam you out with superior range/disjointed hitboxes, etc.

UMVC3 isnt dead at all, it had better viewership then SFIV at EVO and the second largest amount of entrants. Regardless you just posted a mess of opinions that arent really confirmed by anything, as well as factual inaccuracies. You also dismissed MOBAS, etc. for no real reason after there was a long discussion about them. All this combined it seems youre more concerned with proving the point you have rather then being objective.

If you personally dont like patches, balance, and glitch removal ok but dont push such an ideology on everyone else packaged as something better for the game.

 

[Elessar]

I can see through what you are posting. You don't know what you are talking about for Smash 4 and are pretending to have deep knowledge of it's gameplay since you think there is only one way to make Smash function.

This.

Because that's a false dichotomy of the world consisting of only people who share your and my tastes. Proportionally (people who are interested divided by people who bought the game), more people found Melee competitively fun than they found Brawl fun. Maybe a faster game speed, more hitstun, and combo potential is more "fun", generally speaking.

No, because I never limited it to only you and me, I used you and me in a generalized sense to exemplify that, even with only two people, you won't always get an agreement on what some people may think as "universal" terms. The fact that you do speak in generalized terms and keep cherry picking my posts are evidence that you're just trying to strawman me. I never mentioned Melee nor Brawl, just balance as a guiding factor to keeping a game truly competitive. Both Brawl and Melee were unbalanced, just that Melee prevailed because it has a more hardcore audience. Now, I think it's valid to ask which game as a biggest player base, Melee or Brawl? Again answering with numbers not through possibly skewed perception due to loud minorities.

Also, as Aoi Inu said, Smash Wii U is faster then both Melee and Brawl. The only thing the game lacks is slightly, just very slightly more hitstun probably for more combos and I see it getting quite high competitively speaking. The game is crisp, polished, has the promise of balancing, and has a high demand for basics, which is always great in a competitive game.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I don't think Smash 4 is faster than Melee or PM but faster than Brawl and 64.

 

[Elessar]

Well, sorry for misquoting you. I do think that in essence the game is faster, as int he movement speed of the chars. The gameplay is slower due to the lack of combos probably, but the game feels a lot more responsive and faster than melee imho.

 

[CodeBlue_]

I heard the same thing in 08 about how Brawl was going to be able to convert a whole new casual crowd to the competitive side but where is that game now? At the end of the day it was a slow, defensive, boring game to enough people that not many wanted to watch it. It was the WNBA of smash.

I just want Nintendo to make a decent competitive game.

Well, sorry for misquoting you. I do think that in essence the game is faster, as int he movement speed of the chars. The gameplay is slower due to the lack of combos probably, but the game feels a lot more responsive and faster than melee imho.

I don't think Smash 4 is faster than Melee or PM but faster than Brawl and 64.

Why has this thread turned from discussing Advanced techniques and balance to spewing opinions about games?

Do we have to spend every other thread attacking or defending the competitive value of Brawl/Smash 4 and/or criticizing Melee and any mechanic that may be reminiscent of it?

It's fine to have an opinion on something, but this isn't the place for it.

 

[hariooo]

Nintendo isn't adding anything. Buffs are primarily in the form of "this move has less lag or does this much more %". In terms of actual game mechanics there's been a significant net reduction. I don't think that's a great way to balance a game. That's the exact thesis of the OP. So I don't see how I'm being off-topic at all.

You can call me transparent but you guys are taking any point I'm making and suggesting that I mean the most extreme version of that point.

I think rolling renders a certain portion of the cast heavily gimped if they don't have a far reaching attack with a lasting hitbox? Oh you must think spamming rolls without context is broken.

You don't like the patch? You must love games with glitches.

You think Nintendo should focus on creating fun competitive mechanics instead of worrying about whether Ike's fair having 23 or 27 frames of landing lag makes him viable at high levels of play? You must hate balancing as a concept in general.

Cherrypicking posts doesn't mean I'm making strawman arguments by the way. That's just not the definition. I'm just not gonna be bothered to reply to a wall of text. Especially stuff like Smash 4 being faster and more responsive than Melee like how would someone even begin to correct that?

 

[Heat-TD]

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?

The real point is that there is no difference between Nintendo disliking some seemingly degenerative glitches/exploits, and Capcom and id liking the physics they've created.

If this really bothers people so much, maybe they should write to Nintendo (as in NoJ and HAL) and actually express their discontent with the product they've purchased, instead of pointlessly yelling at friends and associates about it for a little while and somewhat hoping that some NoA/NoE staff might read a given post and might go through the trouble of forwarding it to the right people.

By the way, the T-spin isn't even remotely a glitch, and pretty much everyone who takes Tetris seriously hates it as much as they hate the rest of the Super Rotation System. Even one bad example can undermine a point because it causes others to doubt your intentions.

 

[Draffut]

Starcraft has never been balanced. In BW, Zerg didn't win any majors for the first several years, then Protoss had a 3-4 streak where no OSLs/MSLs were won. The balance in BW was T>Z>>P>T. And SC2? Lol SC2 is dead because the balance team took everything fun about the game and nerfed it into mediocrity.

That's not very true. Starcraft 1 had a few different balance changes, most notably in 1.08 where a large number of things were changed.

You could start by either proving me wrong with numbers, or replying to any of the other points I made. Also, how do measure you "biggest"? Big is also a subjective term by itself. If you're only talking about tournament payings, then DotA is the biggest thanks to The International 2014, followed by DotA again and the LoL.

Also, think globally, not only the US scene.

The thing is, the Starcraft 2 community is crippled now. While neither LOL or DOTA can match the fanfare of old SC1 tournaments, Blizzards attempts to muscle into the community and take control really killed it and it has not recovered. (for example, then forcing the use of battle.net with SC2's release.) While SC used to be the biggest game around, and at it's peak it was larger than any other game we have now, it is essentially dead at this point.

There' a number of link I would use to show this, but apparently I can't post them as I am a new user. Just look into it a little.

 

[Dragoomba]

Bit off topic, but are the pivot related techs intentional? I know pivot grabbing is because it has an obvious animation, but what about tilts and smashes?

Yeah, it's one of the cool features added to this game. They have specifically animated frames when turning around, and they also show off pivot tilts/smashes in some of the game trailers.

 

[hariooo]

That's not very true. Starcraft 1 had a few different balance changes, most notably in 1.08 where a large number of things were changed.

I didn't mean it was never patched. The last balance patch was in 2001 I think. I meant more in the sense that the matchups were always skewed T>Z>>P>T for the duration of its competitive history. Yet the game was so deep each race kept discovering new strategies to combat that for over a decade such that the best players were the best players regardless of race. Imagine if Muta-stacking or patrol micro was nerfed early on. That's all I'm saying. Balance is a bit of an ephemeral characteristic based on the current meta and it changes as players evolve so it's not too useful to worry too much about whether a number tweak here and there will change much. Deep and interactive mechanics trump it every time.

 

[Pazzo.]

So... making the game more balanced and fair is bad?

News to me.

 

[BoldFish]

If Nintendo continues to remove every Advanced Technique they find, there will barely be a difference between a "good" player and a bad one. A new player should not be able to pick up the game and instantly be on the same level as a "professional". Without advanced techniques, nobody will practice this game, because there will be nothing to practice. It will become the most casual game in the series, and the tourney play that you see will be insanely boring to watch. The game will devolve into rolling and shield grabbing and spot dodging, and whichever character is best at that will rise to the top. Without advanced techniques, the metagame becomes stale. I can understand removing a mechanic such as Wectoring, but to remove a skill based mechanic that doesn't break the game is just unnecessary and destructive to the games depth and future.

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

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

Every time you polish the game, you break off little pieces. If they keep polishing, there will be nothing of interest left. Have you ever thought that sometimes imperfections are what make something beautiful? You could find a beautiful gemstone in a mine, and it will be much more valuable than a perfectly spherical piece of green plastic.

 

[LOGIA666]

If Nintendo continues to remove every Advanced Technique they find, there will barely be a difference between a "good" player and a bad one. A new player should not be able to pick up the game and instantly be on the same level as a "professional". Without advanced techniques, nobody will practice this game, because there will be nothing to practice. It will become the most casual game in the series, and the tourney play that you see will be insanely boring to watch. The game will devolve into rolling and shield grabbing and spot dodging, and whichever character is best at that will rise to the top. Without advanced techniques, the metagame becomes stale. I can understand removing a mechanic such as Wectoring, but to remove a skill based mechanic that doesn't break the game is just unnecessary and destructive to the games depth and future.

This is just simply not true at all.

The difference between a good player and a bad player, assuming that for example, all AT's were removed is the strategy one uses.

At the end of the day, we're never going to get perfect balance, so there's character differences right there. Also, there is plenty to master and improve upon without AT's. They're called "precision", "reaction time" and simply "strategy"

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see AT's gone completely, but if it's for the balance of the game, as long as it's not too much, I can live with it.

The difference between a good player and a bad player isn't defined simply by "Who knows the most AT's" because I've beaten players who have far more tech skill than I have simply by strategy.

Chess is a good example that has no AT's, but a starter can't beat a pro.

"Every time you polish the game, you break off little pieces. If they keep polishing, there will be nothing of interest left. Have you ever thought that sometimes imperfections are what make something beautiful? You could find a beautiful gemstone in a mine, and it will be much more valuable than a perfectly spherical piece of green plastic."

I'll agree with you to an extent on this, but it's not as dramatic as you make it sound. Why not just make it more spherical, but maintain it's gemlike qualities, if that makes sense.

Balance. That's what's important, and no, I just don't mean it the way it sounds.

We can afford to lose a few AT's if it'll help promote balance, so long as they don't take it too far.

 

[BoldFish]

This is just simply not true at all.

The difference between a good player and a bad player, assuming that for example, all AT's were removed is the strategy one uses.

At the end of the day, we're never going to get perfect balance, so there's character differences right there. Also, there's is plenty to master and improve upon without AT's. They're called "precision", "reaction time" and simply "strategy"

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see AT's gone completely, but if it's for the balance of the game, as long as it's not too much, I can live with it.

The difference between a good player and a bad player isn't defined simply by "Who knows the most AT's" because I've beaten players who have far more tech skill than I have simply by strategy.

Chess is a good example that has no AT's, but a starter can't beat a pro.

"Every time you polish the game, you break off little pieces. If they keep polishing, there will be nothing of interest left. Have you ever thought that sometimes imperfections are what make something beautiful? You could find a beautiful gemstone in a mine, and it will be much more valuable than a perfectly spherical piece of green plastic."

I'll agree with you to an extent on this, but it's not as dramatic as you make it sound. Why not just make it more spherical, but maintain it's gemlike qualities, if that makes sense.

Balance. That's what's important, and no, I just don't mean it the way it sounds.

We can afford to lose a few AT's if it'll help promote balance, so long as they don't take it too far.

I agree that ATs are just a small part of the puzzle when evaluating a players skill. But when talking about a players skill in a videogame, you have to realize the different parts that make up skill. A videogame is not a board game. While strategy is an integral part, it should not be the ONLY part. There is also the ability to read your opponent, and the technical skill of pressing the buttons. Another overlooked skill is consistency under pressure, although I would probably classify that under technical skill. When you remove part of the puzzle, you are essentially nerfing players skill. Those that had worse overall strategy but godlike techskill will now sink to the bottom, which they don't deserve. They are a good player! They have strengths and weaknesses, just like everyone else. In Melee, the most technical of all of the games, you could put 1000 hours into mastering fox tech skill, and it would allow you to destroy CPU's and your friends. But enter a tourney and you would be destroyed by a player who has been playing against other players more than you. So the ATs in the game are not giving you an unfair, unbeatable edge over your opponents, but a FAIR advantage that you can gain if you put in the work and time.

 

[Phantom High]

this is the first generation where Nintendo is seriously doing dlc and patches. more likely than not, they have no clue on what to do.

i mean there fact the community had to find our own patch notes shows how behind Nintendo are.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I agree that ATs are just a small part of the puzzle when evaluating a players skill. But when talking about a players skill in a videogame, you have to realize the different parts that make up skill. A videogame is not a board game. While strategy is an integral part, it should not be the ONLY part. There is also the ability to read your opponent, and the technical skill of pressing the buttons. Another overlooked skill is consistency under pressure, although I would probably classify that under technical skill. When you remove part of the puzzle, you are essentially nerfing players skill. Those that had worse overall strategy but godlike techskill will now sink to the bottom, which they don't deserve. They are a good player! They have strengths and weaknesses, just like everyone else. In Melee, the most technical of all of the games, you could put 1000 hours into mastering fox tech skill, and it would allow you to destroy CPU's and your friends. But enter a tourney and you would be destroyed by a player who has been playing against other players more than you. So the ATs in the game are not giving you an unfair, unbeatable edge over your opponents, but a FAIR advantage that you can gain if you put in the work and time.

How is this not true for any smash game?

 

[|RK|]

I agree that ATs are just a small part of the puzzle when evaluating a players skill. But when talking about a players skill in a videogame, you have to realize the different parts that make up skill. A videogame is not a board game. While strategy is an integral part, it should not be the ONLY part. There is also the ability to read your opponent, and the technical skill of pressing the buttons. Another overlooked skill is consistency under pressure, although I would probably classify that under technical skill. When you remove part of the puzzle, you are essentially nerfing players skill. Those that had worse overall strategy but godlike techskill will now sink to the bottom, which they don't deserve. They are a good player! They have strengths and weaknesses, just like everyone else. In Melee, the most technical of all of the games, you could put 1000 hours into mastering fox tech skill, and it would allow you to destroy CPU's and your friends. But enter a tourney and you would be destroyed by a player who has been playing against other players more than you. So the ATs in the game are not giving you an unfair, unbeatable edge over your opponents, but a FAIR advantage that you can gain if you put in the work and time.

That's ridiculous. You talk about ATs as if no one else can learn them. Two high level players will usually know all of the relevant ATs for their character, and they'll be able to do them well. The game always comes down to strategy and the precise context in which you choose to make a particular action.

 

[Nyhte]

How is this not true for any smash game?

I think he's saying that he wants more emphasis on tech skill in smash 4

The first few were known for having advanced techniques and smash 4 opted out of that to make it easier for anyone to pick up without having to become 'hardcore' and dedicate a lot of time to learning ATs to be effective

 

[Tagxy]

You can call me transparent but you guys are taking any point I'm making and suggesting that I mean the most extreme version of that point.

I think rolling renders a certain portion of the cast heavily gimped if they don't have a far reaching attack with a lasting hitbox? Oh you must think spamming rolls without context is broken.

You don't like the patch? You must love games with glitches.

You think Nintendo should focus on creating fun competitive mechanics instead of worrying about whether Ike's fair having 23 or 27 frames of landing lag makes him viable at high levels of play? You must hate balancing as a concept in general.

Cherrypicking posts doesn't mean I'm making strawman arguments by the way. That's just not the definition. I'm just not gonna be bothered to reply to a wall of text. Especially stuff like Smash 4 being faster and more responsive than Melee like how would someone even begin to correct that?

No dude you just dont use anything worthwhile to prove your point. In some cases youre objectively incorrect. Your keystone arguments rely on flawed perceptions of the game such as rolls being too good because stage position doesnt matter, or some glitches being ok as long as theyre fun or cool.

I think he's saying that he wants more emphasis on tech skill in smash 4

The first few were known for having advanced techniques and smash 4 opted out of that to make it easier for anyone to pick up without having to become 'hardcore' and dedicate a lot of time to learning ATs to be effective

I agree that ATs are just a small part of the puzzle when evaluating a players skill. But when talking about a players skill in a videogame, you have to realize the different parts that make up skill. A videogame is not a board game. While strategy is an integral part, it should not be the ONLY part. There is also the ability to read your opponent, and the technical skill of pressing the buttons. Another overlooked skill is consistency under pressure, although I would probably classify that under technical skill. When you remove part of the puzzle, you are essentially nerfing players skill. Those that had worse overall strategy but godlike techskill will now sink to the bottom, which they don't deserve. They are a good player! They have strengths and weaknesses, just like everyone else. In Melee, the most technical of all of the games, you could put 1000 hours into mastering fox tech skill, and it would allow you to destroy CPU's and your friends. But enter a tourney and you would be destroyed by a player who has been playing against other players more than you. So the ATs in the game are not giving you an unfair, unbeatable edge over your opponents, but a FAIR advantage that you can gain if you put in the work and time.

That depends on what skill you feel to be worth measuring. Strategy and reading are still important aspects of the game, many would argue moreso. But its fine to remove the technical barrier too. You failed to acknowledge one aspect, that a player who has superior strategic and reading capacities can lose to someone who's grinded tech skill as fox/falco. Even if you agree thats fine (which many wouldnt), at top level technical skill in a game like melee becomes limiting and you actually hurt yourself to keep up with the games peak (top level players have just accepted they will have hand problems, but thats really gone too far and made things too inaccessible)