New Mechanic: The Rage Effect

[「 Derk 」]

I came here expecting a broken 3ds due to someone getting mad. I was disappointed.

 

[New_Dumal]

Does no one else realize that the gap between "kill" and "not killed" for all of these new mechanics, whether it is rage or vectoring, is the equivalent of like one or two hits?

Do you realize one or two hits in high percentage are VERY important in a competitive match ?
"If I ended his stock with this move, I wouldn't take more 50%" situation.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Ignore this post.

 

[Thinkaman]

Do you realize one or two hits in high percentage are VERY important in a competitive match ?

Yeah OS, maybe you should play in some tourneys before you talk like you understand competitive play.

 

[Ganreizu]

That's , in my opnion, is the worst add in Super Smash Bros 4...
First of all, I always think the revenge-kill was fair and balanced. You return with your fresh's attacks, ready to try a comeback.

Now, you return with all your moves fresh... but don't has more kill potential than you had before.
In other hand your opponent ,in previous games , always had the chance you being a glass-canon (high atack but takes low knockback taken) to combo you and increase his advantage.

Other thing, this is just too good for heavy characters. Heavy ones are used to be stronger by default (not everyone, but it's normal) but now because they survive more, has more time with max knockback. Lighter characters really suffer with this.
Look at the new Meta knight. MK probably still fun because you still can combo very-well and build some damage in almost every situation. But now when you has the lead, you can't combo so well, and even being in this state is hard because your lack of killpower combo with your lack of weight , resulting normal early deaths.

I don't like it at all. I'm very glad with the game, and just don't like some minor things in the roster, but was TOO happy with every single thing until now.
But still ... that's just not good.

Dude. This mechanic literally has the least effect on kill potential in the entire series. Having fresh moves has far more of an impact on your ability to kill than losing the amount of knockback you gain from being at a high percent. A fresh move after losing your stock is always going to send someone a lot farther than the same move you used two seconds ago at a high percent. You act like being at a high percent vs 0% is the difference between uncharged DK punch and fully charged.

Heavy characters still get combo'd to **** and are huge and thus are bigger targets for kill moves as well. Heavy characters also generally have **** tier recovery. Are bowsers, ganons, DDDs, or DKs recovery that hard to deal with that you can't get the kill at a high percent given the weaknesses i just noted? Are they that good at edgeguarding your most likely superior recovery? You're a villager main apparently; there's absolutely no reason for a heavy character to be edgeguarding you, much less having the advantage over you with their rage with your ranged horizontal aerials and great combo useful vertical aerials, not to mention most of those characters are better off recovering low where you have bowling ball and tree to use as well as tons of invincibility frames through pocket to get out of the way of just about anything.

Do you realize one or two hits in high percentage are VERY important in a competitive match ?
"If I ended his stock with this move, I wouldn't take more 50%" situation.

This implies that you're losing in this situation because not only are you desperately trying to end his stock, 50% is valuable to you. This mechanic turns that 50% into less % because they're knocking you back slightly further than normal, possibly invalidating this 50% combo that's hard to do in the first place regardless of %, and is probably VI dependent. On the other hand, going to take a quote from the quote in the OP which i assume you read but, "getting hit will directly make getting the kill easier". Taking 50% a stock behind isn't such a bad thing anymore because of this.

This mechanic is literally a 50/50 in terms of who has the advantage when. The better player wins.

 

[Scourge The Hedgehog]

All the heavy hitters will just demolish the poor light weighs. Though I do think this mechanic is pretty nifty. We'll have to see how it plays out once we all get our hands on the game.

Spoiler

Guess you could say this steamy effect Sakurai gave us is "All the Rage"

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Aerodrome and I already pretty well worked it out. It starts taking effect at around 40% and caps at around 150%. The total gain is around 15% extra knockback and it's linearly distributed (so about 1.4% more knockback per 10% damage you take in that range). We don't have the finer details of the math exactly worked out, but the general behavior and ballpark numbers are already known.

Well that seems pretty simple.

I guess it's easy enough to think about it checkpoints. At about 77% you do an extra 5%; 114% you do an extra 10%.
That's not hard to get your head around. I can't see this being a major issue, in terms of KO reliability.

If people are relying on strict-input combos, they might find they whiff occasionally at certain ranges. Too early to really know about that, though.

 

[Gawain]

I bet this is part of what balances out with the new DI system. Interesting.

 

[「 Derk 」]

This mechanic seems to be the reason the blast zones were moved back imo. We all know Namco helped to balance the game this time so they probably wanted to add their "rage" system to smash. It is easier to recover in smash 4 due to how ledges work this time so it was obvious that players would be fighting at high percents. It makes sense that they would add a system that effects knockback at higher percents to deal with this exact situation. If blast zones remained in their regular spot with this mechanic then everyone would be dying super early. That just raises another question: why not just keep it the same as it has always been and just not add this mechanic in the first place?

 

[Ganreizu]

why not just keep it the same as it has always been and just not add this mechanic in the first place?

Obviously because they felt it was a change good enough to be worth not keeping things the same. Adding this mechanic, a good idea, but keeping the blast zones the same, would make it not a good idea.

 

[Praxis]

God forbid your opponent has a realistic chance of turning the tide against you! Other fighting games have a similar comeback mechanic and now Super Smash Bros does as well. DEAL WITH IT!



t

Please name other fighting games that implement comeback mechanics on a wide scale. Explain their use.

The only game that has this is Tekken, but it only takes effect at the very, very end of the game (last 5% of health). Tekken doesn't have multiple stocks. The impact is low. Often, you will be in a combo when you get to that last 5%, so don't even get the chance.

"Comeback mechanics" are detrimental to competitive games. Real competitive games either don't have them or they are very limited.

In a competitive game, the winning player should have an advantage that he can use to press his opponent. The losing player has to then take riskier options that will either get him back in the game or end the game very quickly. This leads to very interesting, and very quick, matches.

This is true of every major competitive game- Starcraft, Poker, Magic, and Chess all meet this design criteria.

The winning player in Chess, Poker (Texas Hold 'Em), Magic, and Starcraft exerts pressure on his opponent and brings the game to an end very quickly by forcing their opponent to make riskier and riskier decisions to try to get out of the situation. If the opposite was true, you'd see longer games with more inconsistency (the better player does not consistently win, because the loser is constantly given handouts to catch up, and the only thing that matters is who plays better at the very end of the game). If the better player cannot consistently win, the game is not considered competitive.

I don't think Rage is bad enough to make the game noncompetitive, but it certainly contributes negatively.

l;dr someone doesn't want to *gasp* mix up their moves/use an element of strategy for once! In any other fighting game, repeating the same moves/kill moves causes some of your opponents to catch on rather fast and use it against you. I'm glad Smash 4 is actually encouraging us to mix it up rather than use/abuse the same ol combos we practice in training mode like robots. Judging from what others have to say about this new mechanic, you appear (and i say this respectfully) to be in the wrong when you say anti competive regarding this comeback mechanic. Other fighting games have it and you don't really hear their fan bases complain about it now do you?

Listen, I'm going to try my best to write this nicely because I genuinely want to teach you. I feel sorry for you if you genuinely think this is how Melee and Brawl worked, because it sounds like you are genuinely ignorant of it and letting positive feelings on Smash 4 blind you on this.


The beautiful thing about Smash Bros is that there has always been no set combos. There's a flow. People could change where they go after they get hit through DI, and being able to adapt to make combos was a beautiful part of Melee.

Games flow like a debate. You appraise your opponent's capabilities, you know what he WANTS to do, you know how to stop him from doing it, but he knows how to stop you from stopping him, and elaborate guessing games happen. David Sirlin wrote an amazing book on how this works, mentally.

You know the best options in any situation, but your opponent knows too. Your vast game knowledge gives you the ability to judge the changing game to figure out the best thing to do in a given situation, and also to figure out what your opponent wants to do.

Making stuff like knockback become "fuzzy" (inconsistent) through the combination of VI and Rage is bad for the game. Because in Melee and Brawl, when you hit the percentage where I can kill you with an usmash, both players know it, and it creates depth- you have this new threat, and suddenly, your opponent has to change up his decision making process because he knows you really want an usmash and YOU know he's going to be making choices that avoid the usmash. So you use that to your advantage to land your other moves.

When you can't really know if your moves will kill your opponent, that mental interaction in the high level of play is weakened.

 

[DarkStarStorm]

Clash Tournaments with the video explanation.

Basically all characters now deal higher knockback when they themselves are at higher %. A similar feature is found in Tekken games so Harada is probably responsible.

Important to note that this does not affect damage.

Edit: People like ChillySundance can't read so I'm making it bigger. This does not affect damage. It's knockback. Not damage. Damage is a different thing. Plz.



One interpretation from Reddit:

I HAVE A GREAT IDEA! LET'S REWARD PEOPLE FOR PLAYING BADLY!

Yeah that's a great idea!!

 

[DownWitDaWaveDash]

God forbid your opponent has a realistic chance of turning the tide against you! Other fighting games have a similar comeback mechanic and now Super Smash Bros does as well. DEAL WITH IT!

I don't play any other console games. Back in the day I remember when you had a lead in smash, the opponent had to make changes, play smarter, play better. Skill and adaptation is what turned the tide. What the **** happened? Somehow now comebacks weren't possible before? I smack around a player and give him a lot of percent, and I'm punished for it? Not to mention I play a fat character like King DeDeDe and because I am heavy I live till 150%. I get stronger because of that? Why are we rewarding taking damage?

By the way, I play smash because it isn't like traditional fighters that have things like this. I am against this.

In brawl we had a saying when you were playing against fox - 100% means upsmash. At 100% we'd get careful.
But now because fox has damage that entire base changes. This is not a good competitive mechanic.

 

[Immortal]

Please name other fighting games that implement comeback mechanics on a wide scale. Explain their use.

Tekken Series: Rage. This straight up gives you bonus damage at lower health. If I had to guess, I would say that the Tekken team was responsible for Rage in Smash.

Marvel vs Capcom 3: X-Factor. Probably the most notorious since it basically exists outside the game and the winning player cannot do anything to deny or punish it. The losing player will acquire Level 3 X Factor when their characters die, no matter what.

Injustice Gods Among Us: Clash. A comeback mechanic that you gain after losing your first health bar.

Street Fighter 4: Revenge Meter. Yes you get a whole meter for this.

Need I go on?

 

[Black Mantis]

Please name other fighting games that implement comeback mechanics on a wide scale. Explain their use.

The only game that has this is Tekken, but it only takes effect at the very, very end of the game (last 5% of health). Tekken doesn't have multiple stocks. The impact is low. Often, you will be in a combo when you get to that last 5%, so don't even get the chance.

"Comeback mechanics" are detrimental to competitive games. Real competitive games either don't have them or they are very limited.
.

I don't think Rage is bad enough to make the game noncompetitive, but it certainly contributes negatively.

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Capcom_vs._SNK_2/Walkthrough#K_Groove


http://wiki.shoryuken.com/Super_Street_Fighter_IV/Basic_Elements/Ultra_Meter

These games are considered good at high level play.

 

[Zork]

Let me say first that I'm an avid SF4 player.

But one thing I always respected about Smash was the lack of comeback mechanics. At it's core before this, it was an extremely honest game where only straight up outplaying your opponent would matter. Not being rewarded for losing was something Smash could boast that other modern fighters couldn't.

So I'm disappointed Smash has decided to go this route as well. No matter how you slice it, comeback mechanics serve mainly to bridge the gap between worse and better players. A worse player is rewarded for getting outplayed and a better player is punished for being better. Which is the opposite of something a competitive game should strive to do.

 

[Ganreizu]

I HAVE A GREAT IDEA! LET'S REWARD PEOPLE FOR PLAYING BADLY!

Yeah that's a great idea!!

Surviving longer = playing badly?

Ok

 

[Praxis]

Tekken Series: Rage. This straight up gives you bonus damage at lower health. If I had to guess, I would say that the Tekken team was responsible for Rage in Smash.

Marvel vs Capcom 3: X-Factor. Probably the most notorious since it basically exists outside the game and the winning player cannot do anything to deny or punish it. The losing player will acquire Level 3 X Factor when their characters die, no matter what.

Injustice Gods Among Us: Clash. A comeback mechanic that you gain after losing your first health bar.

Street Fighter 4: Revenge Meter. Yes you get a whole meter for this.

Need I go on?

And Brawl had Lucario.

Each of these are extremely tame and have strategic play. X-Factor is equally given to both players, Clash actually forces a lot of unusual character interaction and isn't that much of a comeback mechanic, Rage from Tekken affects only the tiniest portion of the game and often will never come in to play, etc.

Further, I'm fairly certain each of these mechanics are viewed negatively by the community. They just aren't prevalent enough to cause a problem.

The Rage in Smash makes a pretty big difference at all times, actually. It means that the first person to die will have a really hard time killing. It also means that the player losing will be more likely to net the kill. I think it's a mechanic that is going to result in slower game speeds and camping, because it makes it very, very valuable to hold your high percentage stock (why would you take risks?).

We saw the results of this in Brawl Lucario already.

 

[Zork]

Surviving longer = playing badly?

Ok

The effect comes into play before a typical character is at kill percents. No matter how you look at it, you are being rewarded for taking damage.

And Brawl had Lucario.

Each of these are extremely tame and have strategic play. X-Factor is equally given to both players, Clash actually forces a lot of unusual character interaction and isn't that much of a comeback mechanic, Rage from Tekken affects only the tiniest portion of the game and often will never come in to play, etc.

Further, I'm fairly certain each of these mechanics are viewed negatively by the community. They just aren't prevalent enough to cause a problem.

The Rage in Smash makes a pretty big difference at all times, actually. It means that the first person to die will have a really hard time killing. It also means that the player losing will be more likely to net the kill. I think it's a mechanic that is going to result in slower game speeds and camping, because it makes it very, very valuable to hold your high percentage stock (why would you take risks?).

We saw the results of this in Brawl Lucario already.

Brawl Lucario is not the same thing. He gets weaker if he's ahead or at low percents as well. You could survive vs a low percent full stock Lucario at ridiculous percents while barely taking damage.

 

[ToadsterOven]

And Brawl had Lucario.

Each of these are extremely tame and have strategic play. X-Factor is equally given to both players, Clash actually forces a lot of unusual character interaction and isn't that much of a comeback mechanic, Rage from Tekken affects only the tiniest portion of the game and often will never come in to play, etc.

Further, I'm fairly certain each of these mechanics are viewed negatively by the community. They just aren't prevalent enough to cause a problem.

The Rage in Smash makes a pretty big difference at all times, actually. It means that the first person to die will have a really hard time killing. It also means that the player losing will be more likely to net the kill. I think it's a mechanic that is going to result in slower game speeds and camping, because it makes it very, very valuable to hold your high percentage stock (why would you take risks?).

We saw the results of this in Brawl Lucario already.

You forgot the fact that offstage game is now more encouraged then ever. As people get used to how things work in 4 (this mechanic in particular), we will be seeing lots of crazy offstage game which in the past always generated lots of hype in competitive smash. Something you seemingly ignored which shame on you!

 

[Gunla]

Well, Tekken's recently had a rage mechanic, right? I'd say it's possible that Namco added this in as a thing.

As for how this may be really bad, I don't see it as being incredibly broken. By the time the opponent may get this, it may cause a change in strategy to have the leader in % want to be more defensive, but it is encouraging of more offensive desperation for the loser, % wise.

@ Zork
Please try not to double post, instead, perhaps please use the edit feature.

 

[Black Mantis]

Further, I'm fairly certain each of these mechanics are viewed negatively by the community. They just aren't prevalent enough to cause a problem.

If it were that much of a problem then people wouldn't bother playing/watching which is not true since UMVC 3 had higher viewers than Melee at EVO. Clearly it's not a big deal. This mechanic has been implemented in games since the 90's and has never been anything dominant.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kappa/comments/2an94q/evo_2014_finals_twitchtv_peak_viewer_counts/

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Does no one else realize that the gap between "kill" and "not killed" for all of these new mechanics, whether it is rage or vectoring, is the equivalent of like one or two hits?

no, the game is ruined FOREVER

/s

 

[Ganreizu]

The effect comes into play before a typical character is at kill percents. No matter how you look at it, you are being rewarded for taking damage.

Taking damage isn't the same as playing badly either. You are right, but the rage effect does not benefit bad players, and if it does, the data proves it is MINISCULE.

I'm just going to parrot what i said on the first page.

If someone is at a high percent because they are legitimately losing/messing up, there's a high chance they're going to keep losing/messing up, so rewarding them with more knockback is pretty meaningless.

 

[Praxis]

If it were that much of a problem then people wouldn't bother playing/watching which is not true since UMVC 3 had higher viewers than Melee at EVO. Clearly it's not a big deal. This mechanic has been implemented in games since the 90's and has never been anything dominant.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kappa/comments/2an94q/evo_2014_finals_twitchtv_peak_viewer_counts/

You're not getting it- the Smash rage mechanic effects the entire game at all points, whereas the X factor mechanic is very distinct- it only works for a short period during which you can camp, and both players have equal access to it. It barely qualifies as a comeback mechanic- both players have it!


Smash's rage will have a much bigger effect, and regardless, saying "it's not that bad" doesn't mean it's not a bad mechanic.

 

[Zork]

Marvel 3 being popular on stream does not mean heavy comeback mechanics are good game design. Top Marvel players even call the game broken and stupid. I know for a fact one of them (who usually places top 8 at majors, sometimes even wins) constantly says the game is trash. Is that the kind of game that is ideal? One that people watch because of all of the flash but at it's core is horribly balanced to favour lesser players?

Of course why this idea is so common now is obvious. People want to stand a chance against better players but don't want to put in the same effort. This is very appealing to more casual minded individuals. As a result companies are doing what will help the game sell better. Easier game's are being preferred in general.

As much praise as Melee gets I'm 100% certain if it came out for the first time tomorrow, it would be almost universally hated for being too hard, too technical and too unforgiving.

 

[Ganreizu]

both players have it!

Both players have this too?

Marvel 3 being popular on stream does not mean heavy comeback mechanics are good game design.

Good thing this isn't a heavy comeback mechanic then? Mac's KO punch is more of a heavy comeback mechanic than this...

As much praise as Melee gets I'm 100% certain if it came out for the first time tomorrow, it would be almost universally hated for being too hard, too technical and too unforgiving.

Hate the player not the game.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Smash's rage effect is nowhere near as stupid as level 3 x-factor

level 3 xfactor was basically the "win nao and combo your opponent's last three characters to death and watch them be unable to do anything about it because they didn't activate xfactor first" button

 

[Black Mantis]

Marvel 3 being popular on stream does not mean heavy comeback mechanics are good game design. Top Marvel players even call the game broken and stupid. I know for a fact one of them (who usually places top 8 at majors, sometimes even wins) constantly says the game is trash. Is that the kind of game that is ideal? One that people watch because of all of the flash but at it's core is horribly balanced to favour lesser players?

Marvel's always been a broken game that's what its known for (especially in the mvc 2 days)

edit:Also, X Factor made your character better in EVERY regard (certain moves could combo while in certain levels of X factor leading to infinites). Just be glad this doesn't boost your characters health, speed, and damage output at the same time.

 

[Gunla]

Smash's rage effect is nowhere near as stupid as level 3 x-factor

level 3 xfactor was basically the "win nao and combo your opponent's last three characters to death and watch them be unable to do anything about it because they didn't activate xfactor first" button

Don't forget that MVC3 X-Factor can be activated at all times and heals red health.

Compared to that, Smash's little rage bonus is very tame. You only get it, like Tekken, when you are about to get KO'd, and it's not an astronomical bonus. Both characters will get a set Rage Bonus, but it's not an insane comeback mechanic because they're not losing any health/becoming harder to KO from a launching standpoint.

EDIT: It appears I was misinformed about when rage occured. Apologies.

 

[Praxis]

The effect comes into play before a typical character is at kill percents. No matter how you look at it, you are being rewarded for taking damage.



Brawl Lucario is not the same thing. He gets weaker if he's ahead or at low percents as well. You could survive vs a low percent full stock Lucario at ridiculous percents while barely taking damage.

Smash 4 Rage has you weaker at low percentages too. Just knockback, not damage.

You forgot the fact that offstage game is now more encouraged then ever. As people get used to how things work in 4 (this mechanic in particular), we will be seeing lots of crazy offstage game which in the past always generated lots of hype in competitive smash. Something you seemingly ignored which shame on you!

You totally skipped my other post. It sounds like you're trying to win an argument, not have an honest discussion.

 

[「 Derk 」]

Good thing this isn't a heavy comeback mechanic then?

This ^

This mechanic effects both players not sure why people think it only effects the player losing. If anything you are being rewarded for winning and staying alive.

Example:
Both players are still on their first stock and at high percents. Player 1 knocks out Player 2. The player that just died has 0% on their stock so they are not getting the boost in knockback but the winning player still on their first stock is getting a boost. Please explain to me how the losing player is receiving any type of saving grace here. The only thing that could be argued is that it would be slightly harder to combo the player at 0% due to the extra knockback, but this also means it's easier to gimp them offstage also. Depends how you look at the situation.

 

[Espy Rose]

@Big: You don't only get it at KO percents. It's universally affecting all characters at all percents.
However, I agree that it's not a huge bonus.

People like Praxis may dislike it, but I'd like to think that pessimism aside, he'd agree that the better player will still be winning most of the time. This mechanic is nice, but it's not going to consecutively reward the worse player with a win.

 

[Asdioh]

Hopefully it's not that terrible if nobody even noticed it until it was tested out.
It seems really complicated because it's not necessarily a "comeback mechanic." Unlike Lucario's "I'm ahead in stocks so I'm weaker" Brawl mechanic, this one doesn't take note of who's in the actual lead. If you're at high % and you get the first KO, you still have increased knockback. If you can maintain your lead as you rack up % you then have the ability to KO earlier than normal.

I just wonder if the game itself mentions it in a tip somewhere, like they did with hitstun/shieldstun shuffling. It'd be nice if they at least acknowledged this mechanic, and stale moves.

 

[Immortal]

Each of these are extremely tame and have strategic play. X-Factor is equally given to both players

I'm sorry but there is no way that anyone with any serious knowledge of the genre can suggest that X-Factor is "tame." You clearly like to project an aura of authority, telling other posters here that you're going to "teach" them, asserting that "real" competitive games do not have comeback mechanics when in fact they are now ubiquitous in the genre. You demanded that people provide examples of comeback mechanics in other games, and after this was done, you backtracked and claimed (incorrectly) that these mechanics are not significant.

You are pessimistic, and that's okay, but your concerns would be better expressed with some humility.

 

[Espy Rose]

To be fair, ESAM noticed an inconsistency in the knockback of his moves while playing earlier. He just wasn't aware that it was an intentional mechanic.

 

[keninblack]

You guys are really overhyping XF but thats okay I guess... I mean its dumb but once you really learn the game you realize that you have a bunch of ways to deal with it/use it.

The metagame for Marvel has elevated a lot since LV3XF Sentinel/Wesker/Vergil..

BUT ANYWAY.

This is by far one of the more balanced "comeback mechanics" I've seen. It can help someone who is winning, and someone who is losing, but it doesn't seem to impact anything all that drastically (I could be wrong we'll see)

I think of it like this...

Player is losing by a lot and has more knockback on his moves because of higher percents: Okay, why is this an issue? If you've been racking up percent on this guy the whole time just gimp him or kill him. If YOU the player is truly better than the opponent, your opponent having more knockback shouldn't effect you because YOU are the better player. Its part of the game so you have to strategize around it, just like XF, KGroove, Rage, etc.

Player is up a stock but is really high in percent giving him more knockback: Isn't this almost as not beneficial as it is beneficial? You could argue it, but it requires testing obviously. If you get more knockback on your moves doesn't that make comboing your now one stock down, low percent opponent even harder?

What I'm trying to say is that its not really THAT much of a gamechanging thing and its something that will require adaption, I will gladly take this mechanic though considering the potential 2-stock format, and DEM BLAST ZONES DOE.

 

[Black Mantis]

You're not getting it- the Smash rage mechanic effects the entire game at all points, whereas the X factor mechanic is very distinct- it only works for a short period during which you can camp, and both players have equal access to it. It barely qualifies as a comeback mechanic- both players have it!


Smash's rage will have a much bigger effect, and regardless, saying "it's not that bad" doesn't mean it's not a bad mechanic.

I'm saying it won't be a dominant mechanic based upon the way its been implemented throughout other fighting game in the past (and it wasn't dominant then)

 

[Gunla]

@Big: You don't only get it at KO percents. It's universally affecting all characters at all percents.
However, I agree that it's not a huge bonus.

People like Praxis may dislike it, but I'd like to think that pessimism aside, he'd agree that the better player will still be winning most of the time. This mechanic is nice, but it's not going to consecutively reward the worse player with a win.

I heard it only affected at KO percents, my bad. (On that point, at low %s it will not likely matter as much, eh?)

I think the main issue with it is, unlike Tekken, where health and any sort of major boost resets per round, Smash doesn't and it always is carrying over. It can be a mechanic that actually has a major factor, but it really means that someone who lives and manages to stay alive will be able to gimp the heck out their opponent with some characters. I guess it comes with the drawback that with more power comes easier chances to get KO'd for the opponent, but no telling if it's going to be a big enough bonus.

Survivalist>Loser, in other words. This isn't moreso a comeback, but potentially a reward for not letting yourself get KO'd.

 

[Zork]

That is a fair point. It can definitely also help the player that's winning (or in this case dominating) because they can technically be up a stock but at really high percents thus making the 2 stock possibility easier.

But all the same, I always liked that Smash didn't have comeback mechanics at all and am disappointed to see them heading in this direction.