Important Official Custom Moveset Project

[TheAnomaly]

Dark fist is easier to use. I'm not going to deny that but heavy skull bash offers more reward on hit and easier to play mindgames with because it can be charged to beat dodges.
Edit: HSB also does not need to be point blank. The sweetspot has about the range of his forward smash. I've done extensive testing on this move before making my claims. Feel free to point out anything I may have missed but I believe comparing HSB to smash attacks (even marth's sheildbreaker for a chargeable melee attack) is an accurate comparison and from my testing it beats out basically all smashes(or power attacks, even unuseable ones such as falcon punch) in terms of power(with charge) and speed(no charge). The drawback being a harder punish if the opponent blocks but being relatively safe on a miss or dodge(I do not advise this. If the pikachu reads your dodge and holds his charge you are dead at about 50-60% from center stage). The risk/reward on this move is actually quite ridiculous).

 

[thehard]

I'm under the impression HSB can be charged halfway by smashing the control stick for the Side B, is that right? It would make sense to remove that if it ever gets patched.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm under the impression HSB can be charged halfway by smashing the control stick for the Side B, is that right? It would make sense to remove that if it ever gets patched.

I think this applies to all variants of Skull Bash.

 

[Splash Damage]

HSB seems to be a variant in terms of uses to DF imo. Dark Fists is on a tanky character that does tons of damage and kills early, while HSB is on a light character that has fast and easy B&B combos, but much less kill power. HSB is best used during a combo or off a simple air dodge/spotdodge read, while DF is best used in situations where you think your opponent will/has attacked you, due to the heavy armor and OoS properties. That said, HSB is more possible to hit reliably and on-command due to this, and is on a character who cannot reliably kill as early as Ganon. HSB makes more of a difference consistently as the % deficit between the two aforementioned moves and their other strongest kill move is much greater on Pikachu. I'll have to do dig up some frame data or % data at a later time to solidify this claim.

As an aside, how early does DF's heavy armor kick in? i remember hearing that it can start as early as frame 3 and can interrupt most aerial combos due to this, but I doubt it.

 

[Jaxas]

As an aside, how early does DF's heavy armor kick in? i remember hearing that it can start as early as frame 3 and can interrupt most aerial combos due to this, but I doubt it.

I believe it's Frame 5

 

[Lavani]

As an aside, how early does DF's heavy armor kick in? i remember hearing that it can start as early as frame 3 and can interrupt most aerial combos due to this, but I doubt it.

Frames 5-14 have full-fledged superarmor, first hitbox comes out frame 15.

 

[Splash Damage]

I believe it's Frame 5

Frames 5-14 have full-fledged superarmor, first hitbox comes out frame 15.

Huh, so it seems like it'd be able to accomplish the same thing as Mac's up B, early kills off the top to punish people who go too high for a non-guaranteed followup or even thirsty edgeguarders.
Wonder if the Ganons like this.

 

[Thinkaman]

Huh, so it seems like it'd be able to accomplish the same thing as Mac's up B, early kills off the top to punish people who go too high for a non-guaranteed followup or even thirsty edgeguarders.
Wonder if the Ganons like this.

Well Mac's up-b is f1 invincible, which puts it in a class of its own, several above Dark Fists.

Dark Fists is a much slower, harder to connect, and slightly strong Boost Kick. Armor is strictly inferior to actually just having your hitbox out against everything but like, the rare disjointed dair when recovering.

 

[Splash Damage]

Dark Fists is a much slower, harder to connect, and slightly strong Boost Kick. Armor is strictly inferior to actually just having your hitbox out against everything but like, the rare disjointed dair when recovering.

I don't know if I'd just say 'Slightly' stronger, though I see your point. It seems it'll be very usefull against opponents who try to edgeguard you like they would a Falcon and netting kills off of that, especially on T&C.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I mean, Boost Kick is pretty effing strong.

 

[NickRiddle]

I mean, Boost Kick is pretty effing strong.

Boost kick from the ground shouldn't be killing until 120-130...

 

[Splash Damage]

I mean, Boost Kick is pretty effing strong.

Boost kick from the ground shouldn't be killing until 120-130...

...Whereas Dark Fists has been seen to kill on Smashville from as early as 65-75 from ground.
Of course, I won't deny Boost Kick's killing potential when paired with ZSS' U-air strings, but it does fall behind DF when comparing raw kill potential, as well as aerial combo interrupt potential. DF seems to be much more reliable to connect both hits with the bigger hitboxes and only 2 strikes as opposed to 7 odd-property ones, and can still combo out of a FC Dair for a noticably early kill.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Boost kick from the ground shouldn't be killing until 120-130...

Sure, but she can carry you up significantly higher than that in a combo, and Dark Fists starts hitting on Frame 14, compared to Boost Kick's, like, 5? Even as an OoS tool, it's among the best in terms of significant retaliation and reliability.

 

[deepseadiva]

Can anyone direct me to anywhere I could find custom specials frame data? Concrete information is sparse, and the Mastercore information doesn't seem able to give me a lot of what I'm looking for. I've basically gleaned from all sources I could find, but most frame information on customs is missing. I'm looking to fill out my cheat sheet:

http://smashboards.com/threads/character-cheat-sheet-an-easy-to-read-player-resource.401369/

 

[Splash Damage]

Can anyone direct me to anywhere I could find custom specials frame data? Concrete information is sparse, and the Mastercore information doesn't seem able to give me a lot of what I'm looking for. I've basically gleaned from all sources I could find, but most frame information on customs is missing. I'm looking to fill out my cheat sheet:

http://smashboards.com/threads/character-cheat-sheet-an-easy-to-read-player-resource.401369/

Dunno where you can find too much info, but I have some:
-Mac's counters all come out on frame 5, barring Dash which comes out on frame 4
-both custom KO punches give him 4 extra frames of Super Armor on KO Punch, unknown which
frames(Could be 4-9 or 8-13)
-Shulk's counters all come out on frame 7

 

[deepseadiva]

Thank you! I guess I'll piece it all together somehow

 

[Splash Damage]

Thank you! I guess I'll piece it all together somehow

No problem. Also, I believe the SA frames on KO punch with customs are 4-9, as I once used it with Flaming Straight Lunge on a Ness and ate through his Bat in what appeared to be one of the first frames, though I haven't tested very thoroughly with Lightning Straight Lunge. Perhaps the extra frames come later with Lightning? Who knows. No one uses Lightning anyway.

 

[Blobface]

@ Thinkaman @ Amazing Ampharos and other customs advocates.

The center of most customs off advocacy has shifted. It's not "X custom is broken", it's now "X custom is unhealthy for the meta". This is new argument is, quite frankly, a lot more legitimate than the previous one (which was basically pure salt), and we need to address it.

Basically, people are now saying that stuff like Kong Cyclone and Counter Timber will be off-putting and frustrating to new players, (Which they are very capable of being), thus making them want to stop coming to tournaments and thus damaging the meta. We can spread information about how to beat these moves, but no matter how well we do it, it will take time before people are reliably counterplaying them.

We don't need to show people that customs are balanced, we need to show people that the long-term benefits of a more-varied, deeper meta with more viable characters will outweigh the short-term problems stuff like Counter Timber and Kong Cyclone will cause.

 

[DunnoBro]

I thought most of us kind of understood "broken" was always too subjective and vague to be accepted as a valid complaint. I personally always considered those moves potentially problematic and I'm sure others like me have tried finding ways for each character to deal with them to alleviate that perception.

I dislike playing against those customs personally, but I'd rather deal with polarized options of another character than go without my own.

The main issue with villager is it seems like that while many characters do have a custom capable of helping in that matchup a lot, they're often not on the official list. Which is a big reason why I wish we could promote more local testing, I'll be releasing a video showcasing unlisted sets/combos and a supplementary list I compiled by surveying top players specifically from across the US to hopefully expedite the testing phase.

Kong cyclone though is just dumb, I personally know a few players just trying to cheese a win or two so they can get on stream because they're so unbearable bad they need to rely on unfamiliarity with the move. I destroy any custom DK not named Average Joe I play against. Honestly it feels like joe barely even uses it against me when he beats me.

But it's still dumb that works at lower level play, hopefully something can be done to make it more efficient to encourage skilled usage and discourage spamming.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm still not entirely on board with the idea of banning specific customs. Certainly not at this stage at least, when there hasn't been a single large tournament with customs on show. A lot of locals, to be sure, but nothing where all the best and brightest in Smash come together to show off. EVO is going to give us a lot of data to go over.

Anyway, moving on. To elaborate a bit further, trying to ban specific customs comes across as pretty arbitrary in the sense of trying to artificially force the meta to move in a specific direction. Frankly, unless customs as a whole are completely busted (in which case we'd probably be looking at customs vs. no customs, not customs vs. customs-minus-a-few), I'd rather settle for a slightly-more-centralized meta where dealing with Kong Cyclone, Timber Counter, etc. is a fact of life than pushing for Kong Cyclone et al to be banned and then trying to defend the second-best moves that step up in their place.

I mentioned this at the beginning, but pushing for specific customs to be banned right now is incredibly premature. Here's a video of some Sheik tech that looks like it can reliably punish Kong Cyclone with a stock loss, given proper timing and positioning relative to DK. (Given that it's Sheik, I don't think that will be a huge issue.) The gist is that by deliberately getting caught in the windbox at a specific point, Sheik can use her multihit uair to carry DK up a rather absurd distance, then combo into DJ uair for the kill. I imagine other characters with similar aerials could pull it off, ROB in particular comes to mind.

I suspect part of the backlash has to do with Brawl. Meta Knight and the Ice Climbers have made us wary of individual characters and/or moves centralizing the optimal method of play, and ledge camping in general is now something distasteful. (Ledge camping, at least, doesn't seem nearly as vilified in Melee.) But that's ultimately neither here nor there, just an observation.

 

[W.A.C.]

I don't think any of the customs warrant a ban now that the Olimar and Fox exploit is gone.

 

[Thinkaman]

Personally, I'm not ideologically opposed to banning certain moves under specific criteria. As long as there is a clear, discrete reason why X move should be banned (and not random other moves), that's totally a reasonable position to hold.

The costs of banning particular customs are, if nothing else, a magnitude less than "We don't like Kong Cyclone, so ergo Palutena, WFT, Samus, and friends don't get to be viable characters."

Clarification - here are the only moves I think it is reasonable to want to ban. (Which isn't the same as saying I want to ban them--just that I can encounter someone who does and think "Yeah, that's not an unreasonable or absurd position to have.")

1. Trip Sapling or Explosive Balloon Trip - Combined allows an infinite stalling strategy. Specifically, one that demands a high degree of opponent precision to answer in most matchups, and prolongs the game in a really unnatural and obtuse way. Arguably incompatible with our community's home-brew timer rules.
2. Kong Cyclone - Is a pseudo-degenerate aerial edgeguard and recovery option; the hitboxes are, in practice, very odd and inconsistent while sometimes determining entire stocks. Extremely frustrating to new players. it's the most stage-polarized move in the game (by a large amount). Arguably incompatible with our community's home-brew stage selection rules.

 

[Blobface]

That whole "Sheik hard punishing DK's cyclone" thing is very important. It means literally any attack that comes out frame 4 or earlier can get a hard punish on a successful hit.

 

[Piford]

Is Kong Cyclone really an Issue rather than a strong move? I haven't heard anything about it being broken in an actual tournament since like March. I thought people learned the ways to beat it like command grabs, air dodging, ect.

 

[Thinkaman]

Is Kong Cyclone really an Issue rather than a strong move? I haven't heard anything about it being broken in an actual tournament since like March. I thought people learned the ways to beat it like command grabs, air dodging, ect.

I mean, I don't think it's an issue. It just gets mentioned a lot, and is indeed stupid and poorly-designed for reasons outside its raw strength. (Also see: Trip Sapling)

I don't think it should be banned, but I wouldn't roll my eyes at anyone who wants to ban it.

Contrast with something like Jumbo Hoops or Dark Fists; anyone who things these are ban-worthy get a loud "PFFFT, alright bro, whatever you say. "

 

[Ulevo]

We don't need to show people that customs are balanced, we need to show people that the long-term benefits of a more-varied, deeper meta with more viable characters will outweigh the short-term problems stuff like Counter Timber and Kong Cyclone will cause.

Except that you can't definitively prove that. You're presuming that the meta is deeper with more viable characters.

 

[Piford]

Except that you can't definitively prove that. You're presuming that the meta is deeper with more viable characters.

I think he meant customs meta is deeper and it has more viable characters, not more viable characters make the meta deeper. Customs make the meta deeper through adding different options in game and more options out of game. Out of game, it allows you to strategize better since you have a wide arrange of sets to chose from. The person who picks smarter has a better chance of winning. I think that's the main thing customs do to improve the game.

 

[DunnoBro]

Except that you can't definitively prove that. You're presuming that the meta is deeper with more viable characters.

Customs are irrefutably deeper, whether that depth is meaningful, healthy, or even enjoyable can be considered subjective. But the fact is, there are more options, more variables that need to be considered, and more interactions that need to be mastered.

 

[Ulevo]

I think he meant customs meta is deeper and it has more viable characters, not more viable characters make the meta deeper. Customs make the meta deeper through adding different options in game and more options out of game. Out of game, it allows you to strategize better since you have a wide arrange of sets to chose from. The person who picks smarter has a better chance of winning. I think that's the main thing customs do to improve the game.

I know what he meant.

Customs are irrefutably deeper, whether that depth is meaningful, healthy, or even enjoyable can be considered subjective. But the fact is, there are more options, more variables that need to be considered, and more interactions that need to be mastered.

Customs are not irrefutably deeper. Depth is a qualitative, not quantitative matter of subject.

Adding options or strategies does not deepen the games experience by default. Those options or strategies have to be viable and meaningful, otherwise they're just filler content.

You're arguing under the assumption that because there are a multitude of movesets, and that some of these movesets improve the power of some of the lower tier characters, that this somehow makes for a deeper experience. How do we know that these same movesets do not invalidate a multitude of characters? Do you not consider the characters that become substantially worse with customs allowed? What about the effect some custom moves have on individual characters? Do you believe that custom Donkey Kong is really a deeper character than vanilla? Additionally, while there might be a multitude of movesets used right now, over time the community will inevitably optimize them, condensing them in to a much smaller list.

It offers a different experience. You could even subjectively argue a more enjoyable experience. But deeper? Healthier? You better pick a better sales pitch if you want customs to hang around for any meaningful length of time.

 

[DunnoBro]

Adding options or strategies does not deepen the games experience by default.

It absolutely does. Having to make the decision between several choices is deeper than being forced to use one. Unless every custom was a direct, easier to use upgrade, this is what customs bring.

You're only arguing that the depth isn't healthy or meaningful, which I disagree with but also am not debating.
Ignoring within-match interactions, the simple fact that when I see I'm playing on halberd or lylat with uneven platforms/stage, I have to make the decision to switch off mega gunmen due to the slopes, but also consider how their big bodies can still help me in the matchup is deeper than just playing it out because there's no choice to make to begin with.

Extra choice to be made means more depth, whether you think it's good or bad depth is subjective. This is an irrefutable truth.

There being jank or polarizing moves does not change this.

How do we know that these same movesets do not invalidate a multitude of characters? Do you not consider the characters that become substantially worse with customs allowed?

That's more balance than depth, so why would I consider it in this discussion?

 

[Ulevo]

It absolutely does. Having to make the decision between several choices is deeper than being forced to use one. Unless every custom was a direct, easier to use upgrade, this is what customs bring.

Except that within a competitive context there is only a certain allotment of viable choices. Do you believe the game is deeper on a choice basis and from a competitive standpoint that we have Zelda on the character select screen?

You're only arguing that the depth isn't healthy or meaningful, which I disagree with but also am not debating.

I'm arguing that there is a difference between perceived depth and actual depth.

Ignoring within-match interactions, the simple fact that when I see I'm playing on halberd or lylat with uneven platforms/stage, I have to make the decision to switch off mega gunmen due to the slopes, but also consider how their big bodies can still help me in the matchup is deeper than just playing it out because there's no choice to make to begin with.

You're giving me an anecdotal case when we're talking about customs as a whole. While this specific instance might hold relevancy to that particular case, it does not mean it applies to the entire customs meta.

Extra choice to be made means more depth, whether you think it's good or bad depth is subjective. This is an irrefutable truth.

This is true only to the extent that there is actual choice to be made.

Let me give you an example. Melee has 9 characters in it's S Tier ranks, or top and high tier placings: Fox, Falco, Sheik, Marth, Jigglypuff, Peach, Captain Falcon, Ice Climbers. While there are definitely characters outside of these 9 that have placed reasonably well, these are the 9 the meta is centred around. For all intents and purposes, you could remove the remaining 17 characters without detracting much from the depth of competitive Smash because much of these characters were not viable tournament choices. Some cases could be argued, but characters like Pichu are obviously not up for debate. Pichu being present on the roster does not deepen the gaming experience. It's a false choice, a perception of depth.

There being jank or polarizing moves does not change this.

Yes it does because if a polarizing strategy or character invalidates a large portion of the cast, the relative depth of choice at the CSS becomes more shallow.

That's more balance than depth, so why would I consider it in this discussion?

Because the reason more balance is desired is because the more balanced a game is, the more relevant the options and strategies are in relation to one another, the more viable choices there are, the deeper the experience.

Notice how he says meaningful depth and choices. How first order optimal strategies (i.e. high tier strategies) can negate a games depth.

 

[DunnoBro]

Except that within a competitive context there is only a certain allotment of viable choices. Do you believe the game is deeper on a choice basis and from a competitive standpoint that we have Zelda on the character select screen?

Yes, the game is less deep than if it were exactly the same but without zelda from a competitive standpoint.

In fact, I lost to Fizzle's Zelda at Ohio this weekend in my pools. Sure would've been nice to have that EXACTLY AS DEEP COMPETITIVE GAME then.

Amount of characters isn't the only variable, but assuming all are the same, more choices mean more depth.

Notice how he says meaningful depth and choices. How first order optimal strategies (i.e. high tier strategies) can negate a games depth.

Notice how I talked about meaningful depth and that I was never debating on that basis because we have nowhere near enough data to declare any kind of widesweeping "yes/no" answer to if customs are less or more meaningfully deep.

Also, the fact you consider the 17 non-S tier characters not apart of competitive melee's environment is almost depressingly hilarious and hopefully expresses to everyone reading your points here the depth of their fault.

 

[Ulevo]

Yes, the game is deeper than if it were exactly the same but without zelda.

Well then you're wrong. I'm not aware of how Zelda functions in customs, but in vanilla, she's not a viable option. If you expect to compete, she does not exist on the CSS. She is not a meaningful choice in that regard. The only depth she presents is the tactics and strategies necessary to beat her in the event you face someone in bracket that uses her, which in and of itself is unlikely due to the fact that she is not a viable, meaningful choice.

Amount of characters isn't the only variable, but assuming all are the same, more choices mean more depth.

This illustrates the fact that we have different perceptions of what depth means. Regardless, your definition of depth is wrong.

Notice how I talked about meaningful depth and that I was never debating on that basis because we have nowhere near enough data to declare any kind of widesweeping "yes/no" answer to if customs are less or more meaningfully deep.

Thanks for basically telling me I'm right, then.

Also, the fact you consider the 17 non-S tier characters not apart of competitive melee's environment is almost depressingly hilarious and hopefully expresses to everyone reading your points here the depth of their fault.

I made the example black and white on purpose to illustrate my point. Of course if you can't read, that's not my problem.

 

[Thinkaman]

Custom options, like all options, irrefutably add breadth.

Custom options, like all options, do not irrefutably add depth.

Custom specials in general significantly improve balance (at this point, this is kind of super-obvious and beyond debate), which for most perspectives reinforces both breadth and depth. That's about the extent of customs making the game "deeper."

 

[DunnoBro]

Custom options, like all options, irrefutably add breadth.

Custom options, like all options, do not irrefutably add depth.

Custom specials in general significantly improve balance (at this point, this is kind of super-obvious and beyond debate), which for most perspectives reinforces both breadth and depth. That's about the extent of customs making the game "deeper."

I agree for the most part, but obviously customs being more balanced is hardly beyond debate considering it is still debated everywhere.

 

[Ulevo]

Until a tier list is solidified for both the vanilla and custom meta, people should refrain from treating the relative balance between custom and vanilla as a factual understanding.

 

[Thinkaman]

I agree for the most part, but obviously customs being more balanced is hardly beyond debate considering it is still debated everywhere.

But it's just... so... obvious!

I don't need hard matchup data to say that SF4 or Guilty Gear is a more balanced game than MvC2, I don't need hard matchup data to say that Smash 4 is more balanced than Melee, and I don't need hard matchup data to say Smash 4 customs is more balanced than without. The differences are just too clear.

It's hard to come up with any configuration of character impressions and definition of "balance" that makes customs do more harm than good. You pretty much have to consider Rosalina solo S-tier without customs to have a model where this is plausible.

 

[Ulevo]

Do you believe this because characters that were not viable previously are suddenly viable with customs?

I'm not going to say one way or the other which meta is more balanced. But I think this perception of balance many players have is just the luster of being able to use characters they previously couldn't while ignoring the other characters that suddenly find it hard to compete.

 

[Thinkaman]

Do you believe this because characters that were not viable previously are suddenly viable with customs?

I'm not going to say one way or the other which meta is more balanced. But I think this perception of balance many players have is just the luster of being able to use characters they previously couldn't while ignoring the other characters that suddenly find it hard to compete.

I dislike the word/idea of "viable" in discussions like this, because there's compound subjectivity involved. But I don't want to get into semantics.

We can all agree that Palutena, DK, WFT, Samus, Ganon, Ike, Kirby, and Duck Hunt are among the "big winners" from customs. I feel like this is beyond debate.

We can also universally agree that all of said characters are in the bottom half of the roster without customs, or mid-tier at best. Asserting otherwise is a pretty radical opinion.

And it's also fair to say that none of these characters leapfrog the roster and end up at the top or close to it. Palutena and DK are the only ones debatable. Does anyone actually think customs WFT is top 10 material?

So, we've got a bunch of low-tiers moving up to the power level we'd formally call mid-tier, aka the middle/center/average. This is pretty much the epitome of better balance, whichever definition you use.




Meanwhile, consider characters who "lose" with customs, like Diddy, Ness, Falcon, Yoshi, and MK.

Does anyone actually think that these characters become "unviable" in a customs environment???




The only two less-than-great characters who would prefer customs off are Jigglypuff and Dedede.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I think a lot of everyone's new move properties hurt Little Mac a good deal, much more than what he gains. Compact Counter is generally a neat bonus, but Neutral-B is negligible, Up-B requires the default, and it's hard to argue against the utility and power of Jolt Haymaker.