New Mechanic: The Rage Effect

[JamietheAuraUser]

4% extra of almost no knockback is still almost no knockback. I don't think it will affect combos very much if at all. It might help you if you survive long enough to get your opponent to high % again while you're still very high %.

I suspect it'll probably help some combos and hurt others, as some moves work better with the slight boost to knockback (and thus hitstun) while others work better with the lower knockback distance.

 

[Praxis]

4% extra of almost no knockback is still almost no knockback. I don't think it will affect combos very much if at all. It might help you if you survive long enough to get your opponent to high % again while you're still very high %.

Right, but Overswarm was phrasing it as something that helped the person in the lead. I was just countering that. The end result is, regardless, that it's going to be fairly negligible.

 

[Chiroz]

Right, but Overswarm was phrasing it as something that helped the person in the lead. I was just countering that. The end result is, regardless, that it's going to be fairly negligible.

I agree.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

The difference between 50% is negligible, but the difference between 150% is slightly more noticeable, like I said here:

it means the game is rewarding you for not being ****

Expanding on this because this post is vague:

Vectoring + slightly larger blastzones = living longer

Rage = more knockback at relatively high percents

In a 1 vs 1 with two people on 130%, if one KO's the other, then the KO'd player loses their rage bonus which makes it more difficult to KO the other opponent while NOT affecting combos and strings at low percents.

I think that KI/VI/DI and Rage were mechanics implemented to compliment each other

And yes, even in Praxis' other scenario, the Rage bonus at 150% isn't going to be enough to magically KO someone on 100% with a normal move that wouldn't have KO'd at 100% (for the most part, anyway. There are obviously going to be exceptions where that 3 or 4% will affect it, but you can alleviate this by not being **** and killing them quicker rather than letting them get to 150% like @Overswarm said).

I dislike this mechanic for the sole fact that it's going to be more difficult to win games you lose the first stock in, which is basically me. :<

 

[InfinityCollision]

tl;dr since page 4, did new information emerge or are we still bickering?

 

[KuroganeHammer]

tl;dr since page 4, did new information emerge or are we still bickering?

still bickering

still the same old people who haven't bothered to read the important posts

 

[Gatoray]

The only problem I have with this mechanic is that this will potentially introduce a Melee Marth-esque syndrome. In Melee, Marth has trouble killing opponents at high percents because he can't combo into anything due to the knockback. I'm hoping maybe after we learn the game that we will be able to remember what moves aren't as affected by knockback scaling and can start using the rage effect to our advantage.

 

[InfinityCollision]

The only problem I have with this mechanic is that this will potentially introduce a Melee Marth-esque syndrome. In Melee, Marth has trouble killing opponents at high percents because he can't combo into anything due to the knockback. I'm hoping maybe after we learn the game that we will be able to remember what moves aren't as affected by knockback scaling and can start using the rage effect to our advantage.

I love how this is right on the heels of Aerodrome talking about how people don't read the important stuff.

 

[Gatoray]

I love how this is right on the heels of Aerodrome talking about how people don't read the important stuff.

Mind explaining what I missed then instead of just telling me I'm wrong?

 

[TeaTwoTime]

Mind explaining what I missed then instead of just telling me I'm wrong?

tl;dr is basically that the difference the mechanic makes is not significant enough to be meta defining or have a huge effect on gameplay.

 

[victinivcreate1]

At no point did I get the mechanics wrong. Stop claiming this. I understood and still understand the mechanics. We established that you thought my phrasing would mislead people, so I have corrected that.

This is still an anticompetitive mechanic.

Rage means the player with higher perentage has a better chance of getting a kill than he should. This redues the benefit of the damage done.

Player 1 does 150% damage on his opponent.

Player 2 does 100% damage on his opponent.

However, the game rewards Player 2 by allowing him to kill his opponent as if he had done 120% damage (to pick a number), because he has increased knockback. And if he lands that kill, now player 1 respawns with weaker KO ability.


This mechanic reduces the reward a player earns by landing damage. It rewards the player to earn the first kill by giving him increased knockbac, but I'm not sure if that's a great reward- it impairs his ability to combo.


You say the mechanic is evenly given, but it's not. The game operates on a stock basis. It allows the losing player a stronger chance of getting the first kill, and then further punishes that player who had the early lead with reduced knockback on respawn (now he can't kill the person who killed him because of rubber banding easily).

We're fortunate the effects are weak, because this mechanic is anticompetitive. It basically means at all times the player who is closer to death has a better chance of getting a kill than he has earned.




Having forgotten about X-factor in MvC3 and Revenge Meter in Street Fighter 4 being similar are valid mistakes, but it doesn't mean I had no knowledge of it.

I stand by rubber banding mechanics being bad competitive game design. Revenge Meter is tame enough to not ruin the game (as is, I suspect, Smash 4's Rage mechanic), and X-Factor is in a game that the players generally accept to be broken and is still complained about a lot.

This is not a feature that is accepted as good in other fighting games. These kinds of mechanics are generally bad design, but also generally accepted because casuals like it and in good games they are weak in prevalence.

Long lasting games like Chess, Poker, Magic, Starcraft, and heck, Street Fighter II and MvC2, don't have mechanics like this. It's a modern phenomenon in new fighters that is not considered a good thing by anybody, but usually (except in X-Factor) not enough of a big deal to ruin the game. I'm sure Smash 4 will be in the latter category, but it's still sad to see it added.

Thia. ALL this. If I had the time I would have posted this. Maybe even word for word.

 

[Chiroz]

Thia. ALL this. If I had the time I would have posted this. Maybe even word for word.

As explained by my post following that one, that post chooses to ignore a number of facts and assumes things that aren't technically true thus leading the argument to a faulty conclusion.

If that was your main argument then know it's not a correct one.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

I dunno if this is helping or hindering, but in the demo I had this happen once:
Mario sweetspotted FSmash to the left at the left edge of Omega Battlefield versus Level 4 CPU Link:
*note: Mario is at the edge of the platform, with Link entirely off the platform but still within the range of FSmash's sweetspot.
Mario at 15%, Link at 110% (post-hit) = no KO. Not even the red lightning effect.
Mario at 100%, Link at ~95% (post-hit) = red lightning effect and KO over the left blast line.

Since this wasn't a deliberate test in a controlled environment and the exact numbers are from memory (though I'm quite certain about all of them excluding the exact % Link was at during the second instance), this doesn't prove much especially when Stale Moves are considered, but I do remember that the second FSmash KO'd surprisingly early given how well Link had taken that same move previously in the same match.

 

[JonJon]

How does this affect lucario? Does have a buffed rage effect or something like that?

 

[Immortal]

It is absolutely embarrassing for Meleeitonme that Praxis was given a soapbox there after demonstrating in this thread that he has very little knowledge of competitive fighting games as a whole. That entire article is passive aggressive and comes off as pure sour grapes for being exposed on Smashboards.

Praxis, no one had an issue with you for being pessimistic. They had an issue with you because you did not know what you were talking about. An entire article dedicated to how upset you are over this thread? Again, embarrassing.

I regret my initial civility when pointing out that everything you alleged about comeback mechanics in fighting games was wrong.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

How does this affect lucario? Does have a buffed rage effect or something like that?

Well, Lucario's abilities definitely increase by a massive amount based on how much damage he's taken. Lucario, unlike other characters, gets increased damage output as well as knockback when he's at high damage, and also gets a much larger boost in knockback as his damage goes up. Additionally, his hitboxes tend to greatly increase in size at higher percentages. For example, a max-powered non-grab Force Palm reaches roughly 40% of the way across Final Destination's main platform, while an un-powered non-grab Force Palm barely covers any distance in front of Lucario at all. In fact, the range of an un-powered Force Palm is nerfed even compared to Brawl, and it was short enough there! A max-powered fully-charged Aura Sphere is roughly four or five times the size of an un-powered fully-charged Aura Sphere and also gains increased range and movement speed, with the move's size, range, and speed being significantly nerfed compared to Brawl without the benefits of aura, looking like it was barely charged at all and even retaining that weird wobbling movement a partly-charged Aura Sphere does in Brawl.

 

[Praxis]

The rage is also benefitting the player at 100% allowing him to KO his opponent like he was at 164%. You can't ignore one fact while showing the other.

If the first player dies first then the mechanic keeps rewarding the player who was able to survive the longest at high % which IS a skill and it IS rewarding the player on the lead. Once first player kills the second player the second player will also go through the state of "0 rage". Controlling when this 0 rage stage happens is ALSO part of being skilled enough to deal damage to your opponent while being 1 hit away from dying.

You say you understand the mechanic yet you describe it as something it's clearly not.



Again, if I were to give 200 bucks to a person with 1 million dollars and another with 1 thousand dollars and the one with 1 thousand dollars suddenly makes those 200 bucks into a billion dollars (while the other wasn't able to invest it) that was his own merit and skill. They both got the 200 dollars only one of them was able to use it more effectively.




I understand your second argument though that this mechanic rewards a player for something he hasn't earned. This is a valid argument, although I feel it's not a big deal considering it makes KOing at lower percents. I would say it's the same as buffing both characters by the same amount, players don't "earn" their characters getting buffed/nerfed (unless the character is OP or bad), they are buffed to keep a certain match pace.

But the mechanic is rewarding both players exactly the same as long as they achieve the same goals and as such it isn't a comeback mechanic and it isn't "anticompetitive".

You keep trying to act like I don't understand the mechanic. Please knock this off. I've repeatedly explained the mechanic back to you and you don't seem to have any issue as a whole.

The bit about equal access is a little deceptive. The player who survived at high percent and kills first doesn't get a buff- having high knockback at low stock is a negative and reduces combos. It doesn't help you. It only gives you a buff if you survive long enough to beat the opponent to high percent again.

The way this mechanic will actually work is help people reset the situation easier. It makes the person who is losing have an easier opportunity to kill the person who is winning. In practice, they will probably die not too long after if the players are at a similar skill level. All it does is make the winning and losing players on the same stock play as if they were closer together (the gap between knockback of the players is smaller).

That's all.

It's a mechanic that reduces the knockback gap between the players' given percentages.

Yeah, if the players take turns winning and losing, the mechanic benefits both equally. But what I'm saying is that this hurts normal gameplay. This helps a person who is losing hit harder than he's earned.

Our entire discussion is irrelevant because it is only a minor effect on gameplay.


I think I'm done with the thread from this point.


My conclusions:

Comeback mechanics are bad.

This is a comeback mechanic. However-

It is an extremely tame comeback mechanic, and it probably won't affect the competitive play of the game noticeably.

It is absolutely embarrassing for Meleeitonme that Praxis was given a soapbox there after demonstrating in this thread that he has very little knowledge of competitive fighting games as a whole. That entire article is passive aggressive and comes off as pure sour grapes for being exposed on Smashboards.

Praxis, no one had an issue with you for being pessimistic. They had an issue with you because you did not know what you were talking about. An entire article dedicated to how upset you are over this thread? Again, embarrassing.

I regret my initial civility when pointing out that everything you alleged about comeback mechanics in fighting games was wrong.

Oy.

Two things.

First, knock off this "Praxis doesn't know anything about fighting games". I forgot about several examples from recent fighters, yes. I PLAY Marvel vs Capcom 3, dude. And I spend a lot of time with other competitive fighters. Forgive me for the oversight, but I stand by the statement that comeback mechanics are not good game design. It's a recent phenomenon of recent games, but none of them have it very strong (except for X-Factor), and they are usually complained about by their communities too.

When I was thinking of competitive games, my mind went to the games which I have either played competitively or played very closely with competitive players. Those games are, in this order: Poker, Chess, Starcraft, MvC3, and Street Fighter II. Of those, only one game has a comeback mechanic, and that game is generally mocked by it's own fanbase as broken (MvC3).

When I was challenging someone on finding comeback mechanics in fighting games, I was thinking of things on the line of Mario Kart. The examples of, for example, Revenge Meter were things that actually did fit the definition of comeback mechanic but I had completely overlooked.

I apologize for the error, but please stop making an oversight in to a huge deal or exaggerating it to say that I know nothing of fighting games. Studying game design is a huge hobby of mine.


Second, the article is about community interactions, not about the mechanics or about complaining. Please don't get all hyper-focused on that because of our discussion in the thread.

I think Smash 4 is going to evolve to be very Brawl like, without the stupid parts of Brawl (Metaknight, infinites, planking). I plan on playing it.

Please don't detract from the discussion that I am trying to make in that article, regarding player interaction.

 

[Immortal]

Oy.

Two things.

First, knock off this "Praxis doesn't know anything about fighting games". I forgot about several examples from recent fighters, yes. I PLAY Marvel vs Capcom 3, dude. And I spend a lot of time with other competitive fighters. Forgive me for the oversight

The reason I find this difficult to believe is that your first reaction after being reminded of those recent fighters was not to admit and explain the mistake, but rather to double down and claim that X-Factor is a tame mechanic and that all those examples don't really count. True, you have come around now, but I feel you only did so after being left no other choice.

Second, the article is about community interactions, not about the mechanics or about complaining. Please don't get all hyper-focused on that because of our discussion in the thread.

I think Smash 4 is going to evolve to be very Brawl like, without the stupid parts of Brawl (Metaknight, infinites, planking). I plan on playing it.

Please don't detract from the discussion that I am trying to make in that article, regarding player interaction.

The second sentence of your article calls out Smashboards directly, dude. It's pretty obvious which "community interactions" brought this on. I expressed from the start that it's not a problem if you think that Smash 4 is going to be like Brawl, that is your opinion and you have a right to it. However, this dissertation about the community being split because you got called out on Smashboards is fooling precisely no one.

 

[Chiroz]

You keep trying to act like I don't understand the mechanic. Please knock this off. I've repeatedly explained the mechanic back to you and you don't seem to have any issue as a whole.

The bit about equal access is a little deceptive. The player who survived at high percent and kills first doesn't get a buff- having high knockback at low stock is a negative and reduces combos. It doesn't help you. It only gives you a buff if you survive long enough to beat the opponent to high percent again.

The way this mechanic will actually work is help people reset the situation easier. It makes the person who is losing have an easier opportunity to kill the person who is winning. In practice, they will probably die not too long after if the players are at a similar skill level. All it does is make the winning and losing players on the same stock play as if they were closer together (the gap between knockback of the players is smaller).

That's all.

It's a mechanic that reduces the knockback gap between the players' given percentages.

Yeah, if the players take turns winning and losing, the mechanic benefits both equally. But what I'm saying is that this hurts normal gameplay. This helps a person who is losing hit harder than he's earned.

Our entire discussion is irrelevant because it is only a minor effect on gameplay.


I think I'm done with the thread from this point.


My conclusions:

Comeback mechanics are bad.

This is a comeback mechanic. However-

It is an extremely tame comeback mechanic, and it probably won't affect the competitive play of the game noticeably.





Oy.

Two things.

First, knock off this "Praxis doesn't know anything about fighting games". I forgot about several examples from recent fighters, yes. I PLAY Marvel vs Capcom 3, dude. And I spend a lot of time with other competitive fighters. Forgive me for the oversight, but I stand by the statement that comeback mechanics are not good game design. It's a recent phenomenon of recent games, but none of them have it very strong (except for X-Factor), and they are usually complained about by their communities too.

When I was thinking of competitive games, my mind went to the games which I have either played competitively or played very closely with competitive players. Those games are, in this order: Poker, Chess, Starcraft, Street Fighter II, and MvC3. Of those, only one game has a comeback mechanic, and that game is generally mocked by it's own fanbase as broken (MvC3).

When I was challenging someone on finding comeback mechanics in fighting games, I was thinking of things on the line of Mario Kart. The examples of, for example, Revenge Meter were things that actually did fit the definition of comeback mechanic but I had completely overlooked.

I apologize for the error, but please stop making an oversight in to a huge deal or exaggerating it to say that I know nothing of fighting games. Studying game design is a huge hobby of mine.


Second, the article is about community interactions, not about the mechanics or about complaining. Please don't get all hyper-focused on that because of our discussion in the thread.

I think Smash 4 is going to evolve to be very Brawl like, without the stupid parts of Brawl (Metaknight, infinites, planking). I plan on playing it.

Please don't detract from the discussion that I am trying to make in that article, regarding player interaction.

You keep ignoring that it will also give the winning player a boost. It will always give a boost to the player who currently has survived the longest. If you didn't get as much of a boost as your opponent did it's literally because you didn't survive for as long as your opponent did.

The person with the highest % is always going to be the one who is easier to KO whether it's 0% and 150% or 100% and 110%. As such if your opponent was able to reach 150%, but you died at 90% he demonstrated a skill of survival that you did not employ.

As long as you both have the same "survival" skills you will both received the exact same bonus potential in the match. The only difference is WHEN you get the bonus not IF you get it. That's something you can't seem to grasp. This game isn't only about racking %. There's also surviving and gimping. 2 things this mechanics rewards. Gimping an opponent means he won't reach high rage. Surviving longer means you will.



As I said, you can clearly argue that this mechanic does give players a reward they don't deserve. That is fair to say. But it will always give it to both players as long as they can both survive equally the same.



I keep calling you out because you only express what you feel is needed to convince others the mechanic is bad while purposely ignoring aspects of the mechanic that counter act your argument.

Rage has already been proven to NOT break combos at low % because of how low the effect is yet you keep using this as an "argument". This is EXACTLY why I keep saying you don't understand the mechanic. If you do understand it then stop making examples such as this.

Even if Rage were to break combos as we know it that would just mean that whoever landed their first 1 or 2 combos would render the opponents combo unusuable, thus giving him MORE of an advantage.

See? This is completely contrary to what you were saying and it's a big possibility in every game.



As you said none of that matters because the mechanic is barely noticeable which begs the question: Why do you keep trying to put the game under such a bad light because of the mechanic?

You keep trying to make everyone feel like the game is going to be undeniably ****ty. The amusing part is that you have no factual basis so you just use made up numbers and examples to do so on mechanics that we ALREADY have numbers or examples to go off of in the first place (and that completely contradict your arguments).

Go read the section about community divide and Melee players of your article and apply it on yourself man.

 

[Praxis]

As I said, you can clearly argue that this mechanic does give players a reward they don't deserve. That is fair to say. But it will always give it to both players as long as they can both survive equally the same.

We both agree on the first part. My point is that the mechanic makes the gap between the players smaller. It means the guy with less damage gets hit a little harder. It doesn't do it by enough to upset anything. It doesn't do it by enough to make the player who is at a lower percent more likely to get the kill. But it slightly reduces the knockback gap between their hits.

This is standard rubber banding. It keeps players on the same stock always together. Fortunately, it's weak enough that we can effectively ignore it.

You keep trying to make everyone feel like the game is going to be undeniably ****ty. The amusing part is that you have no factual basis so you just use made up numbers and examples to do so on mechanics that we have NO numbers or examples to go off of in the first place. Go read the section about community divide and Melee players of your article and apply it on yourself man.

The made up numbers were because we didn't have exact examples when we started. (Thanks @Aerodome, btw!) The vector thread did the same thing.

I am not trying to make people think this game is going to be bad. I think it's going to be better than Brawl, and I've defended Brawl for a long time and enjoyed the game.

You keep ignoring that it will also give the winning player a boost. It will always give a boost to the player who currently has survived the longest. If you didn't get as much of a boost as your opponent did it's literally because you didn't survive for as long as your opponent did.

I'm not ignoring that- I addressed it! I pointed out that a knockback boost is not a bonus to the winning player. If it did increased damage, I'd agree with you- it would reward surviving. Right now, it only gives bonus to the surviving player if the surviving player amasses a huge lead.

But you keep doing stuff like this.

Rage has already been proven to NOT break combos at low % because of how low the effect is yet you keep using this as an "argument". This is EXACTLY why I keep saying you don't understand the mechanic. If you do understand it then stop making examples such as this.

Look at your posts back to back.


You: "It gives the winning player a boost, so it is not a comeback mechanic!"
Me: "No, because a knockback boost is not a benefit. Knockback boost hurts your combo-ability."
You: "But it doesn't break combos because the effect is too small to matter. SEE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS MECHANIC."


You are twisting my position. Over. And over. And over. You are posting your arguments to get me to discuss the mechanics from an angle where you can make it look like I'm being ignorant, and then screaming about how ignorant I am.

I was never trying to say that this would ruin combos. You made me talk about the effect of increased knockback by insisting it helped the losing player. When I explained how you were wrong, you used that to blow up about how ignorant I am.

You are being manipulative. And now I'm hearing from mods that you are running around attacking me in other comment threads.

I am through having this discussion with you. We have different opinions on how this will effect the metagame and yet we both agree that the effect will be so small it doesn't matter.

We are arguing semantics that don't matter. Rage mechanic is a footnote. I think I've established my case that I believe it's a rubber banding technique designed to help make KO power closer together despite damage gaps. You think it will help the winner by rewarding whoever has better survival skills. I disagree with you. This is the entire discussion, but you keep trying to make it about something else.

 

[Immortal]

You are being manipulative. And now I'm hearing from mods that you are running around attacking me in other comment threads.

Is that more or less manipulative than writing an article attacking Smashboards while pretending to make some kind of larger point? Your silence on this subject speaks volumes. You're doing more than anyone to divide the community, and the worst part is that you are doing it out of injured pride because people pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

You keep ignoring that it will also give the winning player a boost. It will always give a boost to the player who currently has survived the longest. If you didn't get as much of a boost as your opponent did it's literally because you didn't survive for as long as your opponent did.

The person with the highest % is always going to be the one who is easier to KO whether it's 0% and 150% or 100% and 110%. As such if your opponent was able to reach 150%, but you died at 90% he demonstrated a skill of survival that you did not employ.

As long as you both have the same "survival" skills you will both received the exact same bonus potential in the match. The only difference is WHEN you get the bonus not IF you get it. That's something you can't seem to grasp. This game isn't only about racking %. There's also surviving and gimping. 2 things this mechanics rewards. Gimping an opponent means he won't reach high rage. Surviving longer means you will.



As I said, you can clearly argue that this mechanic does give players a reward they don't deserve. That is fair to say. But it will always give it to both players as long as they can both survive equally the same.



I keep calling you out because you only express what you feel is needed to convince others the mechanic is bad while purposely ignoring aspects of the mechanic that counter act your argument.

Rage has already been proven to NOT break combos at low % because of how low the effect is yet you keep using this as an "argument". This is EXACTLY why I keep saying you don't understand the mechanic. If you do understand it then stop making examples such as this.

Even if Rage were to break combos as we know it that would just mean that whoever landed their first 1 or 2 combos would render the opponents combo unusuable, thus giving him MORE of an advantage.

See? This is completely contrary to what you were saying and it's a big possibility in every game.



As you said none of that matters because the mechanic is barely noticeable which begs the question: Why do you keep trying to put the game under such a bad light because of the mechanic?

You keep trying to make everyone feel like the game is going to be undeniably ****ty. The amusing part is that you have no factual basis so you just use made up numbers and examples to do so on mechanics that we ALREADY have numbers or examples to go off of in the first place (and that completely contradict your arguments).

Go read the section about community divide and Melee players of your article and apply it on yourself man.

While rage wouldn't break your combo potential at lower percents (especially since it doesn't even start until 40%), the argument being made is that surviving at something like 100% when you KO your opponent could give you a rage boost big enough to stop some of your combos from working. That of course depends on the exact way in which Rage works. Is rage's effect static with the opponent's percentage as a specific boost to total knockback caused? Or is it a multiplicative effect of knockback growth specifically? If, theoretically, Rage affects only knockback growth, then low-percent combos will be virtually unaffected.

 

[JonJon]

Well, Lucario's abilities definitely increase by a massive amount based on how much damage he's taken. Lucario, unlike other characters, gets increased damage output as well as knockback when he's at high damage, and also gets a much larger boost in knockback as his damage goes up. Additionally, his hitboxes tend to greatly increase in size at higher percentages. For example, a max-powered non-grab Force Palm reaches roughly 40% of the way across Final Destination's main platform, while an un-powered non-grab Force Palm barely covers any distance in front of Lucario at all. In fact, the range of an un-powered Force Palm is nerfed even compared to Brawl, and it was short enough there! A max-powered fully-charged Aura Sphere is roughly four or five times the size of an un-powered fully-charged Aura Sphere and also gains increased range and movement speed, with the move's size, range, and speed being significantly nerfed compared to Brawl without the benefits of aura, looking like it was barely charged at all and even retaining that weird wobbling movement a partly-charged Aura Sphere does in Brawl.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Praxis]

Is that more or less manipulative than writing an article attacking Smashboards while pretending to make some kind of larger point? Your silence on this subject speaks volumes. The one dividing the community is you, the worst part is that you are doing it out of injured pride because people saw that the emperor had no clothes.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, or what silence you refer to? I assume you meant "Smash 4" instead of Smashboards, and in no way was that article one meant to bash Smash 4.

Smash 4 looks to me like Brawl's neutral game, with Brawl's combo game, with a new offstage game. I liked Brawl. And Melee. And PM. I plan to play Smash 4.

The article was primarily to encourage Melee players to be patient with newer players, and to also not attack them for playing a game that they enjoy.

 

[Black Mantis]

Praxis trying to ruin smash 4.

 

[Immortal]

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, or what silence you refer to? I assume you meant "Smash 4" instead of Smashboards, and in no way was that article one meant to bash Smash 4.

Smash 4 looks to me like Brawl's neutral game, with Brawl's combo game, with a new offstage game. I liked Brawl. And Melee. And PM. I plan to play Smash 4.

The article was primarily to encourage Melee players to be patient with newer players, and to also not attack them for playing a game that they enjoy.

Is there a reason you keep acting like this post doesn't exist?

That's the silence I refer to, and it's childish. You literally just rewrote my post so that you could pretend that this is about Smash 4. Talk about manipulative.

Again the second sentence of your article makes it pretty clear what your rant is really about. It's not Smash 4. It's Smashboards, and more specifically the fact that you were exposed in this thread. It is absolutely maddening that you would take personal embarrassment and then try to convert that into an exercise in hubris disguised as legitimate commentary.

 

[Black Mantis]

@ Praxis claims to play Marvel Vs.Capcom 3, but has no knowledge of this mechanic and has to have someone explain to him how it's been implemented in modern fighters.

Yeah ok.

It is your opinion if you think this mechanic is anticompetitive, not a fact.It's shame that the article is going to get so much attention while this thread(which explains the effects of VI/KB and their limits) will not.

 

[JDavisR (NIX)]

I've decided that whenever a new advanced mechanic appears in smash 4, I'll go make some popcorn, because usually what follows is just people arguing

Edit: Maybe there is hope for humanity after all ^_^

 

[Praxis]

Is there a reason you keep acting like this post doesn't exist?

That's the silence I refer to, and it's childish. You literally just rewrote my post so that you could pretend that this is about Smash 4. Talk about manipulative.

Again the second sentence of your article makes it pretty clear what your rant is really about. It's not Smash 4. It's Smashboards, and more specifically the fact that you were exposed in this thread. It is absolutely maddening that you would take personal embarrassment and then try to convert that into an exercise in hubris disguised as legitimate commentary.

Believe it or not, that wasn't about this thread, but about other threads I lurked in. Most of the people in this thread haven't been new folk or particularly ignorant. In fact, I wrote this article last week after spending a lot of time in Smash 4 (the article wasn't ready to go up) and added the Rage mechanic paragraphs when the details surfaced, and made sure I edited before it went live to make sure I clarified stuff like what I meant when I said "inconsistent" since that bothered someone in this thread.

I swear to you that when I wrote that sentence last week I was not referring to this thread. I was thinking much more about threads like, "Are pessimists ruining Smash 4 for the rest of us?" or various threads in which people with low post counts were expressing opinions trying to sound like experts.

That article was not intended to shame anyone in this thread or directed at it. Looking at it now, I totally understand why you are thinking that, but I absolutely promise you that I wrote the backbone of it last week (IIRC Thursday or Friday) and added the Rage stuff in as we learned more about it.


I didn't mean to rewrite your post, I literally wasn't sure what you were talking about when you said I was bashing Smashboards. And I am sorry that I didn't handle the counterexamples in modern games very well. I definitely was thinking too hard from the Street Fighter 2/Starcraft/Poker/Chess perspective and was too quick to dismiss and I'll own up to that.

 

[Immortal]

I swear to you that when I wrote that sentence last week I was not referring to this thread. I was thinking much more about threads like, "Are pessimists ruining Smash 4 for the rest of us?" or various threads in which people with low post counts were expressing opinions trying to sound like experts.

That article was not intended to shame anyone in this thread or directed at it. Looking at it now, I totally understand why you are thinking that, but I absolutely promise you that I wrote the backbone of it last week (IIRC Thursday or Friday) and added the Rage stuff in as we learned more about it.

Thank you for the explanation. I always like to assume the best of people, so I will take your word for it and apologize for my part in the misunderstanding.

 

[Praxis]

Thank you for the explanation. I always like to assume the best of people, so I will take your word for it and apologize for my part in the misunderstanding.

Thank you and no worries! I'm sorry for getting uptight and snippy in this thread too.

I look forward to playing Smash 4 with you all, gentlemen.

 

[Bladeviper]

This is one of the most tame mechanics like this i have seen in a game, while i didnt play mvc3 i did play p4a and the way it worked in that game was defiantly more noticeable with characters dealing more damage while taking less and allowing the use of more supers and a bigger meter

 

[KuroganeHammer]

idk what a soapbox is but meleeitonme should give me one

im smart

i promise. /offtopic

 

[Espy Rose]

Don't rely on Meleeitonme Aero. Plz.

 

[Praxis]

Let's make a Brawlitonbro. BIOB

 

[2SR]

Did more testing. Here are the results:

Stage: Battlefield (Final Destination version)
Move being used: Mega Upper/Mega Man's Up Tilt (All Completely Fresh)
Vectoring Direction: Straight Down
Testing: Vertical KOs

Final Results for Vectoring:
Vectoring influence w/o Max Rage: 35% to 42% (extremely rough estimate)
Vectoring influence with Max Rage: 30% to 36% (extremely rough estimate)
Vectoring influence on Vertical KO percent overall: 30% to 42% (extremely rough estimate)

so basically Rage is inconsequential. great.
But IMO Vectoring is too strong. 30-42% increase in survivability is too much considering the large blast zones in this game

 

[Immortal]

For those interested in the subject of comeback mechanics, Valve has just added one to DOTA2.

 

[Gidy]

and once again, another reason to potentially fear Ganondorf.

More like Bowser.

I like this mechanic, nonetheless.

 

[PikaSamus]

It's not even that major, from what I've seen. It's not like the game acts like the opponent is at 999% when he or she has 0% and you have 100%.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Am I the only one who though of "K-Groove" from CVS2?